808 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

1) No, according to BW the Reapers were never a threat nor were they ever anything that needed to be "destroyed." *snip*

I have no idea where you got the notion that the Reapers were "never a threat." They were so much a threat in ME1, that the Galaxy's only hope was keeping them out entirely.

Reptilian Rob wrote... 

2) Actually, the entire "putting one's eggs in one basket" logic does not follow the ME motif. In both previous ME games Shepard had to find a plethora of ways to deal with the galaxies problems at large. In ME3 you were funnled into a singular path that all lead to the development of a dues ex machina weapon who's capabilities are unknown. Shepard's motif was broken at the very moment, because it forced out character to accept the fallacies laid before him/her. Complete nonsense.

This is also wrong. You only had one path in the other two games as well.
1) Keep the citadel relay from being activated. (And before that "chase Saren to learn the plot.")
2) Hit the Collectors where they live - no other way to save human colonies because they could strike anywhere, anytime.

 

Reptilian Rob wrote...  
3) Again, you (as with everyone else) were funnled into a singular plotline. The only outcome was the one that was inteded and forced upon the players who in previous games had a choice. Your reaction in very common with stories who abandone plot and character elements in order to force down new unseen logic in the last moments without any explanation. The fact that Legion and Tali were fresh in our minds when we choose our red, green or blue ending is irrelevant because the choice (singular) laid before us completely invalidated those character's developement and plot elements.

The logic is actually easy to follow. After Rannoch, you have two choices - infuse the Geth with reaper code, or kill them. There is no alternative to these two outcomes, because the warlike Gerrell made sure there would be none. So for you to unleash a blast that targets Reaper code, the Geth become collateral damage thanks to Gerrell's shortsightedness.

 

Reptilian Rob wrote...   
4) You can claim bittersweet, however this is not the case with the ME series. If you are familiar with literary motifs in conjunction with plot elements and character development consistancy, you would not see it as bittersweet but broken. The previous ME games focused on the illusion of victory through sacrifice, toying with the players emotions in order to make them feel as though they were headed to certain defeat. However, the previous two ME games ended (again, depending on choices) with a triumphant end with bombastic music to boot. There was no sliiping into that "dark void of uncertainty" as there was with ME3. The tone of ME3's end music was far from the past two iterations, ending not on bittersweet but rather just bitter and tapering out.

Of course the other two games ended with uncertainty - the Reapers were still out there. Shepard even bloody says this line at the end of ME1 and ME2. You're the one unfamiliar with literary motifs. The first two games were victorious battles, not a victorious war.

[Kanon777]

Chrillze wrote...

the geth are just talking toasters, they had to be sacrificed for the greater good

[M0keys]

SpartenN7 wrote...

Are you saying that Shepard is a menace to everyone just because he chose the Destroy option to stop and destroy an ancient Hyper Machine Race/ Organic Race that has destroyed countless galactic civilizations for millions or even billions of years and harvested their own existence into their selfish selves? No, what Shepard did chose the Destroy Ending is absolutely right. The Reapers Needed to be stopped no matter the cost. And there's always time to rebuild and populate

But what is the value of life if at any point it can just be randomly genocided to further a single viewpoint?

Modifié par M0keys, 07 avril 2012 - 09:52 .

[CronoDragoon]

The main problem with how Destroy played out is that this is what happened:

Shepard: Tell me how to destroy the Reapers.
Catalyst: The red one lets you destroy all synthetic life if you want to.
Shepard: K.
Me: Uh, there is some major miscommunication going on between us three....

[VoodooDrackus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


I actually don't see it this way, and I did pick the Destroy ending.  I saw the Reapers as a threat and one that ultimately needed to be destroyed.  I also loved that I was presented an option to make peace between the Geth and Quarians earlier in the game.  It (and Tuchanka) was probably one of my favourite moments in recent gaming history.  Probably since Planescape: Torment (my favourite game all time).

...

In the end, I chose the destroy ending.  I found it bittersweet because it came at the cost of the Geth, but ultimately freeing the galaxy of the Reapers is something my Shepard felt had to be done.  The "maybe" he said rang true for me, and I wanted to give the opportunity for organics to prove the Catalyst wrong in the future.  I actually preferred this ending to simply "destroy all reapers."  Though I can understand that people would have preferred something more ideal.


NOTE:  While my name has BioWare attached to it, I've only ever worked on the DA franchise and actually would close my eyes and go "LALALALALALA" during the ME parts of studio meetings so as to not spoil anything for myself

In other words, I played through the game as a fan of the franchise too


Cheers.

Allan

You sir, are awesomeness at its best. Planescape Torment is easily my favorite game ever, as well.

I really like your reasoning for your decision and how difficult it was for you to make it. I could never choose Destroy though. It just didn't feel right to me. But I do understand that choice, since it was part of Shepards resolve. However, I felt it would make everything I worked for be in vain. That is what is so great about Mass Effect and the ending. It weighed on you so much. It turned everything you felt on its side. It made you reflect on all the choices you made throughout the series and when faced with 3 different futures for the galaxy, we hesitated for what it means to us as people.
With each choice you feel a pang of guilt, well I did anyway.

And I envy your job, would love to be expressing my creativity at a great company that tells great stories. Look forward to the next installment of DA. DA2 had a great story.

[Necrotron]

Kunoichi2007 wrote...

Whatever happened to "there's always another way"?

Couldn't there have been another way to stop the Reapers without having to compromise our morals? 

Yes please.  That is what we're asking for.

But with no new choices in the ending DLC, it makes me wonder what the point of making it is.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I really hated taking that decision. I loved the Geth, and EDI was cool too, silly sexbot stuff aside. But the alternatives were ot acceptable; either it was the all too uncertain Control (what says it won't reprogram Shepard, or his consciousness or whatever is left of him, to go back to the Cycle?) or the senseless, Space Magic-y, unfortunate implications-ridden Synthesis. I feel for the Geth, but the Reapers have to be destroyed, period.

As for Shepard living, it doesn't make sense. He was on the Citadel. The Citadel friggin exploded, meaning he was right next to the explosion of an object of 7.11 billion tons, went through atmospheric re-entry, crashed on rubble, and managed to survive, despite his very heavy existing wounds. The Extended Cut has a hell of a lot to explain here (and elsewhere, but let's not get into that).

Then again, he survived a direct hit from Harbinger's Dreadnought-destroying beam. At this point it's fair to say Shepard is utterly immortal in cutscenes. He should have survived sleeping with Morinth in ME2, just for the sheer lulz of it.

[legion999]

Strange Aeons wrote...

Chrillze wrote...

It's the geth, its a race of robots not humans. If you have to choose between saving the galaxy but killing the geth or let the repaers win you choose sacrificing the geth. it's unfortunate but sacrifices has to be made for the greater good

The greater good...

Crusty jugglers...

Anyway, I don't think people are clear on the concept of "sacrifice."  They just use the word because it sounds nobler than the alternatives.

The Geth choosing to kill themselves to save the galazy is a sacrifice.

Shepard choosing to kill the Geth to save the galaxy is murder.

It's not "unfortunate," either.  It's a deliberate choice.

This is not the military, where each individual soldier consents with an oath to follow the legal orders of a superior officer knowing that they may be sent into a deadly situation.  The Geth never consented to anything like this.

Of course, that being said, the whole space magic premise of the choice is absurd and internally inconsistent to begin with, so why the hell am I even wasting my time thinking about this?

"No luck catching them killers then?"
Hot Fuzz is what I thought of when I saw the 'greater good'. +1 to you.

And everything else in your post I agree with.

[Jacobcus]

LuckyIronAxe wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

I'd like to point out I...

Killed the Baratians.
Killed all the hostages I could.
Re-steralized the Krogan
Killed Wrex
Killed Mordin
And wiped out the Geth and the Reapers...

the only thing I find morally wrong is femshep and Samantha don't get a place on earth living happily ever after, now THAT is wrong

Who the hell is saying that wiping them out shouldn't be an option.
You want to play the genocidal maniac? Good for you.

Now can I have the ending that fits my Shepard please?

Hey, we Renegades had to deal with a lot of Paragon BS in ME3. Auto-Shepard says he/she is sorry for losing Thessia, HEY I AIN'T SORRY, the Asari shouldn't have my sympathy after they told the War Council that we are on our own.

Doesn't count, sometimes the paragon white said renegade stuff. Paragon and Renegade Red and Blue colors are always given at same time, so it evens out. Having a ending thats pure Renegade does not.

[The Angry One]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Strange Aeons wrote...
This is not the military, where each individual soldier consents with an oath to follow the legal orders of a superior officer knowing that they may be sent into a deadly situation.  The Geth never consented to anything like this.

Huuu... They do made an oath when they decide to join Shepard Hammer/Sword forces. Remember "Each of you has to be ready to give their life" Shepard is clear about it even in the ending.

Everyone there know the risk and know that they will probably end up dead at the end. If Destroy was humanity instead of geth I would have done it. It's still the only choice that make sense and do not destroy the logic of my main paragade shep.

I'm sure every Geth that chose to fight is willing to lay down their life to defeat the Reapers.
It does not follow that they would agree to all Geth everywhere being sacrificed, because Shepard won't even argue with the genocidal maniac throwing down an ultimatum.

A soldier who takes an oath to serve their country is not willing to include their family in that oath.

Modifié par The Angry One, 07 avril 2012 - 09:55 .

[M0keys]

Opsrbest wrote...

M0keys wrote...

scrapmetals wrote...

So the Catalyst isn't lying at all? Everything the kid said was true?

As far as I can tell. Otherwise the endings are meaningless no matter which way you slice it.

no.

That is all.

Fascinating argument! I understood what you meant by, "no," but you could please explain "no" in more detail? That'd be great.

[ScaredPeach]

Jacobcus wrote...

ScaredPeach wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

Is it okay if I nuke civilians along with these evil dictators in order to stop them from taking over the world? Is that moral?

Of course its moral, your not intending the death of civilians, your directly intending the death of the dictator, civilians deaths are indirect. The good effect (no world domination) is bigger than the bad effect ( city worth of dead civilians), AND the bad effect (dead civilians) dosnt cause the good effect (no world domination)

Moral Stamp Approved.

Moral Stamp Denied. Imagine if everyone thought like that? We'd nuked Germany, Iraq, and everyone else by now.

I understood the senario being if we DIDNT nuke there would be world domination, not the threat of world domination; there are boatloads of dictators who threaten every other day, but none of them are actually capable or going to do it.

Your thinking on a historic scale; of say Iraq or Russia or something, where you have options of military of dipolmatic or something.  Im thinking of a bigger, sinister world dominating dictator, where other options dont really cut it.

Modifié par ScaredPeach, 07 avril 2012 - 09:56 .

[legion999]

Chrillze wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Chrillze wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Do you think a renegade lets fear compromise who they are?

the renegade does what's necessary

Punching reporters, killing Falere and choosing Morinth are necessary aren't they?

I never picked those options.

But it's Renegade therefore necessary is it not?

[Village_Idiot]

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah self-determinate in a galaxy where they will all wither and die.
The Geth would at least  help with survival somewhat, oh but wait they're all dead. So are the Quarians, and anyone else with an implant.

It's Battlestar Galactica logic "Let's jab the reset button and just assume they won't make the same mistakes again, nevermind that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!"

If we operate under the assumption that all endings lead to galactic extinction due to the relays' destruction and so on, then the entire premise of this argument is pointless.

I'm arguing that Destroy is the lesser evil of the three. If you want to argue that all endings will destroy the galaxy and so on, there are dozens of other threads already existing on the topic. I'm arguing from the standpoint that life will carry on after the end.

[Strange Aeons]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Strange Aeons wrote...
This is not the military, where each individual soldier consents with an oath to follow the legal orders of a superior officer knowing that they may be sent into a deadly situation.  The Geth never consented to anything like this.

Huuu... They do made an oath when they decide to join Shepard Hammer/Sword forces. Remember "Each of you has to be ready to give their life" Shepard is clear about it even in the ending.

Everyone there know the risk and know that they will probably end up dead at the end. If Destroy was humanity instead of geth I would have done it. It's still the only choice that make sense and do not destroy the logic of my main paragade shep.

They don't give their lives.  Shepard takes their lives.  There's a difference.

[Kanon777]

The Angry One wrote...

But that doesn't make destroy the "best". It might look that way superficially, but it isn't
It's still a victory for the Reaper agenda, that the Reapers themselves are killed is largely irrelevant.

How is this a "victory" for the reapers if organics can rebuild the geth and any other synthetic that died? As long as there are organic civilizations, new synthetics can be created...

[M0keys]

ScaredPeach wrote...

Jacobcus wrote...

ScaredPeach wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

Is it okay if I nuke civilians along with these evil dictators in order to stop them from taking over the world? Is that moral?

Of course its moral, your not intending the death of civilians, your directly intending the death of the dictator, civilians deaths are indirect. The good effect (no world domination) is bigger than the bad effect ( city worth of dead civilians), AND the bad effect (dead civilians) dosnt cause the good effect (no world domination)

Moral Stamp Approved.

Moral Stamp Denied. Imagine if everyone thought like that? We'd nuked Germany, Iraq, and everyone else by now.

I understood the senario being if we DIDNT nuke their would be world domination, not the threat of world domination

Actually the reasoning IIRC was that sending in armies to Japan would cause more American loss of life and prolong the war, so we used nukes to avoid that.

[Jacobcus]

ScaredPeach wrote...

Jacobcus wrote...

ScaredPeach wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

Is it okay if I nuke civilians along with these evil dictators in order to stop them from taking over the world? Is that moral?

Of course its moral, your not intending the death of civilians, your directly intending the death of the dictator, civilians deaths are indirect. The good effect (no world domination) is bigger than the bad effect ( city worth of dead civilians), AND the bad effect (dead civilians) dosnt cause the good effect (no world domination)

Moral Stamp Approved.

Moral Stamp Denied. Imagine if everyone thought like that? We'd nuked Germany, Iraq, and everyone else by now.

I understood the senario being if we DIDNT nuke there would be world domination, not the threat of world domination; there are boatloads of dictators who threaten every other day, but none of them are actually capable or going to do it.

Your thinking on a historic scale; of say Iraq or Russia or something, im thinking of a bigger, sinister world dominating dictator, where other options dont really cut it.

Casey Hudson?

[The Angry One]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah self-determinate in a galaxy where they will all wither and die.
The Geth would at least  help with survival somewhat, oh but wait they're all dead. So are the Quarians, and anyone else with an implant.

It's Battlestar Galactica logic "Let's jab the reset button and just assume they won't make the same mistakes again, nevermind that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!"

If we operate under the assumption that all endings lead to galactic extinction due to the relays' destruction and so on, then the entire premise of this argument is pointless.

I'm arguing that Destroy is the lesser evil of the three. If you want to argue that all endings will destroy the galaxy and so on, there are dozens of other threads already existing on the topic. I'm arguing from the standpoint that life will carry on after the end.

Life will carry on, but that life is stunted and irrelevant.
Because society is destroyed and sent back to subsistence levels, history will be lost. Look at that senile old man telling a verbal story, where "the details have been lost".
The Catalyst has made sure that the circumstances that apparently required the Reapers to exist in the first place will happen again, because the remaining life in the galaxy has learned nothing and in 50,000 years when the Yahg Empire conquers all, they'll make AIs and treat them like garbage because they don't know any better.
At least according to the Catalyst's logic. He has won.

[Dandynermite]

M0keys wrote...

ScaredPeach wrote...

Jacobcus wrote...

ScaredPeach wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

Is it okay if I nuke civilians along with these evil dictators in order to stop them from taking over the world? Is that moral?

Of course its moral, your not intending the death of civilians, your directly intending the death of the dictator, civilians deaths are indirect. The good effect (no world domination) is bigger than the bad effect ( city worth of dead civilians), AND the bad effect (dead civilians) dosnt cause the good effect (no world domination)

Moral Stamp Approved.

Moral Stamp Denied. Imagine if everyone thought like that? We'd nuked Germany, Iraq, and everyone else by now.

I understood the senario being if we DIDNT nuke their would be world domination, not the threat of world domination

Actually the reasoning IIRC was that sending in armies to Japan would cause more American loss of life and prolong the war, so we used nukes to avoid that.

Before people slate the Americans like they always do on the internet go and read what the Japanese did in China first... (Hint: More race killings than the ****s)

[Reptilian Rob]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

1) No, according to BW the Reapers were never a threat nor were they ever anything that needed to be "destroyed." *snip*

I have no idea where you got the notion that the Reapers were "never a threat." They were so much a threat in ME1, that the Galaxy's only hope was keeping them out entirely.

Reptilian Rob wrote... 

2) Actually, the entire "putting one's eggs in one basket" logic does not follow the ME motif. In both previous ME games Shepard had to find a plethora of ways to deal with the galaxies problems at large. In ME3 you were funnled into a singular path that all lead to the development of a dues ex machina weapon who's capabilities are unknown. Shepard's motif was broken at the very moment, because it forced out character to accept the fallacies laid before him/her. Complete nonsense.

This is also wrong. You only had one path in the other two games as well.
1) Keep the citadel relay from being activated. (And before that "chase Saren to learn the plot.")
2) Hit the Collectors where they live - no other way to save human colonies because they could strike anywhere, anytime.

 

Reptilian Rob wrote...  
3) Again, you (as with everyone else) were funnled into a singular plotline. The only outcome was the one that was inteded and forced upon the players who in previous games had a choice. Your reaction in very common with stories who abandone plot and character elements in order to force down new unseen logic in the last moments without any explanation. The fact that Legion and Tali were fresh in our minds when we choose our red, green or blue ending is irrelevant because the choice (singular) laid before us completely invalidated those character's developement and plot elements.

The logic is actually easy to follow. After Rannoch, you have two choices - infuse the Geth with reaper code, or kill them. There is no alternative to these two outcomes, because the warlike Gerrell made sure there would be none. So for you to unleash a blast that targets Reaper code, the Geth become collateral damage thanks to Gerrell's shortsightedness.

 

Reptilian Rob wrote...   
4) You can claim bittersweet, however this is not the case with the ME series. If you are familiar with literary motifs in conjunction with plot elements and character development consistancy, you would not see it as bittersweet but broken. The previous ME games focused on the illusion of victory through sacrifice, toying with the players emotions in order to make them feel as though they were headed to certain defeat. However, the previous two ME games ended (again, depending on choices) with a triumphant end with bombastic music to boot. There was no sliiping into that "dark void of uncertainty" as there was with ME3. The tone of ME3's end music was far from the past two iterations, ending not on bittersweet but rather just bitter and tapering out.

Of course the other two games ended with uncertainty - the Reapers were still out there. Shepard even bloody says this line at the end of ME1 and ME2. You're the one unfamiliar with literary motifs. The first two games were victorious battles, not a victorious war.

You're focusing on one instance each, I'm looking at the far bigger picture with the entire series. Not saying you are wrong, a lot of what you said is spot on. But ME3 broke the entire "synthetics in harmony" motif.

Quite badly, I may add. 

[Kanon777]

The Angry One wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Strange Aeons wrote...
This is not the military, where each individual soldier consents with an oath to follow the legal orders of a superior officer knowing that they may be sent into a deadly situation.  The Geth never consented to anything like this.

Huuu... They do made an oath when they decide to join Shepard Hammer/Sword forces. Remember "Each of you has to be ready to give their life" Shepard is clear about it even in the ending.

Everyone there know the risk and know that they will probably end up dead at the end. If Destroy was humanity instead of geth I would have done it. It's still the only choice that make sense and do not destroy the logic of my main paragade shep.

I'm sure every Geth that chose to fight is willing to lay down their life to defeat the Reapers.
It does not follow that they would agree to all Geth everywhere being sacrificed, because Shepard won't even argue with the genocidal maniac throwing down an ultimatum.

A soldier who takes an oath to serve their country is not willing to include their family in that oath.

The geth have no "family, they were all there and they were all willing to die, thats a noble sacrifice

[The Angry One]

tobito113 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

But that doesn't make destroy the "best". It might look that way superficially, but it isn't
It's still a victory for the Reaper agenda, that the Reapers themselves are killed is largely irrelevant.

How is this a "victory" for the reapers if organics can rebuild the geth and any other synthetic that died? As long as there are organic civilizations, new synthetics can be created...

Saying that the Geth can die and be rebuilt is like saying a person can be killed, because their parents can conceive a sibling that will be exactly the same.