Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2020 19:56:16 GMT
Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with him. I think they should bring back shep but I can understand other peoples opinions for not bringing him back. I guess I wasn't being clear here. It's not a matter of my opinion of the people who want Shepard to return, but rather the motivation on the part of the developer/publisher for doing this. The sad irony is that one key complaint people had during the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle was that "Our choices don't matter." BioWare then responded with a big patched epilogue to expand upon each option, but still people complained, because they misread "Extended Cut" as "Alternate Ending". The ironic part is that people now seem to want their choices to matter even less. I think it would be more accurate to say they want to make it so "other people's choices" don't matter.
|
|
inherit
The Smiling Knight
538
0
Mar 28, 2024 17:20:59 GMT
21,868
smilesja
13,712
August 2016
smilesja
|
Post by smilesja on Feb 29, 2020 2:38:59 GMT
Can you explain who those dumba** players are, and why you believe they're dumba** players? The point is that EA themselves don’t give two shits about the quality of narratives or any nonsense like that. All that matters is what’s marketable. If Shepard is dug out of the grave for another game, it won’t be because BioWare was inspired by some story potential, but purely as a cheap and easy way to pique fan interest. Only reason something like Fallen Order exists is because they have been walking on steadily thinning ice now that their molestation of the Star Wars IP has been catching up with them, and they want to continue to have their insidious death grip on the property in perpetuity throughout the universe. I thought EA didn't want the Star Wars IP preferring their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 17:21:33 GMT
The sad irony is that one key complaint people had during the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle was that "Our choices don't matter." BioWare then responded with a big patched epilogue to expand upon each option, but still people complained, because they misread "Extended Cut" as "Alternate Ending". The ironic part is that people now seem to want their choices to matter even less. The people who complained about their choices not mattering clearly didn't read the pre-release material. It said, " Game choices will affect the war in ME3". The war against the Reapers is the entire third game. Not the final minutes of the third game, the entire game. They also stated that the story will be shaped by 1000 variables. Not the very last minute or "ending" of the game. The story from start to finish. So technically, Bioware was telling the truth, but certain fans spun this into their own interpretation, where they thought that Bioware was going to cram 1000 different ending variations in the final cutscene of the third game. No, you see your choices play out from start to finish. Mass Effect 3 is unique to you based on how you played ME1 and ME2. The side stories that play out in ME3 like the genophage and the Quarian Geth peace thing, those are resolved after you make the choice to cure the genophage, or make peace with both sides. The game files even say resolution and epilogue for both. However, because it isn't tied up in the last 5 minutes of the game to give you a unique ending that no one else gets based off of all your decisions made throughout the trilogy, it doesn't matter. The plots were already resolved, but people want another resolution at the end to tell them what happens after the war.
Other people have said that their choices didn't matter, because the ending supposedly undoes some of your work. This is false. He's not doing it to undo his work, he's doing it to kill the Reapers. However, just because the boy at the end says something will happen, they all of the sudden trust him and believe whatever he says. Even though he said "all synthetics will be targeted....even YOU are partly synthetic". He wouldn't have said that second part, but it's there to clarify. If you pick destroy all synthetics including you who is partly synthetic will die. However, he doesn't say "you will die", so people don't think that he's lying. There was a line added in the EC where Shepard says "I don't believe you". Whenever anyone brings up the possibility he may be lying, everyone screams indoctrination and covers their ears. No, I'm just reading what was said to me. Oh, and there's no super obvious thing in the destroy ending which has EDI come running over after you wake up to physically shove it in your face that she is 100% alive, no doubt, no thinking required, it's painfully obvious. There's actually a mod that does this. I think it's called JAM or something.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,073
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,791
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Mar 1, 2020 19:19:36 GMT
Well, there is a super-obvious thing in the Destroy ending showing that EDI is dead....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 21:01:00 GMT
As I said, Shepard was also "supposed" to die because he is partly synthetic. So Shepard should have died as well. Your crewmates did not see EDI die and there's something I read in the codex that if a ship is suddenly dropped out of FTL, it is exposed to lethal radiation which would kill anyone on board. This means that if the Normandy is traveling at FTL and something interrupts that, the ship is dropped out of FTL to sub-FTL speeds and when the field collapses it's exposed to lethal radiation.
I've seen plenty of fatal plane and helicopter crashes from much lower altitudes than dropping out of FTL while in space, being exposed to radiation, doing atmospheric re-entry and somehow landing the ship with everyone on board seemingly okay with no injuries. Including the guy with brittle bone disease who would probably have both his legs and arms broken from the impact of the crash and wouldn't be able to walk.
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Mar 1, 2020 22:29:10 GMT
As I said, Shepard was also "supposed" to die because he is partly synthetic. So Shepard should have died as well. Your crewmates did not see EDI die and there's something I read in the codex that if a ship is suddenly dropped out of FTL, it is exposed to lethal radiation which would kill anyone on board. This means that if the Normandy is traveling at FTL and something interrupts that, the ship is dropped out of FTL to sub-FTL speeds and when the field collapses it's exposed to lethal radiation.
I've seen plenty of fatal plane and helicopter crashes from much lower altitudes than dropping out of FTL while in space, being exposed to radiation, doing atmospheric re-entry and somehow landing the ship with everyone on board seemingly okay with no injuries. Including the guy with brittle bone disease who would probably have both his legs and arms broken from the impact of the crash.
Do you mean "supposed" to as in science wise or "supposed" to story wise. Because edi and the geth were supposed to die because they used reaper tech. Shepard didn't have reaper tech in him...other wise IT is a given.
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Mar 1, 2020 22:32:41 GMT
The sad irony is that one key complaint people had during the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle was that "Our choices don't matter." BioWare then responded with a big patched epilogue to expand upon each option, but still people complained, because they misread "Extended Cut" as "Alternate Ending". The ironic part is that people now seem to want their choices to matter even less. The people who complained about their choices not mattering clearly didn't read the pre-release material. It said, " Game choices will affect the war in ME3". The war against the Reapers is the entire third game. Not the final minutes of the third game, the entire game. They also stated that the story will be shaped by 1000 variables. Not the very last minute or "ending" of the game. The story from start to finish. So technically, Bioware was telling the truth, but certain fans spun this into their own interpretation, where they thought that Bioware was going to cram 1000 different ending variations in the final cutscene of the third game. No, you see your choices play out from start to finish. Mass Effect 3 is unique to you based on how you played ME1 and ME2. The side stories that play out in ME3 like the genophage and the Quarian Geth peace thing, those are resolved after you make the choice to cure the genophage, or make peace with both sides. The game files even say resolution and epilogue for both. However, because it isn't tied up in the last 5 minutes of the game to give you a unique ending that no one else gets based off of all your decisions made throughout the trilogy, it doesn't matter. The plots were already resolved, but people want another resolution at the end to tell them what happens after the war.
Other people have said that their choices didn't matter, because the ending supposedly undoes some of your work. This is false. He's not doing it to undo his work, he's doing it to kill the Reapers. However, just because the boy at the end says something will happen, they all of the sudden trust him and believe whatever he says. Even though he said "all synthetics will be targeted....even YOU are partly synthetic". He wouldn't have said that second part, but it's there to clarify. If you pick destroy all synthetics including you who is partly synthetic will die. However, he doesn't say "you will die", so people don't think that he's lying. There was a line added in the EC where Shepard says "I don't believe you". Whenever anyone brings up the possibility he may be lying, everyone screams indoctrination and covers their ears. No, I'm just reading what was said to me. Oh, and there's no super obvious thing in the destroy ending which has EDI come running over after you wake up to physically shove it in your face that she is 100% alive, no doubt, no thinking required, it's painfully obvious. There's actually a mod that does this. I think it's called JAM or something.
Wait you think the little bastard was lying. That would mean the geth and edi were alive as well....if so then clearly destroy is the best ending.
I'm just joking with you. I think he is lying too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 22:34:40 GMT
Do you mean "supposed" to as in science wise or "supposed" to story wise. Because edi and the geth were supposed to die because they used reaper tech. Shepard didn't have reaper tech in him...other wise IT is a given. The Starchild didn't say Reaper tech, he said anything synthetic or partially synthetic would be killed. As well as most of the technology you rely on. The Reapers are organic and synthetic hybrids.
Wait you think the little bastard was lying. That would mean the geth and edi were alive as well....if so then clearly destroy is the best ending.
I'm just joking with you. I think he is lying too. Of course. The Reapers can lie just like any other AI or sentient life.
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Mar 1, 2020 22:43:27 GMT
Do you mean "supposed" to as in science wise or "supposed" to story wise. Because edi and the geth were supposed to die because they used reaper tech. Shepard didn't have reaper tech in him...other wise IT is a given. The Starchild didn't say Reaper tech, he said anything synthetic or partially synthetic would be killed. As well as most of the technology you rely on. The Reapers are organic and synthetic hybrids. Yeah but by that logic over half the galaxy would die since they have medical tech in them. Not to mention every one in space since their ships wouldn't work and so on. Yet we clearly see those people and others live. So by that reasoning we can't trust anything he says.
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Mar 1, 2020 22:46:41 GMT
The sad irony is that one key complaint people had during the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle was that "Our choices don't matter." BioWare then responded with a big patched epilogue to expand upon each option, but still people complained, because they misread "Extended Cut" as "Alternate Ending". The ironic part is that people now seem to want their choices to matter even less. The people who complained about their choices not mattering clearly didn't read the pre-release material. It said, " Game choices will affect the war in ME3". The war against the Reapers is the entire third game. Not the final minutes of the third game, the entire game. They also stated that the story will be shaped by 1000 variables. Not the very last minute or "ending" of the game. The story from start to finish. So technically, Bioware was telling the truth, but certain fans spun this into their own interpretation, where they thought that Bioware was going to cram 1000 different ending variations in the final cutscene of the third game. No, you see your choices play out from start to finish. Mass Effect 3 is unique to you based on how you played ME1 and ME2. The side stories that play out in ME3 like the genophage and the Quarian Geth peace thing, those are resolved after you make the choice to cure the genophage, or make peace with both sides. The game files even say resolution and epilogue for both. However, because it isn't tied up in the last 5 minutes of the game to give you a unique ending that no one else gets based off of all your decisions made throughout the trilogy, it doesn't matter. The plots were already resolved, but people want another resolution at the end to tell them what happens after the war.
Other people have said that their choices didn't matter, because the ending supposedly undoes some of your work. This is false. He's not doing it to undo his work, he's doing it to kill the Reapers. However, just because the boy at the end says something will happen, they all of the sudden trust him and believe whatever he says. Even though he said "all synthetics will be targeted....even YOU are partly synthetic". He wouldn't have said that second part, but it's there to clarify. If you pick destroy all synthetics including you who is partly synthetic will die. However, he doesn't say "you will die", so people don't think that he's lying. There was a line added in the EC where Shepard says "I don't believe you". Whenever anyone brings up the possibility he may be lying, everyone screams indoctrination and covers their ears. No, I'm just reading what was said to me. Oh, and there's no super obvious thing in the destroy ending which has EDI come running over after you wake up to physically shove it in your face that she is 100% alive, no doubt, no thinking required, it's painfully obvious. There's actually a mod that does this. I think it's called JAM or something.
See I would love to try this but it would mean buying the trilogy on computer and buying ALL that dlc again and that would be over a hundred dollars just in dlc. Unless I could transfer it from my xbox account. Wait could I do that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 22:55:11 GMT
As I said, Shepard was also "supposed" to die because he is partly synthetic. So Shepard should have died as well. Your crewmates did not see EDI die and there's something I read in the codex that if a ship is suddenly dropped out of FTL, it is exposed to lethal radiation which would kill anyone on board. This means that if the Normandy is traveling at FTL and something interrupts that, the ship is dropped out of FTL to sub-FTL speeds and when the field collapses it's exposed to lethal radiation.
I've seen plenty of fatal plane and helicopter crashes from much lower altitudes than dropping out of FTL while in space, being exposed to radiation, doing atmospheric re-entry and somehow landing the ship with everyone on board seemingly okay with no injuries. Including the guy with brittle bone disease who would probably have both his legs and arms broken from the impact of the crash and wouldn't be able to walk.
We don't actually see Normandy crash, so we don't know how relatively "gentle" it was compared with, say, the crash onto the Collector Base, which was also survived by everyone who was left onboard at that time, including Joker who only say he thinks he broke ribs and is shown getting around just fine (for him) at the end of the Suicide Mission. The Collector Ship crash also appears to have done about the same amount of damage to the ship as any of the High EMS endings.
Unlike Shepard, EDI is aboard the shp. The crew would know if she is dead or not. Her name appearing on the memorial wall after destroy is definitive proof of her being dead at that point.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
24,146
themikefest
14,765
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 1, 2020 23:12:51 GMT
Ah yes, the Normandy crashing on the whatever planet. Before the cut, the thrusters are seen ripped from the fuselage regardless of ems. Then it shows the SR2 on the ground with Moreau exiting the ship. The ship should be in pieces with all onboard dead. Along comes the cut. The SR2 is now able to fly off the planet with no problem, if ems is above 2600.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 23:28:01 GMT
Ah yes, the Normandy crashing on the whatever planet. Before the cut, the thrusters are seen ripped from the fuselage regardless of ems. Then it shows the SR2 on the ground with Moreau exiting the ship. The ship should be in pieces with all onboard dead. Along comes the cut. The SR2 is now able to fly off the planet with no problem, if ems is above 2600. Maybe the momentum of the blast wave propels them without the thrusters. In space, thrusters are now for maintaining momentum since the forces acting to slow an object down are not that great. Isn't that why they have to turn around halfway... to use the thrusters to slow the ship down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 0:39:13 GMT
The Starchild didn't say Reaper tech, he said anything synthetic or partially synthetic would be killed. As well as most of the technology you rely on. The Reapers are organic and synthetic hybrids. Yeah but by that logic over half the galaxy would die since they have medical tech in them. Not to mention every one in space since their ships wouldn't work and so on. Yet we clearly see those people and others live. So by that reasoning we can't trust anything he says. I think that's the point. The Reapers present themselves to you as something familiar. With a child, you're supposed to feel sympathetic towards it, and it appears "trustworthy". IRL, children are people who can't protect themselves, and they need adults to love and take care of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 0:44:24 GMT
Yeah but by that logic over half the galaxy would die since they have medical tech in them. Not to mention every one in space since their ships wouldn't work and so on. Yet we clearly see those people and others live. So by that reasoning we can't trust anything he says. I think that's the point. The Reapers present themselves to you as something familiar. With a child, you're supposed to feel sympathetic towards it, and it appears "trustworthy".
If it's going to lie, the lie that it would most logically tell would be which button to press to kill them. Therefore, Red should be the button that destroys everyone but the Reapers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 0:50:16 GMT
I think that's the point. The Reapers present themselves to you as something familiar. With a child, you're supposed to feel sympathetic towards it, and it appears "trustworthy".
If it's going to lie, the lie that it would most logically tell would be which button to press to kill them. Therefore, Red should be the button that destroys everyone but the Reapers. Yeah, but it tells you that all synthetics would be killed, so for some people, this would persuade them not to choose destroy. Well technically the Crucible decided what each option does.
Ah yes, the Normandy crashing on the whatever planet. Before the cut, the thrusters are seen ripped from the fuselage regardless of ems. Then it shows the SR2 on the ground with Moreau exiting the ship. The ship should be in pieces with all onboard dead. Along comes the cut. The SR2 is now able to fly off the planet with no problem, if ems is above 2600. The EC is not a patch that fixes issues. It is optional DLC content which expands on the ending for those who wanted more clarity and closure. It's not like the official patches which were released for the game which were mandatory. You can play the game all the way to the end without installing the EC. It just lightens things up a bit for those who want it, but it's completely optional.
When it comes to the FTL thing, there's no planets outside the Sol system on the map. The Sol system is the only system in the Local Cluster. So FTL out of the Sol system, and there's no planets to land on. The planet does sort of resemble Aite from Overlord DLC, but that's halfway across the galaxy. From a lore point of view, that planet doesn't exist.
See I would love to try this but it would mean buying the trilogy on computer and buying ALL that dlc again and that would be over a hundred dollars just in dlc. Unless I could transfer it from my xbox account. Wait could I do that? I don't think so. Windows and XBox are two different platforms with two different licenses, and two separate games which are programmed differently (controls).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 1:25:46 GMT
If it's going to lie, the lie that it would most logically tell would be which button to press to kill them. Therefore, Red should be the button that destroys everyone but the Reapers. Yeah, but it tells you that all synthetics would be killed, so for some people, this would persuade them not to choose destroy. Well technically the Crucible decided what each option does.
Ah yes, the Normandy crashing on the whatever planet. Before the cut, the thrusters are seen ripped from the fuselage regardless of ems. Then it shows the SR2 on the ground with Moreau exiting the ship. The ship should be in pieces with all onboard dead. Along comes the cut. The SR2 is now able to fly off the planet with no problem, if ems is above 2600. The EC is not a patch that fixes issues. It is optional DLC content which expands on the ending for those who wanted more clarity and closure. It's not like the official patches which were released for the game which were mandatory. You can play the game all the way to the end without installing the EC. It just lightens things up a bit for those who want it, but it's completely optional.
When it comes to the FTL thing, there's no planets outside the Sol system on the map. The Sol system is the only system in the Local Cluster. So FTL out of the Sol system, and there's no planets to land on. The planet does sort of resemble Aite from Overlord DLC, but that's halfway across the galaxy. From a lore point of view, that planet doesn't exist.
Key words there are "for some people." The Catalyst is taking a huge risk if it tells Shepard the truth that red is how he/she destroys them and then trying to follow it up with a weak "it could kill you too" threat to dissuade him from using it. Better to just keep quiet to see if Shepard will accidentally choose the wrong door or lie and tell him the Green method is the way to destroy them. Throughout the game, Shepard has proven time and again to the Reapers that he/she doesn't intimidate easily, so trying to dissuade him/her in that way is a really poor gamble for a computer AI to take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 1:41:15 GMT
They wouldn't just let Shepard walk into the Citadel and destroy the Reapers without putting up some kind of roadblock. They are basically trying to do everything in their power to prevent you from destroying them. Not with firepower, but with mind control and persuasion. It's like the Architect scene from Matrix Reloaded.
The Reapers have a few known abilities they can use to defeat the enemy. They can use those big powerful lasers to blow ships out of the sky. They can abduct organics and send them to processing ships where they are rendered down into genetic paste used to make more Reapers. They can use their mind control abilities to convince you to join their cause or adopt their methods. Or, in the Geth's case, they can take control of them by hacking their systems, like a virus.
During the Arrival DLC, Harbinger took control of Amanda Kenson and spoke "take him to the medbay and patch him up. We want Shepard alive". In a Reaper's voice. Shepard is more valuable to the Reapers alive, until they get to the point where they can try to turn him into a Reaper agent.
Essentially how the Protheans were beaten in the last cycle is the same thing in this cycle. The Reapers harvest or enslave people. By choosing either control or synthesis, you are essentially letting them win by giving in to their solutions. Bioware told us this would happen. The conversation with Vigil in ME1 basically spells out the ME3 ending for us. The Reapers did take control of the Citadel and shut off the mass relay network. They did harvest or enslave their adversaries, and they will be around for some time to complete the harvest. What you see in those ending slides is an illusion created by the Reapers to make you think things were a success, even if they weren't. If you ever read the Final Hours book, the chapter that talks about the ending is called "The Perfect Illusion". And really, Shepard couldn't see all that if he died or was unconscious before waking up on Earth.
|
|
Sanunes
N6
Just a flip of the coin.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 4392
Prime Likes: 882
Posts: 5,890 Likes: 8,905
inherit
1561
0
8,905
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,890
Sept 13, 2016 11:51:12 GMT
September 2016
sanunes
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
4392
882
|
Post by Sanunes on Mar 2, 2020 4:28:24 GMT
Can you explain who those dumba** players are, and why you believe they're dumba** players? The point is that EA themselves don’t give two shits about the quality of narratives or any nonsense like that. All that matters is what’s marketable. If Shepard is dug out of the grave for another game, it won’t be because BioWare was inspired by some story potential, but purely as a cheap and easy way to pique fan interest. Only reason something like Fallen Order exists is because they have been walking on steadily thinning ice now that their molestation of the Star Wars IP has been catching up with them, and they want to continue to have their insidious death grip on the property in perpetuity throughout the universe. I don't see Disney looking at anything more then a dollar sign when it comes to their game franchises. If EA is making them money they aren't going to complain regardless of what the internet is complaining about this week. With all the complaining about the two Battlefront games EA still has over 33 million copies sold combined between the two games and all the profit that is now generated by The Old Republic. Besides I don't see another publisher going to be able to make games any better then EA with how Disney handles their licensing for I don't think they could take the costs that would be demanded by Disney for the use of their IP.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Mar 2, 2020 7:56:52 GMT
Do you mean "supposed" to as in science wise or "supposed" to story wise. Because edi and the geth were supposed to die because they used reaper tech. Shepard didn't have reaper tech in him...other wise IT is a given. The Starchild didn't say Reaper tech, he said anything synthetic or partially synthetic would be killed. As well as most of the technology you rely on. The Reapers are organic and synthetic hybrids.
Wait you think the little bastard was lying. That would mean the geth and edi were alive as well....if so then clearly destroy is the best ending.
I'm just joking with you. I think he is lying too. Of course. The Reapers can lie just like any other AI or sentient life. I’m pretty sure this is largely the result of sloppy writing, but if this bit is being at all consistent with the rest of the series, “synthetic” should just be referring to the sentient machines, not all technologies in general. In any case, the fact that things like ships seem to be operating just fine means that other non-reaper technology that isn’t sentient is probably fine, even if that makes no sense. Heh, imagine Garrus suddenly writhing in pain because the few cybernetics in his body decided to just up and fail. The Catalyst lying doesn’t really make any sense, largely because there’s no reason to lay out all of these options if it had the capacity to omit certain truths with none the wiser, but I feel the writers were trying to have their cake and eat it too with the epilogue slides. The peace won’t last, which is the total thrust of the Catalyst’s little back and forth, but no matter what you choose each ending is supposed to be all peaceful anyway. It’s just a very confused mess, that I personally reconcile as being the Catalyst’s fallibility at work. It’s so caught up in the cockamamie cycle of behavior, to the point where it accelerated progress and imposed its own influence, that it now determines these things to be absolute inevitability. Good thing that’s not really how life works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 10:12:57 GMT
They wouldn't just let Shepard walk into the Citadel and destroy the Reapers without putting up some kind of roadblock. They are basically trying to do everything in their power to prevent you from destroying them. Not with firepower, but with mind control and persuasion. It's like the Architect scene from Matrix Reloaded.
The Reapers have a few known abilities they can use to defeat the enemy. They can use those big powerful lasers to blow ships out of the sky. They can abduct organics and send them to processing ships where they are rendered down into genetic paste used to make more Reapers. They can use their mind control abilities to convince you to join their cause or adopt their methods. Or, in the Geth's case, they can take control of them by hacking their systems, like a virus.
During the Arrival DLC, Harbinger took control of Amanda Kenson and spoke "take him to the medbay and patch him up. We want Shepard alive". In a Reaper's voice. Shepard is more valuable to the Reapers alive, until they get to the point where they can try to turn him into a Reaper agent.
Essentially how the Protheans were beaten in the last cycle is the same thing in this cycle. The Reapers harvest or enslave people. By choosing either control or synthesis, you are essentially letting them win by giving in to their solutions. Bioware told us this would happen. The conversation with Vigil in ME1 basically spells out the ME3 ending for us. The Reapers did take control of the Citadel and shut off the mass relay network. They did harvest or enslave their adversaries, and they will be around for some time to complete the harvest. What you see in those ending slides is an illusion created by the Reapers to make you think things were a success, even if they weren't. If you ever read the Final Hours book, the chapter that talks about the ending is called "The Perfect Illusion". And really, Shepard couldn't see all that if he died or was unconscious before waking up on Earth.
Shepard was beaten and left lying unconscious and dying in a place where he/she could not access the controls for the Crucible. Hackett clearly could not fire the thing remotely. There was nothing needed for the Reapers to do except to continue to blow ships out of the sky; and/or chase them down as they fled... and then destroy the hunk of useless metal the Alliance attached to the Citadel. If Shepard was still breathing at that point, they could have then revived him/her and "assumed control." If not, no real loss to them... trillions of other fish to enslave.
There is no reason for the ending scene to even take place unless the Catalyst believed he was beaten and was surrendering to Shepard.
|
|
sjsharp2010
N7
Go Team!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 10,464 Likes: 18,004
inherit
2309
0
18,004
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
10,464
December 2016
sjsharp2010
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by sjsharp2010 on Mar 2, 2020 12:23:18 GMT
They wouldn't just let Shepard walk into the Citadel and destroy the Reapers without putting up some kind of roadblock. They are basically trying to do everything in their power to prevent you from destroying them. Not with firepower, but with mind control and persuasion. It's like the Architect scene from Matrix Reloaded.
The Reapers have a few known abilities they can use to defeat the enemy. They can use those big powerful lasers to blow ships out of the sky. They can abduct organics and send them to processing ships where they are rendered down into genetic paste used to make more Reapers. They can use their mind control abilities to convince you to join their cause or adopt their methods. Or, in the Geth's case, they can take control of them by hacking their systems, like a virus.
During the Arrival DLC, Harbinger took control of Amanda Kenson and spoke "take him to the medbay and patch him up. We want Shepard alive". In a Reaper's voice. Shepard is more valuable to the Reapers alive, until they get to the point where they can try to turn him into a Reaper agent.
Essentially how the Protheans were beaten in the last cycle is the same thing in this cycle. The Reapers harvest or enslave people. By choosing either control or synthesis, you are essentially letting them win by giving in to their solutions. Bioware told us this would happen. The conversation with Vigil in ME1 basically spells out the ME3 ending for us. The Reapers did take control of the Citadel and shut off the mass relay network. They did harvest or enslave their adversaries, and they will be around for some time to complete the harvest. What you see in those ending slides is an illusion created by the Reapers to make you think things were a success, even if they weren't. If you ever read the Final Hours book, the chapter that talks about the ending is called "The Perfect Illusion". And really, Shepard couldn't see all that if he died or was unconscious before waking up on Earth.
Shepard was beaten and left lying unconscious and dying in a place where he/she could not access the controls for the Crucible. Hackett clearly could not fire the thing remotely. There was nothing needed for the Reapers to do except to continue to blow ships out of the sky; and/or chase them down as they fled... ad then destroy the hunk of useless metal they attached to the Citadel. If Shepard was still breathing at that point, they could have then revived him/her and "assumed control." If not, no real loss to them... trillions of other fish to enslave.
There is no reason for the ending scene to even take place unless the Catalyst believed he was beaten and was surrendering to Shepard. Yeah at theend of th egame both Shep and Andreson ewre both heavliy injured and were succuimbing to those injuries. Both knew they were dying bu twere ready to face it. Finished my latest playthrough last night so it's very fresh in my memory. It's quiet possible that th eCatalyst believed if they didn't give up now that the nex tcycle would see them finished which was why they presented Shepard with the options they had.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,073
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,791
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Mar 2, 2020 15:00:43 GMT
The Catalyst lying doesn’t really make any sense, largely because there’s no reason to lay out all of these options if it had the capacity to omit certain truths with none the wiser, but I feel the writers were trying to have their cake and eat it too with the epilogue slides. The peace won’t last, which is the total thrust of the Catalyst’s little back and forth, but no matter what you choose each ending is supposed to be all peaceful anyway. It’s just a very confused mess, that I personally reconcile as being the Catalyst’s fallibility at work. It’s so caught up in the cockamamie cycle of behavior, to the point where it accelerated progress and imposed its own influence, that it now determines these things to be absolute inevitability. Good thing that’s not really how life works. Sure. The Catalyst can be speaking truthfully but still be totally wrong about stuff. The Leviathans programmed him with bad premises. Garbage in, garbage out.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 2, 2020 15:22:24 GMT
Just saying it is wrong without actually providing reasons doesn't actually help. Not only that but you are repeating the exact same cycle I've encountered hundreds of times online when talking about DC films. Decently in depth reply about it only to be met with "no your wrong they are bad films because they are bad films." My favorite being the constant complaints about the Martha scene only to have Quill do the same fucking thing in Infinity War. Yet when DC does it it is unforgivable, but when Marvel does it 10,000 fan boy/girls scream how it had to take place because it was the only future possibility that Dr. Strange saw. Even though that makes no sense what so ever. Speaking of coherent story how is that time travel plot? Were Steve sits around for 60 years not telling anyone anything. Even though his knowledge could have prevented Thanos and the snap from ever taking place. Because apparently altering the past doesn't actually alter the future.
The Catalyst was right about cycle and repeated behaviors.
Hey well if you insist. The problem is character motivation, and the lack of any real development. This is not a DC vs. Marvel issue, because there are plenty of MCU films that I consider mediocre (Black Panther is ludicrously overrated, well into mediocre territory, for example), even if the franchise as a whole is much higher in quality than the DCEU as a whole.
Part of the issue with the Martha scene is that it's kind of unintentionally hilarious in tone. Subjective, sure, but the delivery is kind of awkward, which is why it's so meme-able. But its bigger issue is that Batman's motivation up to this point is just flat out extinguished by this scene, and just another scene later, says that he's a friend of Martha's son? The character doesn't go through an actual arc, despite what other proponents of the movie might insist. He just flat out changes his mind on a dime. This is exacerbated by the fact that he literally murdered maybe a dozen people with the sole purpose of obtaining the means to kill Superman. That's kind of a big commitment, one that he just abandons on a whim, just because of a name that at the moment.
The comparison to Quill's outburst in Infinity War is a false equivalence. That scene doesn't serve as a turning point for Quill. He basically does the same thing he did in Vol 2 when he learns how his mother died. It's a cheap way to get the heroes to suddenly lose, but this isn't meant to be a character arc either. Batman's scene, on the other hand, is supposed to be a moment where he realizes what he's done. The reason it doesn't really stick is because of the sheer gravity of what drove him to act against Superman in the first place, which can't simply be undone and unaddressed later. This Martha, whoever she is, doesn't change what Superman is, or what Batman is trying to accomplish.
Oh, on the subject of killing, I think there's a gross misunderstanding of "realism" and how it applies to Batman. This isn't a realistic Batman, because there are no realistic consequences for his wanton mayhem, and he no longer carries any sense of legitimacy that always made Batman a compelling character. Like, this Batman can't exist as an ally to Gordon or anyone else in Gotham, because now he's simply a murderer. This Batman doesn't work because he operates like one in a post-apocalyptic dystopia, which isn't what Gotham is, at least as far as we can see. But besides that, many of the deaths by his hand are entirely unnecessary. The entire scene is simply an indulgence to justify the fact that the Batmobile has weaponry, because Snyder thought it was cool, but what does it accomplish? Superman intervenes, hilariously letting the dangerous kryptonite get away, but Batman just sneaks into Luthor's facility and steals it later!
If he could just tag the truck and track them to their final destination, why bother with the big battle at all? If this Batman was at all clever and had regard for human life, he could've just made the kryptonite disappear with none the wiser. But, this is also the same jerk who brands people like cattle with a bat logo, which adds a weird sadistic turn. Again, because Snyder thought it was cool. I guess mileages vary on what makes a good Batman, but this Batman doesn't really listen to reason and is quick to take a direct, violent approach. Any semblance of cunning just seems entirely lost, because Snyder himself is simply not clever at all, favoring mindless bombast regardless of how well it might serve the narrative, which was a major problem with Man of Steel as well (like the Smallville battle where he actually slams Zod through a factory).
But oh my god, Luthor. What can one say about this massive cunt of a character? He is clearly designed to capture some of the appeal of Ledger's Joker, but for the most part just comes off as hugely obnoxious. But more than that, he never seems to have a personal stake in the fate of either character. Snyder seemed to be going for this chaotic character that was just interested in having the heroes destroy each other, but then it goes to left field and tosses in Doomsday, essentially shoehorning the Death of Superman storyline, which should simply have not been included in this film, I think. Aside from Doomsday looking like a cheaper version of the LOTR cave troll, Luthor's whole reasoning for creating him is just non-existent. Like, there was nothing to suggest he'd even be able to control the thing, so he just created something *worse* than Superman for no good reason. This whole sequence was just a slapped together series of events to get the big CGI monster fight and have the dramatic death that has no dramatic stakes because we know he'll be back (which is similarly undercut in Infinity War too since we know the likes of Spider-Man ain't staying dead).
I think one of the most egregious sins of BvS, however, is that it accelerates franchise building to a degree that feels mandated by clueless executives trying hard to cash in on these properties. It even goes so far as to have the annoying villain carefully curate footage of future Justice League members, complete with nifty logos that he probably made in Adobe Illustrator or something. They don't get to organically develop into the DCEU. It feels like Warner Bros was pushing hard to get this film to catch up to the decade long assembly of what the MCU's become, when they could have taken their time.
Wonder Woman is probably the only DCEU film that I can consider to be truly legitimately good, even if its final act is marred by another terrible CGI monster.
Batman is an emotionally stunted man child who can not let his parents deaths go. Hence why rather then grow up to be a politician leading reformations or literally anything else he uses his vast wealth to travel the world and train. So he can go back to his home town and dress up as a bat and beat up poor and mentally unstable individuals. Recruiting a young child (or children depending on the universe) to follow him in his foot steps. And it was shown pretty clearly that Robin or at least one of his possible Robins had the Jason Todd treatment by who we could only assume is Joker given all the hahas on his armor. With this in mind we are shown at the start of the movie were Papa and Mama Wayne are killed and Bruce's father specifically looks dead at Bruce and begs to save Martha. And remember Bruce as so traumatized by this that he dressed up as a bat and punches poor and mentally challenged people all night long. Thus when Bruce has Clark pinned and about to kill him rather then beg for his own life which is what most people would do when they are about to be killed. Clark looks right into Bruce's eyes and begs to save Martha which is a dead repeat to what his father did as he laid dying. This caused him to hesitate long enough for Lois to find them and explain everything to Batman. At which point he realizes how low he sunk and comes around out of the black pit of disparate that he has been sunk into.
This is further highlighted in a cut scene were he shows up in Lex's cell and rather then brand him like he has done with everyone else he hits the wall behind him and leaves. For Quill we have 2 different fuck ups now that you reminded me of GotG 2. Ego knew how much Quill was upset at his mother dying. Quill didn't exactly hide the fact he was pissed at him for his apparent abandonment of him and his mother and her subsequent death. And then right as his plan is about to succeed Ego against all reason or rational directly tells Quill that he put the tumor in his mother to kill her. Which of course turns Quill against Ego and eventually leads to his death. This is stupid because there is no ryhme, reason or build up and he only says it as a plot convenience. In Infinity War Quill wants to kill Thanos and yet during the whole fight it has been made clear the Infinity Gauntlet and the Stones are the entire reason why he is able to put up a fight against everyone. Remove the Gauntlet and they would actually have a chance to kill Thanos. But rather then disarm Thanos and then kill him Quill fucks up and allows Thanos to retain the Gauntlet which allows the rest of Infinity War and Endgame to continue. Both of these are idiotic cringe worthy writing that exists simply for the sake of making drama and allowing the plot to continue. And while you can argue the Martha bit is also cringe worthy writing that exists simply for the sake of making drama and allowing the plot to continue at least they actually incorporated the reason into the plot.
Batman never had integrity all he ever has been is the biggest mary sue that makes even Superman look like a boring background NPC in a video game. His "integrity" has lead to countless deaths due to him allowing literal serial killers to continue to walk around. I mean seriously Joker kills a couple dozen people and Batman shows up and stops him. Then a few months later Joker escapes and kills a few more dozen people and Batman stops him. Then Joker escapes again and kills a couple dozen more people, and repeat the cycle. The idea that he sacrifices dozens to hundreds of people's lives to maintain his "integrity" when he had multiple chances to stop them before they had a kill count in the triple digits. And this bullshit logic of "if he kills someone then he will just become a cold hearted killer" is as bullshit as the story lines were Superman sees Lois is killed and that instantly turns Superman into an oppressive dictator that will kill anyone that gets in his way without remorse. This logic only works if you admit that Batman is a closet phyco who will be completely unable to tell the difference between some random poor person mugging an old lady. And a serial killer clown who has committed literal war crimes. Which also means that every single solider and police officer who ever existed in the DC universe should be a raving mad man who will kill anyone that so much as cuts them off in traffic.
This difference is actually shown in the movie as it shows all the people arrested are branded with the bat symbol which makes them targets in prison by other prisoners. Batman only discards this after Lex manipulates both Batman and Superman into fighting. Feeding the hate and paranoia of Batman into those actions. Not to mention those same private mercenary groups were shown to be more then willing to kill an entire African Village and kidnap a woman and kill them. So Batman is not killing innocent people. And the fact that Bruce actually addresses this. He specifically talks to Alfred about how long he has been at this and how nothing seems to have improved or changed. So he has started to resort to more brutal methods because he lost any hope he had.
Lex in the movie isn't Joker. Lex is and always has in nearly ever universe has a massive god complex. Thinking that he is the smartest person on the planet, with some versions making him think he is the hero of humanity. Then Superman shows up and all of Lex's accomplishments and all his achievements are now meaningless in the face of an almost literal god. This has been shown in countless universesand the fact in every universe were Superman doesn't exist or is actually a bad guy it is Lex who is the hero to the world. And Lex is purposefully egging on both Batman and Superman to hate each other. He wants them to kill each other. This is why Lex sends Clark to Bruce. And when that fails he creates his Doomsday hybrid.
Organic development is bullshit reasoning. Everyone and their grandmother knows about Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Batman. They don't need to create their separate origin movies to make everything organic. As I said, Shepard was also "supposed" to die because he is partly synthetic. So Shepard should have died as well. Your crewmates did not see EDI die and there's something I read in the codex that if a ship is suddenly dropped out of FTL, it is exposed to lethal radiation which would kill anyone on board. This means that if the Normandy is traveling at FTL and something interrupts that, the ship is dropped out of FTL to sub-FTL speeds and when the field collapses it's exposed to lethal radiation.
I've seen plenty of fatal plane and helicopter crashes from much lower altitudes than dropping out of FTL while in space, being exposed to radiation, doing atmospheric re-entry and somehow landing the ship with everyone on board seemingly okay with no injuries. Including the guy with brittle bone disease who would probably have both his legs and arms broken from the impact of the crash.
Do you mean "supposed" to as in science wise or "supposed" to story wise. Because edi and the geth were supposed to die because they used reaper tech. Shepard didn't have reaper tech in him...other wise IT is a given. That is the hand waving magic added in with EC because people were throwing a shit fit that Destroy had consequences. The original line was about how all tech would be wiped out. thus the galaxy would start over more or less. Hence the crash on the literal garden of Eden jungle world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 15:23:19 GMT
Shepard was beaten and left lying unconscious and dying in a place where he/she could not access the controls for the Crucible. Hackett clearly could not fire the thing remotely. There was nothing needed for the Reapers to do except to continue to blow ships out of the sky; and/or chase them down as they fled... ad then destroy the hunk of useless metal they attached to the Citadel. If Shepard was still breathing at that point, they could have then revived him/her and "assumed control." If not, no real loss to them... trillions of other fish to enslave.
There is no reason for the ending scene to even take place unless the Catalyst believed he was beaten and was surrendering to Shepard. Yeah at theend of th egame both Shep and Andreson ewre both heavliy injured and were succuimbing to those injuries. Both knew they were dying bu twere ready to face it. Finished my latest playthrough last night so it's very fresh in my memory. It's quiet possible that th eCatalyst believed if they didn't give up now that the nex tcycle would see them finished which was why they presented Shepard with the options they had. Yes, we've seen Reapers "assume direct control" of individuals in the two games before ME3 - with Saren and with numerous Collectors. With Shepard and Hackett cut off from being able to fire the crucible, there is absolutely no motivation for the Catalyst to try to parlay with Shepard, let alone reveal the mechanisms that could destroy them or control them.
If people believe that the control ending is actually "reverse control" - a means by which the Catalyst gains control of Shepard - then one should not believe that the Reapers would ever reveal that destroy would annihilate them on the off chance that they could convince Shepard to not use it. They would simply lay out the control option in a way that says "we surrender" and turn over authority to you, the victor and never reveal that the two other options exist. If they want Shepard captured alive in order to complete the indoctrination of him/her, then Control should be the only option offered to him/her.
If synthesis is another form of "reaperizing everyone else," they would offer it up as the only available choice by saying to Shepard that the only way to activate the crucible is to dive in and add his/her energy to it. However, it makes no sense to offer it and make it seem like the "best" option, if the Catalyst's optimal goal is to capture Shepard alive since it causes him/her to be completed dissolved.
|
|