5087 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Obadiah wrote...

Just a general question: what is the problem with the Crucible Destroy weapon of mass destruction?

Is it some combination of one of the following, or is it something else:
1) It is a weapon of mass destruction
2) Its purpose is explained by the Catalyst, whose affects that Catalyst finds acceptable
3) It targets one type of life-form: Synthetics

Is there a version of this weapon that is acceptable:
1) targets only Reapers
2) targets another life-form
3) targets everyone

Great posts Obadiah and I give you a lot of credit for being respectful and explaining your opinions, taking the time to discuss.

The problem with Destroy is partly the same problem all choices have:
It is only understood and explained by the catalyst.  As such it is suspect.  There is no independent proof that it will do what it says it does.
The explanation for it is horrible.  Really listen to what the kid says.  It will not discriminate and will target all synthetic life.  Even you are part synthetic.  There will be losses but no more than have already occurred.  What does all that mean exactly?  If Shepard is part synthetic does this mean it will kill him/her or not?  If EDI and the geth and other synthetic life are destroyed, those are more losses, so that's more than have already occurred.  It will damage other tech maybe but that will be fixable.  Well, that's convenient so does that or doesn't it mean it will kill Shepard or will it just damage Shepard's implants?

Yes, part of the problem is that it doesn't discriminate-it sees all synthetic life as targets.  That means that just like every other choice it is only meant to solve the kid's problem and be his solution.  This is another reason it can't be trusted to be authentic. 

In order to be a real choice, it would have to be something that Shepard can verify and that means not just based on what the catalyst says-he isn't credible.  It also would need to fufill Shepard's goal and not the kid's. 

Consider that originally the crucible was to be a dark energy device (that could make the reapers more vulnerable to attack) and you get the idea of what it could be.

Furthermore, for any choice to be valid the full origins of the crucible needed to be known, the citadel needed to be independent of the kid (if the kid had to be there), the kid needed to even get angry (as in refuse) if Shepard seemed to want to use a destroy option-perhaps even revealing himself in some more authentic way.  Dissolve the VI kid image and be shown to be a reaper VI.  And the kid had to take ownership of one choice (maybe synthesis) and not all of them.  What I mean is, the reapers are his solution-because of Shepard and the crucible he needs a new solution and the 3 choices become his new solutions.

If the kid had said that Shepard had 3 solutions, but one is the best, Synthesis for xyz reasons because it will help people in this way.  And then the kid says one of him was the solution his creators wanted in order to solve the original problem and conflict and that's control-they wanted to control the leviathans or reapers and force peace.  And then he could say he knows Shepard wants to destroy the reapers and let people make their own way and try to create peace on their own, but they will always fail and it's wrong because they have always needed his help and he sends the reapers to help.  And then if Shepard got the chance to tell the kid he can't be trusted and what he's doing is wrong and that people can make peace and then the reaper kid gets nasty and threatening, that might be better and more believable.  And if Shepard chooses to destroy(or rather fight) them, it only does target the reapers but maybe only to weaken them as a dark energy weapon.  Then truly the rest of the game and the fate of everyone would return to the people of the galaxy.  The reaper VI would go away, Shepard rejoins the fight and makes choices that could lead to victory or defeat.

But all that is only if you must keep the kid and must keep the choices in some way.  You first must make them believable based on something more than the kid's word and then you must clearly show that he is not what he appears to be and that he does not own the choices.

[ddraigcoch123]

robertthebard wrote...

I do love, however, how people can sit in a chair, in a nice comfortable home, and make character judgements about what is needed to win a war. I can only presume that none of them have ever had any experience with it, other than what they saw on the news, or maybe from peace marches.

just for clarity i wasnt suggesting we leave our real world ethics, experience and morals outside either the game of the discussion... my issue with you comment here is that you do seem to be suggesting that without direct combat experience we could not make character judgements about what it would take to win a war... i disagree with you

[robertthebard]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I do love, however, how people can sit in a chair, in a nice comfortable home, and make character judgements about what is needed to win a war. I can only presume that none of them have ever had any experience with it, other than what they saw on the news, or maybe from peace marches.

just for clarity i wasnt suggesting we leave our real world ethics, experience and morals outside either the game of the discussion... my issue with you comment here is that you do seem to be suggesting that without direct combat experience we could not make character judgements about what it would take to win a war... i disagree with you

I addressed this previously:

Nice post, thanks for the reply. To the first point, the comment is not directed at anyone in particular, but does address some of the attitude that I have seen displayed here and in other threads. I made a post somewhere that some would rather keep a platoon alive than give an order that would result in the death of a platoon, but save a city. When I point out that this is the "greater good" some get kind of offended at the notion that people dieing can serve a "greater good". I have been in the military, and understand that orders can result in dead soldiers, and would like to think that people giving these orders know what they're doing. I am also a realist, and know that sometimes they don't.

[Xandurpein]

Looking back at the Mass Effect series Shepard faces a lot of tough decisions, but with the exception of the Virmire survivor Shepard almost always have a chance to find a best solution. Shepard almost always can manage to avoid choosing between two unpleasant choices, by finding a way out, if the player has just done things right. Seeing this I wonder if Bioware intended Synthesis to be just that, but vastly miscalculated how a majority of the fans would react to that choice.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 juillet 2012 - 04:41 .

[Hunter_Wolf]

Logic, where can I get?!

[robertthebard]

Xandurpein wrote...

Looking back at the Mass Effect series Shepard faces a lot of tough decisions, but with the exception of the Virmire survivor Shepard almost always have a chance to find a best solution. Shepard almost always can manage to avoid choosing between two unpleasant choices, by finding a way out, if the player has just done things right. Seeing this I wonder if Bioware intended Synthesis to be just that, but vastly miscalculated how a majority of the fans would react to that choice.

Disregarding the inevitability of this:  What was the "best solution" for the Rachni?  With no metagame knowledge of the choice not mattering, what was the best solution to the queen, and best for whom?  Are we really going to argue that because the Rachni almost completely overran the galaxy, it's inevitable that they'll do it again?  Sound familiar?

What was the best solution to the genophage, and best for whom?  Are we really going to argue, again, that the Krogan can overbreed and overrun the galaxy because they were about to do it before?  Sound familiar?

We are willing to dismiss SC out of hand because we lack it's expressed experience, and yet we are offered choices all the way back to ME 1 that mimic it's logic word for word.

[Costin_Razvan]

Xandurpein wrote...

Looking back at the Mass Effect series Shepard faces a lot of tough decisions, but with the exception of the Virmire survivor Shepard almost always have a chance to find a best solution. Shepard almost always can manage to avoid choosing between two unpleasant choices, by finding a way out, if the player has just done things right. Seeing this I wonder if Bioware intended Synthesis to be just that, but vastly miscalculated how a majority of the fans would react to that choice.

A best solution from your perspective perhaps, but objectivly the choices regarding the Rachni, Genophage, Council ( sacrifice hundreds of soldiers to save it ), Geth Heretics ( mind control or death ), Tali's father ( I'm sorry, but you are whitewashing his crimes by hiding the evidence ), Zaeed's loyalty ( letting innocents die or letting a crime boss escape ) etc. certainly don't have the best possible solutions to them there are negatives and positives, which are which depend on your PoV.

The Catalyst and endings have major issues, but the lack of a best possible solution is not one of them.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 juillet 2012 - 05:53 .

[Pinax]

vallore wrote...

This is something it puzzles me; how come the authors didn’t realize that some decisions are not fun to make, no matter how hard they are? And if they are not fun, what is their point in a game like Mass Effect?

Did they really expect that a player would go through the ending and say:

“Ugh! What a depressing ending! I had to break Shepard’s previously unconquered spirit, I had to force her to betray her most basic convictions, and on top of it, I had to accept her being killed in some form on nonsensical ritual death, just to accomplish her most basic goals.... and If I made a perfect run, I could aspire at a glimpse of a torso on the rubble that may belong to Shepard...now, I can’t wait to experience this again!?”

Yes: "lots of speculations for everybody", no "so gamey" boss fight at the end and a unique "artistic" experience with something we believed to be a philosophical teaser (the inevitable conflict between synthetics and organics).
You paid around $65 to use your imagination, almost nothing we said in the pre-release materials comes out to be true, however please do not loose faith  that we are having some really good stuff for you in the future. Please enjoy the MP even if it has almost no impact on your SP now, and you bought the third part of our game mostly because you loved the SP story in the previous 2 parts.

Please also rest assured that our fans feedback and opinions are very important, even if we try to avoid at any cost a difficult dialogue with the community about any controversy (ending) in the game and the causes of the negative fan feedback. Please believe that your opinion matters even if we proved in the EC where we did not address the most constructive fan feedback (thematically revolting) focusing just on sealing the few most inexplicable plot holes. 
Thank you for using Avina.

[Sajuro]

dancarrero wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Am I supposed to care what your lit professor says or something?

No, but as a human being you should at least try to be decent to others who have done nothing to you.

How am I not being decent? I just don't see why the opinion of a lit professor is important.

If you dont give a damn get the hell out.What are you commenting for?

Because you are using the fact that he is a literature professor as his credentials for having a more valid opinion. Like a said several pages and weeks back, just because I could get a films professor to talk about how killing Kai Leng with the omni blade is freudian penetration doesn't mean its any more valid.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Looking back at the Mass Effect series Shepard faces a lot of tough decisions, but with the exception of the Virmire survivor Shepard almost always have a chance to find a best solution. Shepard almost always can manage to avoid choosing between two unpleasant choices, by finding a way out, if the player has just done things right. Seeing this I wonder if Bioware intended Synthesis to be just that, but vastly miscalculated how a majority of the fans would react to that choice.

Disregarding the inevitability of this:  What was the "best solution" for the Rachni?  With no metagame knowledge of the choice not mattering, what was the best solution to the queen, and best for whom?  Are we really going to argue that because the Rachni almost completely overran the galaxy, it's inevitable that they'll do it again?  Sound familiar?

What was the best solution to the genophage, and best for whom?  Are we really going to argue, again, that the Krogan can overbreed and overrun the galaxy because they were about to do it before?  Sound familiar?

We are willing to dismiss SC out of hand because we lack it's expressed experience, and yet we are offered choices all the way back to ME 1 that mimic it's logic word for word.

Actually with the rachni there is some context.  The queen has been imprisoned by those Shepard's fighting against.  She asks Shepard to kill her children because she can no longer help them.  We do also know that the rachni had never wanted to be brought out into the universe and were all but forced out of hiding by a salarian-they were behind a defunct relay and were not at that time trying to do anything.  This doesn't mean I would completely trust her, but I have some context and while she is a rachni, she is not THE exact same rachni that was involved in the rachni wars.  She is currently not trying to hurt anyone.  Also, the threat she poses while great does not rise to the level of the reapers.  Shepard could of course decide to kill her.  Shepard knows that definite credible choice is there.  Shepard has 2 teammates who might also offer some perspective.

The krogan again have been abused.  They have paid dearly for the mistakes of others and the misuse of them by others.  There is some context for curing the genophage.  For one thing even though it kills no one, the control over birthrates is one definition of genocide.  And yes, they could breed and all that, but there is also perspective that can be gained when talking to others that can help to form an opinion and a choice.  Mordin for one.  They do not rise to the threat level that reapers do even though they would be a threat.  Shepard may of course decide not to cure it and not to trust them.  And that is a definite credible real choice.

The star kid has no context whatsoever.  In fact his home the citadel, that is a part of him is where the choices reside.  He knows all about the crucible but really doesn't add to the information you already have.  He doesn't say whose idea it was.  He has lied before and is doing bad things.  He lied to TIM and told him through indoctrination that he could control the reapers.  Now, he is telling Shepard the same thing.  He does indicate an ability to at least do evil things even if he doesn't see them as evil.  He has reasons to lie because he needs Shepard to enact one of his solutions.  Not Shepard's but his.  Yes, refuse would then be there and be more logical  And you can't mix the 2 and say it's ok to meta game here but not here.  Shepard, my Shepard would choose refuse before agreeing to do the kid's bidding.  As a meta-gamer I see it as a non-choice.  This is a no win conundrum. 

I see the kid as evil, no matter what he thinks he is.  Making a choice means I agree on some level with his assessment of conflict and chaos and I don't.  If I agree with evil and if I do what evil wants, I have just defined myself.

[3DandBeyond]

Sajuro wrote...

Because you are using the fact that he is a literature professor as his credentials for having a more valid opinion. Like a said several pages and weeks back, just because I could get a films professor to talk about how killing Kai Leng with the omni blade is freudian penetration doesn't mean its any more valid.

I'm sorry but if your appendix ruptures do you go to McDonald's or the hospital?  Someone with knowledge does have validity and nowhere has anyone ever said his opinion is more valid than anyone else's.  However, he has stated at length many things that are mechanically wrong with how the story ending was crafted.  It has been stated by others with some similar knowledge and there is very truly far more validity in that than in just saying the ending was bad because I didn't like it.

The professor can put to words what many of us feel is wrong or right in a story.  He can look and say that this is why it doesn't work and that expertise is something he learned.  And since when is real knowledge not valid?  There is validity to knowlege and the OP expresses a great many things that we all could just feel but never put quite to words. 

A lot of us could say the endings don't fit with the rest of the story and he could say exactly why that is so.  I defer to knowledge.  That doesn't mean I don't have my own opinion and no one is stopping you from expressing yours.  So, are you saying the professor is not allowed his?

Intelligence and learning do matter, but no one has ever said that means a "smart" person has more right to their opinion than anyone else.  Perhaps you need to read again.

[SHARXTREME]

robertthebard wrote...
Do you stop Jack from killing the other test subject in her loyalty mission? I'll point out that letting him go is equivalent to killing him on the spot

Somebody didn't pay attention in ME3, or didn't read the emails.
The very same guy you spare is responsible for something in ME3 by sacrificing his life in the process.
Dig it through.

Secondly:

robertthebard wrote...
I made a post somewhere that some would rather keep a platoon alive than give an order that would result in the death of a platoon, but save a city.

I'm sorry to say this, but again this is completely wrong analogy.
1. You're not the commander of the galaxy(you're rather the tip of the spear, spear that is flying in the direction of Reaper heart)
2. Sacrificing the platoon to save the city is beyond bad analogy, you're deciding for trillions of lives, entire galaxy's future. Soldiers in your platoon gave their oath and are ready to die for your country for example, but entire galaxy didn't swore that oath and just tiny amount of population is fighting the Reapers, and even those fighting with you didn't write you a blank check to choose for them as you please . What about those species that didn't discover space travel or ME relays at all?
That are on the similar stage of development as we are now? Is it OK to turn them into reaper hybrids? Or is it OK that you kill the Geth? Or is it OK that you control the Reapers(all those brainwashed/indoctrinated species that came before) and to possibly use them in the future as galaxy police to repress those that Shepard sees as danger?
3. After you learn that there is someone behind the Reapers, someone that is the one and only cause and master of all problems, you ignore that and concentrate on what?

Another thing, since you're so much in military doctrine. How did the Allied Forces won against Hitler's Germany in WWII? Did they kill entire population of Germany, along with the population of nations in "forces of axis "(Italy, Netherlands, Austria etc.) ? Did they made concentration camps for Germans(using Hitler's and Musolini's methods), did they try to brainwash everybody? Did they sacrifice entire French or Poland's civilian population in the process? Did they fully control their population by making them slaves?(Stalin tried that on East Germany and future Eastern block)
Or was it enough to weaken their military force and force Hitler to commit suicide? After that 3rd Reich just crumbled.
Imagine what would be Hitler's options or "ideal solutions"(you don't need to imagine it really, everybody knows what he has done and what was his final goal)
Would you sacrifice all those that Hitler tried to kill and mutilate just so you can "win"? Maybe wipe out your strongest temporary ally - Russian army(or Americans if you were Russian) so you don't have problems in the future?
Victory over Japan in WWII was something else entirely, it was almost the complete opposite.
What was the conventional victory as you see it? Victory over Reich or over Japan?
Who decided what will be done in one case and who in the other?

Also remember what The Illusive Man said right before his death:
-"Cerberus's idea is not that easily destroyed"
You can't destroy the idea, but you can make it a losing idea by defeating the strongest enforcer of some idea- the ideologist(Catalyst in this case, Hitler in the WWII, Stalin after him)
In peaceful debates you do it by proving your opponent to be wrong with strong arguments. Arguments that are based on facts, and facts cannot be ignored in debate.
Fact is that the ending of ME3 doesn't follow the logic of the story in the slightest. It would be like WWII ending under Hitler's terms and by using his methods.

Your entire view of this is that people opposing such ultimatum in the ending "don't have what it takes to win" , on the contrary. People that submit to Catalyst's options can't win against Catalyst , but only against Reapers, or some of the people can reach personal win by becoming a "legend".
Is that enough? Was "to become a legend by any means necessary" the theme of the ME?

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 20 juillet 2012 - 07:51 .

[ddraigcoch123]

The argument about not being able to win a 'conventional' victory or varitions of that argument are only valid becasue thats how the games creators set up the last 10-15 minutes... truth is the first reaper we met was a handful to take down for sure... the second one we met was a little easier... jump forward to Rannoch and hell we painted it as a target and a bunch of nomads (total respect to the talimancers just a joke..) and the normandy took it down... on Earth we took the next one down with a couple of well placed Thanix cannon shots and ground weapons... soooo

When the creators of the game want to give Shepard et al a chance to defeat them we get one... but when the creator mac and casey want to take away that chance they do... not because within the ME universe we couldnt becasue we might be able to... but becasue we are not allowed...

So back to the random ghost kid who looks like he has wandered into the wrong game... enough said about this coming so far in from left field i think it came from a different galaxy to the one i've been exploring... and people better than I has talked about why the heck Shepard would take any of the 3 options offered by the little maniac who has been running the show for the whole time... and dont get me started on why the frak psycic ghost synth has suddenly lost control and the citadel has created 3 really big (almost lego like) 'buttons' to bring the current conflict to an end... soooo ghost kid not really in charge as citadel changed itself due to Shepard... head hurts now.. back to original point...

Yeah... I dont accept the premise of your argument i.e. can't fnish off Reapers without using the 3 choices and magic space gun that is the citadel/crucible/catalyst...  that is only true because BW decided that was the only way you could end the Reapers... circular argument... and the only way to break it is for Shepard to have the agency to make a different choice which BW creators were not willing to authorise...

I killed the quarians the first time... and spent two more playthroughs to get to the point where i could save quarians and geth... surely the whole point of that was to give Shepard the perfect argument to challenge the entire premise of the synthetic vs organic war inevitablility...

Shepard, like many others, has a huge amount of synthetic components... hell Heurto Memorial Hospital is named after a guy who is alive and is using a VI to run his brain after a stroke... we have the technology,  we can make you stronger, faster etc.... so the synthesis option is already underway as part of the normal evolutionary process in the galaxy... give it time if its right it will continue thus further narrowing the gap...

Sorry all but from a within the game perspective I cant do the refuse, even though I love the geth and edi and my own synthetic enhancements I couldnt fail when if I had the opportunity to kill the Reapers and free the galaxy from the cycle... though it still sucks.. big style.. to see Liara as a VI telling the next cycle how close we came... well... hats off to you players who have the principle to do it..

Edit: but even taking that option as has been well argued we still end up with a galactic wasteland or all happy krogan babies and new civilisations is we listen to BW bending the ME science rules yet again...

Modifié par ddraigcoch123, 20 juillet 2012 - 09:10 .

[robertthebard]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

The argument about not being able to win a 'conventional' victory or varitions of that argument are only valid becasue thats how the games creators set up the last 10-15 minutes... snip

Sorry, stopped reading right there.  It's that way because we spent all of ME 2 watching the Council/Alliance bury their head in the sand and pretend there was no threat, while we played "make me happy" with our squad.

[Pinax]

robertthebard wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

The argument about not being able to win a 'conventional' victory or varitions of that argument are only valid becasue thats how the games creators set up the last 10-15 minutes... snip

Sorry, stopped reading right there.  It's that way because we spent all of ME 2 watching the Council/Alliance bury their head in the sand and pretend there was no threat, while we played "make me happy" with our squad.

Maybe try to read the rest, keeping in mind that in contrary to the Prothean cycle, this time the galaxy was not attacked by full Reaper forces straight from the heart of it's political and cultural universe (citadel), it has it's councilors (and the Prothean government was killed in the first instance when the Reapers attacked), plus there are anyway some people that actually believe Shepard and act, while the Protheans were attacked by complete surprise and still were able to defend the selfs for few centuries...?
For 3 years Shepard and his crew are literally "manually" delaying the Reaper invasion, so why now should we believe that convential victory would be never possible? I agree it wouldn't be easy and fast, but this is why we were collecting all the EMS and playing MP for, right? (What I mean here is that ME3 by it's structure gives all the time hope for convential victory).

[ddraigcoch123]

Sorry,

lol and i stopped reading right there....

[ddraigcoch123]

Pinax wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

The argument about not being able to win a 'conventional' victory or varitions of that argument are only valid becasue thats how the games creators set up the last 10-15 minutes... snip

Sorry, stopped reading right there.  It's that way because we spent all of ME 2 watching the Council/Alliance bury their head in the sand and pretend there was no threat, while we played "make me happy" with our squad.

Maybe try to read the rest, keeping in mind that in contrary to the Prothean cycle, this time the galaxy was not attacked by full Reaper forces straight from the heart of it's political and cultural universe (citadel), it has it's councilors (and the Prothean government was killed in the first instance when the Reapers attacked), plus there are anyway some people that actually believe Shepard and act, while the Protheans were attacked by complete surprise and still were able to defend the selfs for few centuries...?
For 3 years Shepard and his crew are literally "manually" delaying the Reaper invasion, so why now should we believe that convential victory would be never possible? I agree it wouldn't be easy and fast, but this is why we were collecting all the EMS and playing MP for, right? (What I mean here is that ME3 by it's structure gives all the time hope for convential victory).

well said... and lets not forget for those of us with high EMS my little screen told me that we were winning against the Reapers in critical areas and the chances of success were even...not exactly no hardly  no chance of beating them... so there are contradictions and more holes than a string vest all over the place... and more than enough lattitude to have a different set of end choices...

Modifié par ddraigcoch123, 20 juillet 2012 - 09:39 .

[Pinax]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...
well said... and lets not forget for those of us with high EMS my little screen told me that we were winning against the Reapers in critical areas and the chances of success were even...not exactly no hardly  no chance of beating them... so there are contradictions and more holes than a string vest all over the place... and more than enough lattitude to have a different set of end choices...

Thank you. Exactly : holding steady and winning in key locations. All this has no meaning though as soon the Big Joystick is plugged into the Citadel.

[ddraigcoch123]

i thought it looked a bit like a massive microphone... for a second i thought they were going to karaoke the reapers to death...

[Femlob]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

i thought it looked a bit like a massive microphone... for a second i thought they were going to karaoke the reapers to death...

Still a better ending than what we have now.

[drayfish]

osbornep wrote...
 
Second, I don't really think it's the element of sacrifice or hard choices which makes the endings so awful. If for instance, activating the crucible caused some unintented effect that resulted in the destruction of most of the Victory Fleet, that would be a big sacrifice to make, but it wouldn't be so off-putting as what we have. Here's a silly analogy: Imagine that at the end of Return of the Jedi, the Emperor tells Luke, "You know, if you turn to the Dark side, all of the galaxy's problems will be solved. There will be utopia." Then, Luke turns to the Dark side, and that really does solve all the galaxy's problems. Nominally, you could call this a happy end, but it's incredibly stupid. All of Luke's efforts to become a Jedi, resist the dark side, and fight against the Emperor were a complete waste of time. Victory is earned by recognizing that after all, you were wrong and the cackling, murderous villians were right.

Wow, osbornep. I know you claimed that this was 'silly' (and some have taken issue with it) but I find this parallel to be extremely revealing. Hell, that's exactly what it felt like to me. All this stuff you learned, all these sacrifices you made, everything you were fighting for... well you have to forget all that to 'do what needs to be done'... Such an arbitrary end.
 
In contrast, damn I like this:
 

robertthebard wrote...
 
The endings don't bother me, because I don't play them. I am of the opinion that the game should end in London. Because I am of this opinion, I quit there, and don't complain about the endings, as they don't apply to me. The way I see it, that's where the war should end, for me. I did exactly what I said I would do when I opted to not hit the reporter in the Embassy area of the Citadel: Stop them, or die trying. I died trying, and I got a hell of a force for them to work with. In some games, I can see my EMS being high enough that maybe they retook Earth, but lost anyway. In others, that defeat so close to the goal demoralizes my army, and we just lose. I am content with these ending scenarios because I enjoyed the journey to get to that point. I'm not going to judge whether others can relate to that or not. Nor am I going to go on a Crusade to get BioWare to change the game, unless I could get them to add an export point at the beam, so that I can reuse more than one character for future play throughs.

@ robertthebard:
 
I love these ideas. They are proud, resilient ends for a hero who died trying.
 
Goddamn I wish that my Shepard could have done the same – uncompromised, principled, not bowed by the idiocy of the Reaper's scheme. Your Shepard sounds like a hell of a soldier, and yours is a head-cannon I shamelessly envy. Obviously I have found it difficult to wipe away the final, disturbing events of the game that I experienced, and what I believe that the Bioware writers were advocating (whether they meant it or not), but thank you for your fantastic imagery.  It is greatly appreciated.
 
 
@ CulturalGeekGirl: You've never mentioned 'Paranoid Madge' before. She sounds awesome...
 
 
@ ddraigcoch123: 'WHAT WOULD SHEPARD DO?' Fantastic. 
 
 
@ 3DandBeyond:
 

Another great ending for me was to the series "Six Feet Under". I cried through almost the whole scene and just kept thinking how well done that was. I don't know if you saw the series, but it was totally in keeping with what the series was about and it "put to rest" so to speak all that you wanted to know. It felt rewarding and finished and as sad (truly bittersweet) as it is I can watch that one long scene again and again.

Good lord that was a powerful ending. I was a weepy mess throughout that – and I hadn't even been following the show since the beginning. 

[robertthebard]

drayfish wrote...
 
In contrast, damn I like this:
 

robertthebard wrote...
 
The endings don't bother me, because I don't play them. I am of the opinion that the game should end in London. Because I am of this opinion, I quit there, and don't complain about the endings, as they don't apply to me. The way I see it, that's where the war should end, for me. I did exactly what I said I would do when I opted to not hit the reporter in the Embassy area of the Citadel: Stop them, or die trying. I died trying, and I got a hell of a force for them to work with. In some games, I can see my EMS being high enough that maybe they retook Earth, but lost anyway. In others, that defeat so close to the goal demoralizes my army, and we just lose. I am content with these ending scenarios because I enjoyed the journey to get to that point. I'm not going to judge whether others can relate to that or not. Nor am I going to go on a Crusade to get BioWare to change the game, unless I could get them to add an export point at the beam, so that I can reuse more than one character for future play throughs.

@ robertthebard:
 
I love these ideas. They are proud, resilient ends for a hero who died trying.
 
Goddamn I wish that my Shepard could have done the same – uncompromised, principled, not bowed by the idiocy of the Reaper's scheme. Your Shepard sounds like a hell of a soldier, and yours is a head-cannon I shamelessly envy. Obviously I have found it difficult to wipe away the final, disturbing events of the game that I experienced, and what I believe that the Bioware writers were advocating (whether they meant it or not), but thank you for your fantastic imagery.  It is greatly appreciated. 

Thanks for the compliment.  The endings themselves were bland for me, but it's the sequence leading up to them that ruined it for me.  Rather than rage, and throw fits, I did what I would do if there was something I can't stomach in real life; I avoid it.  I have enjoyed the journey to get to that point.  I didn't even own Mass Effect 1 until early last month, viewing it as a shooter, and I'm far too old for those any more.  After reading discussions on the DA forums about romances in ME when it was supposed to be about romances in DA, I had to play them to try them so that I could get an idea what people were talking about.  Then I got hooked, and wound up getting all three games.  Knowing full well that the whole world was about to end due to the endings, at least reading stuff around the internet anyway.  Despite that, I enjoyed it, and still do.  It won't hold me like NWN's did, but I played MP in NWN's and wrote scripts/quest arcs/built areas too.  MP isn't that fun for me, too much like a shooter.  I'm not going to let the endings ruin my experience though, and this was my way to say, thanks for the memories.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

Thanks for the compliment.  The endings themselves were bland for me, but it's the sequence leading up to them that ruined it for me.  Rather than rage, and throw fits, I did what I would do if there was something I can't stomach in real life; I avoid it.  I have enjoyed the journey to get to that point.  I didn't even own Mass Effect 1 until early last month, viewing it as a shooter, and I'm far too old for those any more.  After reading discussions on the DA forums about romances in ME when it was supposed to be about romances in DA, I had to play them to try them so that I could get an idea what people were talking about.  Then I got hooked, and wound up getting all three games.  Knowing full well that the whole world was about to end due to the endings, at least reading stuff around the internet anyway.  Despite that, I enjoyed it, and still do.  It won't hold me like NWN's did, but I played MP in NWN's and wrote scripts/quest arcs/built areas too.  MP isn't that fun for me, too much like a shooter.  I'm not going to let the endings ruin my experience though, and this was my way to say, thanks for the memories.

Well to give credit where it's due, you are way more "adult" about it than I could be.  I got too emotionally attached to the story and people and all.  Yeah, there's a lot that's wrong within ME3 and not just the endings.  MP is ok for awhile but not enough to keep me going, because I like stories in story games. 

I do think that most of us are in avoidance mode, we've just taken longer to get there.  Personally, I was in shock over the initial endings for a long time wondering how they could get everything so wrong when there were parts that were so amazingly right in places in the game.  It led to really examining the rest of the game for a lot of us and that's when the beginning (that had always seemed really "off") started to stink.  And then the fetch quests really began to be so awful it was an "why bother" moment.  And then it so seemed like characters were just being abandoned right and left to get the game over with.  The bad endings made the rest fall apart for me and it sang a sour song for the rest of the series.  The new ones didn't fix it.

So even though you and I haven't always seen eye to eye, I do wish I could be more like you in this, satisfied even with not getting the full story I wanted.  I'm older too and wanted one single possible ending that might be like the previous game's along with all the other sacrificial, true loss, and so on types.  It was the idea I had when I started playing, hoping if I tried hard I'd get that.  It's a game and that's what happened in ME games, but we got what we got.  You're a better person than I to be able to be more pragmatic about it.

I just see my game as unfinished past the beam in London because while there's a lot that's bad before that, the game starts playing itself past that point.

[drayfish]

Sajuro wrote...
 
The Catalyst isn't evil, it is an AI, the way it thinks is completely different from the way organics think. It started the cycle because that was the best solution at the time. Shepard comes up and the fact that the galaxy could work together to create the crucible and get it to the Citadel was proof that his solution to the problem wouldn't work so three other solutions were offered.

I'm not sure this can be entirely believed. In the entire history of the universe (according to the Catallaxy*) all life has never been exterminated by synthetics. It's never happened. Every time the Reapers swoop in before it can be proven either way how the chips will ultimately fall, so it remains by definition a speculation. even the first time around he only ironically made the theory true by himself forcing his creators to become his first unwilling victims). They weren't wiped out because of synthetics, they were killed because of him. Oh, the ironmanity!
 
And as I've mentioned previously, history seems to suggest that if the Catch-of-the-Day just left us alone we'd be fine. The Geth and the Quarian settled their differences in spite of the Reaper's help. Chances are this would have happened again and again and again if the cuttlefish party-crashers hadn't made their scheduled stop off to 'help' the neighbours.
 
The way that this A.I. thinks is flawed and ultimately untested, and the solution he comes up with to restore this false premise is psychotic. He might not himself be a moustache-twirling evil in the Moriarty sense (Professor, not Colin ...although?), but for all the dispassionate 'logic' he employs, his 'solution' most certainly is. 
 
I really like that idea you suggested about the Reapers just being nuts, and their whole sad scheme dismissed as mental. I had never really cared about the Reapers' motivation throughout the series (I'd always assumed they were just to remain big, otherworldly unknowables, with their own mysterious intents), but I really quite like your vision of them. (My apologies of I've misrepresented that image.)  I just wish that having heard their nonsense we weren't then forced to go along with it.
 
* I'm being cynically ironic: that word is the complete and total opposite of what he represents.
 
 

Sajuro wrote..
 
Giving fans a Reaper win ending is an FU
Because they didn't throw out canon to please you
wut?

As AresKeith suggested, ideologically all of the endings are 'Reapers Win'. Some might celebrate that as an intriguing ironic twist, but it's difficult to contradict. Every one of the three options with which we 'win' the game has been delivered to us by the voice of the Reapers as the 'solution' to a problem they created.
 
We end the war because and how they demand it.
 
 
Also, very, very importantly:
 

Because you are using the fact that he is a literature professor as his credentials for having a more valid opinion. Like a said several pages and weeks back, just because I could get a films professor to talk about how killing Kai Leng with the omni blade is freudian penetration doesn't mean its any more valid.

Aside from the title of this thread (which was set up well before I joined this discussion, and which has not changed in what I presume is the interests of identification amidst the forums) my doctorate has, and should have, no deciding impact on anything. At no time has anyone (and certainly not me) used my credentials as a cudgel with which to beat down anyone else's opinion. It has been stated numerous times now throughout this thread (by myself and others) that I am but one participant in this discussion, no different or more privileged than any other, and that I am speaking only as a fan. I would never insist that my opinion is more valid than any other person expressing their views, and I find any such suggestion of exclusivity of knowledge to be highly reductive. Frankly, the only time I see people even take note of my title is when they want to petulantly dismiss my opinion off-hand.  It is certainly of no consequence in this conversation, particularly in the shadow of so many other, finer voices.

[drayfish]

robertthebard wrote...

(with regrettable snippage...)

After reading discussions on the DA forums about romances in ME when it was supposed to be about romances in DA, I had to play them to try them so that I could get an idea what people were talking about.  Then I got hooked, and wound up getting all three games.  Knowing full well that the whole world was about to end due to the endings, at least reading stuff around the internet anyway.  Despite that, I enjoyed it, and still do.  It won't hold me like NWN's did, but I played MP in NWN's and wrote scripts/quest arcs/built areas too.  MP isn't that fun for me, too much like a shooter.  I'm not going to let the endings ruin my experience though, and this was my way to say, thanks for the memories.

Sorry, shameful aside, but: man, I need to play me some Never Winter Nights...  I've heard nothing but good things.

But I did love the relationsips in DA:O, they helped me really understand the way that world worked with more clarity than reading any backstory or lore (and profoundly influenced my final decisions in my two playthroughs of the game).

Modifié par drayfish, 21 juillet 2012 - 02:40 .