Vox Draco wrote...
KingZayd wrote...
Destroy isn't an option that comes FROM the starchild. It is the default option, that the crucible was meant for.
Hey, I never looked at it this way! Makes me want even more to pick red now! Thank you!
Those types are generally so full of themselves that they think they're always right. The Catalyst isn't like that; he's doing this purely because he believes that synthetics will one day eliminate organics.
Modifié par Kulthar Drax, 10 mai 2012 - 01:42 .
I keep telling pretty much the same thing to any and all pro-enders I come across, and the best I get (other than "stop trolling me, lol") in response is "but this... this is different! this is the end of the game! Shepard has to die or the ending is too happy!". Yes, you read that right, kids, the best argument I ever got that wasn't a hidden attempt at changing the subject, was "but you want a rainbows and ponies ending, therefore you suck!"We spent the prior two games taking on missions that we were told were impossible, even suicide - and overcoming the odds to survive. We had the Reapers telling us all sorts of reasons why we had to stop resisting - and responding by overcoming all the barriers they threw in our way.
The question still persists, WHY is it activated by shooting some pipes instead of pulling lever? Did someone OD on the Evil Overlord List or what?Destroy isn't an option that comes FROM the starchild. It is the default option, that the crucible was meant for.
Noelemahc wrote...
The question still persists, WHY is it activated by shooting some pipes instead of pulling lever? Did someone OD on the Evil Overlord List or what?
Modifié par Bill Casey, 10 mai 2012 - 08:11 .
Bill Casey wrote...
Destroy comes from "Admiral Anderson"...
You see "him" shooting the tube...
One more gripe for the Gripe God! Why does a game series that did metaphorical without getting literal before -- flawlessly, bordering on subliminal messaging (seriously, the fact they didn't reuse the Council Chambers for the final scenes of ME3 shows that the ME3 writing team totally missed the subliminal messaging the ME1 design team put in it!), has to resort to replacing the plot with metaphors which are interpretable as anything from "most awesum thing evar" to "galactic holocaust, hello"?Bill Casey wrote...
Noelemahc wrote...
The question still persists, WHY is it activated by shooting some pipes instead of pulling lever? Did someone OD on the Evil Overlord List or what?
Because it's metaphorical...
Destroy is represented by destroying a pipe and a large explosion...
Control is represented by quadirlateraly symmetrical switches and uncontrolled electricity...
Synthesis is represented by jumping into the nexus point of where the Citadel and the Crucible merged...
QuantumSheep13 wrote...
Bill Casey wrote...
Destroy comes from "Admiral Anderson"...
You see "him" shooting the tube...
Clearly, Shepard is psychic.
Bill Casey wrote...
QuantumSheep13 wrote...
Bill Casey wrote...
Destroy comes from "Admiral Anderson"...
You see "him" shooting the tube...
Clearly, Shepard is psychic.
*Shepard thinks about destroying them*
Catalyst: I know you've thought about destroying us...
Modifié par QuantumSheep13, 10 mai 2012 - 08:45 .
The Angry One wrote...
TSA_383 wrote...
httinks2006 wrote...
Why on this insane ravaged F@#$%^& planet would anyone choose to believe the Starbrat , Starchild , Godchild ,or Being of light words as law ?
This is the commander , creator of the enemy we have been trying to stop for three games and when it saids you have these choices we do it ?
illiogical , idiotic , stupid , moronic .... etc ... really ?
I absolutely knowmy Shepard would never have giving in to this , damn I've proving quite the opposite for the past two games and five years....
Then reject his "solutions" and blow up the red tube, and live
Destroy is one of it's solutions.
The fact that destroy ****s over the Reapers just as much as everyone else doesn't change that it's one of it's solutions.
So here are your Reaper leader approved solutions:
- Screw everybody.
- Screw everybody except the Reapers.
- Turn everybody into a Reaper.
Victorious and uplifting!
Noelemahc wrote...
I keep telling pretty much the same thing to any and all pro-enders I come across, and the best I get (other than "stop trolling me, lol") in response is "but this... this is different! this is the end of the game! Shepard has to die or the ending is too happy!". Yes, you read that right, kids, the best argument I ever got that wasn't a hidden attempt at changing the subject, was "but you want a rainbows and ponies ending, therefore you suck!"We spent the prior two games taking on missions that we were told were impossible, even suicide - and overcoming the odds to survive. We had the Reapers telling us all sorts of reasons why we had to stop resisting - and responding by overcoming all the barriers they threw in our way.
ardensia wrote...
I think I got a little rambly in there somewhere. If so, my apologies, but I'm too tired to clean them up right now.
I think there is a huge, huge misunderstanding here.ardensia wrote...
Well, then. I guess I have my work cut out for me. It's alright; apparently I have a thing for lost causes.
The reason the pro-enders bring this point up every time someone starts this debate is that, while you apparently see these points as mutually exclusive, we see them as intertwined. While the overall story arch of both ME1 and ME2 had Shepard (most likely) overcoming impossible odds, this has never been done without sacrifice.
Mass Effect has never been a winner-takes-all game. If it was, you wouldn't need a strategy guide to get everyone to survive on the suicide run, you wouldn't have to choose between the Alliance fleet and the Council, and there would be no Virmire survivor because Shepard would have found a way to save both Ashley and Kaiden. Simply because we have seen our losses thus far as being acceptable (didn't like the characters or whatever) does not mean they weren't losses. Something was sacrificed so that something else could be gained.
Something a lot of people overlook about the story arch for ME2 is that while it's entirely possible to come out with everyone alive, even on your first run with no strategy guide, it's also entirely possible to lose everyone, including Shepard... and statisitically just as likely.
One of the big divergences between the pro- and anti-ending crowd is, understandably, this difference in point of view. If you're approaching ME3 with the thought that Shepard, as the big d@mn hero, is going to be able to save everyone, get the girl (or guy), and have a post-battle make-out scene on top of a dead Reaper at the end of it, then yeah, not only are you going to find the ending disappointing, but a lot of the rest of the game is going to feel out of place. I mean, why kill off Mordin? And Legion? Fans liked these characters. Mordin probably ranks second only to Garrus and love interests in terms of favorite squadmates. Then you have to lose him, possibly by shooting him in the back? WTH?
But some of us started counting our losses back in ME1. I may have found Ash to be a bit annoying, but I never thought she was annoying enough to want to kill her, and I was pretty bummed that I had to leave her behind. I felt like she had just started to blossom as a character, and I had been looking forward to getting to know her better. But that's something that particular incarnation of Shepard will never get to do. And that's just one example.
The point of having Shepard die at the end wasn't to make the ending sad. It was to show in a meaningful way that the player as Shepard is willing to make that ultimate sacrifice. Sure, maybe your Shepard died a lot on missions, but simple metagame knowledge that you are playing a game will keep any death in the game up to that one at the very end from being truly meaningful.
Now, if you want to argue that BioWare had no right to ask the player, as a person, to make that choice, I'd say you've got grounds for a fairly solid argument. But simply because not everyone grasped the importance of sacrifices in the game prior to ME3 does not make the game disconnected from the rest of the franchise. It only makes it disconnected for those who came into the game with the expectation that they would come out of it with the kind of perfect victory that you can only achieve in ME2 if you have foreknowledge of the game, and can't truly achieve in ME1.
I think I got a little rambly in there somewhere. If so, my apologies, but I'm too tired to clean them up right now.
Modifié par a.m.p, 10 mai 2012 - 09:44 .
Not my issue with the ending, ackshwally, sorry for not making it clear enough. I accept and recognize the idea that Shepard has to die as part of the sacrificial ritual, as does the entire crew of the Normandy. The theory that the jungle planet we see is Purgatory (as in, the preface to the afterlife) is as valid as any other at this point. (In my headcanon, Shep's personal purgatory is Virmire, ha, so why couldn't theirs be Aeia?).Mass Effect has never been a winner-takes-all game. If it was, you wouldn't need a strategy guide to get everyone to survive on the suicide run, you wouldn't have to choose between the Alliance fleet and the Council, and there would be no Virmire survivor because Shepard would have found a way to save both Ashley and Kaiden. Simply because we have seen our losses thus far as being acceptable (didn't like the characters or whatever) does not mean they weren't losses. Something was sacrificed so that something else could be gained.
Nah, the only thing that felt out of place was the utter inability of Shepard to be genre savvy outside of the "father issue question", despite being very much so throughout ME2.If you're approaching ME3 with the thought that Shepard, as the big d@mn hero, is going to be able to save everyone, get the girl (or guy), and have a post-battle make-out scene on top of a dead Reaper at the end of it, then yeah, not only are you going to find the ending disappointing, but a lot of the rest of the game is going to feel out of place.
But, but, Saren, Saren said, "Isn't submission preferrable to extinction?" Why can't Sheppy Shep bring that up? Why can't he pull a John Crichton or an Isaac Clarke? He did both quite a lot in the past!And that additional drama went way overboard. Mass Effect has never been
a winner-takes-all game. Nor has it ever been a grimdark story of
survival through surrender.
Modifié par Noelemahc, 10 mai 2012 - 09:58 .
a.m.p wrote...
I think there is a huge, huge misunderstanding here.
Because most people I know who aren't satisfied with Shepard trusting catalyst (which is the point of the discussion in this thread) aren't dissatisfied because their character was forced to sacrifice something. They are dissatisfied with their character forced to agree with their enemy.
And if we talk sacrifices and happy endings, there can be no happy ending to Mass Effect by default, nor is anyone really asking for a disney happy ending. Even if Shepard would live and the fleet would beat reapers and then there would be bule babies. Because the galaxy is in ruin. Because planets are destoryed. Because billions are already dead. So how about we look away from our squad for a moment and count these losses? Because if we were to refuse the catalyst and still win we'll have to sacrifice billions more for it. The only difference would be that it would be Shepard's choice and not the catalyst's.
See, you don't need additional ham-fisted symbolism to make an end of a war meaningful. It already is. It baffles me that apparently Bioware thinks their audience is incapable of empathizing with the universe they created and needs some random addtitonal drama to truly get it.
And that additional drama went way overboard. Mass Effect has never been a winner-takes-all game. Nor has it ever been a grimdark story of survival through surrender.
Noelemahc wrote...
Not my issue with the ending, ackshwally, sorry for not making it clear enough.
httinks2006 wrote...
Why on this insane ravaged F@#$%^& planet would anyone choose to believe the Starbrat , Starchild , Godchild ,or Being of light words as law ?
This is the commander , creator of the enemy we have been trying to stop for three games and when it saids you have these choices we do it ?
illiogical , idiotic , stupid , moronic .... etc ... really ?
I absolutely know my Shepard would never have given in to this , damn I've proving quite the opposite for the past two games and five years....
This is all well and good and should be analyzed in great detail. After you stop your enemy from killing you. A soldier does not sit back and think their enemy may be right while said enemy is still actively killing them.ardensia wrote...
I'd address the other, more on-topic issue, but it is 3 AM and I have work in a few hours. To put it simply, just because someone is your enemy does not mean that they cannot be right. If the animosity between the two of you is such that they are going to take your life, you have the right to fight for your survival to the very end, but you also have the option to sit back and consider why your enemy feels killing you is, in their opinion, the best option.
Been there. Me and JShepppp ended up agreeing that the catalyst truthfulness actually is relevant, even if we assume no conventional victory is possible.But that's already been addressed elsewhere, and in far greater depth than I'm going to get to. And if you think we can win by conventional means, of course, it goes out the window.
JShepppp wrote...
a.m.p wrote...
@OP
First off all. When facing the catalyst is a wounded and bleeding Shepard likely to start speculating about type III civilizations? Shepard has near-zero information and what they have is pesented by an untrustworthy source. I see how your interpretation can work. My Shepard is not willing to bet the galaxy on it.
Let's put aside synthesis for a moment, because Bioware obviously had a very different idea of what it was than we do (would pay to find out what that original idea was) as indicated by the creepy Adam and Eve metaphor.
As I understand you, you're basically saying this: if the crucible is a reaper trap that when activated helps reapers win instantly instead of winning through a long drawn out war, we should activate it anyway on the off chance it's not a trap and the absolutely ridiculous explanation of it that we've been given is true.
Let's see what happens then. Worst case scenario for both options:
1) We activate it, Shepard dies, we lose right there, reapers quickly mop everything up, the reaping is successful. 50000 years later the next cycle stumbles into Liara's time capsule that tells them: here's a huge device that can kill reapers. You should divert all your resources from building more ships and weapons to building that thing like we did and it'll totally save you. They do just that, that weakens them, if they survive long enough to activate it, it kills them, the cycle repeats.
2) We don't activate it. We fight a long drawn out war. Let's follow your assumption that we lose (I should probably point out that I'm in the 'give me back the retconned lore, I can win that' camp, but still, let's say we lose). The time bought allows to come up with a plan B to give a chance for the next cycle - like the protheans did for us. Most importantly - if Shepard survives long enough to at least get out a message about the starchild, the fact that the crucible is a reaper trap could be put into the warning for the next cycle, so they don't build it and instead build ships and weapons, thus buying them a chance for a conventional victory.
These are simple enough considerations that should be going through Shepard's head as they talk to the starchild.
Ah, good point, very, very good point. Perhaps I was too renegade to consider it lol or maybe I accidentally skimmed over it in the thread. Apologies if I did the latter.
Caring about future cycles (even if you're screwed - like the Protheans did) can change things for sure. If that's part of the way you'd make decisions, then the Catalyst's truthfulness does become relevant because nobody will be able to spread the word that the Crucible for whatever reason isn't what organics thought it was. One may argue that the Reapers will steamroll them anyways (they've done so for almost a billion years), but a "new Crucible" of sorts might be born, aka a new strategy, and the sooner word gets out that the Crucible doesn't work, the sooner cycles will get to work on the Crucible 2.0.
Modifié par a.m.p, 10 mai 2012 - 10:44 .
EternalAmbiguity wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
It may be; this still doesn't counteract the factual notion that the physical essence of an organic =/= the organic itself.
And that ^ is also totally opinion.
You don't know what exactly is preserved when an organic is melted down. For all you know, their DNA is still there, for all you know, their individuality exists, for all you know, they are still sentient, just in a different form.
It's all speculation on this point. There is no fact.
a.m.p. posted...
However wise and powerful you think the being you are talking to is, its
previously stated goal was to destroy your civilization. Your stated
goal was to stop it. You have no reason to believe that what it's
offering will further your goal and not the catalyst's.
Vox Draco wrote...
KingZayd wrote...
Destroy isn't an option that comes FROM the starchild. It is the default option, that the crucible was meant for.
Hey, I never looked at it this way! Makes me want even more to pick red now! Thank you!
Retour en haut
