312 réponses à ce sujet

[OhoniX]

Your reaction - all your questions and statements - are understandable. They are also addressed in the video linked in the original post.

Yeah, I'm not going to watch some 40 minute rant video. I only go by what was written on this thread.

I skimmed the post above, about how the devs would make players wait several months to get the "true" ending, and that's equally as stupid. The devs have no reason to do that. They make the vast majority of their profits in those first weeks, they WANT people to buy the game within the first week or so, and they don't want people to buy it weeks later, because those people are more likely to buy used, which gives them nothing. Any "strategy" they might employ about playing with the player's head would be designed to get people to buy the game as early as possible, not to coddle late-adopters. They'd be much more likely to have a system that actually made it harder to get good endings after a month from launch, or something silly like that, than it would be to have some intentional "twist" that doesn't kick in for months.

They were hurt far more by the early buzz about how "bad" the ending was than they could ever possibly recover with some "big reveal" at a later date. They have faith that if you don't want to be spoiled on the endings, you just won't look at spoilers until you're ready. I, for example, took about a month to beat the game, and managed to avoid any threads that overtly discussed the endings, so I was left to my own devices when I got there.

The sort of strategy you seem to be proposing might work for a niche little developer like the guy behind Fez, but would be suicide for a millions-seller like Mass Effect, and Bioware knows that as well as you should.

[dreman9999]

OhoniX wrote...

Your reaction - all your questions and statements - are understandable. They are also addressed in the video linked in the original post.

Yeah, I'm not going to watch some 40 minute rant video. I only go by what was written on this thread.

I skimmed the post above, about how the devs would make players wait several months to get the "true" ending, and that's equally as stupid. The devs have no reason to do that. They make the vast majority of their profits in those first weeks, they WANT people to buy the game within the first week or so, and they don't want people to buy it weeks later, because those people are more likely to buy used, which gives them nothing. Any "strategy" they might employ about playing with the player's head would be designed to get people to buy the game as early as possible, not to coddle late-adopters. They'd be much more likely to have a system that actually made it harder to get good endings after a month from launch, or something silly like that, than it would be to have some intentional "twist" that doesn't kick in for months.

They were hurt far more by the early buzz about how "bad" the ending was than they could ever possibly recover with some "big reveal" at a later date. They have faith that if you don't want to be spoiled on the endings, you just won't look at spoilers until you're ready. I, for example, took about a month to beat the game, and managed to avoid any threads that overtly discussed the endings, so I was left to my own devices when I got there.

The sort of strategy you seem to be proposing might work for a niche little developer like the guy behind Fez, but would be suicide for a millions-seller like Mass Effect, and Bioware knows that as well as you should.

Then why did they make EC and then lower the emc level to get the best ending?

[Deadpool9]

TLDV (Too Long Didn't View): Pick Destroy because the Reapers view of organics' ultimate evolution is--wait for it--Reapers. So, Control (see: TIM) or Synthesis (see: Saren) will ultimately turn humanity into Reapers. Destroy keeps humans human, and players who chose otherwise are indoctrinated (unless Bioware's writers are indoctrinated, spending too much time on and with the Reapers, for encouraging Control or Synthesis).

[pro5]

OhoniX wrote...

I skimmed the post above, about how the devs would make players wait several months to get the "true" ending, and that's equally as stupid. The devs have no reason to do that. They make the vast majority of their profits in those first weeks, they WANT people to buy the game within the first week or so, and they don't want people to buy it weeks later, because those people are more likely to buy used, which gives them nothing. Any "strategy" they might employ about playing with the player's head would be designed to get people to buy the game as early as possible, not to coddle late-adopters. They'd be much more likely to have a system that actually made it harder to get good endings after a month from launch, or something silly like that, than it would be to have some intentional "twist" that doesn't kick in for months.

- The sale figures I've seen indicate ME3 has been selling better than ME2 ever did, ending controversy or no.
- In one of his posts here, M.Gamble made it clear that EA has been very supportive of Bioware.
- Given the commercial success of ME2, I believe Bioware was given free reign to implement whatever their artistic vision was for the final part of the trilogy. No one was standing at their desks and shaking their head grimly: "No, you can't do that - I forbid you. This is going to drop our sales by 5,71%!!!"
- Also, if all they cared about was sale profits, they probably wouldn't be popping out FREE dlcs one after another...

OhoniX wrote...
They were hurt far more by the early buzz about how "bad" the ending was than they could ever possibly recover with some "big reveal" at a later date.

They did not - and could not - expect such reaction to the endings. In all honesty, who could have predicted so many people would unite to raise over $80,000 in protest over the ending, organize "movements" to change it, and flood the boards for months with negative feedback?

They probably counted on only a small portion of the fanbase being unhappy enough to become so vocal about it, and thought that a larger portion would "figure it out" and another larger portion simply would not care enough to make a big deal of it.

OhoniX wrote...

Yeah, I'm not going to watch some 40 minute rant video. I only go by what was written on this thread.

Rant video? You misunderstand, I think the endings were good. Brilliant, even. But poorly delivered and very abrupt.

I'm going to stop arguing with you now though - by refusing to find out what is it exactly you're arguing against, you kind of discredit your own arguments and make it hard to take you seriously.

Modifié par pro5, 24 juin 2012 - 06:11 .

[pro5]

Deadpool9 wrote...

TLDV (Too Long Didn't View): Pick Destroy because the Reapers view of organics' ultimate evolution is--wait for it--Reapers. So, Control (see: TIM) or Synthesis (see: Saren) will ultimately turn humanity into Reapers. Destroy keeps humans human, and players who chose otherwise are indoctrinated (unless Bioware's writers are indoctrinated, spending too much time on and with the Reapers, for encouraging Control or Synthesis).

TLDV - indeed, this sums it up pretty well. The video is 40 min long because I back it up with actual game footage. Which makes a difference, IMO.

Modifié par pro5, 24 juin 2012 - 06:25 .

[Bill Casey]

OhoniX wrote...

The only reason you ever show players something which is not true is so that you can show them the truth later as a twist. If it's the very last thing shown, it MUST be true.

Someone's never seen Total Recall...

[Fail_Inc]

Your points are fine BUT the note "Let's forget about 'Space Magic' ..." really explains why the endings suck and explaining them is TOO much unnecessary effort.

Modifié par Fail_Inc, 24 juin 2012 - 06:06 .

[OhoniX]

Then why did they make EC and then lower the emc level to get the best ending?

I'm not sure what your point is. They did those things because people complained a lot about the way the original ending played out. They felt that their original ending and EMS basis were perfectly fine, and if, as they'd assumed, everyone was like "that ending totally blew me away!" then they wouldn't have changed a thing and would have moved on to "pre-ending" DLC packages, but because a lot of people instead said "that ending blew!" they decided they should explain themselves a bit better. I don't believe for a second that they intended from the start to have an alternate ending released at a later date.

- The sale figures I've seen indicate ME3 has been selling better than ME2 ever did, ending controversy or no.

Because it's an awesome game, but you can't argue that initial reaction did not have a negative effect on the games' sales, especially on new sales vs. used sales. It probably won't be registered as a "failure", but it could have sold a lot better without all the negativity.

- Given the commercial success of ME2, I believe Bioware was given free reign to implement whatever their artistic vision was for the final part of the trilogy. No one was standing at their desks and shaking their head grimly: "No, you can't do that - I forbid you. This is going to drop our sales by 5,71%!!!"

Having artistic freedom does not justify stupidity. The artistic gains to your philosophy are minimal when measured against the financial and credibility losses. Bioware has never stuck me as being populated by purist iconoclasts. They do have artistic credibility and take risks when justified, but they do not have a track record of taking stupid risks. At the bare minimum, if this was all a massive joke at the player's expense, I can't imagine that they would stick to their story this long. If it turned out that the ending they'd intended wasn't "as bad as" people seemed to think it was, then they would have made this clear at the earliest complaints, at least before issuing a public apology about the endings.

- Also, if all they cared about was sale profits, they probably wouldn't be popping out FREE dlcs one after another...

The reason the DLCs are free is because they feel that they've destroyed customer confidence with the original endings. You can bet that if the original endings had been well received they would have at least announced the first paid DLC by now. Given the fan reaction, if they'd announced a paid DLC before "correcting" the ending, there would have been torches and pitchforks outside their offices.

Rant video? You misunderstand, I think the endings were good. Brilliant, even. But poorly delivered and very abrupt.

Yes, but from what you've said here, you only seem to believe that because you live in some black helicopter conspiracy delusion in which the endings you saw were not the endings that actually count, so by that measure, it would seem that you believe that the actual endings, the ones that exist in the real world, are not very good.

[pro5]

Can you believe the awesomeness is now only just 1 day away?

Couple encouraging tweets for the road:

https://mobile.twitt...102000473653248
https://mobile.twitt...122551321731074

[katerinafm]

I just finished watching the video. Excellent work! I also suggest others watch it, despite the length. I thought I was going to be bored but it was so interesting I stuck with it till the end. It's really worth a watch.

I've been thinking about this theory for the endings as well. I always pick destroy with my 'canon' Shepard, I've picked Synthesis with a secondary Shepard once just to see what's going to happen, and I haven't even touched Control even with my renegade characters because I think it's just flat out wrong to pick it.

It really makes sense, and what you say in your first post about the writers saying that they wanted the players to figure it out based on the lore and stuff really makes you think. But what I've been thinking is, would the game really put in two wrong choices and only one that's right? Would they really 'punish' the player that didn't figure it out with essentially 'losing' the game? That seems unlikely, unless they were convinced that Destroy being the only right option is so obvious that all fans would instantly get it.

Then again, with the complete lack of any type of real explanation during the last ten minutes, as well as the lack of showing what each ending really does in the long run (other than the Normandy scene) it wouldn't really be surprising to learn that they simply left it out. Though it IS surprising that no obvious 'hints' were given for players that didn't give it much thought before picking something else (if you don't count the evil guys telling you to pick Control or Synthesis as hints). By Hudson's and Walter's latest interview, it seems that they believe that certain things were obvious (because they were obvious in their heads, they said this) and that fans just didn't get it (giving the impression that they thought that only the 'smart' fans got it).

I'm really wondering what they will do with the EC. Will they really show that 'Destroy' was the only right thing and that Shepard basically 'screws up' if he picks anything else? I want to believe that will be the case, though I unfortunately doubt it. Maybe even if that was their original intention, they changed that (just like they did with the original ending to the series) in the EC so as to not enrage fans who were convinced that the other choices were right as well. I guess we'll know in just one day.

And damn I'm so sorry for the huge post XD.

[ImCommanderShepard]

That was awesome. Very convincing. Great job!

[OhoniX]

It really makes sense, and what you say in your first post about the writers saying that they wanted the players to figure it out based on the lore and stuff really makes you think. But what I've been thinking is, would the game really put in two wrong choices and only one that's right? Would they really 'punish' the player that didn't figure it out with essentially 'losing' the game? That seems unlikely, unless they were convinced that Destroy being the only right option is so obvious that all fans would instantly get it.

The idea that Destroy is the "right" ending is preposterous. If it were, then why would it be the easiest to get access to, always requiring the lowest level of EMS, while much higher EMS ratings are needed to unlock Synthesis? Also, why would it go completely against the Paragon roleplay of the series, forcing you to give up on saving everybody and make bloody compromises to achieve the most violent ending, when there are riskier, but more utopic options available? The Destroy option can only be the "right" option on a Renegade Shepard.

[Chashan]

OhoniX wrote...

It really makes sense, and what you say in your first post about the writers saying that they wanted the players to figure it out based on the lore and stuff really makes you think. But what I've been thinking is, would the game really put in two wrong choices and only one that's right? Would they really 'punish' the player that didn't figure it out with essentially 'losing' the game? That seems unlikely, unless they were convinced that Destroy being the only right option is so obvious that all fans would instantly get it.

The idea that Destroy is the "right" ending is preposterous. If it were, then why would it be the easiest to get access to, always requiring the lowest level of EMS, while much higher EMS ratings are needed to unlock Synthesis? Also, why would it go completely against the Paragon roleplay of the series, forcing you to give up on saving everybody and make bloody compromises to achieve the most violent ending, when there are riskier, but more utopic options available? The Destroy option can only be the "right" option on a Renegade Shepard.

It has been stated several times, in the official strategy guide of the game no less that included the rather semantic count of "16 endings" based on EMS-unlock yadayada that the "easiest" to achieve choice was dependent on whether one blasted the Collector base or let TIM have jolly good fun with it after the Suicide Mission.
Meaning, depending on the final choice in ME2, it is either Destroy_or_Control only on a minimalist playthrough.

Besides, Destroy is the most malleable of the three available doomsday-devices, going from lolowning Earth to keeping Earth, and even Shepard, intact. Which makes me hope that they went a step further and have the Destroy energy wave be accurate enough once the breath-scene is unlocked that only the Reapers are toasted.

After all, as you put it, Control and Synthesis still have utopic currents going for them, something that is not the case with Destroy. Therefore, even with a version of Destroy that avoids "sacrifice", one still rejects the sublime possibilities of the more utilitarian Control and the very much in-your-face utopic Synthesis, only because of a player's unwillingness to give their avatar's life for the greater good.


Regarding the clip, I have got to say it makes by far the strongest case for one of the coloured pills based on in-game information. Arguments for the other endings just do not come anywhere close as far as quantity and quality of points in their favour are concerned.

Modifié par Chashan, 25 juin 2012 - 08:39 .

[DiebytheSword]

OhoniX wrote...

It really makes sense, and what you say in your first post about the writers saying that they wanted the players to figure it out based on the lore and stuff really makes you think. But what I've been thinking is, would the game really put in two wrong choices and only one that's right? Would they really 'punish' the player that didn't figure it out with essentially 'losing' the game? That seems unlikely, unless they were convinced that Destroy being the only right option is so obvious that all fans would instantly get it.

The idea that Destroy is the "right" ending is preposterous. If it were, then why would it be the easiest to get access to, always requiring the lowest level of EMS, while much higher EMS ratings are needed to unlock Synthesis? Also, why would it go completely against the Paragon roleplay of the series, forcing you to give up on saving everybody and make bloody compromises to achieve the most violent ending, when there are riskier, but more utopic options available? The Destroy option can only be the "right" option on a Renegade Shepard.

While I'm pretty sure there is no right and wrong ending, you are also perpetuating an inaccuracy.  Control can be the lowest if you've saved the collecter base, in which case you need to work harder to get the Destroy ending.  Regardless of the collector base decision, you can only get Shepard lives at the highest levels of EMS with destroy.

[Unschuld]

DiebytheSword wrote...

OhoniX wrote...

It really makes sense, and what you say in your first post about the writers saying that they wanted the players to figure it out based on the lore and stuff really makes you think. But what I've been thinking is, would the game really put in two wrong choices and only one that's right? Would they really 'punish' the player that didn't figure it out with essentially 'losing' the game? That seems unlikely, unless they were convinced that Destroy being the only right option is so obvious that all fans would instantly get it.

The idea that Destroy is the "right" ending is preposterous. If it were, then why would it be the easiest to get access to, always requiring the lowest level of EMS, while much higher EMS ratings are needed to unlock Synthesis? Also, why would it go completely against the Paragon roleplay of the series, forcing you to give up on saving everybody and make bloody compromises to achieve the most violent ending, when there are riskier, but more utopic options available? The Destroy option can only be the "right" option on a Renegade Shepard.

While I'm pretty sure there is no right and wrong ending, you are also perpetuating an inaccuracy.  Control can be the lowest if you've saved the collecter base, in which case you need to work harder to get the Destroy ending.  Regardless of the collector base decision, you can only get Shepard lives at the highest levels of EMS with destroy.

Destroy being the "right" choice actually meshes quite well. New players have instant access to it by default so they're not "screwed", and people who played ME2 and saved the collector base need to work a little harder to "redeem" themselves. That *could* be why it's the easiest to get, but even if you do choose it, Shepard only  lives at the highest possible EMS. That pretty much blows Synthesis and Control out of the water for being "the better" endings if you're basing it on numerical value of EMS.

[Sousabird]

Orange Tee wrote...

Watching now... Not bad so far.

So far I'm glad you're pointing out why destroy is the option that all the good characters agree with and only the villans try to convince you otherwise. People need to remember that fact, it's very important.

Villains can be right, these are INDOCTRINATED villains... Why would anyone pick either of those options ?

[OhoniX]

It has been stated several times, in the official strategy guide of the game no less that included the rather semantic count of "16 endings" based on EMS-unlock yadayada that the "easiest" to achieve choice was dependent on whether one blasted the Collector base or let TIM have jolly good fun with it after the Suicide Mission.
Meaning, depending on the final choice in ME2, it is either Destroy_or_Control only on a minimalist playthrough.

Yes, but Synthesis is always the hardest to achieve. Basically "control" is the easiest option for Renegade players, and they have to work harder to earn Destroy, while "destroy" is the easiest option for Paragon players, and they have to work harder to earn control, both have to work extra hard to earn Synthesis. This is because Destroy is the least Paragon option, since it involves sacrificing innocent lives unnecessarily, and Control is the least Renegade option, since it doesn't kill anyone and is least likely to actually solve the problem, and therefore each is made the least difficult for those types of players. Typically, if a game does have a "right" ending, it's the one that takes the most effort to earn.

That *could* be why it's the easiest to get, but even if you do choose it, Shepard only lives at the highest possible EMS. That pretty much blows Synthesis and Control out of the water for being "the better" endings if you're basing it on numerical value of EMS.

Yes, but that's only because that's the only ending that Shepard could potentially walk away from, the other two vaporize her.

[pro5]

katerinafm wrote...

It really makes sense, and what you say in your first post about the writers saying that they wanted the players to figure it out based on the lore and stuff really makes you think. But what I've been thinking is, would the game really put in two wrong choices and only one that's right? Would they really 'punish' the player that didn't figure it out with essentially 'losing' the game? That seems unlikely, unless they were convinced that Destroy being the only right option is so obvious that all fans would instantly get it.
...
I'm really wondering what they will do with the EC. Will they really show that 'Destroy' was the only right thing and that Shepard basically 'screws up' if he picks anything else? I want to believe that will be the case, though I unfortunately doubt it. Maybe even if that was their original intention, they changed that (just like they did with the original ending to the series) in the EC so as to not enrage fans who were convinced that the other choices were right as well. I guess we'll know in just one day.

They've been saying since before launch day that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' choice, it all depends on what you (the player) think is right. In the context of this thread, this could mean that if you pick Control or Synthesis, you've willingly adopted the Reapers' ideals and goals and from that moment on you (and, therefore, your Shepard) believe that following these new motives is the only right way to proceed. Of course, your former non-indoctrinated squadmates might disagree...

How could it play out in the EC? In a number of ways, but one thing for sure - this story arc has some amazing dramatic storytelling potential. Becoming indoctrinated does not mean your game suddenly ends with game over screen - that would be very unsatisfying and unfair to players who only acted out of desire to save the Geth and EDI. Judging by how confident they seem that EC is good and could satisfy even the pessimistic BSN crowd, I can't help expecting something truly epic.  Of course, high expectations are what started this mess in the first place, so I might be wrong.

katerinafm wrote...


By Hudson's and Walter's latest interview, it seems that they believe that certain things were obvious (because they were obvious in their heads, they said this) and that fans just didn't get it (giving the impression that they thought that only the 'smart' fans got it).

It's got nothing to do with how 'smart' ME players are, and everything to do with the huge dissonance between what we have been expecting from the final portion of the game and what we actually got.

I think it's not a gross overestimation to say that the *majority* of us were expecting something like ME2 suicide mission - only on an even more epic scale, with more past choices and consequences of past decisions playing in on the results. When I was approaching the ending, I was expecting it would have an epic feeling to it, like those moments on Rannoch when I brought down the Reaper broadcasting the control signal over the Geth.

This huge difference between what people expected to get, and what they were presented with, is at the core of the ending debacle. Bioware may have expected us to look back at the story throughout the series and use that knowledge to figure out what was really happening, but most people were too angry and unwilling to do that after the shock effect of that difference hit.

Modifié par pro5, 25 juin 2012 - 09:19 .

[memorysquid]

OhoniX wrote...

It has been stated several times, in the official strategy guide of the game no less that included the rather semantic count of "16 endings" based on EMS-unlock yadayada that the "easiest" to achieve choice was dependent on whether one blasted the Collector base or let TIM have jolly good fun with it after the Suicide Mission.
Meaning, depending on the final choice in ME2, it is either Destroy_or_Control only on a minimalist playthrough.

Yes, but Synthesis is always the hardest to achieve. Basically "control" is the easiest option for Renegade players, and they have to work harder to earn Destroy, while "destroy" is the easiest option for Paragon players, and they have to work harder to earn control, both have to work extra hard to earn Synthesis. This is because Destroy is the least Paragon option, since it involves sacrificing innocent lives unnecessarily, and Control is the least Renegade option, since it doesn't kill anyone and is least likely to actually solve the problem, and therefore each is made the least difficult for those types of players. Typically, if a game does have a "right" ending, it's the one that takes the most effort to earn.

That *could* be why it's the easiest to get, but even if you do choose it, Shepard only lives at the highest possible EMS. That pretty much blows Synthesis and Control out of the water for being "the better" endings if you're basing it on numerical value of EMS.

Yes, but that's only because that's the only ending that Shepard could potentially walk away from, the other two vaporize her.

Good points.  Shepard walking away can count as a happy ending for some, but weighing that against, for instance, all of the Geth makes it small potatoes.  I may be assuming way too much, but after viewing Javik's anti-AI rant again, I am wondering if we aren't also supposed to have "imagined" that the roboDNA will make people functionally immortal?  Javik mentions that as a primary facet of all synthetic life.

I think Shepard walking away from destroy is a demonstration of the renegade as survivor at any cost.

And you're right about effort = better endings, at least for ME2, so likely for ME3 as well.  You could slide right through and finish ME2 really quick, the ending was just a complete disaster. 

[OhoniX]

They've been saying since before launch day that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' choice, it all depends on what you (the player) think is right. In the context of this thread, this could mean that if you pick Control or Synthesis, you've willingly adopted the Reapers' ideals and goals and from that moment on you (and, therefore, your Shepard) believe that following these new motives is the only right way to proceed. Of course, your former non-indoctrinated squadmates might disagree...

Choosing Control or Synthesis in NO WAY means agreeing with the Reaper's ideals. If you choose those paths it has nothing to do with believing that the Reapers are right, it just means accepting them as the best alternatives for stopping the Reapers. Shepard knows that the Reapers cannot be defeated in any conventional way, and that the only tool capable of stopping them fro wiping out all sentient life in the galaxy rests in the Crucible. Given only those three options, you don't have to, for example, agree that synthesizing humanity is the only way to avoid the singularity cataclysm that the Reapers were apparently designed to prevent, all you need to believe is that they believe it, and that by choosing this path you can avoid genocide.

It's like being trapped in a cage with a hungry tiger. The tiger will definitely eat you if you do nothing, and you have no way of defeating him conventionally, but you have a big juicy steak available, enough to sate him until you're rescued. Now you might be a vegan, you might not agree with the tiger that meat is a good thing to eat, but you don't have to, all you need to understand is that the tiger likes meat, and if you throw him the meat then he'll leave you alone.

None of the endings require that you agree with the Reapers on anything, all that they require is that you make a hard choice using realistically limited knowledge, which is true of every choice in the Mass Effect series.

[pro5]

OhoniX wrote...

They've been saying since before launch day that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' choice, it all depends on what you (the player) think is right. In the context of this thread, this could mean that if you pick Control or Synthesis, you've willingly adopted the Reapers' ideals and goals and from that moment on you (and, therefore, your Shepard) believe that following these new motives is the only right way to proceed. Of course, your former non-indoctrinated squadmates might disagree...

Choosing Control or Synthesis in NO WAY means agreeing with the Reaper's ideals. If you choose those paths it has nothing to do with believing that the Reapers are right, it just means accepting them as the best alternatives for stopping the Reapers. Shepard knows that the Reapers cannot be defeated in any conventional way, and that the only tool capable of stopping them fro wiping out all sentient life in the galaxy rests in the Crucible. Given only those three options, you don't have to, for example, agree that synthesizing humanity is the only way to avoid the singularity cataclysm that the Reapers were apparently designed to prevent, all you need to believe is that they believe it, and that by choosing this path you can avoid genocide.

It's like being trapped in a cage with a hungry tiger. The tiger will definitely eat you if you do nothing, and you have no way of defeating him conventionally, but you have a big juicy steak available, enough to sate him until you're rescued. Now you might be a vegan, you might not agree with the tiger that meat is a good thing to eat, but you don't have to, all you need to understand is that the tiger likes meat, and if you throw him the meat then he'll leave you alone.

None of the endings require that you agree with the Reapers on anything, all that they require is that you make a hard choice using realistically limited knowledge, which is true of every choice in the Mass Effect series.

Yes, I believe that you believe that to be true. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, just like I am to mine.

I'm reasonably sure you are wrong and I gave solid proof for that in the original post., which you chose to ignore.

[OhoniX]

I'm reasonably sure you are wrong and I gave solid proof for that in the original post., which you chose to ignore.

I read the original post, it contained practically nothing. And I believe what I believe because it's the truth. You believe what you believe because you don't want to believe the truth. It's the same reason all conspiracy theories exist.

[Chashan]

OhoniX wrote...


Yes, but Synthesis is always the hardest to achieve. Basically "control" is the easiest option for Renegade players, and they have to work harder to earn Destroy, while "destroy" is the easiest option for Paragon players, and they have to work harder to earn control, both have to work extra hard to earn Synthesis. This is because Destroy is the least Paragon option, since it involves sacrificing innocent lives unnecessarily, and Control is the least Renegade option, since it doesn't kill anyone and is least likely to actually solve the problem, and therefore each is made the least difficult for those types of players. Typically, if a game does have a "right" ending, it's the one that takes the most effort to earn.

You fail to address this passage of mine here though:

Besides, Destroy is the most malleable of the three available doomsday-devices, going from lolowning Earth to keeping Earth, and even Shepard, intact. Which makes me hope that they went a step further and have the Destroy energy wave be accurate enough once the breath-scene is unlocked that only the Reapers are toasted.

This makes it rather obvious that more effort was put into Destroy with a wider range of results, ranging from horribad to "good". And the best result of Destroy as is pre-EC_is_ the one that requires the most EMS, therefore work, to achieve for both renegons and paragades, rendering your "effort"-argument rather moot.
The rest there is thinking out loud on my part and what would be the best course of action on BW's part in relation to the other point I raised and you ignored to address:

After all, as you put it, Control and Synthesis still have utopic currents going for them, something that is not the case with Destroy. Therefore, even with a version of Destroy that avoids "sacrifice", one still rejects the sublime possibilities of the more utilitarian Control and the very much in-your-face utopic Synthesis, only because of a player's unwillingness to give their avatar's life for the greater good.

I do concede Synthesis and Control, despite the risks associated with them, and you do not deny those, this much. This, in my view, is enough merit going in favour for them to make Red's friendly fire a needless, tacked-on addition.

[Candidate 88766]

Bill Casey wrote...

OhoniX wrote...

The only reason you ever show players something which is not true is so that you can show them the truth later as a twist. If it's the very last thing shown, it MUST be true.

Someone's never seen Total Recall...

Literally the entire plot of Total recall is to do with what is real and what is in the Governator's head. In general, the last thing shown in a film or game is quite rightly assumed to be the 'true' ending.

[OhoniX]

This makes it rather obvious that more effort was put into Destroy with a wider range of results, ranging from horribad to "good". And the best result of Destroy as is pre-EC_is_ the one that requires the most EMS, therefore work, to achieve for both renegons and paragades, rendering your "effort"-argument rather moot.

The only thing that you can get out of the Destroy ending that "costs" more than he other endings is the "survive" portion, which is a personal victory for Shepard at the expense of the Geth. The other two endings do not have "survive" endings because self sacrifice were a necessary part of them.