305 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Quarian ships grow enough food for Quarians.

They left their civilians back on Rannoch, remember? The ships aren't nearly as crowded anymore. Plenty of room to take on the excess Turians.

And for the sake of argument - even if you're right and every Turian and Quarian in Sol DIES - there's still millions if not billions back on Palaven/Rannoch. Shockingly enough, the galaxy does not implode.

KingNothing125 wrote...
My point is, just because Jessica papers over a logistical problem doesn't fix the problem. It's a bit like a mother telling her kids the story of Humpty-Dumpty, only to reassure them at the end that, hey, it's OK, they totally put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. Don't cry.

You're right, we should all take to the streets with gloom and doom and burn down everything instead. That's much more productive than, you know, listening to the Community Manager when she speaks to the community.

I really have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here beyond baseless trolling. You have a question, the devs answer it, you stick fingers in ears and sing then claim nothing was addressed. It's childish and pointless.

If her word isn't enough for you, wait until summer then.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 06 avril 2012 - 06:45 .

[LightweightJustice]

Optimystic_X wrote...


And again I ask - if you distrust the devs so much, why are you on their forums? If everything they do is lie, you are either a fool or a troll for staying here and continuing to shout your distrust from the rooftops.

She is not a dev, she is a community manager (pr=public relations).
Just saying.

[PsyrenY]

LightweightJustice wrote...

She is not a dev, she is a community manager (pr=public relations).
Just saying.

Which makes her a liaison between the devs and us.
And she has seen the revised endings.
Just saying.

[saracen16]

LightweightJustice wrote...

Seriously.
Just explain it to me.
What is wrong with happy endings?
Is it SO bad to have one?
Is it so cool to dwell in darkness, tears, realism and despair? Is it so cool to watch someone die?
I’m not trying to whine here, I just want some logic. Not just “it’s manlier” or “too mainstream to have good ending”. And please don’t get me wrong. I like bittersweet endings…when they are destined to happen. In ME where “your choices matter”, I would like to HAVE A CHOICE TO CHOOSE.
And what exactly do people want these days? Do they want to smile or do they want to cry?

Face it, kiddo: you never really had a choice. BioWare did. You just chose which version of their story should be played.

[Erixxxx]

I don't mind happy endings, but for a trilogy like this I really don't see it happening. The galaxy is absolutely ravaged by the Reapers. Billions and billions of people are dead. That is not the setup for a happy ending in the traditional style.

[ImmovableMover]

"Want" is different to "Need"

I would like a happy ending, but I certainly don't need one for me to consider it "Satisfying".

[LightweightJustice]

Optimystic_X wrote...

LightweightJustice wrote...

She is not a dev, she is a community manager (pr=public relations).
Just saying.

Which makes her a liaison between the devs and us.
And she has seen the revised endings.
Just saying.

She has seen them...and?
What normal information does it gives? More "try-to-guess" tweets?
 Still you gave me  quite an amount of good info...which I missed for some reason.
But still, untill summer DLC nothing will be clear for 100$ there will be only speculation and tweets.

Modifié par LightweightJustice, 06 avril 2012 - 06:51 .

[LightweightJustice]

saracen16 wrote...

LightweightJustice wrote...

Seriously.
Just explain it to me.
What is wrong with happy endings?
Is it SO bad to have one?
Is it so cool to dwell in darkness, tears, realism and despair? Is it so cool to watch someone die?
I’m not trying to whine here, I just want some logic. Not just “it’s manlier” or “too mainstream to have good ending”. And please don’t get me wrong. I like bittersweet endings…when they are destined to happen. In ME where “your choices matter”, I would like to HAVE A CHOICE TO CHOOSE.
And what exactly do people want these days? Do they want to smile or do they want to cry?

Face it, kiddo: you never really had a choice. BioWare did. You just chose which version of their story should be played.

I faced it the first time I saw the ending. I just want to clarify some things.

[PsyrenY]

LightweightJustice wrote...

She has seen them...and?
What normal information does it gives? More "try-to-guess" tweets?

She told us two things point blank which are listed in my earlier post.

[Naoe]

Two words OP:
Bad. Writing.

[Space Magic]

Having the option to save squadmates may cheapen the experience for you, Optimystic, but it didn't for me. Miranda died in my campaign. However, I didn't try to reload and fix it. I accepted it as appropriate for the way the storyline was working out in my playthrough.

For me, having an unpreventable sacrifice can actually be -less- meaningful, as it simply puts me in the mood of "what the heck, there wasn't anything else I could do, anyway." If I genuinely screwed up, the consequences have a lot more weight to me.

[LightweightJustice]

Optimystic_X wrote...

LightweightJustice wrote...

She has seen them...and?
What normal information does it gives? More "try-to-guess" tweets?

She told us two things point blank which are listed in my earlier post.

-No starvation? - I’ll buy it.
-Relays can be rebuild - Sure...in a bajillion years anything can be rebuild.
Soooo...how does it influence Sheps's "personal" ending?

Modifié par LightweightJustice, 06 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[LightweightJustice]

*glitching"

Modifié par LightweightJustice, 06 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[Ariq]

LightweightJustice wrote...

Thank you, everyone who shared their opinion. I guess this concludes this topic.
Dark is for MANS, good is for crybabies. And no Hollywood-happy ending for Shep.

The only person who said this is *you*. I certainly didn't. I think the ending, whether happy or sad or bittersweet, needs to have meaning and weight. Maybe you should clarify what *you* mean by a good ending. I explained what I meant by a *good* ending. Some people on these boards have very much asked for a soft-sold ending devoid of consequence or meaning; this is every bit as bad as the nihilistic ending we have in place. A game that mixes optimistic hope for tomorrow with a reflection on sacrifice isn't "happy", but nor is it nihilistic; it's the very definition of 'bittersweet'.

[LightweightJustice]

Ariq wrote...

LightweightJustice wrote...

Thank you, everyone who shared their opinion. I guess this concludes this topic.
Dark is for MANS, good is for crybabies. And no Hollywood-happy ending for Shep.

The only person who said this is *you*. I certainly didn't. I think the ending, whether happy or sad or bittersweet, needs to have meaning and weight. Maybe you should clarify what *you* mean by a good ending. I explained what I meant by a *good* ending. Some people on these boards have very much asked for a soft-sold ending devoid of consequence or meaning; this is every bit as bad as the nihilistic ending we have in place. A game that mixes optimistic hope for tomorrow with a reflection on sacrifice isn't "happy", but nor is it nihilistic; it's the very definition of 'bittersweet'.

Well at least not dying would be nice.
It might be expanded in "Destroy" ending in future DLC.

In objective way I understand the current endings have much weight and sense. And they actually do fall under "somewhat good or bad". In subjective way it's my personal wish to see main hero and his friends alive with galaxy saved. And personally I don't think that it's that bad. And such ending doesn't soften the idea of loss and sacrifice. On the contrary, you see what others lost and you managed to save, thus you cherish it more.

[Ariq]

LightweightJustice wrote...

Well at least not dying would be nice.

Did you read what I wrote in my first post before you made your blanket condemnation of those who responded? I don't really care to repeat myself when you could just scroll back a page or two. Also...objective / subjective...it doesn't work like that.

Modifié par Ariq, 06 avril 2012 - 07:13 .

[clipped_wolf]

I't already to late for a 'happy ending'. Trillions dead. Cultures in taters. Sheppard living wouldn't make it a happy ending, just a happier ending

[LightweightJustice]

Ariq wrote...

LightweightJustice wrote...

Well at least not dying would be nice.

Did you read what I wrote in my first post before you made your blanket condemnation of those who responded? I don't really care to repeat myself when you could just scroll back a page or two. Also...objective / subjective...it doesn't work like that.

I aplogize for missing your post.
It petty much explained evryting to me. I wanted to say that...but forgot.
I guess it's just me and my lack of clarification of what I meant. And yes...Sheps survival will not make it happy, only happier. Really. My bad.

[PsyrenY]

LightweightJustice wrote...

Well at least not dying would be nice.

*facedesk*

I wonder what language I'm typing in, because it's clearly not english...

[LightweightJustice]

Optimystic_X wrote...

LightweightJustice wrote...

Well at least not dying would be nice.

*facedesk*

I wonder what language I'm typing in, because it's clearly not english...

*sigh*
Yes, yes...the destroy breathing.

[jumpingkaede]

Optimystic_X wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

And if you want to really nitpick, you don't have to know the endings ahead of time to know that. Starkid only tells you point-blank that you will die for Control and Synthesis. He has no opinion on your survival chances under Destroy.

What?  Catalyst says Destroy will destroy all synthetics and even Shepard himself is part synthetic.  

How is that not an opinion on Shepard's "survival chances"? 

PART synthetic. It's still not  "you will absolutely die."

lol

Then it's a non sequitur.  The only reasonable interpretation of what the Catalyst says is that choosing Destroy will destroy all synthetics, including all parts of Shepard that are synthetic.  (Which is everything but his/her brain).

It's clearly the Catalyst saying that choosing Destroy will kill Shepard.  Which is also clearly an "opinion" on Shepard's "survival chances".  Any other reading of it is nonsensical.

That Shepard is somehow still alive at the end of it is puzzling speculation.  The conclusion is sound though, if we accept the Catalyst's statements as true premises.  Which we are for the purpose of this exercise.  In hindsight, after the ending, we can elect to accept one of the following:

(a) The Catalyst lied.
( The Catalyst was mistaken.
© The Catalyst was correct and Shepard is dying.
© The Catalyst was correct and Shepard will survive despite being nothing but N7 armor + brain.

Since you're going with Shepard actually living at the end of the Destroy ending I assume you believe that the Catalyst either lied or was mistaken?

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 06 avril 2012 - 07:26 .

[vlherg]

jumpingkaede wrote...

That Shepard is somehow still alive at the end of it is puzzling speculation.  The conclusion is sound though, if we accept the Catalyst's statements as true premises.  Which we are for the purpose of this exercise.  In hindsight, after the ending, we can elect to accept one of the following:

(a) The Catalyst lied.
( The Catalyst was mistaken.
© The Catalyst was correct and Shepard is dying.
© The Catalyst was correct and Shepard will survive despite being nothing but N7 armor + brain.

Since you're going with Shepard actually living at the end of the Destroy ending I assume you believe that the Catalyst either lied or was mistaken?

There's also option (e) Poor writing.

[PsyrenY]

LightweightJustice wrote...

*sigh*
Yes, yes...the destroy breathing.

Yes, the breathing, which has been confirmed by Bioware to be Shepard surviving.

jumpingkaede wrote...
Then it's a non sequitur.  The only reasonable interpretation of what the Catalyst says is that choosing Destroy will destroy all synthetics, including all parts of Shepard that are synthetic.

Agreed.

jumpingkaede wrote...
(Which is everything but his/her brain).

[citation needed]

jumpingkaede wrote...
It's clearly the Catalyst saying that choosing Destroy will kill Shepard.

No, he's telling him that Destroy is dangerous. Not the same thing.
If Shepard was 100% synthetic it would mean death, but Shepard is not.

Once again, you pro-cataclysm folks assume gloom and doom, then work backwards to try and dredge up evidence, instead of working forward from what we know.

[CronoDragoon]

Where are people getting that Jessica has seen the revised endings? She later tweeted that everything she said was implied by the current endings. She is speculating.

[vlherg]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Well until you get the Bioware tag on your name you're not a reliable source, sorry.

Bioware tag is irrelevant. Or are you saying the Normandy did crash on Earth, later retconned to Mars?

Optimystic_X wrote...

There's a hundred ways to handwave it, pick one.
Just because he survives doesn't mean he's not in critical condition after all.

Oh right, now we're using space magic to make him survive. For someone so keenon sacrifice you seem to be going to great lengths to avoid facing it.

Optimystic_X wrote...

As I said before, I do care, please use reading comprehension. I saved everyone possible in my playthrough, it is the folks saying "but your Shepard can be incompetent and let people die!" that actually don't care.

But I care more about keeping EDI + the Geth alive, since they are the only AI in the series that are friendly to organics, than selfishly keeping myself alive. I chose Synthesis. But the beauty of the current endings is that none of them is more valid than the others, they all have benefits and drawbacks. Therefore I am happy with the DLC idea.

You said Thane's death didn't matter because he was dying anyway. You said Mordin's death didn't matter because he was old, you said Legion's death didn't matter because...well...because the other Geth have his memories or something. Now you even want to keep Anderson alive. For someone who is so keen on sacrifice you seem to be trying very hard to avoid it or discount it.  

I'll agree with you that all endings are equally valid. Which is why we want another one that allows reunion of Shepard with her surviving squadmates because we have found enough sacrifice elsewhere in the game.

Optimystic_X wrote...

The whole point of a soul is that you don't lose it when you die. Seriously.

So death is also irrelevant because you can go to heaven (or silicon heaven if you're a Geth). So all the billions in the game lost nothing when they died because their souls are in alien heaven. Great, now there's even less sacrifice in the game.

Optimystic_X wrote...

Prima Guide said nothing about saving Mordin, troll harder.

Prima Guide? When were they ever mentioned in this discussion? Do they have a Bioware tag now that makes their word law? Irrelevant - take your own advice, troll harder.

Let me ask you again, what exactly is the sacrifice you claim was being made at the end of the game? It's not death because Shepard had a soul so lost nothing, it's not the death of others because they either didn't matter or had souls so lost nothing. Was it not being able to get it on with Liara again?

Modifié par vlherg, 06 avril 2012 - 08:00 .