5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Reign762]

It's the thematic shift that pissed me off the most. It is clearly evident, but bioware ignores it as artistic integrity.

[yukon fire]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

yukon fire wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

He misses the point of an impossible choice.

It isn't really a "choice" when so little information is provided, you can't reason when you don't know.

That's why it's called an impossible choice.

Without effect, your left with cause, your essentially just asked to "do something" without logic or reasoning behind it. That's not impossible, that's stupid.  

[Tedler]

 I'm inclined to believe that you just attached a professor's name to your thoughts to increase your credibility.

[Nightdragon8]

OP love your Prof. comments its pretty much exactly, my beef overall with the endings.

[Made Nightwing]

Tedler wrote...

 I'm inclined to believe that you just attached a professor's name to your thoughts to increase your credibility.

I wish I had. That way I wouldn't have spent my entire break talking to him instead of finishing my history reading. Realistically, I know that there's no way to prove that these are his words, not mine, so I'm not going to try. I'm simply saying that this is what he said.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Strange Aeons wrote...
 After explicitly stating that he would not sacrifice his soul for victory, ME3's ending forces Shepard to do exactly that;  each "choice" demands that Shepard commit a senseless and unconscionable act and then calls the nebulous outcome victory.

This is what bugs me most about the ending.

The second thing that bugs me is the sudden move from focus on the "little picture" to the "big picture" without ever attempting to really bring it back to the "little picture" that makes me care what happens in the "big picture" in the first place. Like Mordin said, the galaxy and "all organic life" are hard concepts to grasp or to care about, but your nephew or your squad or your LI is much easier to care about and see how your decision (however distasteful the rhetoric of the ending is) affects those you care about most in the game.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Tedler wrote...

 I'm inclined to believe that you just attached a professor's name to your thoughts to increase your credibility.

I'm inclined to believe that professors are just people and that anyone can claim anything on the internet anyway. How is this relevant? Argue the point, not the straw man.

[tenojitsu]

Pwnded by the Doc, BioWare

[zenoxis]

I want to go to your school

[Warp92]

Thid thread is full of win

[MegumiAzusa]

Strange Aeons wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...
[...]

Let's ignore the insanity of Shepard taking the word of the catalyst, an unknown creature who just appeared out of nowhere with absolutely no buildup or justification, at face value in making a choice that could potentially condemn the galaxy to a fate worse than death (really, the most sensible conclusion about the Catalyst from Shepard's perspective would be that it's a trap). These "choices" do not even rate as meaningful ethical dilemmas, where there's some doubt as to what's good and bad. They are outright evil, and not even in an abstract way: each manages impressively to contradict the specific lessons of the previous events in its own unique way.  After explicitly stating that he would not sacrifice his soul for victory, ME3's ending forces Shepard to do exactly that;  each "choice" demands that Shepard commit a senseless and unconscionable act and then calls the nebulous outcome victory.

Nothing in the preceding games established this sort of hopeless, futile tone, and for good reason: people do not generally play games only to have all their efforts reduced to nothing and then perverted into an atrocity.  People are revolted by the ending, in part because it's a betrayal of the themes of self-determination and strength through unity, as well as the unprecedented interactivity that they loved about the series. This is not some calculated philosophical meditation: it's just plain thoughtless and incompetent storytelling.

The only option that would actually be consistent with Shepard's character as established over three games is the one we weren't given: to defy the Catalyst and refuse to accept his false dilemma.

Okay then take this example: Legions Loyalty mission: brainwashing or mass murder, which one is better? It is in fact exactly the control or destroy choice in ME3. (Just listen here to the other crew members in ME2, each one has a opinion on it and tell you that either choice isn't right)
It doesn't need any further explanation as it is a simple choice in itself, but you have to think about what the consequences could be, as you cannot know them, and make a choice depending on a more or less educated guess.
Also why hopeless or futile? The Reapers get stopped and civilization can live on, where is that hopeless?

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 16 avril 2012 - 07:21 .

[Tedler]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Tedler wrote...

 I'm inclined to believe that you just attached a professor's name to your thoughts to increase your credibility.

I'm inclined to believe that professors are just people and that anyone can claim anything on the internet anyway. How is this relevant? Argue the point, not the straw man.

A professor of literature would presumably carry more weight when speaking on issues of artistic/thematic integrity, due to the fact that they've spent a good chunk of their lives learning about this sort of thing. I don't think you understand what a straw man is.

[Xialavairon]

OP, your professor restored my faith in humanity a little.

[Kreidian]

I approve of and agree with your proffesor's analysis.

[devSin]

I think your professor needs to cart his chalkboard over to Edmonton and give the team a lecture.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Tedler wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Tedler wrote...

 I'm inclined to believe that you just attached a professor's name to your thoughts to increase your credibility.

I'm inclined to believe that professors are just people and that anyone can claim anything on the internet anyway. How is this relevant? Argue the point, not the straw man.

A professor of literature would presumably carry more weight when speaking on issues of artistic/thematic integrity, due to the fact that they've spent a good chunk of their lives learning about this sort of thing. I don't think you understand what a straw man is.

You were attacking the OP for saying that his/her professor said "x" instead of using his own words. In the media or in a paper expert testimony can be used to support your argument, but the central concern here isn't who said it - a professor can make wrong or stupid statements and a moron can have a moment of enlightenment. My stance is that you should focus less on WHO said it and more on WHAT was said. Thus the straw man reference: you are arguing about the merits of who is saying it rather than what they said. I don't care if it was Hitler or Gandhi that said "This is what I think about the ending", I care about whether they were right/wrong or if I agree/disagree.

[Jassu1979]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

You were attacking the OP for saying that his/her professor said "x" instead of using his own words. In the media or in a paper expert testimony can be used to support your argument, but the central concern here isn't who said it - a professor can make wrong or stupid statements and a moron can have a moment of enlightenment. My stance is that you should focus less on WHO said it and more on WHAT was said. Thus the straw man reference: you are arguing about the merits of who is saying it rather than what they said. I don't care if it was Hitler or Gandhi that said "This is what I think about the ending", I care about whether they were right/wrong or if I agree/disagree.

Up to a certain point, I agree with you:

If the status of a person becomes more important than the strength of the arguments she uses, something's rotten in the state of Denmark - and everybody loses.
Appeals to authority are something to be avoided, not embraced.

HOWEVER, I do not think this is what we witnessed here. I believe the OP only brought up this quote because it is well written and addresses the issues at hand quite fittingly. It also helps that the author of those lines happens to be someone whose academic background gives him a certain expertise on the topic he talks about, but that was hardly the main selling point.

[Agent_Dark_]

webhead921 wrote...
Also, @ OP but off, Nightwing is awesome.  I think I am in the huge minority in that I like the Mass Effect 3 ending, and that I like Dick Grayson more than Bruce Wayne

Dick and Damien were awesome as Batman and Robin.  That little period of Batman comics were so awesome, also with Red Robin and Batgirl and Batwoman over in Detective.  Even when Bruce came back and you had two Batman's running around it was still pretty awesome because of Batman, Inc.

Pity that's basically gone now with the New52 reboot D:

[NeecHMonkeY]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Katherine wrote...

NeecHMonkeY wrote...

It's ok for Shepard to be homosexual but you better believe that we can't have him living in peace with synthetics!

I don't get what those two things have to do with each other? 

On topic, your professor is very wise OP! I wish I had a professor I could nerd-out with. 

This is relevant because one of the OVERT themes of Mass Effect is the possibility for tolerance, unity, and peace to win the day if someone is persuasive (Paragon) or forceful (Renegade) enough to get people to put old wounds and prejudice behind them. Synthetics are clearly a part of that theme through all three games until the ending. Homosexuality debates were dismissed by the developers because, essentially, they expressed the same view as the game takes about tolerance of others and differences: it's just something you do whether because it works better (Renegade) or because it's the right thing (Paragon).

Thank you - I guess I have to be more obvious next time.

[Zeratul12]

whiner you can never comprehend the reapers

[CaptainZaysh]

I guess that's why lit professors hardly ever make SPECTRE status. What a whiner.

[shodiswe]

That's pretty much what I and a lot of people have been saying all along  

I was shocked when I realized I wasn't allowed to have a serious chat with the Reaperleader about all these things. Half agreeing and hinting at uncertainity isn't the response I wanted my Shepard to make  

When the catalyst said he controlls the reapers I was getting prepared to give it a mouthfull... Then all of a sudden Sheaprd turns into Darth Vader:  What's thy bidding me Master?

And then Shepard helps the catalyst pick one of the endings for the catalyst, doing it's bidding without questioning it... When did my Shepards personality change into a.... drooning slave? 

IF it wasn't for this horrible part of the game then I would have been prepared to give the game a perfect score... even if the earth mission wasn't as epic as expected... But could have accepted that if the ending would have made sense.

I know everything takes time and money to make perfect but that ending is inexcusable, how can something get that bad and wrong?

[Mev186]

Xialavairon wrote...

OP, your professor restored my faith in humanity a little.

[Wintermaulz]

I like this human, he understands!

[Tedler]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Tedler wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Tedler wrote...

 I'm inclined to believe that you just attached a professor's name to your thoughts to increase your credibility.

I'm inclined to believe that professors are just people and that anyone can claim anything on the internet anyway. How is this relevant? Argue the point, not the straw man.

A professor of literature would presumably carry more weight when speaking on issues of artistic/thematic integrity, due to the fact that they've spent a good chunk of their lives learning about this sort of thing. I don't think you understand what a straw man is.

You were attacking the OP for saying that his/her professor said "x" instead of using his own words. In the media or in a paper expert testimony can be used to support your argument, but the central concern here isn't who said it - a professor can make wrong or stupid statements and a moron can have a moment of enlightenment. My stance is that you should focus less on WHO said it and more on WHAT was said. Thus the straw man reference: you are arguing about the merits of who is saying it rather than what they said. I don't care if it was Hitler or Gandhi that said "This is what I think about the ending", I care about whether they were right/wrong or if I agree/disagree.

I agree with most of what the OP/his professor wrote, I just think it's a rehash of various things that have all been said several times before on these boards (which is part of the reason I'm inclined to believe it wasn't written by his professor). I don't think this thread would have six pages if the title didn't claim it was a professor's opinion. A significant portion of the responses address the idea that a professor supposedly wrote this rather than the content itself (e.g. "I wish I went to your college"), so I think it's a relevant point.