808 réponses à ce sujet

[Dranks]

I wonder how different this discussion would be if the Reapers attacked us in real life.

[Tasker]

I'm still trying to work out what the whole point of the war assets was?

I take the long way and do everything there is to do - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

I do the barest minimum - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

How the hell is what comes before, in anyway important?

EVERYTHING i've done in all of the ME games upto this point is meaningless. I get the same plothole ridden turd of an ending no matter what i've previously done/not done and chosen/not chosen.

[M0keys]

QuarkZ26 wrote...

Girlfrakker69 wrote...

kidbd15 wrote...
Did you feel that the lack of dialogue with Starchild was disappointing?  With the Red ending, I would have liked to discuss the geth and quarians, and not have to take the Starchild at his word.  I mean, the lives of billions of people are at stake, my Shep would definitely want to ask at least a few more questions lol

Yep ... I would have loved to shove some logical dialogue down the spacekid's virtual throat ... and also tell this super-evolved AI one or two things about circular logic.

You can't really call it circular logic, although some people make it look like that.
Casper actually wants to preserve life in some way. Its (flawed) logic is that it's better to keep the less evolved species alive than risking ALL of them to disappear.

- Organics make synthetics, synthetics rebel and think organics are a threat, they kill everyone.

Response from Casper:
- Kill evolved species so they don't rebuild synthetics and let the primitive ones evolve, repeat.

Although i don't like the ending, it's actually a correct response. Where it's flawed is that it's based on speculations from Casper.
Someone said, the creator of the reapers might have witnessed that and that's why he thought this was still a better option to preserve life than risking its total anihilation.

Sure, you can argue that it might not happen based on the story between the Geth and the Quarians. But also you can't say that it could never happen as well.

And there you have the logic of Casper, not a circular one (since its goal is not to destroy ALL life), but a speculative one. One that says "I could be as right as you"

Like i said i didn't like it, mainly because it doesn't fit with ME1 and 2, but it's wrong to say it's not logic (providing that you ignore the 2 first episodes of course)


And thanks Allan for an honest opnion (finally!)

It's not circular, but it's certainly flawed. The Starchild sees life solely as a string of "synthetics kill organics," that life has no reason to exist other than to die to keep synthetics from killing them. It doesn't understand the purpose of life growing or living. It sees them as tiny little numbers, and somehow the Starchild and the Reapers have been programmed by something or rather to focus on only that.

Kirk would make the Starchild's head explode if he was in the game, but sadly he wasn't.

Modifié par M0keys, 07 avril 2012 - 11:10 .

[Bill Casey]

If the Reapers wanted to bring order to the chaos of the universe, they should have called up Benoit Mandelbrot...

[Olueq]

deleted

Modifié par Olueq, 07 avril 2012 - 11:17 .

[kalasaurus]

I wish "destroy" had Shepard die instead of the Geth. Shepard will live with the guilt of committing genocide to end the Reapers. It is a lose/lose situation.

[Sweawm]

I remember that the VI on Thessia told you the master's only intention was the complete annihilation of all life altogether...

[M0keys]

Olueq wrote...

... it made you hate people that died 300 years ago?

...What?

[Olueq]

M0keys wrote...

Olueq wrote...

... it made you hate people that died 300 years ago?

...What?

**** me I quoted the wrong one.

Modifié par Olueq, 07 avril 2012 - 11:16 .

[Olueq]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Shallyah wrote...

The Geth are all but peaceful, as they have proven repeatedly. Easily malleable, manipulable and heavily prepared for genocidal warfare.

That Bioware tries too hard to make them look peaceful to those that want to see them as martyrs is something else. But they definitely aren't carrying white flags and shooting rainbows over the universe.

You know you would be right... if everything in-game didn't prove you wrong.

I felt really bad for the Geth when the Quarians tried to kill them.

They didn't want to fight back, they even tried to protect other Quarians. That one strapped to the table, frantically asking if it had done something wrong, saying it would change.

Kinda made me hate the Quarians. A lot.

You hated people that died 300 years ago?

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't consider it a reduction.  Based on the discussion that has gone on on the forums, it seems whether or not people do is a very personal and subjective thing.

For myself, Shepard displays that he's not 100% online with the Catalyst's reasoning when he says "Maybe" in response to The Catalyst's assertion that the peace won't last.


I am okay with the idea of refusing the choices presented to you, though I don't think people would have liked my outcome hahaha (This would have been my Reapers win outcome).

As for modifying the choices, I think there are times that it's good that people can't.  I think it would have cheapened Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifice if there was a way to actually save both, and I'm also think that it shouldn't have been possible to get through the Suicide Mission flawlessly.  I think once you can get through things flawlessly, it makes the choice less impactful, in my opinion.  I see the outcome of ME2 to be more of a reflection of "did you play well enough" as opposed to making tangible choices.  Different results because I "chose" not to fully experience all the content is less interesting to me.

I obviously have some leeway in this though, as I found brokering peace between the Quarians and Geth amazing.  Especially since I was thinking "Stop fighting you fools we have bigger fish to fry!" the whole time!!  Mixing up the player's ability to have ideal outcomes and to have to make choices can probably also be argued from a psychological perspective.


I guess it might be important to state that while I like choice, my preference is typically "mutually exclusive choice."  I love it when games tell me "You have two tasks, but choosing one means the other fails."  It adds replayability and makes those choices more significant in my mind.  Unfortunately mutual choice is pretty rare

What makes the choices non-impactful is the fact that these are not Sehpard's choices.  They're the Catalyst's, being forced upon Shepard.  Regardless of what SHep might think of the logic behind them, there's no opportunity to debate, defy, or...something else beginning with D I'll have to get back to you on that...

It' the Catalyst that brought Shep there, woke Shep up, laid out the "logic" behind its solution, and forces Shep to choose three options that in most any other game would be called the "worst ending" scenerio.  Shepard is nothing but a passive observer right up intil the player can shuffle over to the galactic Armageddon of his/her choice.

Heck even in Deus Ex Denton met with three separate individuals arguing for the diffent endings and had different objectives to achieve to reach them.

All three options are bleak.  Very bleak.  Not just "Your milage may vary" like the endings of DAO (which were very well done, I must add) but "no matter what choice you pick, you're screwed"

Let's just say these choices we're given certainly do not add replayability.  But I think that's discussed elsewhere 

[Valo_Soren]

Unless shepard already was at odds with the geth, like didn't 100 percent get along with legion, didn't see them as sentient life anyway, as my renegade vanguard who chose genocide because he could care less about the geth, i dont see it being the choice for any paragon shepard.

[Reever]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

That's fine Allan, but what you are saying is that you are okay with the whole Tali/Legion thing being reduced to a reason to make you hesitate destroying the Reapers. In fact, being such a great part of ME2/3, it should have allowed you to refuse the choices presented to you or modify them. Destroy does not refuse the Catalyst's reasoning because that choice is not "Destroy the Reapers" it is "Destroy all Synthetic Life," which is still a decision basing itself upon the Catalyst's premises.

I don't consider it a reduction.  Based on the discussion that has gone on on the forums, it seems whether or not people do is a very personal and subjective thing.

For myself, Shepard displays that he's not 100% online with the Catalyst's reasoning when he says "Maybe" in response to The Catalyst's assertion that the peace won't last.


I am okay with the idea of refusing the choices presented to you, though I don't think people would have liked my outcome hahaha (This would have been my Reapers win outcome).

As for modifying the choices, I think there are times that it's good that people can't.  I think it would have cheapened Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifice if there was a way to actually save both, and I'm also think that it shouldn't have been possible to get through the Suicide Mission flawlessly.  I think once you can get through things flawlessly, it makes the choice less impactful, in my opinion.  I see the outcome of ME2 to be more of a reflection of "did you play well enough" as opposed to making tangible choices.  Different results because I "chose" not to fully experience all the content is less interesting to me.

I obviously have some leeway in this though, as I found brokering peace between the Quarians and Geth amazing.  Especially since I was thinking "Stop fighting you fools we have bigger fish to fry!" the whole time!!  Mixing up the player's ability to have ideal outcomes and to have to make choices can probably also be argued from a psychological perspective.


I guess it might be important to state that while I like choice, my preference is typically "mutually exclusive choice."  I love it when games tell me "You have two tasks, but choosing one means the other fails."  It adds replayability and makes those choices more significant in my mind.  Unfortunately mutual choice is pretty rare

How nice of you to share your thoughts with us!!

I actually agree with pretty much everything you said, especially with the effect of choices when they have to be made.
At the same time though, I think the option of destroying all synthetics is a bit...exaggerated? (dunno how to put it...) I mean, why destory all Synthetics if you could only deactivate/destroy they Reapers? That´s what the Crucible was meant for, the Reapers are more than "just" Synthetics, they´re closer to Synthesis between Synthetics and Organics....

I for one can only say I´m not totally against the endings, just the way they were presented. I agree actually with your opinion of them being a bit underwhelming in comparison with the rest of ME3 and having in mind that it´s the end of a trilogy!!!

iakus wrote...

What makes the choices non-impactful is the
fact that these are not Sehpard's choices.  They're the Catalyst's,
being forced upon Shepard.  Regardless of what SHep might think of the
logic behind them, there's no opportunity to debate, defy,
or...something else beginning with D I'll have to get back to you on
that...

It' the Catalyst that brought Shep there, woke Shep up,
laid out the "logic" behind its solution, and forces Shep to choose
three options that in most any other game would be called the "worst
ending" scenerio.  Shepard is nothing but a passive observer right up
intil the player can shuffle over to the galactic Armageddon of his/her
choice.

Heck even in Deus Ex Denton met with three separate
individuals arguing for the diffent endings and had different objectives
to achieve to reach them.

All three options are bleak.  Very
bleak.  Not just "Your milage may vary" like the endings of DAO (which
were very well done, I must add) but "no matter what choice you pick,
you're screwed"

Let's just say these choices we're given certainly do not add replayability.  But I think that's discussed elsewhere [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

The thing is, sometimes you really don´t have a choice. The only things I can think of that would be an option to Shepard is telling Starchild to shove it (like someone already mentioned somewhere ^^) but what then? Reaper victory?

As I said, the ending should have been presented in another fashion or it should have been entirely different (I´m going to read the leaked stories, to see what other things they had in mind...)

Modifié par BlueDemonX, 07 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[Oldbones2]

Probably because everyone picked destroy OP.

Seriously did anyone (other than me) picked control?

[Olueq]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Probably because everyone picked destroy OP.

Seriously did anyone (other than me) picked control?

No.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Probably because everyone picked destroy OP.

Seriously did anyone (other than me) picked control?

One of my Shepards did.

[M0keys]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Probably because everyone picked destroy OP.

Seriously did anyone (other than me) picked control?

I'd pick control, but not because I think it's a good solution. Just the least evil *shrug*

[Reever]

Olueq wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

Probably because everyone picked destroy OP.

Seriously did anyone (other than me) picked control?

No.

Not yet, but one of my Sheps probably will =)

[Fawx9]

Valo_Soren wrote...

Unless shepard already was at odds with the geth, like didn't 100 percent get along with legion, didn't see them as sentient life anyway, as my renegade vanguard who chose genocide because he could care less about the geth, i dont see it being the choice for any paragon shepard.

Then what is a choice for a paragon Shepard? You have blue that makes you the supreme dictator and makes you pray that you can keep your sanity while keeping the reapers under control, or green which does **** all except make flashy explosions and blows up relays.

I mean seriously, green is the most convoluted pile of high fantasy made up poop I have ever heard of. Did no one stop to think that it doesn't actually solve the creator vs creater problem.

Anyone can still make a species that wipes out all life. If a rogue group of scientists called InGen got together and made dinosaurs that could shoot thanix cannons and fly through space, cause they thought they could put them in a park,  then galactic civilization would still fall and synthesis' only boon would have been making people easier to find at night.

Modifié par Fawx9, 07 avril 2012 - 11:29 .

[Beldamon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


As for modifying the choices, I think there are times that it's good that people can't.  I think it would have cheapened Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifice if there was a way to actually save both

Hmmm...much like how choosing to save the Rachni Queen or destroy her might have been cheapened if a writer had decided the reapers wold 'magic' the Rachni back into existence even if said player had decided to destroy the queen....

Oh, wait!

Hah, hah...sorry, couldn't let that one pass, even though that didn't really relate to what you were saying.  Granted, that only dissapointed me after the fact -- I had chosen to save the Queen in all my ME1 playthroughs because I had a strong feeling that choice would be important.  Finding out from other players that the only difference was the dialogue bothered me almost as much as the endings originally had.

And referring to an earlier comment you had, about the endings not impacting you that much, as you were braced against them -- I had much the same reaction to the Phantom Menace.  I didn't get to see it until it had been out for a few weeks, but had been 'warned' how awful Jar Jar Binks was and how he destroyed the movie.  I was so braced against that, in the end he didn't really seem that bad. 

[KDD-0063]

Even if star child isn't lying
keep in mind that his perspective is fairly limited. He doesn't know everything.

[Kanon777]

M0keys wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Shadrach 88 wrote...

A race exterminated so that every other race in existence can be free. I'd call that a fair sacrifice.

What if the Starchild said the red ending would genocide mankind instead? Is that still okay?

Yes

Did you also sabotage the genophage, kill Mordin, kill Wrex, kill Samara, kill Samara's daughter and kill Legion to boost your EMS? 

I guess the renegade path exists for a reason

-I let mordin cure the genophage because i wanted help to destroy the reapers
-I let wrex live because i wanted help to destroy the reapers
-I let samara and her daugther live because i wanted help to destroy the reapers 
-I made peace with quarians and geth so that i would get more troops to destroy the reapers. 
-I killed the geth because i had to destroy the reapers.

The problem here is that people want easy choices, they want a specific scenario where everything they wanted is realised, like Mass Effect 2 or DAO (where you sleep with morrigan and no one has to die). Bioware's greatest mistake is that they assumed that the fanbase would acept a non easy way out choice system.

Trust me if there was an clear easy way out, where everyone who fought in the final battle could live like in the Suicide Mission the mood on this board would be very diferent...

[Valo_Soren]

Fawx9 wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

Unless shepard already was at odds with the geth, like didn't 100 percent get along with legion, didn't see them as sentient life anyway, as my renegade vanguard who chose genocide because he could care less about the geth, i dont see it being the choice for any paragon shepard.

Then what is a choice for a paragon Shepard? You have blue that makes you the supreme dictator and makes you pray that you can keep your sanity while keeping the reapers under control, or green which does **** all except make flashy explosions and blows up relays.

I mean seriously, green is the most convoluted pile of high fantasy made up poop I have ever heard of. Did no one stop to think that it doesn't actually solve the creator vs creater problem.

Anyone can still make a species that wipes out all life. If a rogue group of scientists called InGen got together and made dinosaurs that could shoot thanix cannons and fly through space, cause they thought they could put them in a park,  then galactic civilization would still fall and synthesis' only boon would have been making people easier to find at night.

You obviously have no real clue as to what you are talking about.

[Bill Casey]

iakus wrote...

What makes the choices non-impactful is the fact that these are not Sehpard's choices.  They're the Catalyst's, being forced upon Shepard.  Regardless of what SHep might think of the logic behind them, there's no opportunity to debate, defy, or...something else beginning with D I'll have to get back to you on that...

Deconstruct, deliberate, differ, doubt, dispute, defend, disagree, dismantle, disprove, debunk, etc...

[Xenite]

I spent the entire first game stopping Saren, who basically wanted Synthesis. I then spend the third game verbally abusing the IM for trying to control the reapers. Then in the last few minutes they expect my Shepard to do a complete 180 and pick two possible options that I just spent 100+ hours fighting against.

The lack of logic in that is astounding.....

Edit: My first reaction to the ending? Shoot the lying star child in his lying mouth! 

Modifié par Xenite, 07 avril 2012 - 11:33 .