83 réponses à ce sujet

[EmGo]

No.

[DESTRAUDO]

I made a strawman to show that turning something into a yo dawg makes it a strawman. The fact that you refer to both as strawmen shows this was a success. If the reaper yodawg can be referred to as a strawman then by definition it is flawed.

We can look back on the logic of the reapers and say it was flawed, but it was not, just like the use of the krogan it was the best solution at the time. We can look back and call it flawed because we can presume there was another option they did not take, like the option presented by the crucible. Except the solution offered by the crucible did not exist at the time, and took hundreds of millions of years to figure out.

If we did not know the background of the rachni war we could stand on a moral box and say  it was a flawed solution, we could ask why they could not just create a genophage for the rachni. However because of our knowledge of the situation we can excuse both the raising of a species to be nothing more than soldiers and the sterilisation of that race as the best solution available at the time. All i am asking is that the same logic be applied to the reapers.

Since the reapers were the solution used, the circumstances at the time made it so that they were the best solution.  Until the crucible was created and executed no better solutuon was available.     

 

LegendaryBlade wrote...

DESTRAUDO wrote...

I was not simplifying the rachni war to compare it to the reapers directly, i did it to show when you simplify a problem to the level of YO DAWG you are no longer looking at that problem, just a strawman of it.  

But your comparison failed, it simply didn't fit logically and didn't prove anything. You made a straw man to attack what you're claiming is a strawman argument, it's all sorts of backwards.

The extreme simplisation of the reaper logic fairly accurately sums up the problem, because it moves right to the point. That using the Reapers, regardless of what you consider them, to whipe out all evolved galactic life to save them from being whiped out is absolutely ridiculous. Obviously more detail is needed for the point to be fleshed out, but we're all AWARE of that detail. The summed up picture just represents.

Modifié par DESTRAUDO, 22 mars 2012 - 02:31 .

[Deucetipher]

The reason Yo Dawg is a strawman is because it misstates the Starchild's argument. Ludicrous or not (irrelevant for this point), the star child claims that without intervention, AIs would wipe out all organic life. The Reapers, on the other hand, wipe out only evolved species that are capable of creating AI to give less advanced species their moment in the sun. The reapers exist to save organic life in the general, not in the specific instance of individual species. Yo Dawg fails to capture this distinction.

Note that I am not advocating the merits of the aforementioned position, just noting a fallacy in the counterpoint.

[Sibbwolf]

Deucetipher, don't forget the Reapers controlling which route the organics' evolution takes.

[Deucetipher]

That's moving more toward the merits of the point, but I can engage there if you wish.
The answer to that point is that the Reapers, by controlling the technology used by the organic races, are effectively fighting the same foe every 50,000 years. Without this, it is possible that novel technologies could arise capable of defeating the Reapers. There is even a note in the codex explaining why the allied species can't simply ram the Reapers at FTL speeds that tends to support this. It explains that the technology was copied wholesale and the safety provisions are built in too deeply to remove. It goes further to state that "cynics believe" that this was intentionally done by the Reapers/progenitor race.

Modifié par Deucetipher, 22 mars 2012 - 02:58 .

[LegendaryBlade]

DESTRAUDO wrote...


I made a strawman to show that turning something into a yo dawg makes it a strawman. The fact that you refer to both as strawmen shows this was a success. If the reaper yodawg can be referred to as a strawman then by definition it is flawed.

We can look back on the logic of the reapers and say it was flawed, but it was not, just like the use of the krogan it was the best solution at the time. We can look back and call it flawed because we can presume there was another option they did not take, like the option presented by the crucible. Except the solution offered by the crucible did not exist at the time, and took hundreds of millions of years to figure out.

If we did not know the background of the rachni war we could stand on a moral box and say  it was a flawed solution, we could ask why they could not just create a genophage for the rachni. However because of our knowledge of the situation we can excuse both the raising of a species to be nothing more than soldiers and the sterilisation of that race as the best solution available at the time. All i am asking is that the same logic be applied to the reapers.

Since the reapers were the solution used, the circumstances at the time made it so that they were the best solution.  Until the crucible was created and executed no better solutuon was available.     

 

No, I mean, your entire argument was a strawman. You created something to tear it down and claim it discredits the other argument, and even then you failed because the YO DAWG you ultimately made still followed logical consistency, where as the Starchild does not. Neither in it's simplified joke form, or in it's most fleshed out form.

It would take a massive, flawed, leap of logic to conclude that the only way to stop Synthetics from destroying Organics was the cull the entirety of the galaxies advanced civilization every 50,000 years. Especially when, in all the cycles we know of, the synthetics were not presently a strong risk to the organics at the time that the reapers made their move. Infact, the only reason the Geth ever became a significant issue was because of reaper control.

The Genophage is almost non-comparable because the situation was entirely different. It reduces the Krogan birthrate, but it doesn't commit genocide. I would argue that it was wrong from a moral standpoint, but I would also argue that it the conclusion the Salarians came to made sense. "The Krogan are rebelling, we can't stop them but we don't want to commit genocide. Infect all Krogan with the Genophage".

[Baraan]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

AzaZeLgaming wrote...

Ah, the oversimplified solution for any hater who's gonna hate...Reapers are billions of organic minds uploaded into an organic/synthetic hybrid; they are not simply 'synthetics".

God I'm starting to see why the government treats people like idiots...

No not minds, just DNA. And thats why i think the picture is corrent in the end since the mind is what makes a person, not just some sample of their DNA. So they are killing everyone, they just preserve some DNA of the killed species for whatever reasons.

Modifié par Baraan, 22 mars 2012 - 06:51 .

[refuse81]

warchanter wrote...

 Things that made the ending noteworthy:

I particularly appreciated the lack of a final "big boss" battle. The developers decided to go with a cinematic end, and that was perfect. 30 minutes of interactive cinema. Mass Effect isn't just another game. The epilogue shows it.
As for the lack of a happy ending for Shepard, well, from the moment you talk to your long time friends and squadmates, in London, the feeling that Shepard isn't going to come back from its last mission is quite evident. You still hope he/she will, but that just makes the run to the final moments so intense.

What I would have hoped for was an extended sequence during the final sacrifice showing Shepard thinking and seeing the final moments of all your squadmates and known characters, leaving the LI as the last one, as a way for him to bid them goodbye. I would have also liked to see during the credits what were the consequences of all your decisions during the game, like what happens to geth and quarians if you made them live on the same planet, and what happens to the krogans now that they are cured from the genophage, etc.

I'm curious how the ritual character murder on Shepard gave you a warm fuzzy feeling. "Now make a choice between A. B. and C. that all defy what you have stood for since Eden Prime!"

[RedShft]

nomoredruggs wrote...

Sibbwolf wrote...

Taken in isolation, it was a good ending. Put into the context of the Mass effect series, however, it is very detached and raises/leaves too many questions.

Pretty much.

Taken in isolation it makes even less sense.

[Christianswe]

Sorry. I didn´t The ME series is great! Wonderful! ME3 is a solid, great game. A wonderful experience, i don´t think people out the have forgotten that. But all that game time, and it comes down to....
Blue? Red or Green?? Favorite colour??

[sadako]

warchanter wrote...

Furluge wrote...

I like how you say you liked the ending, then complain about the same things a lot of people complain about the ending.

Right, I'll reword: I don't complain. I would have liked "more time" with the characters I loved, true, but I understand why the ending gives you no clues on many things. In that way, I can decide for myself how the universe my Shepard helped shape is going to evolve and what the characters I liked most will live from then on. Not everything should be explained. I respect that decision.

Anyway, back on track: anyone else liked the ending as it is now?

Well, you have one thing right, some of the things are better being left unexplained, I wonder why they even bothered explaining the mystery of the reapers? "We are infinitely your superior" That was good enough.

And the recycled FMV ending for all three choices? Seriously that doesn't smell like rush/lazy/cop-out to you?

[TheKingofRedLions]

Unfotunately I didn't see my LI, I saw Liara like everyone else did.

[Thorn Harvestar]

I was stomaching it until the Normandy scene. Then I just lost it.

[MattFini]

shinobi602 wrote...

I despised it with all my heart.

It gave me no answers, the plotholes were outrageous, and left me speechless trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

My Shepard would have never accepted the 3 fates given before him. He never would have succumbed right away to that damn...thing.

This.  One of the worst moments in gaming history.  This will be an infamous mistake. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

First there is numbness.

Then there is searching for a reason to like it.

Then there is exploring all the options from your last save game just before the section where you fire the rockets (last place you can do a save). It is here all the plot holes expose themselves.

Then there is a feeling of emptiness.

Then there is anger of having 9 100% playthroughs of ME1 and ME2 waiting to go through ME3 with different classes and one perfect paragon and one perfect assh*** Shepard. All for this ending where no matter which one you choose, Shepard dies, all the mass relays explode, but in two of them the reapers are not destroyed and in all of them you commit genocide. By the way I chose Red my first time, just because Irina Shepard always completes her mission. After doing Blue and Green to see what they were, I did Red again just because it killed the little starf**k.

Now you start liking the ending about as much as an Asari likes fin rot.

And now you demand a better and epic ending that the game deserves.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 22 mars 2012 - 07:16 .

[marmot 1333]

I thought the ending was touching. It seemed clear to me throughout the entire ME3 storyline that people were going to die, and they weren't coming back this time.

Bioware has stated that your choices will affect the ending. Your choices in the previous game most definitely change the dialogue and gameplay in ME3, so maybe it would help if you thought of the entire game as "the ending" and not just the last few minutes.

But as for the ending-ending: There is enough confusion thrown in for it to be interesting and give rise to the "Indoctrination Theory" which, if you pause to think about it, makes a lot of sense. Shepard was brought back to life by TIM who ended up being indoctrinated. What if Shepard had been indoctrinated since the beginning on ME2, she was just fighting it?

Contrary to what people seem to think, sometimes writers leave endings ambiguous on purpose. It often leads to much more discussion of the work of fiction. There have been a lot of books, movies, shows, and games that have had ambiguous & divisive endings. LOST or Battlestar Gallactica, for example.

Despite what people are actually saying, most of the complaints seems to be A) Shepard dies and issues were addressed in non-direct ways (using symbology, ambiguity, etc).

Keep an open mind, play through the ends, try to think through the issue yourself instead of relying on the "internet echo chamber" to make up your mind for you.

[Gruzmog]

If you had done a search...

[demin8891]

What endings? Did your disc come with an ending? I'll buy it off you for $300. I know my copy didn't come with an ending, just some phoned-in crap with a star child.

[warchanter]

marmot 1333 wrote...
Keep an open mind, play through the ends, try to think through the issue yourself instead of relying on the "internet echo chamber" to make up your mind for you.

Well said. I'll add that if Shepard (as in my case) sacrificed himself to control the reapers, he could easily force them to destroy each other after stealing their technology to recreate the mass relays. Thus leading to the new chapter of Mass Effect.
I agree about the  ending being touching, especially when Shep and Anderson sit watching the battle on the Citadel.

Modifié par warchanter, 23 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[Torrible]

marmot 1333 wrote...

I thought the ending was touching. It seemed clear to me throughout the entire ME3 storyline that people were going to die, and they weren't coming back this time.

Bioware has stated that your choices will affect the ending. Your choices in the previous game most definitely change the dialogue and gameplay in ME3, so maybe it would help if you thought of the entire game as "the ending" and not just the last few minutes.

But as for the ending-ending: There is enough confusion thrown in for it to be interesting and give rise to the "Indoctrination Theory" which, if you pause to think about it, makes a lot of sense. Shepard was brought back to life by TIM who ended up being indoctrinated. What if Shepard had been indoctrinated since the beginning on ME2, she was just fighting it?

Contrary to what people seem to think, sometimes writers leave endings ambiguous on purpose. It often leads to much more discussion of the work of fiction. There have been a lot of books, movies, shows, and games that have had ambiguous & divisive endings. LOST or Battlestar Gallactica, for example.

Despite what people are actually saying, most of the complaints seems to be A) Shepard dies and issues were addressed in non-direct ways (using symbology, ambiguity, etc).

Keep an open mind, play through the ends, try to think through the issue yourself instead of relying on the "internet echo chamber" to make up your mind for you.

Can't be stated often enough. I also want to point out that the whole "everything I did in the 3 games was for nothing" reasoning is flawed. The aim is always to destroy the reapers and you do just that with the 'Destroy' option. There is always going to be sacrifices. Everyone with the Normandy knew what was at stake.

P.s The game's tagline: "Take Back Earth". I took back the Galaxy instead. They lied. I want my money back.

Modifié par Torrible, 23 mars 2012 - 03:17 .

[Purple People Eater]

I was ok with everything up until the Normandy crashed, and then Ashley and Garrus who were with me in London just sort of popped out of nowhere on some jungle planet. Thats when the major WTF? hit me. The credits rolling right after that sort of added to the WTF?. Then the stargazer scene compiled my WTF? into an enormous WTF?

Modifié par Purple People Eater, 23 mars 2012 - 03:15 .

[Stealthy Cake]

Actually, its ending(g) in singular. The fate of big ben and your favorite colour does not make it multiple ending(s). :DDDD

[refuse81]

Torrible wrote...
P.s The game's tagline: "Take Back Earth". I took back the Galaxy instead. They lied. I want my money back.

You took it back all right. To the dark ages.

Modifié par refuse81, 23 mars 2012 - 10:56 .

[Arik7]

The only way to pro-enders to gain any attention is to keep starting a new thread per person.....   Otherwise they get overwhelmed by those who disagree.

Modifié par Arik7, 23 mars 2012 - 11:02 .

[Wentletrap]

Karrie788 wrote...

I hate the last ten minutes of the game with a burning passion. The last screen prompting to buy DLC made me want to kick puppies.