274 réponses à ce sujet

[HenchxNarf]

sistersafetypin wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

You're right everyone: Re- obvious trolls are obvious. Sorry.

lol technical issues!

I deleted my post. Not because I don't stand by my opinion of you and that other guy. I still think he was trolling, and I think the fact that you find the movement "ridiculous" is coloring every interaction you have with anyone in it. You'll notice, in my original comment to you I didn't call you a troll. In fact, I didn't call you troll at all.[Yes I did, after you explained, "Adults don't get upset about video games"] I was talking to other guy. When I quoted your comment with his and said "This proves my point" I was talking about my post to you that is still there on either page 6 or 7. But have a nice day. That you even responded with.. "lol, technical issues!" speaks volumes about you. I clearly misjudged your ability to be rational while disagreeing. 

Respond to this if you wish. I wont respond back here. If you want to know what I said previously, I'll pm you. If not, awesome. Don't feel like explaining to someone who wont respect my opinion anyway.

I was actually being nice. That I understood that you were having issues on who to quote and such. But w/e.

[CaptainJaques]

 THIS is how you were misled

[Lugaidster]

Valo_Soren wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

The Reapers do not think of their indoctrination techniques as a shadowy way to prepare the organic races for the next cycle, they see it as a means to an end, a necessity, they don't give two craps about the morality of it or whether or not it seems shady, they've done it for millions of years every 50,000 years, they see it as organic life not having any other choice. What organic species see as a War the reapers see as a definite forgone conclusion, so having said that there is no reason to think a Reaper has any reason to lie because they believe they are right so blindly they can't see beyond their own scope of the millions of years repeating cycle. Their one fatal flaw, if any flaw, is hubris. 

 

Reaper motives, if anything, have never been clear. Just because one of them suddenly tells you it doesn't mean that they can be trusted. If they have any self-preservation instinct they could lie just to keep you away from destruction. If the indoctrination is true (which I'm not saying it is) then the choices didn't really matter, and you were being lied to.

If you're ok with assuming they are being truthful, that's fine by me. But it's in no logical way the only possible outcome given context.

Valo_Soren wrote... 

Shepard earns the right to choose, he defeated Sovereign, he defeated the Collectors, I'm pretty sure the Catalyst knows of the actions and the defeat of two more reapers throught Mass Effect 3's campaign, if any organic has the right to make the choice above the Reapers themselves, it's him. I would even call this the Reapers doing him a favor in this regard, 'alright, you've proven you can bind the galaxy against us and you've built the crucible, now we have no choice but to let you choose your fate, your way to end this cycle of destruction by giving us a new solution'. So in the name of peace, in the name of freedom for the galaxy, Shepard makes his/her choice.
 

 

That only answers part of the question. The reason why the reapers would give him those choices (if they are to be trusted, which I don't still think that's a given). It doesn't explain why would Shepard take them. If it's just for the sake of survival, then he's not really a hero. I'm going to quote him on this one: "I'm going to save the galaxy without sacrificing the soul of our species." There's a break of that promise in every choice he takes, a break of character, a very strongwilled character. If anything, ensuring that the next cycle can defeat the reapers without having to comply to this absurd choices would be a less selfish choice in the long run and equally fitting given the circumstances.

Valo_Soren wrote...  

And that is just it, they don't lead him to what they think is most right, they give him three options, if they did force it they would just indoctrinate him and convince him of what choice they think he should make and stop him, but in all essence he proved himself to them, he/she showed them that organics are not just beings they can push around anymore. It was more of a wake up call by the reapers 'hmm we need to rethink our strategy' and less of 'oh those annoying flies, oh well lets give them some choice and make it sound good'. No, I see no reason stll for the Reapers to lie, they have no reason to.

-"they would just indoctrinate him and convince him" You don't really know if that's the case. 

-"but in all essence he proved himself to them" So what, a more fitting enemy is still an enemy. All the more satisfaction to kill him. The motivations for the reapers were never really clear and if you take Sovereigns word as truth, the catalyst could just be playing you.

-"he/she showed them that organics are not just beings they can push around anymore" If that's really true, then the combined galactic power should be enough to beat them, but it isn't. The choices at the end are given to you by a previously unreliable and insidious character. If this really was a true situation, the catalust has way more power given the circumstances than shepard. He is the one giving you the choices, even if you're the one that has the weapon.

I'm not saying that your position is fallacy, but it's not a tautology either. The closest analogy I can think of is like you came with a "be all end all weapon" to kill the ****s in WWII and then you went to ask them how to use it. Why wouldn't they lied, because you proved you aren't that inferior?

Sentient machines have many purposes and motivations, I don't the reapers being blatant about them makes them any less or more intelligent. Nor do I think that being less or more intelligent makes them prone to be more or less blatant about it.

All of this is really up to everyones interpretation which I believe was Bioware's point with the ending anyway, to leave it open ended, to encourage friendly discussions like the one you and I are having. I honestly don't believe theres any right or wrong answers here, your interpretation seems to me as interesting as my own. I honestly can't give you a full logical explanation until Bioware fully explains it myself, I only can read what we've been given in the three games and some of the comics and novels I've read, put it all together and try to have it make sense the best I can. To me it makes sense, but understandably it doesn't to everyone and its not that 'you don't get it' because if I said that, which admittedly I've been guilty of and apologize for, then that would just be a cop out, the correct thing is that we each person sees the ending in a different way, and while I doubt Bioware was expecting all the backlash they are getting I think they did succeed in opening up these interpretive discussions.

Cool, I concur. I just wish the execution was better. This discussions could've still be had while giving immediate emotional closure and resolution. The implications for the choices would've still be open to interpretation.

[Makatak]

To the OP, yes, and I'll keep it brief.

ME1 and ME2 (although to a lesser extent) felt like a space opera. Exploring the unknown (even visiting "uncharted" worlds twice over both games), making discoveries, FTL travel. Romance, drama, explosions.

/popcorn.

ME3 wasn't a space opera. It was an attempt to get the atmosphere darker and more gritty. Frankly, I preferred the space opera. But that's just my personal preference, and I understand some feel that the ending was "realistic" and "gritty."

Though for those that say it was "realistic," I wonder how they managed to get the suspension of disbelief that high when the Reapers first appeared...

*boggle*

[AtreiyaN7]

HenchxNarf wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

The way I see it, a paragon will stick to his principles, with that said, he breaks them with every choice. So there's no clear paragon choice for me. Just as I don't see a clear renegade. Which really bothers me because they gave them the colors. To assume that's just a design oversight is silly IMO, attention to details is really important throughout the series, so the colors have to be intentional (Making me hate the endings even more). 

In my opinion, the endings aren't supposed to be clear-cut renegade or clear-cut paragon decisions. I think you're ultimately supposed to choose based on your (presumably) complex set of beliefs, rather than reying on something easy like an actual red dialogue option or an actual blue option on the dialogue wheel. My only principles as a paragon are to try to do what I think is right, to help the most people I can, and to try to make the galaxy a better place if at all possible. For me, the ending that I chose didn't even remotely violate my principles, and that choice was based on my personal beliefs about synthetic and organic life.

Exactly.

And sometimes the bad option is the best option. Even the hero has to make hard choices and people sometimes have to die.

I like you.

Right back at you.

[sistersafetypin]

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

You're right everyone: Re- obvious trolls are obvious. Sorry.

lol technical issues!

I deleted my post. Not because I don't stand by my opinion of you and that other guy. I still think he was trolling, and I think the fact that you find the movement "ridiculous" is coloring every interaction you have with anyone in it. You'll notice, in my original comment to you I didn't call you a troll. In fact, I didn't call you troll at all.[Yes I did, after you explained, "Adults don't get upset about video games"] I was talking to other guy. When I quoted your comment with his and said "This proves my point" I was talking about my post to you that is still there on either page 6 or 7. But have a nice day. That you even responded with.. "lol, technical issues!" speaks volumes about you. I clearly misjudged your ability to be rational while disagreeing. 

Respond to this if you wish. I wont respond back here. If you want to know what I said previously, I'll pm you. If not, awesome. Don't feel like explaining to someone who wont respect my opinion anyway.

I was actually being nice. That I understood that you were having issues on who to quote and such. But w/e.

I see. Well then I apologize. I didn't expect anything but sarcasm. And when relying on text, it's hard to tell from a sentance like that. 

[az350z]

sistersafetypin wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

You're right everyone: Re- obvious trolls are obvious. Sorry.

lol technical issues!

I deleted my post. Not because I don't stand by my opinion of you and that other guy. I still think he was trolling, and I think the fact that you find the movement "ridiculous" is coloring every interaction you have with anyone in it. You'll notice, in my original comment to you I didn't call you a troll. In fact, I didn't call you troll at all.[Yes I did, after you explained, "Adults don't get upset about video games"] I was talking to other guy. When I quoted your comment with his and said "This proves my point" I was talking about my post to you that is still there on either page 6 or 7. But have a nice day. That you even responded with.. "lol, technical issues!" speaks volumes about you. I clearly misjudged your ability to be rational while disagreeing. 

Respond to this if you wish. I wont respond back here. If you want to know what I said previously, I'll pm you. If not, awesome. Don't feel like explaining to someone who wont respect my opinion anyway.

Ok, then let "the other guy" come back to tell you you are wrong. Who says stuff like "obvious troll is obvious" anyway? The people I'm talking about, self-entitled children like you.

I don't scream until I get what I want. Unfortunately, that's society these days.

Modifié par az350z, 20 mars 2012 - 07:54 .

[babachewie]

Cyruge wrote...

One thing I can't understand is why the hell was Joker fleeing? Can anyone of you who liked the ending explain how that act is justified?

....because there was a giant shockwave headed his way. There is such a thing in the military called a tactical retreat

[HenchxNarf]

babachewie wrote...

Cyruge wrote...

One thing I can't understand is why the hell was Joker fleeing? Can anyone of you who liked the ending explain how that act is justified?

....because there was a giant shockwave headed his way. There is such a thing in the military called a tactical retreat

I was about to say this.

He was probably wanting to save who he could by running.

[Valo_Soren]

Lugaidster wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

The Reapers do not think of their indoctrination techniques as a shadowy way to prepare the organic races for the next cycle, they see it as a means to an end, a necessity, they don't give two craps about the morality of it or whether or not it seems shady, they've done it for millions of years every 50,000 years, they see it as organic life not having any other choice. What organic species see as a War the reapers see as a definite forgone conclusion, so having said that there is no reason to think a Reaper has any reason to lie because they believe they are right so blindly they can't see beyond their own scope of the millions of years repeating cycle. Their one fatal flaw, if any flaw, is hubris. 

 

Reaper motives, if anything, have never been clear. Just because one of them suddenly tells you it doesn't mean that they can be trusted. If they have any self-preservation instinct they could lie just to keep you away from destruction. If the indoctrination is true (which I'm not saying it is) then the choices didn't really matter, and you were being lied to.

If you're ok with assuming they are being truthful, that's fine by me. But it's in no logical way the only possible outcome given context.

Valo_Soren wrote... 

Shepard earns the right to choose, he defeated Sovereign, he defeated the Collectors, I'm pretty sure the Catalyst knows of the actions and the defeat of two more reapers throught Mass Effect 3's campaign, if any organic has the right to make the choice above the Reapers themselves, it's him. I would even call this the Reapers doing him a favor in this regard, 'alright, you've proven you can bind the galaxy against us and you've built the crucible, now we have no choice but to let you choose your fate, your way to end this cycle of destruction by giving us a new solution'. So in the name of peace, in the name of freedom for the galaxy, Shepard makes his/her choice.
 

 

That only answers part of the question. The reason why the reapers would give him those choices (if they are to be trusted, which I don't still think that's a given). It doesn't explain why would Shepard take them. If it's just for the sake of survival, then he's not really a hero. I'm going to quote him on this one: "I'm going to save the galaxy without sacrificing the soul of our species." There's a break of that promise in every choice he takes, a break of character, a very strongwilled character. If anything, ensuring that the next cycle can defeat the reapers without having to comply to this absurd choices would be a less selfish choice in the long run and equally fitting given the circumstances.

Valo_Soren wrote...  

And that is just it, they don't lead him to what they think is most right, they give him three options, if they did force it they would just indoctrinate him and convince him of what choice they think he should make and stop him, but in all essence he proved himself to them, he/she showed them that organics are not just beings they can push around anymore. It was more of a wake up call by the reapers 'hmm we need to rethink our strategy' and less of 'oh those annoying flies, oh well lets give them some choice and make it sound good'. No, I see no reason stll for the Reapers to lie, they have no reason to.

-"they would just indoctrinate him and convince him" You don't really know if that's the case. 

-"but in all essence he proved himself to them" So what, a more fitting enemy is still an enemy. All the more satisfaction to kill him. The motivations for the reapers were never really clear and if you take Sovereigns word as truth, the catalyst could just be playing you.

-"he/she showed them that organics are not just beings they can push around anymore" If that's really true, then the combined galactic power should be enough to beat them, but it isn't. The choices at the end are given to you by a previously unreliable and insidious character. If this really was a true situation, the catalust has way more power given the circumstances than shepard. He is the one giving you the choices, even if you're the one that has the weapon.

I'm not saying that your position is fallacy, but it's not a tautology either. The closest analogy I can think of is like you came with a "be all end all weapon" to kill the ****s in WWII and then you went to ask them how to use it. Why wouldn't they lied, because you proved you aren't that inferior?

Sentient machines have many purposes and motivations, I don't the reapers being blatant about them makes them any less or more intelligent. Nor do I think that being less or more intelligent makes them prone to be more or less blatant about it.

All of this is really up to everyones interpretation which I believe was Bioware's point with the ending anyway, to leave it open ended, to encourage friendly discussions like the one you and I are having. I honestly don't believe theres any right or wrong answers here, your interpretation seems to me as interesting as my own. I honestly can't give you a full logical explanation until Bioware fully explains it myself, I only can read what we've been given in the three games and some of the comics and novels I've read, put it all together and try to have it make sense the best I can. To me it makes sense, but understandably it doesn't to everyone and its not that 'you don't get it' because if I said that, which admittedly I've been guilty of and apologize for, then that would just be a cop out, the correct thing is that we each person sees the ending in a different way, and while I doubt Bioware was expecting all the backlash they are getting I think they did succeed in opening up these interpretive discussions.

Cool, I concur. I just wish the execution was better. This discussions could've still be had while giving immediate emotional closure and resolution. The implications for the choices would've still be open to interpretation.

-hugs-

While I like the endings, there is such thing as being too vague in this case, Bioware is suffering a bit from that I'll admit, while I don't think they should 'change' the ending, I would like to see some explanation beyond the Catalyst's vague answers.

[Faerillis]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

2. I said that wrong, I meant 400 or 300 years with AI. You have a point, but again, we cannot know the future, while the God Child MAY.

And MAY is all that is necessary. It's called reasonable doubt.

3. I'm not sure what you're saying here. The Mass Relays are not necessary for survival, outside of perhaps each species returning to its home planets.

Again, the moment you start putting words in someone's mouth, you lose your credibility. Remember that.

2. Would I subject myself to a barren life, with none of the things that made me who I am besides the breath in my chest, because it was demanded of me by something that might know the future, something which could maybe know what was in store for me? Not a chance. I will stand for what I love and shoulder the burdens, and should they weigh so much that it kills me, I can say that I did everything in my power.

3. What I'm saying is this:
A. In an abstract sense they are, many necessities are shipped all across the galaxy which is no longer possible. Not to mention the limits of food production on Earth causing all the citizens of Earth and the entire fleet to starve.
and B. There is a hell of a lot more to life than surviving, a sentiment echoed by most people throughout all civilizations ever. Some things out weigh life, and Galactic Civilization, and the ability for survivors to return to those they love, are amongst them. I quoted Churchill because that speech is about fighting a war that had true meaning and how everyone that oppossed the ****s would stand, fight, and die rather than live with what they wrought.

Also a clarification:
On the whole Mass Effect 3 was still great, and the Mass Effect series may be the deepest thing to have come from Video Games yet. Bioware still has my support, despite my disagreement with their decisions here and on the combat of DA2. I rage against these endings, but I do not do so petulantly.

Modifié par Faerillis, 20 mars 2012 - 07:58 .

[HenchxNarf]

@Valo - Hudson is supposed to explain the endings toward the end of the month.

[loboME2]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Faerillis wrote...

People are fighting because their civilizations are worth fighting for, because they have people they love. Tell me, if the Germans in WWII could only have been stopped by blowing up the planet, stranding small pockets of people on land that can only produce so much and undoubtedly cause them all to starve, would that have been more worthwhile than fighting until the last breath, of the last man who opposed them, was spent.

Well here is a quote from someone who clearly thought that there was more to living than surviving alone.
"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight
on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and
growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the
cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the
landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we
shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

Yes, well Winston Churchill wasn't facing total annihilation of all organic life, was he? It was a speech given during a war that could be won (and was won) through conventional means. That being said, I do think you should have an option to try to fight a conventional war with the Reapers if you want, so long as you don't mind gambling with every life in the galaxy and possibly losing. I have no problem with the idea of it since we each gambled with the existing choices that we made anyway.

You seemed to really be hung up on the idea of the fleet dying of starvation, etc. in that other post. I still think it's entirely possible that the quarians could share their knowledge and experience with their liveships to help others stuck in the Sol system. Furthermore, everyone in the fleet was willing to give their lives so that their respective races could live; if they somehow end up dying of starvation, it's a sacrifice that I believe they were willing to make. As long as the people on their home worlds and their colony worlds survive, that's what matters the most in my opinion.

Also, the mass relays have always been a crutch and a trap in my opinion. They were never "our" technology in the first place. While it sucks that the convenience of them being around is gone, I think that galactic civilization can recover in time. It's not as if all knowledge in the galaxy vanished and suddenly went poof just because the relays are gone. I have no doubt that things won't be easy, but the protheans did come close to creating their own relays. I think that someone could do it again eventually (even if it's a while in coming).

I just want to point out that it is easier to die in glory fighting a war, than it is to die of starvation. You can psyche pple up for the former, but it is going to be hard to maintain the willingness to sacrifice over the LONG time it takes to eventually starve to death. pple are going to start hoarding what food they have, and then they will fight and die over it. It's like Luke defeating the Emperor Palpatine, only to become the next Emperor.

[Atarixx]

I've played ME from the very beginning, and I think this ending suited Shepard perfectly. Shepard constantly had to make agonizing and often damning decisions, and it was inevitable that it all lead to a single pinnacle, especially considering that everything that existed was controlled by the reapers in the large scheme of things. Remember what the Drell's brother said about redemption? All the choices Shepard made were necessary, but some ended entire species, and although the decisions were justified, Shepard still needed a way to completely bring justice and restore order. Or Shepard just wanted to quit while he was ahead, and you can't get more ahead than that.

[HenchxNarf]

Atarixx wrote...

I've played ME from the very beginning, and I think this ending suited Shepard perfectly. Shepard constantly had to make agonizing and often damning decisions, and it was inevitable that it all lead to a single pinnacle, especially considering that everything that existed was controlled by the reapers in the large scheme of things. Remember what the Drell's brother said about redemption? All the choices Shepard made were necessary, but some ended entire species, and although the decisions were justified, Shepard still needed a way to completely bring justice and restore order. Or Shepard just wanted to quit while he was ahead, and you can't get more ahead than that.

Well said.

[AtreiyaN7]

Lugaidster wrote...

Why give them colors then?

To give people the visual cues that some of them seem to need in order to confirm that their decisions were the right one for them? Beats me. This does remind me of how the sun changes colors at the end of ME2 based on your choice to destroy the Collector Base or to keep it - heh.

[Lugaidster]

Valo_Soren wrote...

-hugs-

While I like the endings, there is such thing as being too vague in this case, Bioware is suffering a bit from that I'll admit, while I don't think they should 'change' the ending, I would like to see some explanation beyond the Catalyst's vague answers.

That's really the thing with me. Maybe I'm too videogamey, I don't know. I enjoy philosophical endings and stuff, but philosophy wasn't really the reason I played Mass Effect. Maybe I'm being overly dramatic but I really bothered me that the end oversimplified (to me) the whole purpose of the trilogy to just "fight the reapers". I don't really mind the bittersweet aspect even if I'm not particularly fond of the choices available, the thing is that the emotional investment didn't pay off. I was partly angry because now I just can't bother to play any game in the saga. Don't get me wrong, the journey was amazing, but without any real payoff to it, it feels empty. That's just a personal opinion though.

Although I support the movement, I don't really want them to change the ending as much as "finish" it by giving emotional resolution. Blatantly changing the ending, to me, would be pointless and stupid (But that's just my opinion, not making judgements on anyone here, it's not personal).

On a more superficial perspective, I would've loved to see the galactic war assets play out during the cutscenes. But that's just because I'm a sucker for galactic conflicts of epic proportions and feel they missed an opportunity there.

Anyway, here's to hoping upcoming dlc is satisfying.

[AtreiyaN7]

loboME2 wrote...

I just want to point out that it is easier to die in glory fighting a war, than it is to die of starvation. You can psyche pple up for the former, but it is going to be hard to maintain the willingness to sacrifice over the LONG time it takes to eventually starve to death. pple are going to start hoarding what food they have, and then they will fight and die over it. It's like Luke defeating the Emperor Palpatine, only to become the next Emperor.

Of course it's easier to die bravely in a battle. No one said it would be easy or that there wouldn't be privations and difficulties. I still think the quarians' expertise will be valuable, along with the resources of the Sol system. It's not unreasonable to think that we can set up hydroponic systems, some sort of aquaculture, etc. Eating algae cakes might not be fun, but it's something that might be doable. One can only make conjectures about what might happen to the fleet after the relays are destroyed. They could starve or they could make do with existing resources by being careful and adapting quarian technology to their ships. No matter what happens to them, their people will go on, and I kind of don't really think the Star Wars analogy of Luke turning into Palpatine quite fits, heh.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 20 mars 2012 - 08:10 .

[Lugaidster]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Why give them colors then?

To give people the visual cues that some of them seem to need in order to confirm that their decisions were the right one for them? Beats me. This does remind me of how the sun changes colors at the end of ME2 based on your choice to destroy the Collector Base or to keep it - heh.

Visual queues are ok if the choices have clear moral distinctions. I just think it defeats the purpose here given that they wanted to encourage speculation. With no clear cut answer to the moral question of each choice, giving it a color, IMO, was a bad call.

[Lugaidster]

For those of you looking for some closure and a few laughs, watch this:

[AtreiyaN7]

babachewie wrote...

Cyruge wrote...

One thing I can't understand is why the hell was Joker fleeing? Can anyone of you who liked the ending explain how that act is justified?

....because there was a giant shockwave headed his way. There is such a thing in the military called a tactical retreat

I've posited about this elsewhere. After Joker has his conversation with Shepard in which he expresses his feelings of guilt over Shepard's death, I think that he's learned something valuable from that experience. The lesson is that you don't stick around in a seemingly hopeless situation and get everyone else killed because you're being selfish and can't let go of something/someone. I think Joker may have started to get strange readings from the relays that might have resembled what happened with the Alpha Relay and decided that he should at least try to get somewhere safe and save as many people as he could (only the relay explosions turned out to to NOT be catastrophic like the Alpha Relay incident).

[Lugaidster]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I've posited about this elsewhere. After Joker has his conversation with Shepard in which he expresses his feelings of guilt over Shepard's death, I think that he's learned something valuable from that experience. The lesson is that you don't stick around in a seemingly hopeless situation and get everyone else killed because you're being selfish and can't let go of something/someone. I think Joker may have started to get strange readings from the relays that might have resembled what happened with the Alpha Relay and decided that he should at least try to get somewhere safe and save as many people as he could (only the relay explosions turned out to to NOT be catastrophic like the Alpha Relay incident).

Whoa!  I'm not going to say you're wrong, but there's enough assumptions in that post to make an asari question her gender, if that's even possible. One has to really work hard at it to believe what you said is possible.

But again, who am I to question it.

[AtreiyaN7]

Lugaidster wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Why give them colors then?

To give people the visual cues that some of them seem to need in order to confirm that their decisions were the right one for them? Beats me. This does remind me of how the sun changes colors at the end of ME2 based on your choice to destroy the Collector Base or to keep it - heh.

Visual queues are ok if the choices have clear moral distinctions. I just think it defeats the purpose here given that they wanted to encourage speculation. With no clear cut answer to the moral question of each choice, giving it a color, IMO, was a bad call.

As I said, I think some people just need that confirmation - that could be why it was done. Even with the colors there, why does it really even matter? You should have confidence in your choice being right for you (inasmuch as you can, given the options) no matter what the meaning the color hypothetically denotes.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 20 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[Faerillis]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Faerillis wrote...

2. Would I subject myself to a barren life, with none of the things that made me who I am besides the breath in my chest, because it was demanded of me by something that might know the future, something which could maybe know what was in store for me? Not a chance. I will stand for what I love and shoulder the burdens, and should they weigh so much that it kills me, I can say that I did everything in my power.

3. What I'm saying is this:
A. In an abstract sense they are, many necessities are shipped all across the galaxy which is no longer possible. Not to mention the limits of food production on Earth causing all the citizens of Earth and the entire fleet to starve.
and B. There is a hell of a lot more to life than surviving, a sentiment echoed by most people throughout all civilizations ever. Some things out weigh life, and Galactic Civilization, and the ability for survivors to return to those they love, are amongst them. I quoted Churchill because that speech is about fighting a war that had true meaning and how everyone that oppossed the ****s would stand, fight, and die rather than live with what they wrought.

Also a clarification:
On the whole Mass Effect 3 was still great, and the Mass Effect series may be the deepest thing to have come from Video Games yet. Bioware still has my support, despite my disagreement with their decisions here and on the combat of DA2. I rage against these endings, but I do not do so petulantly.

2. It's really hard to have rational discussion when most of what you say is incredibly emotional and non-logical (Note: non-logical =/= illogical). Seriously, "a barren life" "none of the things that made me who I am" and "I will stand for what I love" are so...touchy-feely (that isn't an insult, it's a description) it's impossible to argue a point there.

3. Some things outweigh life? To a degree. but not in the sense that you would sacrifice all life in the galaxy over it, hopefully.

"would stand, fight, and die rather than live with what they wrought."

This is exasperating. What does that even mean? What did the allies "wrought" (I know the tense is wrong) that was so wrong? There wasn't anything. They were standing, fighting, and dying against an enemy force, not some part of themselves.

I understand that you liked the rest of it. I appreciate you saying that, because many won't admit it.


I have to go to bed, and I suppose this is as good a time as any, since we're getting nowhere. As I said, it's difficult to have a discussion when most of what you see is purely emotional and subjective.

Good night all.

I know you probably won't get a chance to read this since you're going to bed but I do have an argument for these.

2. Yes they are touchy feely. Whenever Bioware, and only Bioware, makes an RPG I treat my first character as myself and try to treat all the decisions as real. That means investing myself and my morals into it, and frankly that is where I stand. I'd rather fight for a chance to allow these things to persist, accepting the possibility of utter loss, than to sacrifice those things and be guaranteed to survive. I understand not every possibility can be catered to, but I doubt this is one that is so rare that they should leave it out.

3. Ok my grammar was garbled in there and I wanted to avoid using the term '****s' in that comparison too many times; it's easy to see a **** comparison as overblown, and using the term every other word is more likely to make your comparison seem overblown. That said, what I meant for it to convey was what the ****s wrought, not the Allies.

As for all life in the Galaxy; well for one the Reapers leave many species alive. And as for all advanced race... well my earlier statements remain resolute; if I'm the one who decides whether we all fight until our last breaths, or if we sacrifice all that would be sacrificed in the 3 Endings*, I'm always going to choose to fight.

* - Hopefully this way of saying what I've been repeating is a bit more rational/less emotion