319 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

balance5050 wrote...


So enslaving the ancient death machines is more is more courageous than destroying the death machines? Interesting opinion....

Who said anything about courage? You're changing the argument now...

[balance5050]

I'm just not going to let what a little Beiber boy says change who I am is all....

Modifié par balance5050, 08 mai 2012 - 05:40 .

[111987]

balance5050 wrote...

I'm just not going to let what i little Beiber boy change who I am is all....

Fair enough. You haven't really explained what makes your decision better, but if you want to make a poor decision just so you can stay true to your beliefs, so be it.

[Hadeedak]

So being uncompromising is more important than others. To take things to an illogical extreme, but...

Well, I'm not sure why being unwilling to change your plan once circumstances change is a GOOD thing.

Now, the big selling point of destroy for me is, once again, you're not taking a chance. It's certain.

[111987]

Hadeedak wrote...

So being uncompromising is more important than others. To take things to an illogical extreme, but...

Well, I'm not sure why being unwilling to change your plan once circumstances change is a GOOD thing.

Now, the big selling point of destroy for me is, once again, you're not taking a chance. It's certain.

What is the uncertainty with Control?

[Daedalus1773]

What if destroy actually made every star in the galaxy shower everyone with lollipops, and then the Reapers realized the true art that is finger-painting with glitter, and everyone lived happily ever after?

See? SPECULATIONS!

Mac Walters wins.

[balance5050]

 I'll just leave you guys with something to ponder.


 

[Hadeedak]

Sooooo, a game company reuses a model?

PANIC.

[snfonseka]

I choose "destroy" option even now......

[Hadeedak]

111987 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

So being uncompromising is more important than others. To take things to an illogical extreme, but...

Well, I'm not sure why being unwilling to change your plan once circumstances change is a GOOD thing.

Now, the big selling point of destroy for me is, once again, you're not taking a chance. It's certain.

What is the uncertainty with Control?

Will it work? How well will it work? What will happen to the reapers? How dead is Shepard? What will the Shepified Reapers DO? Will s/he eventually lose it and start everything again?

[bahamutomega]

The Angry One wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

If it just destroyed the Reapers than no one would pick the other two choices because it would be so blatantly obvious that is the best choice. Shepard only living in that ending would just be topping on that cake.

And why can't it be the best choice, if you do everything right, if you make peace with the Geth and get max EMS?

This is like saying that it shouldn't be possible to do the suicide mission in ME2 with 0 casualties no matter how hard you work.

i am beginning to hate the words "Suicide Mission" with a passion that rivals "speculation"

THAT WAS NOT A SUICIDE MISSION.

if it had been a "true" suicide mission with remote odds of success, then it should have been much more of a meat-grinder.  regardless of your role selection, characters should have been killed.  the so-called suicide mission from ME2 never made me question my survival or the success of the mission.

hell, the writing in ME3 lead me to believe that Shepard was going to die at the end...  i was expecting a lot more epic than what we got, but i was still expecting Shepard's death.  as i guarded the Thanix missiles, i was constantly using medi-gels on myself or squadmates.

if i popped a single medi-gel during the entire "suicide" mission, it was more likely due to a lack of attention on my part.

[balance5050]

You guys know where TIM got his eyes from right?

 
 

[Hadeedak]

Hey, hey...

I got Mordin and Jacob killed in my first suicide run. I took Jacob's advice (vents! Brilliant!) and I made the mistake of taking Garrus and Thane to the human reaper, leaving only Grunt to HOLD THE LINE. This was pre-Zaheed. So there was some suicide.

[Hadeedak]

Yes, I know where TIM got his eyes. I also know that if you have a handy wrecked eye texture, there's no real reason to AVOID reusing it.

The eyes proves nothing besides "Bioware, like every game company, uses handy models, sometimes with hilarious results!" For others, see EDI with Miranda's body/catsuit and the unfortunate results in her frontal shots.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 08 mai 2012 - 06:08 .

[balance5050]

Hadeedak wrote...

Yes, I know where TIM got his eyes. I also know that if you have a handy wrecked eye texture, there's no real reason to AVOID reusing it.

The eyes proves nothing besides "Bioware, like every game company, uses handy models, sometimes with hilarious results!" For others, see EDI with Miranda's body/catsuit and the unfortunate results in her frontal shots.

I prefer to think that there is councious intention behind Biowares decision making. EDI's body isn't asset reuse, it's life like anatomy.

Modifié par balance5050, 08 mai 2012 - 06:13 .

[Hadeedak]

Then she'd have it with her body without clothes.

[balance5050]

Hadeedak wrote...

Then she'd have it with her body without clothes.

If you change her clothes it goes away, she's a robot and that texture IS her body without an outfit.

[Hadeedak]

Like I said, it makes sense to reuse models. For instance, femShep's model changes depending on her outfit.

[balance5050]

You must have misunderstood, changing EDI's cloths changes her model (down there), it doesn't "reuse" it.

[balance5050]

EDI's default model is just her robot texture with no clothes on, hence the ******.

[Hadeedak]

She only has it when she's wearing clothes... I think. Specifically, Miranda's clothes. Because she shares a model with Miranda there. I know that's when I've noticed it.

My point is that Bioware reuses models, and noticing a model getting reused isn't a shocking revelation. Even if it was a deliberate choice... So what? Reaper tech killing you gets Reaper eyes? Well, your Shepard still saved the galaxy, became a legend, all that.

[balance5050]

Hadeedak wrote...

She only has it when she's wearing clothes... I think. Specifically, Miranda's clothes. Because she shares a model with Miranda there. I know that's when I've noticed it.

My point is that Bioware reuses models, and noticing a model getting reused isn't a shocking revelation. Even if it was a deliberate choice... So what? Reaper tech killing you gets Reaper eyes? Well, your Shepard still saved the galaxy, became a legend, all that.

I can't wait for summer so my ending will be *extended* and *clarified*. And don't forget!

LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE!

 

[Hadeedak]

Pretty much. But I'm just going to say that there isn't one right ending that perfectly solves everything.

Unless you decide your aftergame headcanon has the best possible results, in which case, you could make ANY of the 3 happy.

And that's pretty much the big thing that I think the endings did right. Clarity? New York fog at midnight. Closure? Like walking out on Hamlet right after the ghost shows up. But I like that they all have good and bad aspects, even if they could stand to be explained. They're all viable, and they all have pluses and minuses*. If you make one the 'best' in every aspect, it sort of throttles the others, and none of them are healthy enough to stand on their own as is.

*Though if you can figure out what's what with synthesis, godspeed.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 08 mai 2012 - 06:49 .

[Oldbones2]

George-Kinsill wrote...

The forums are filled with a never ending morality debate between the endings and the amount of personal attacks are unfortunately increasing. Many defend their ending with a certain level of zeal that I think is displaced. To me, the endings do not fit well into the Mass Effect universe. Tthat is besides the point though. It seems that many, if not all people would choose the destroy ending if only the Reapers were killed. So my question is, if only the Reapers, not the geth and EDI, were destroyed in the destroy ending, would this cause you to pick destroy over synthesis and control?

I know that many people speculate this already, and others attack this speculation does not justify the genocide of the geth. However, let's accept for this debate that only the Reapers are killed off. If this is the case, then I think that destroy shoots control and synthesis out of the water in terms of morality and overall quality. Personally, I think Bioware shoe horned the death of the geth and EDI in order to not have everyone choose destroy, just like they had the First Enchanter responsible for the death of Hawke's mother so that some people would side with the Templars in DA2.

So please respond with your thoughts on how this scenario would change you choice, if at all. Also, let's try to keep things somewhat civil.

Edit: For the sake of more debate, would you change your decision if Shepard survived the control ending?

OP, there I think the vast majority of BSN users would agree that destroy would be the perfect choice if it only killed Reapers.

As it stands most people pick that choice now regardless.

(I go control though)

And I also agree that BW absolutely added the deaths of EDI and the Geth specifically to make destroy less palatable.



Furthermore, since Shep can live in the destroy ending, I would no longer even see the point of picking control even if Shep could live.  (the only reason I pick control, is to end the war without genocide)



Synthesis for me, was never even to be considered.

[Hadeedak]

Pretty much. Control kills Shepard so there's a reason to destroy. Destroy kills EDI and the geth so there's a reason to control. Synthesis does its thing.