[QUOTE=Anderan;50537634]The synthesis ending still doesn't make any sense or become any less stupid. How does having similar genetics suddenly make everyone capable of understanding each other? Organics fight each other all the time and the organics and synthetics are perfectly capable of coming to an understanding and living peacefully, even if it took the right third party to convince them to do so.[/QUOTE]
Because it would also merge the consciousness of the reapers with everyone else, meaning billions of years of social advancement, technology, art, literature and culture would be available for everyone to understand all at once.
It may not fix conflict between people but it would entirely solve the issue of machines trying to remove organic life.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50537912]Because it would also merge the consciousness of the reapers with everyone else, meaning billions of years of social advancement, technology, art, literature and culture would be available for everyone to understand all at once.
It may not fix conflict between people but it would entirely solve the issue of machines trying to remove organic life.[/QUOTE]
At no point is it even suggested the Reapers preserve ancient social advancement, art, literature, or culture unless that was something shoved into the extended dlc. I don't see how in any way that prevents machines trying to remove organics, the series itself never even suggests that synthetic life trying to destroy it's creator is inevitable until the final scene. The entire Geth-Quarian conflict is the fault of the Quarians, not the Geth trying to destroy anyone. Hell, EDI and Joker establish their relationship all on their own Shepard just gives EDI advice at one point. The only other reference to synthetics trying to destroy their creators is the war Javick mentions and we are never given enough information to assume it's part of some inevitable cycle. And it doesn't even take into account any synthetics created in the future whom aren't around for this merger. It's a piss poor excuse for a solution that doesn't even make any sense (how do synthetics even have DNA to merge? Is it just merging consciousnesses?) for a problem that was barely even hinted at until the final moments of the game. We spend the better part of three games trying to stop the giant murder robots from killing all intelligent life only to reach the end and have those same robot's reasoning forced on us and given the "choice" of either undoing everything we've done up to that point or submitting to their reasoning instead of doing what we had been trying to do for three games and blowing the robots the fuck up and letting the galaxy we helped shape find it's own future.
[QUOTE=Anderan;50538002]At no point is it even suggested the Reapers preserve ancient social advancement, art, literature, or culture unless that was something shoved into the extended dlc[/QUOTE]
In Leviathan you learn that reapers are the amalgamation of all the civilizations from a given cycle with everything that entails (culture, knowledge, technology, etc). The extended cut synthesis ending also explains that reapers started helping out from their own accord and shared all their accumulated knowledge.
Sounds like you're trying way too hard to disprove what the game literally spells out several times in DLC and in the extended cut.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50538009]In Leviathan you learn that reapers are the amalgamation of all the civilizations from a given cycle with everything that entails (culture, knowledge, technology, etc).
Sounds like you're trying way too hard to disprove what the game literally spells out several times in DLC and in the extended cut.[/QUOTE]
Sounds to me like you're trying to justify a bad ending that took DLC and an extended cut to make any goddamn sense. And it still doesn't address the fact that the games are all about trying to destroy the murder robots only to completely shift gears and become about solving a conflict that was only vaguely hinted at during the last 10 minutes.
I'm sorry, but a shitty, retarded ending doesn't get any better through over explanation. The problem with the ending to Mass Effect 3 is that it is completely removed from the original story. It has an entirely different tone, theme, and even plot to what came before. Bolting on DLC to explain away the problems doesn't make it any better.
Mass Effect's story started to go down the shitter in ME2 when the writers decided that instead of finding a way to stop the Reapers (like Shepard said he'd do at the end of ME1) he'd waste 2 years being dead and hunting down a meaningless side faction who had no impact on anything.
The longer the series went on the more the writers were concerned with making 'cool' moments and less about creating a cohesive and interesting world. In ME3 the only quests which have any emotional resonance are the ones which were set up in ME1, and any that were set up in ME2 are relegated to 5 minute side stories. ME3 was an effort in the writer's self-indulgence and it had a shitty ending, with or without all the DLC to 'fix' it.
[QUOTE=Anderan;50538041]Sounds to me like you're trying to justify a bad ending that took DLC and an extended cut to make any goddamn sense. And it still doesn't address the fact that the games are all about trying to destroy the murder robots only to completely shift gears and become about solving a conflict that was only vaguely hinted at during the last 10 minutes.[/QUOTE]
I'm defending the fact that the extended cut and the DLC salvaged the story and you're still cranked up about how the story went prior to that point. You're shitting on a game that by all means no longer exists in the shape you currently describe it (extended cut DLC being available to everyone).
It's like if someone criticized Diablo 3 with RoS based on the vanilla experience from 2012.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50538050]I'm defending the fact that the extended cut and the DLC salvaged the story and you're still cranked up about how the story went prior to that point. You're shitting on a game that by all means no longer exists in the shape you currently describe it (extended cut DLC being available to everyone).
It's like if someone criticized Diablo 3 with RoS based on the vanilla experience from 2012.[/QUOTE]
The extended cut didn't salvage shit, it bolted on explanations but didn't change the fact that the ending sequence was bad. And god forbid I expect the ending to reflect how the story went prior to it. It's almost like an ending is supposed to wrap up the plot up to that point instead of trying to push an entirely different narrative at the last second. Even with the extended cut the ending was still meaning less because it threw aside everything you had done up until that point.
Explain to me how an ending about organic life being threatened by synthetic life feels out of place in a series about organic life being threatened by synthetic life.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50538072]Explain to me how an ending about organic life being threatened by synthetic life feels out of place in a series about organic life being threatened by synthetic life.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't threatened by synthetic life, it was threatened by the Reapers. The fact that they were synthetic was entirely coincidental. The Geth were never truly a threat to organics until the Reapers influenced them. It's explicitly stated that the Geth were just watching over the Quarian homeworld until a point came where they came to reclaim it. There wasn't even anything about that conflict that was inherently synthetic vs organics, it was one race being afraid of another. You could have replaced the Geth with some sub-subspecies the Quarians uplifted and later became afraid of and it would have played out exactly the same. Again, there was nothing about any of the games that suggested conflict between synthetics and organics was some inevitable cycle, that was an idea brought up at the end of the game purely because it's what the Reapers believed. Up until the last portion you could replace the Reapers with any other generic "terrible being from beyond the cosmos" and the story would have still made sense, them being synthetics had no bearing on anything other than being a reason for part of the Geth to side with them.
[QUOTE=Anderan;50538088][B]It wasn't threatened by synthetic life, it was threatened by the Reapers. The fact that they were synthetic was entirely coincidental.[/B] The Geth were never truly a threat to organics until the Reapers influenced them. It's explicitly stated that the Geth were just watching over the Quarian homeworld until a point came where they came to reclaim it. There wasn't even anything about that conflict that was inherently synthetic vs organics, it was one race being afraid of another. You could have replaced the Geth with some sub-subspecies the Quarians uplifted and later became afraid of and it would have played out exactly the same. Again, there was nothing about any of the games that suggested conflict between synthetics and organics was some inevitable cycle, that was an idea brought up at the end of the game purely because it's what the Reapers believed.[/QUOTE]
What? So big robot squids programed to curb stomp organic civiliztions is not organics vs machines to you?
[QUOTE=Anderan;50538088]It wasn't threatened by synthetic life, it was threatened by the Reapers. The fact that they were synthetic was entirely coincidental.[/QUOTE]
Literally the big plot twist of ME1 is that what they thought was just a big ship turned out to be a living thing [I]and[/I] the mastermind behind all that happens in that game. How can you say it's irrelevant/coincidental when the exact nature of reapers as machines is a core aspect of the series ?
[QUOTE=Anderan;50538088]The Geth were never truly a threat to organics until the Reapers influenced them. It's explicitly stated that the Geth were just watching over the Quarian homeworld until a point came where they came to reclaim it. There wasn't even anything about that conflict that was inherently synthetic vs organics, it was one race being afraid of another. You could have replaced the Geth with some sub-subspecies the Quarians uplifted and later became afraid of and it would have played out exactly the same. Again, there was nothing about any of the games that suggested conflict between synthetics and organics was some inevitable cycle, that was an idea brought up at the end of the game purely because it's what the Reapers believed.[/QUOTE]
So you're ignoring some story aspects of ME3 that don't fit your point but then you use plot points from ME3 when it suits you. Up until ME3, the majority of the galactic world had [I]no idea[/I] what a Geth looked like or what their motivations were, the only available version of the story was the Quarian one and the Quarians repeated time and time again that the Geth kicked them the fuck out brutally and unjustified.
You can't just be like "I don't like this part of the story so it's irrelevant" and then use chunks of that same story to make your own point relevant.
[QUOTE=kilerabv;50538117]What? So big robot squids programed to curb stomp organic civiliztions is not organics vs machines to you?[/QUOTE]
You could literally replace them with any "great being" taking it upon themselves to prevent what they believed to be the end of everything and it would have been exactly the same story. It wasn't synthetics vs organics, it was more inevitability vs possibility.
[QUOTE=kilerabv;50538117]What? So big robot squids programed to curb stomp organic civiliztions is not organics vs machines to you?[/QUOTE]
The reapers were intended to be the [B]solution[/B] to the Synthetic vs Organic problem (the justification for which was weak as shit). The fact that they became the semi-synthetic antagonist is irrelevant, since their intended purpose was to be above/outside the conflict and act as a galactic flush.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50538119]Literally the big plot twist of ME1 is that what they thought was just a big ship turned out to be a living thing [I]and[/I] the mastermind behind all that happens in that game. How can you say it's irrelevant/coincidental when the exact nature of reapers as machines is a core aspect of the series ?[/quote]
How exactly is them being machines core aspect of the series? Their nature as an entity that wipes out all intelligent life and have been doing so over several cycles was the core aspect. You could replace the Geth with Rachnai and the events of the first game would unfold exactly the same way.
[quote]
So you're ignoring some story aspects of ME3 that don't fit your point but then you use plot points from ME3 when it suits you. Up until ME3, the majority of the galactic world had [I]no idea[/I] what a Geth looked like or what their motivations were, the only available version of the story was the Quarian one and the Quarians repeated time and time again that the Geth kicked them the fuck out brutally and unjustified.
You can't just be like "I don't like this part of the story so it's irrelevant" and then use chunks of that same story to make your own point relevant.[/QUOTE]
I'm not ignoring anything, again nothing about the conflict between the Quarians and Geth is uniquely "synthetic vs organics". The Geth could have been fucking bio-engineered and it would be the exact same story. If you really want any theme there it's "old hatred and mistrust dies hard", which even works with the issue of the Korgan.
Like I said in another thread, ME3's ending was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Mass Effect's flaws started showing as soon as ME2's plot came in and then Cerberus were established as this cool faction despite the fact they were idiots in the first one.
[QUOTE=Anderan;50538155]
I'm not ignoring anything, again nothing about the conflict between the Quarians and Geth is uniquely "synthetic vs organics". The Geth could have been fucking bio-engineered and it would be the exact same story. If you really want any theme there it's "old hatred and mistrust dies hard", which even works with the issue of the Korgan.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, this here is one of the many billions of plotholes in the entire Reaper's motivation plotline.
What if instead of synthetics a cycle decided to instead make genetically superengineered children, and those rebelled. What if a synthetic race instead of wiping out its creators, lived with the creators in peace, created their own ORGANIC species and fought THEM, or a synthetic species creating another synthetic species. What if a cycle had never even made AI synthetics in the 50 000 years.
Like any logic you use to justify the reapers' actions breaks apart. The only role they SHOULD have had was to wait outside in dark space (which apparently they did for a while), monitoring until a huge war DID break out, and then come to kill the SYNTHETICS, not employ the fucking synthetics and kill all the organics.
The Citadel DLC even shows that there were Quarians that supported the Geth and that there were Geth that didn't want conflict so idk how exactly one can say this supports synthetics trying to destroy their creators is inevitable. It all plays out like a really standard civil conflict, it just happens to have AIs in it.
I also think the Quarian conflict would have been a much better fit for 2 than 3. Like, come on guys there's a hostile race invading the entire galaxy maybe lets not start a civil war right this moment.
[QUOTE=wewlad;50538236]I also think the Quarian conflict would have been a much better fit for 2 than 3. Like, come on guys there's a hostile race invading the entire galaxy maybe lets not start a civil war right this moment.[/QUOTE]
Well the reason why the Collectors didn't bother the other races TOO much is because they were only attacking human colonies on border-systems. Though I still agree.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50538072]Explain to me how an ending about organic life being threatened by synthetic life feels out of place in a series about organic life being threatened by synthetic life.[/QUOTE]
It feels out of place because maybe the original lead writer of Mass Effect resigned around ME2.
[url=http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/8/20/3256678/original-mass-effect-writer-talks-about-the-possible-endings-for-mass]Like here where he discusses the originally thought out ending.[/url]
[QUOTE=CrossNgen;50535856]I'm probably one of the few who are indiffirent about the ending, I'm more about the journey.[/QUOTE]
I don't get this. Like I understand not liking an ending of something, but do like 90% of people forget how actually abysmal like, 75% of the game's content was? Almost every sidequest was playing duck-duck-goose with reapers while you half-assed scanned planets? That, and the other non-critical missions were just single player versions of multiplayer missions?
Then you get the Kai Leng fight on Thessia which may be the worst put together piece of content in the entire series. Oh boy plot armour cunt walks in and goes "Lol u cant win Mr Gay", then throws a gunship in. A vehicle of which you kill a dozen of in ME2. A vehicle that you can't damage despite the fact that literally five steps outside of the boss arena, you pick it a weapon that is EXPLICITLY AN ANTI-VEHICLE RIFLE.
But no he wins and then nearly kills you and your teammate. Later on you beat him in a fight that you didn't do anything different in.
Can't wait to get some new Asari pussi
[QUOTE=Zeos;50540199]I don't get this. Like I understand not liking an ending of something, but do like 90% of people forget how actually abysmal like, 75% of the game's content was? Almost every sidequest was playing duck-duck-goose with reapers while you half-assed scanned planets? That, and the other non-critical missions were just single player versions of multiplayer missions?
Then you get the Kai Leng fight on Thessia which may be the worst put together piece of content in the entire series. Oh boy plot armour cunt walks in and goes "Lol u cant win Mr Gay", then throws a gunship in. A vehicle of which you kill a dozen of in ME2. A vehicle that you can't damage despite the fact that literally five steps outside of the boss arena, you pick it a weapon that is EXPLICITLY AN ANTI-VEHICLE RIFLE.
But no he wins and then nearly kills you and your teammate. Later on you beat him in a fight that you didn't do anything different in.[/QUOTE]
Remember, Kai Leng nearly kills you by dropping you into a bottomless pit. Under the temple to the main god of the Asari. In a city of the most heavily populated world in the galaxy. There's just a bottomless pit there, for some reason.
[QUOTE=Zeos;50540199]I don't get this. Like I understand not liking an ending of something, but do like 90% of people forget how actually abysmal like, 75% of the game's content was? Almost every sidequest was playing duck-duck-goose with reapers while you half-assed scanned planets? That, and the other non-critical missions were just single player versions of multiplayer missions?
Then you get the Kai Leng fight on Thessia which may be the worst put together piece of content in the entire series. Oh boy plot armour cunt walks in and goes "Lol u cant win Mr Gay", then throws a gunship in. A vehicle of which you kill a dozen of in ME2. A vehicle that you can't damage despite the fact that literally five steps outside of the boss arena, you pick it a weapon that is EXPLICITLY AN ANTI-VEHICLE RIFLE.
But no he wins and then nearly kills you and your teammate. Later on you beat him in a fight that you didn't do anything different in.[/QUOTE]
I really liked ME3.
the premise for this makes no fucking sense
like literally none, from a lore perspective and from the perspective of a writer
save the galaxy for 3 games straight. make many hard decisions along the way. mold your character and team through trials of both combat and morality. suddenly at the end of game 3, it doesn't matter what you did at all. and now, in game 4, go to a completely different galaxy for no reason instead of even getting to see the effects of your multiple choice selection!
there's still so much to play with in the milky way
mass effect is dead to me
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50540474]the premise for this makes no fucking sense
like literally none, from a lore perspective and from the perspective of a writer
save the galaxy for 3 games straight. make many hard decisions along the way. mold your character and team through trials of both combat and morality. suddenly at the end of game 3, it doesn't matter what you did at all. and now, in game 4, go to a completely different galaxy for no reason instead of even getting to see the effects of your multiple choice selection!
there's still so much to play with in the milky way
mass effect is dead to me[/QUOTE]
Considering the implications of the ME3 ending it'll be really hard to create a game that'll represent all three choices, and if they were to make sequel they'd have to make one of the endings canon
[QUOTE=CrossNgen;50540498]Considering the implications of the ME3 ending it'll be really hard to create a game that'll represent all three choices, and if they were to make sequel they'd have to make one of the endings canon[/QUOTE]
that's because their ending sucked
if they wanted to salvage that mess they should've developed a game set between 1 and 2 about something other than a crew of Big Damn Heroes embarking on an Epic Quest to Save the Galaxy
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50540510]that's because their ending sucked
if they wanted to salvage that mess they should've developed a game set between 1 and 2 about something other than a crew of Big Damn Heroes[/QUOTE]
Would it really matter? the ending's still there no matter what, and a lot of the writers have already discussed their displeasure with the endings.
I just think making a game in between any of the games would just feel like a waste of time, and I believe most would view it as a cash grab
[QUOTE=CrossNgen;50540522]Would it really matter? the ending's still there no matter what, and a lot of the writers have already discussed their displeasure with the endings.
I just think making a game in between any of the games would just feel like a waste of time, and I believe most would view it as a cash grab[/QUOTE]
i don't see the sense in going to a whole new galaxy unless we've awakened another Ancient Evil that's threatening to destroy the galaxy to drive an increasingly contrived plot
it's just stupid, what was the point of anything if we're abandoning that entire galaxy anyway
what's the plot of mass effect 5? SHEPRD WE HAVE 2 GO 2 ANOTHER UNIVERSE THE ULTRA-REAPERS ARE HERE
isn't there another story to tell in mass effect than "something is threatening to destroy everything and you are the only hope"
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50540537]i don't see the sense in going to a whole new galaxy unless we've awakened another Ancient Evil that's threatening to destroy the galaxy to drive an increasingly contrived plot
it's just stupid, what was the point of anything if we're abandoning that entire galaxy anyway
what's the plot of mass effect 5? SHEPRD WE HAVE 2 GO 2 ANOTHER UNIVERSE THE ULTRA-REAPERS ARE HERE
isn't there another story to tell in mass effect than "something is threatening to destroy everything and you are the only hope"[/QUOTE]
The reason for a new galaxy is simple: Bioware knew they blew it all up with the endings and they had no way out of it with either a sequel or a prequel, and Andromeda as far as I can see is them trying to reboot the series while keeping the things people loved about the universe intact while also keeping all of the complicatedly heavy luggage behind.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
