What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
I love fan interpretations like the indoctrination thing, it's a neat bit of headcanon
but as for actually setting it forth as the actual truth,
well
if you think the catalyst is lying to you then why would you trust anything that it says? That could be the power conduit to the Not Killing All Organic Life Forevermore system or something else roughly as ridiculous as what it apparently is
Well essentially,
even if the fan interpretation is wrong, I don't believe what Catalyst says. Or that is to say, I believe him about as much as I believe TIM - some of what he says he believes, even if it's bullshit; some of what he says is outright lies; some of what he says is a mixing of the truth to make the lie stronger.
So shooting bullets into it seems like a good call. Maybe shooting bullets won't do anything, but if that ends up being the case then I can allways call on my bro Hackett to bring in bigger guns.
The Catalyst is in fact the least trustworthy source possible in this series. Literally the leader of the Reapers. If it was Harby talking to you, everyone would shoot him immediately.
As for why he even bothers to bring you up, the only reason I can think of is to activate the Synthesis ending which seems like a good thing from his viewpoint. But why not just do that himself? Why offer any choice to you?
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
There's no question about whether the endings are shitty. I'm really not saying the ending is great; if I seemed to have done that, I'm sorry about the confusion. I'm merely proposing a theory to interpret the endings, and I totally agree with you on the "customers shouldn't need to jump through hoops" point.
The charity thing is a little bit too... vindicative for me.
Irrefutable proof that the ME3 endings are visually similar. Good or bad is up to your interpretations and tastes. Visual similarity is not.
2 minutes. No commentary. Spoiler obviously.
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
well I mean it's like 30k so
that seems like a good thing
I guess I just feel that people should want to donate to Child's Play because they support the charity and actively want to help children. Rather than, you know, getting something out of it for themselves.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
Whoa, now. I hope none of this is directed at me.
I say, and have said since the beginning, that the ending isn't all that great (I'd describe it as mediocre rather than terrible), but the rest of the game is the most amazing thing I've ever played, so even though the ending drops the ball it's not the end of the world for me. I'd be 100% fine with the endings if they were just better explained and fleshed out.
I like the alternate fan theory, not because I think it's what was actually intended by the writers, but rather because it sort of soothes my dislike for certain parts of the ending. I'm not saying that if people don't agree with that interpretation then they're way too dumb for Bioware's super intellectual writing (lol!), or even that it is the real, true, correct, and only interpretation. I just happen to like it better. Again, similar to these alternate film interpretations. Just because the creators didn't think of them, doesn't mean they aren't still pretty damn rad.
And honestly, I don't think anyone espousing this alternate theory is trying to 'blame' fellow fans for not agreeing with it. For the people who like it, it's good. But I don't see anyone who likes it saying that other people are idiots for not agreeing with it.
In a way it's kind of a coping mechanism. Remember that analogy to shit cake that some people were making? That the discovery of shit in the center of the cake makes the entire experience terrible, no matter how wonderful the cake was before? Well suppose what was in the center wasn't shit, but was chocolate mousse? Then your experience doesn't have to be ruined. If people can use the theory to keep their experience from being spoiled, I'm all for it.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
well I mean it's like 30k so
that seems like a good thing
I guess I just feel that people should want to donate to Child's Play because they support the charity and actively want to help children. Rather than, you know, getting something out of it for themselves.
well I mean we host an actual charity auction where people buy things they want and the money goes to the same charity
that seems like the exact same thing?
0
Options
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
well I mean it's like 30k so
that seems like a good thing
I guess I just feel that people should want to donate to Child's Play because they support the charity and actively want to help children. Rather than, you know, getting something out of it for themselves.
well I mean we host an actual charity auction where people buy things they want and the money goes to the same charity
that seems like the exact same thing?
Those items are auctioned with the intent to raise money for Child's Play.
Donating money and then demanding something in return is distasteful.
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
well I mean it's like 30k so
that seems like a good thing
I guess I just feel that people should want to donate to Child's Play because they support the charity and actively want to help children. Rather than, you know, getting something out of it for themselves.
whitemailing is finally on the rise and I can become an anti-crime kingpin
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
well I mean it's like 30k so
that seems like a good thing
I guess I just feel that people should want to donate to Child's Play because they support the charity and actively want to help children. Rather than, you know, getting something out of it for themselves.
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
well I mean it's like 30k so
that seems like a good thing
I guess I just feel that people should want to donate to Child's Play because they support the charity and actively want to help children. Rather than, you know, getting something out of it for themselves.
well I mean we host an actual charity auction where people buy things they want and the money goes to the same charity
that seems like the exact same thing?
I saw that more as a framework for charitable feeling. Hence why it's an auction, not a sale. I dunno, it's just weird that the outlet they chose to give their movement publicity was by donating to Child's Play. I'm as pragmatic as the next guy, so I don't really spend too much time worrying where the money comes from or why. I just think it undermines their position a little. The two articles I've read that mention it say the same, that using Child's Play donations as a metric for how much support your demands have is a bad precedent.
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What I dislike most about these alternate ending theories is that they are - in essence - just an elaborate construct that excuses the poor ending that BioWare provided. It's like the fan community is so unwilling to believe that the ending is bad that they're jumping through these ridiculous hoops to theorize that it's actually great, and the community is just too dumb/ignorant to realize it. It's the worst kind of masochism, deflecting blame onto the customers rather than the developer.
Plus, it's way overblown in significance. It's a letdown, for some, but for many it's just the end and nothing more egregious. They just don't care. It doesn't really break the game, just tarnishes it. But the way some people who are annoyed by it seem to be shifting all blame onto themselves instead of onto the developer seems peculiar at best, downright sinister at worst.
I also think donating to charity as a form of protest is also quite underhanded. It's as though they are holding the needs of the sick and infirm to ransom for what they want, which is a better ending. It's as though because they are giving money to charity, their position and stance is unimpeachable. As though because they are funnelling their desires through a charity, any criticism of their demands/desires is - in part - an attack on the good will it is providing. That's wrong. That's abusing the good work that Child's Play does to strengthen your own personal stance on an issue. An issue that, many would agree, is utterly insignificant in the face of what the people who need Child's Play actually have to deal with.
That's pretty cynical Scarab. Everyone wins when more people give to a charity.
If the ending had been better the ending response would have been... less money for charity? How are you justifying this as a bad thing?
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
I guess we have just each other, on this lonely space station..
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I love fan interpretations like the indoctrination thing, it's a neat bit of headcanon
but as for actually setting it forth as the actual truth,
well
if you think the catalyst is lying to you then why would you trust anything that it says? That could be the power conduit to the Not Killing All Organic Life Forevermore system or something else roughly as ridiculous as what it apparently is
Well essentially,
even if the fan interpretation is wrong, I don't believe what Catalyst says. Or that is to say, I believe him about as much as I believe TIM - some of what he says he believes, even if it's bullshit; some of what he says is outright lies; some of what he says is a mixing of the truth to make the lie stronger.
So shooting bullets into it seems like a good call. Maybe shooting bullets won't do anything, but if that ends up being the case then I can allways call on my bro Hackett to bring in bigger guns.
The Catalyst is in fact the least trustworthy source possible in this series. Literally the leader of the Reapers. If it was Harby talking to you, everyone would shoot him immediately.
As for why he even bothers to bring you up, the only reason I can think of is to activate the Synthesis ending which seems like a good thing from his viewpoint. But why not just do that himself? Why offer any choice to you?
(ending stuff)
I was going to say that they needed a human to jump into the beam to make systhesis possible, that they can't do it themselves, but then I remembered they've been porting bodies up to the citadel so they've got plenty of them around.
Perhaps they need a living human, but they could have used TIM who they had control of.
I gues Shepard really is the "for reals" Catalyst, and she's the only one that synthesis would really work with because of being Space Jesus.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
reeducation camps
0
Options
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
nope, not allowed, pick a side and fashion a weapon out of whatever is at hand
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
I guess we have just each other, on this lonely space station..
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
I guess we have just each other, on this lonely space station..
and my axe
people keep mentioning Fallout 3 as an example where the ending really did get changed, what happened there?
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
I love fan interpretations like the indoctrination thing, it's a neat bit of headcanon
but as for actually setting it forth as the actual truth,
well
if you think the catalyst is lying to you then why would you trust anything that it says? That could be the power conduit to the Not Killing All Organic Life Forevermore system or something else roughly as ridiculous as what it apparently is
Well essentially,
even if the fan interpretation is wrong, I don't believe what Catalyst says. Or that is to say, I believe him about as much as I believe TIM - some of what he says he believes, even if it's bullshit; some of what he says is outright lies; some of what he says is a mixing of the truth to make the lie stronger.
So shooting bullets into it seems like a good call. Maybe shooting bullets won't do anything, but if that ends up being the case then I can allways call on my bro Hackett to bring in bigger guns.
The Catalyst is in fact the least trustworthy source possible in this series. Literally the leader of the Reapers. If it was Harby talking to you, everyone would shoot him immediately.
As for why he even bothers to bring you up, the only reason I can think of is to activate the Synthesis ending which seems like a good thing from his viewpoint. But why not just do that himself? Why offer any choice to you?
(ending stuff)
I was going to say that they needed a human to jump into the beam to make systhesis possible, that they can't do it themselves, but then I remembered they've been porting bodies up to the citadel so they've got plenty of them around.
Perhaps they need a living human, but they could have used TIM who they had control of.
I gues Shepard really is the "for reals" Catalyst, and she's the only one that synthesis would really work with because of being Space Jesus.
I guess Shep being a cyborg would help there a lot, actually
but then there's still that big flaw that not only is Synthesis sometimes not offered, but Destroy is the only choice. doesn't seem to be a way around that.
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
I guess we have just each other, on this lonely space station..
and my axe
people keep mentioning Fallout 3 as an example where the ending really did get changed, what happened there?
Fallout 3 spoilers
the ending of fallout 3 has you kill yourself, and it is unavoidable. It was so stupid.
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
Perfect world I'd prefer them to make an unflawed ending and build the future games off of that
I'm not gonna throw a tantrum if that's not what happens and I'll still buy future mass effect games regardless
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
I guess we have just each other, on this lonely space station..
and my axe
people keep mentioning Fallout 3 as an example where the ending really did get changed, what happened there?
I don't know if I actually have to spoiler this but
originally, you die at the end, when the DLC, Broken Steel, came out, it made it so that you got rescued after losing consciousness, or you could send some of your other followers, the ones immune to radiation in to save the day instead.
basically, instead of finishing the main quest ending the game, it let you continue playing after.
What about those of us who are okay with the ending, acknowledge its flaws, and want future mass effect games to build off it rather than have it completely changed
What of us?!
I guess we have just each other, on this lonely space station..
and my axe
people keep mentioning Fallout 3 as an example where the ending really did get changed, what happened there?
I don't know if I actually have to spoiler this but
originally, you die at the end, when the DLC, Broken Steel, came out, it made it so that you got rescued after losing consciousness, or you could send some of your other followers, the ones immune to radiation in to save the day instead.
basically, instead of finishing the main quest ending the game, it let you continue playing after.
Posts
sounds like bioware needs to make shittier endings
Butts...
As for why he even bothers to bring you up, the only reason I can think of is to activate the Synthesis ending which seems like a good thing from his viewpoint. But why not just do that himself? Why offer any choice to you?
did I fucking miss something
Does cerberus have their own indoctrination technology
Was there some big conversation I missed where they're working with the reapers and not against them like has been stated a hundred times
This is pissing me off
well I mean it's like 30k so
that seems like a good thing
I think I would be
proud
My new goal in life
yeah, you missed that
namely
There's no question about whether the endings are shitty. I'm really not saying the ending is great; if I seemed to have done that, I'm sorry about the confusion. I'm merely proposing a theory to interpret the endings, and I totally agree with you on the "customers shouldn't need to jump through hoops" point.
The charity thing is a little bit too... vindicative for me.
2 minutes. No commentary. Spoiler obviously.
I guess I just feel that people should want to donate to Child's Play because they support the charity and actively want to help children. Rather than, you know, getting something out of it for themselves.
Whoa, now. I hope none of this is directed at me.
I say, and have said since the beginning, that the ending isn't all that great (I'd describe it as mediocre rather than terrible), but the rest of the game is the most amazing thing I've ever played, so even though the ending drops the ball it's not the end of the world for me. I'd be 100% fine with the endings if they were just better explained and fleshed out.
I like the alternate fan theory, not because I think it's what was actually intended by the writers, but rather because it sort of soothes my dislike for certain parts of the ending. I'm not saying that if people don't agree with that interpretation then they're way too dumb for Bioware's super intellectual writing (lol!), or even that it is the real, true, correct, and only interpretation. I just happen to like it better. Again, similar to these alternate film interpretations. Just because the creators didn't think of them, doesn't mean they aren't still pretty damn rad.
And honestly, I don't think anyone espousing this alternate theory is trying to 'blame' fellow fans for not agreeing with it. For the people who like it, it's good. But I don't see anyone who likes it saying that other people are idiots for not agreeing with it.
In a way it's kind of a coping mechanism. Remember that analogy to shit cake that some people were making? That the discovery of shit in the center of the cake makes the entire experience terrible, no matter how wonderful the cake was before? Well suppose what was in the center wasn't shit, but was chocolate mousse? Then your experience doesn't have to be ruined. If people can use the theory to keep their experience from being spoiled, I'm all for it.
well I mean we host an actual charity auction where people buy things they want and the money goes to the same charity
that seems like the exact same thing?
Those items are auctioned with the intent to raise money for Child's Play.
Donating money and then demanding something in return is distasteful.
whitemailing is finally on the rise and I can become an anti-crime kingpin
On the Mars Mission
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I mean you'd have to be a bit delusional to expect BioWare to cave in to those demands
(He says, thirty minutes before a $1 million Kickstarter equivalent shakes the internet)
who cares about the motivations of suckers
I saw that more as a framework for charitable feeling. Hence why it's an auction, not a sale. I dunno, it's just weird that the outlet they chose to give their movement publicity was by donating to Child's Play. I'm as pragmatic as the next guy, so I don't really spend too much time worrying where the money comes from or why. I just think it undermines their position a little. The two articles I've read that mention it say the same, that using Child's Play donations as a metric for how much support your demands have is a bad precedent.
like it's kind of one of the main plotpoints i'm not sure how you managed to overlook it
http://www.audioentropy.com/
What of us?!
That's pretty cynical Scarab. Everyone wins when more people give to a charity.
If the ending had been better the ending response would have been... less money for charity? How are you justifying this as a bad thing?
(ending stuff)
Perhaps they need a living human, but they could have used TIM who they had control of.
I gues Shepard really is the "for reals" Catalyst, and she's the only one that synthesis would really work with because of being Space Jesus.
reeducation camps
nope, not allowed, pick a side and fashion a weapon out of whatever is at hand
Room for one more? :winky:
We'll try to get you help as soon as we can
and my axe
people keep mentioning Fallout 3 as an example where the ending really did get changed, what happened there?
FUCK WILL SMITH'S I, ROBOT
but then there's still that big flaw that not only is Synthesis sometimes not offered, but Destroy is the only choice. doesn't seem to be a way around that.
Fallout 3 spoilers
They released DLC that was like
uh....you didn't die, nevermind.
Perfect world I'd prefer them to make an unflawed ending and build the future games off of that
I'm not gonna throw a tantrum if that's not what happens and I'll still buy future mass effect games regardless
but yeah
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I don't know if I actually have to spoiler this but
basically, instead of finishing the main quest ending the game, it let you continue playing after.
edit: Langley you hoodlum