read the eula sometime
specifically the part where ea gives themselves powers to scan everything on your computer at any time

Read the Steam EULA and notice how it's pretty much the same...

GUYS HELP

WINDOWS SCANS MY PC

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/genuine

I'm glad this thread morphed into a HATE ORIGIN thread, so I can comment.

I'd probably think ORIGIN was groovy if my STEAM account wasn't worth thousands of dollars.

But that aside, ORIGIN doesn't support GIFTING at this time which hurts my effort to convert all of humanity into PC GAMERS. Yeah I can buy ORIGIN game activation codes off 3rd party sites like Amazon ect, but it's stupid EA doesnt support this in some form. It's like they don't want my money.

I like that your biggest beef with Origin is it doesn't allow you to give free things to other people. This is why you are a paradigm of humanity at its finest, Triscuit.

Yeah, the warning signs. Doesn't prove anything, of course, it's just one of those cool little things.

CM is just following a great tradition of criticizing Mass Effect games without ever playing them. Remember all that fuss about the sex scenes?

Mass Effect 3 had some of the best writing I've seen in a video game to date. Awesome stuff. Liked the ending, too.

No, actually, I don't (at least not related to me). I didn't give two craps about it, and I loved ME1 and ME2 (to a lesser extent, goddamn ammunition). Talk out of your ass less, kthx.

?

I think you read that wrong. I didn't give two craps about the sex scene stuff that was going on.

Defensive much? You didn't start the tradition. Maybe you'll remember the Fox News reports and Cooper Lawernce's comments on the game that she had never played?

I know that, it was just a bunch of media drama. I just don't understand why you would even bring it up.

1. So you'd rather have a no-brainer Hollywood Ending Option than a difficult decision.

2. If you choose destruction, both synthetics and Shepard are supposed to die. The kid, however, is a textbook example of the unreliable narrator, I've explained this in a previous post, but you would only know this if you played the story. And guess what, Shepard survives, and we don't actually see synthetics dying, just Reapers.

3. Apart from that, there are two specific conversations in the story (one with EDI and one with the Geth) where they specifically state they are prepared to die if it is the only way to destroy the Reapers. EDI even adjusts her self-preservation protocol for this, right before the last mission. Once again, you wouldn't know this, because you haven't played the story.



Except, there is, and it has been tried. The game clearly establishes that all who came before you who believed they could control the Reapers (including the Protheans!) turned out to be indoctrinated. There is even a record of the Crucible being completed multiple times throughout galactic history, and it was never used to destroy the Reapers because all who tried to use it, ended up being indoctrinated.

There are multiple conversations in the game about controlling the Reapers and every character on your side (including the Last of the Protheans, Anderson, Hackett and just about all of your squadmates) claims it is an illusion to think anyone can control them. The one and only character in the game who is in favour of the 'controlling' concept is The Illusive Man, and the game establishes/exposes him as being indoctrinated on multiple occasions.

Literally the only reason you have to believe that you will be able to control them, is the kid from your dreams suddenly appearing on the Citadel and telling you that you are not being controlled by the Reapers.

You could think "But I'm TEH Shepard!", however, only minutes before that happens you are telling the Illusive Man that he "wants power that is too great to be wielded", and: "What if you can't control the Reapers? Are you willing to bet humanity's existence on it?", upon which he realizes he is indoctrinated, and kills himself.

And then there is the 'vision' of Anderson shooting (choosing the destroy option) when the kid explains the destroy option. How many hints do you need for what is the right choice?

And again, you wouldn't know all this if you haven't played the story. It is all established thoroughly in the story, and the only reason you have to think otherwise is the kid, and the idea of "But I'm Shepard!"

Aside from that, what does 'controlling reapers' even entail? (Besides the fact that Shepard is controlling them when dead, wth?) So they'll stop harvesting now, and do what? Creative gardening? They can't even 'procreate' without harvesting organics. Dead organics pulp is literally what their blood is made of.



Except the game does not establish that there's any way to properly control the Reapers or 'merge with them'. Rather, it goes to lengths to explain why thinking that you can control them is an illusion, and the idea of synthesis has never been shown in any favourable light in any of the games.

As for the Synthesis option, the game establishes the following:

1. Saren wanted a 'union of Man and Machine, the strength of both, the weaknesses of neither', etc. Turned out to be indoctrinated, shot himself. Kind of the main point in the first game?

2. Humans + Reaper Tech = Husks

3. Only bad guys are in favour of Synthesis, Saren and Kai Leng.

4. Synthetics and organics can co-exist peacefully, as Shepard proves by uniting Geth and Quarian, one of the main points of the story, again: if you've played it.

Aside from that, who is Shepard to gamble with the idea of playing God and turning everybody into shiny happy robot people with green space magic? Let's face it, that option isn't even remotely realistic, and I think the phrase 'too good to be true' applies here.

Does the phrase 'better safe than sorry' perhaps make any sense in this context?

Why believe a kid whose 'solution' to the 'eternal conflict' between organics and synthetics is to let synthetics periodically harvest advanced organic civilizations? That is circular logic of the worst kind.

The only thing that gives any credibility to the kid is the Prothean VI on Thessia that mentions that the Protheans suspected that there is a 'master' to the pattern, and they believe it's not the Reapers themselves. He does not explain on which they base this, though. But at the same time it leaves open the possibility that the pattern is caused by the Reapers themselves.

The fact that you get 'Reaper eyes' (like the Illusive Man has) when you choose control or synthesis, speaks volumes though.



They are lying about several things in order to make you believe synthesis and control are the most favourable options. The Reapers want Shepard on their side, as a symbol. This is all too evident from Harbinger's (who is the Reapers' leader) words: "You do not yet realize your importance in this, Shepard. Join us! Embrace Perfection!", etc.

If they don't give Shepard the destroy option, Shepard will realize something is wrong and break through the illusion.

What do they have to fear? No organic has ever withstood the effect of indoctrination upon completing the Crucible.

The fact that the kid (who repeatedly refers to the Reapers as 'us') does not stop you when you take the destroy option, supports the idea that it is all an illusion.



If they don't show it happening, it's even weirder because there is no closure at all. And if they show something different happening, the illusion is dispelled. They obviously wanted to leave all of this ambiguous so people would debate this just like we are doing now. Hell, they even came out and admitted they purposely made it controversial.

It's important to consider that the option to destroy the Reapers is not an option that they are presenting to you. It's an option that exists independent of their attempts to indoctrinate you. They're attempting to dissuade you from destroying them, which has worked for them several times in the past with other species.

I think that's slightly inaccurate. I believe the Prothean VI mentions that the Crucible had been passed down from cycle to cycle, with each species altering it and trying something new, but none had ever been able to successfully power it to the required level for affecting all Reapers. Shepard and the humans are the first to get it to the Citadel since it was realised in whichever cycle that the Citadel was the Catalyst and able to provide a suitable power source/focal point.

I read a post on another forum mentioning the dark energy from the sun in Haestrom shown in ME2 and how it didn't make an appearance in ME3 which made me wonder whether that was originally a potential significant factor in the plot of the third game which didn't make the cut.

No, if you ask the VI why it was never used, he tells you that the Reapers always succeeded in indoctrinating someone crucial. And that's when Kai Leng enters, IIRC. Actually, you could be right about it not being completed instead of used, but the reason was indoctrination. I'll have to look up the exact conversation.

WHOA

SPOILERS

ASS HOLES

i couldn't even finish ME1 i hated it so badly >>

This is what is said:

Shepard: "What happened to the Crucible in your time? Why didn't the Protheans deploy it?"
Prothean VI: "We were sabotaged from within. A splinter group argued we should dominate the Reapers rather than destroy them. It fractured our order of battle. Later we discovered that the separatists were indoctrinated."
Liara: "I guess they had their own Illusive Man to deal with."

(...)

Shepard: "We can break the cycle. We found your plans for the Crucible. We're building it right now!"
Prothean VI: "The Crucible is not of Prothean design. It is the work of countless galactic cycles stretching back millions of years. Each cycle adds to it. Each improves upon it. Thus far, none have successfully defeated the Reapers with it."

Yeah, I got that the Protheans had been sabotaged. You can see that from the indoctrinated Protheans during the flashbacks with Javik. What I meant by my post was that it's not like every cycle prior to the current one finished the Crucible but were indoctrinated into trying to control the Reapers; a lot would have been defeated by the infighting caused by indoctrination and it seems that none of them were able to utilise sufficient power to use the Crucible for it's intended purpose anyway. At least, that's what I read from the conversations with Javik and the Prothean VI.

That seems to be the correct interpretation. I didn't mean to suggest the Crucible was finished every time though. I just seemed to remember it happened a few times, is all.

However, my main point was that indoctrination factors in a big way into why the Crucible was never successfully used against the Reapers, and that point still stands.

It figures heavily in Drew Karpyshyn's original ending to the game, which wasn't used.

Edit: Antony asked for clarification, so I'll leave this here.

Ah, thanks for that. Interesting link; makes me wonder how those two endings would have panned out.

I feel like a total dork for elaborately addressing all of CM's points, only to be ignored. :saddowns: Ah well, I suppose that's the internet for me. We're destined to disagree on this anyway.

That's how it works when you discuss anything EA/Bioware related with CM.

Dark Energy seems like a rather vague foe. It's like a war on "terror". And if the Reapers really needed Human help (why us? that is pretty arrogant considering all of the push for cooperation), why don't they just ask instead of turning us into more Reaper against our will? Sure it was a concept that may not have been fleshed out, but still, there seem to be some big holes to fill in there.

I was being polite, because as far as I'm concerned, you didn't address them. I even took the time to actually watch that full video on the idea, and it was just laughable in the plotholes. The entire idea of destroying the Reapers as an option is just so insanely stupid. To even acknowledge it in such a manner is insulting to the little bit of pride Bioware has left on their writing staff. Everything the entire series has said up to that point would tell you that the Reapers wouldn't let you get within two steps of that option, even for the purposes of indoctrination. Common sense would even dictate this. There is absolutely no reason for the Reapers to even risk it. If the ONLY risk is Shepard coming up and shooting everything, why allow it? There's no reason, except shoddy writing. Basically, even though I hate what EA's doing to Bioware, I still give Bioware more credit than that.

Asking Cool Matty to have an intelligent discussion about this game is impossible. First of all, he hasn't played it. I don't care if you've watched the endings on Youtube. I don't care if you watched that breakdown of the ending. You don't seem to understand the context of what is happening at all. You seem to think that the Crucible is something that the Reapers wanted everyone to build, and that they are presenting Shepard with the option of destroying them. You literally have no idea what you are talking about, and there is no point in trying to explain any of it to you, because you just come back with "it's terrible" or "that's so much worse" or some other nonsense. Why in the hell are you even talking about the story in a game you have not played?

Because the story would be a significant reason for not playing it (or more appropriately, not blowing money on it)?

Do you always know the outcome of a movie you plan to see in the theater?

Or do you judge the entire thing by the presentation of the trailer? Or gossip about certain plot points in a non-linear fashion by people rehashing their what they saw and presenting it with the bias of their opinion.

Would you really pass up 40+ hours of awesome immersive storyline for 10 bad minutes?

Maybe we should talk about what we liked about the game? Taking down a reaper on foot is pretty damn satisfying.

No, but I do read reviews, and 90% of the time I don't even go to a theater, because I don't think it's worth the money ($10 a pop for 2 hours of entertainment, and only MAYBE? Screw that).

Apparently you didn't read the reviews that pretty much all said that Mass Effect 3 is a great game.

Yeah, that's why Bioware is making a free DLC just to patch up the ending. Because it was so well received.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3

It got resoundingly positive reviews from actual critics.

I feel bad for you, dude. You are going to miss everything cool and die alone.

And yet it was "so well received" that they're still making the DLC. That's always a great sign.



Yeah, clearly missing out on a game is going to be my biggest regret of my life. You and I both know EA sealed its fate with it when they moved to Origin anyway. It could be the game from the gods and I still wouldn't pay $60 for it on Origin. As I've told you numerous times, I will get it when it's $2 on Amazon, or if they ever bother to put it on Steam.

Edit: To be clear, Origin alone is enough for me to avoid it, and any other game EA puts out. Issues with the story are just candy.

I'm voting with my wallet. You ever had the nerve to do that?

Yeah, I don't buy things all the time. There are millions of things out there that I haven't bought for one reason or another. So, yeah, I muster the nerve to vote with my wallet almost every single day. If I'm pretty sure I won't like something, I don't spend money on it. I also don't rag on that thing for how terrible it is after I didn't use it.

The problem with this crusade of yours is that it isn't going to accomplish anything, yet you think it still elevates you in some way because you don't play these games. It doesn't make any sense. You can vote with your wallet all you want to, and it makes about as much of a difference as when JM inevitably votes for Ron Paul. Not enough people share your opinion for your opinion to count. You aren't going to make a difference. You aren't going to sway enough people to your opinion to make it count, either, because not everyone is hung up on petty bull****.

You will also continue to judge everything before you experience it. You will decide whether you like it or not based on what some other opinionated douchebag on some opinionated douchebag site you read says. You'll sit and tell everyone how their opinion is inferior to yours, because from your point of view it is impossible to enjoy whatever it is they're talking about. You will never try anything based on a chance that your opinion might differ from something you read, and believed. News flash, dude. The only thing you're right about here is that reviews don't always guarantee that you will or will not like something. There have been dozens of times I have disagreed heavily with reviews of this or that, and about half of the time I was pleasantly surprised, because I found a new thing that I liked.

This isn't about your vendetta against EA/Bioware. This is about you as a person. It's nearly a foregone conclusion that you will be the one person on this site who watches The Avengers and thinks it's terrible. That's just who you are. You seek out reasons to hate everything, even to the point of completely making up reasons to hate that thing (SWTOR, for instance). This is why I say you will miss everything cool. The reason you will die alone is because you will never find another human being who wants to spend any considerable amount of time around you.

I don't consider it petty at all. And the whole "wah wah your vote doesn't count" attitude is why so few people vote in the USA in the first place. It's a crappy attitude. I stick with what I believe in, and I'm willing to put in the effort to talk about it.



This, coming from the person who in the very same post tried to marginalize my opinion?



I have one sentence that ruins this whole tirade:

I have an iPad.



Actually, I'm incredibly excited to see The Avengers, and tried to see it last weekend, but had a friend cancel at the last minute. Probably will see it this weekend. The fact that I want to see it basically flies against everything you've been saying about me "bla bla hate everything cool, bla bla judge without experiencing, bla bla".

But I don't even need to go into that further. I find it more amusing that you hate my arguments and opinions so much that you can't fathom anyone wanting to be friends with me. And you can bring up SWTOR all you like, I can't go back and prove anything now as it's long gone. You can keep pressing that all you want, hell I'll even let you have it (since I can't prove it now), but that's nowhere near enough to really make a case for anyone. But I can also call you out on your ridiculous requirements for judging anything. You don't just want people to experience things, you want them to experience it to the level YOU demand. I did play SWTOR. I tried my damndest to get into it, after all. I wanted to like it. I didn't go in with a vendetta, I didn't go in wanting to hate it. I wanted to love the crap out of that game. It was the game that let me down. If you can't accept that simple fact (regardless of the specifics, there was far more than I even described, and you only picked apart a few bits about the UI), then how are you any better than you claim me to be?

I don't hate your opinions at all. I feel sorry for you because you refuse to give anything a chance based on your petty hangups. Your hangups are petty, too. Saying that they aren't doesn't change it.

There's a major difference between my position of not understanding why you wouldn't give something a chance because you have preconceived notions about it, and your stance of "it's just my opinion so I will inject my rage into every discussion that arises on the topic". The problem with people like you is not that you don't enjoy something. It's that you refuse to let others enjoy it. You cannot stand by and let someone else talk about the fact that they like something without telling them how stupid they are for liking that thing. It's extremely bizarre in this case because you haven't played the game. You literally have no right to an opinion on it at this point. You can't cite reviews, because it was universally hailed as good. It's amazing to me that you can't see the difference between my position and yours.

My position:

Let other people enjoy the things they like. The fact that you do not like it does not make it automatically bad. It's just not for you. Let the people who enjoy it have their fun. It's not hurting you at all to let those people like that thing. Why is this so hard for you? Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone might like something that you do not? Why do you have to try to ruin that thing for those people? Do you really think that even after you tell people all of the things that are terrible about something, if their opinion changes because of you, that they are better off? Now they just hate a thing that they used to enjoy. Congratulations. You have spread more negativity into the world.

The problem isn't that you have a different opinion than I do. There's a big difference in trying to convince someone to try something that they might enjoy if they give it a shot, and trying to convince someone that something they enjoy is bad so they won't enjoy it anymore.

People like you are the reason why America is a terrible place to live for anyone who isn't a white man. You have a complete inability to feel empathy for the views of another human being.

If you think that we're in any way alike in this regard. The problem here is not that I consider your opinion to be invalid, it's that you refuse to allow people to take joy in something.