Indeed. If anything it was my Shepard that was forced to do stuff.
I don't recall my Shep ever killing a leader of the galaxy. Quite the opposite, he saved several of them. My Shepard actively avoided doing horrible things. That's a big part of why I hated the endings.
But you do compel the galaxy to deal with things it would rather not, like resurgent krogan and rachni. You kill thousands in Arrival, and a feeble attempt at warning them doesn't change that.
Feeble attempt at warning them? Where's the less bad alternative?But you do compel the galaxy to deal with things it would rather not, like resurgent krogan and rachni. You kill thousands in Arrival, and a feeble attempt at warning them doesn't change that.
But you do compel the galaxy to deal with things it would rather not, like resurgent krogan and rachni. You kill thousands in Arrival, and a feeble attempt at warning them doesn't change that.
Forcing them to deal with something =/= forcing them to do something.
I may choose not to kill the rachni, but it's up to the other races to decide how they respond to that. they might ignore them. They might befriend them. They might go to war with them. That's out of my hands.
And my attempt to warn them may not change that. But I still did everything that Mac Walters allowed me do to try and help them.
Gonna agree that no past actions in Mass Effect are anything comparable to the endings'. That said, I find it incredibly self-righteous to deride things in games for "playing god" or going "too" far. You're disturbed about some decision that brings sweeping change through the galaxy, but don't bat an eye at countless times Shepard can assault and murder people and get off scot-free?
Generally speaking, the player-character in any given game is above accountability and consequence for their actions. Part of the fun is being enabled to do things that you never could do yourself in real life, and even players RPing as a goody-two-shoes enjoy benefits of that setup as well. It's not some sort of validation for people to be above the laws or anything. Having a blast, getting carried away, and going "too" far is the spirit of games. Being limited and confined is not.
Where's the facepalm picture when you need it?
I've heard google has it.
Indeed. If anything it was my Shepard that was forced to do stuff.
I don't recall my Shep ever killing a leader of the galaxy. Quite the opposite, he saved several of them. My Shepard actively avoided doing horrible things. That's a big part of why I hated the endings.
At first, I was sort of miffed at the fact that there wasn't ending that either didn't involve having to sacrifice something (either allies in Destroy, or Shepard's life in the other two), but after a while I sort of came to realize that the game was alluding to this constantly. We had decisions where there was no single "right" answer. Legion dies no matter what, choosing between Grunt and the Rachni Queen, etc. And the game beats it into your head that saving everyone, that your "Golden Ending", just doesn't exist.
So if the endings allowed you this "perfect" ending where you did just that, I'd feel it was a bit...cheap? I mean why put all that out there that tells you that you're going to have to give something up, and then at the last second tell you "Nah, you didn't have to, psych!"
I mean, I picked Destroy on principle. Technically speaking, my Shepard would've probably been a Synthesis-sort of person. But I was selfish.
At first, I was sort of miffed at the fact that there wasn't ending that either didn't involve having to sacrifice something (either allies in Destroy, or Shepard's life in the other two), but after a while I sort of came to realize that the game was alluding to this constantly. We had decisions where there was no single "right" answer. Legion dies no matter what, choosing between Grunt and the Rachni Queen, etc. And the game beats it into your head that saving everyone, that your "Golden Ending", just doesn't exist.
So if the endings allowed you this "perfect" ending where you did just that, I'd feel it was a bit...cheap? I mean why put all that out there that tells you that you're going to have to give something up, and then at the last second tell you "Nah, you didn't have to, psych!"
I mean, I picked Destroy on principle. Technically speaking, my Shepard would've probably been a Synthesis-sort of person. But I was selfish.
I don't like the idea of a perfect ending but Shepard can fairly easily circumnavigate ME3 avoiding tough choices.
I think you'll find that quite a few people would regard such Shepards as being a jerk. And yes, the rather different magnitude makes a difference. Also it's one thing to want to play jerkShep and another to argue whether or not something is a decent thing to do or not.Gonna agree that no past actions in Mass Effect are anything comparable to the endings'. That said, I find it incredibly self-righteous to deride things in games for "playing god" or going "too" far. You're disturbed about some decision that brings sweeping change through the galaxy, but don't bat an eye at countless times Shepard can assault and murder people and get off scot-free?
A bit contrived isn't better. Having to give something up for the sake of having to give something up and da feelz is even less fun than cheap. If it's going to happen it needs to flow naturally and convincingly from the story and, being an RPG as opposed to a plain story, needs to be able to at the least maintain willing suspension of disbelief in the railroaded stakes.So if the endings allowed you this "perfect" ending where you did just that, I'd feel it was a bit...cheap? I mean why put all that out there that tells you that you're going to have to give something up, and then at the last second tell you "Nah, you didn't have to, psych!"
I think you'll find that quite a few people would regard such Shepards as being a jerk. And yes, the rather different magnitude makes a difference. Also it's one thing to want to play jerkShep and another to argue whether or not something is a decent thing to do or not.
And you'll find quite a few that think the Paragon alternatives to those acts are being soft and overly trusting.
It's generally agreed upon that there are very real moral issues with the ME3 endings, just differing views on which ones are worse, whether or not they're justifiable, etc. Anyone who is preaching that one of these paths are totally good or totally evil is just an ideologue not worth taking seriously (and they typically never are).
I think you'll find that quite a few people would regard such Shepards as being a jerk. And yes, the rather different magnitude makes a difference. Also it's one thing to want to play jerkShep and another to argue whether or not something is a decent thing to do or not.
Yeah, there's a difference between 'no perfect answer" and "every answer feels wrong"
Indeed. IMO it's a shame that the best results aren't achieved with a well-balanced Shepard (which isn't necessarily a 50-50 one).And you'll find quite a few that think the Paragon alternatives to those acts are being soft and overly trusting.
Very few people have ever claimed that any of them are totally good. Your post read though as a criticism of anyone who expressed an opinion on them at all - there's nothing wrong with thinking that some options are better or worse than others, and that of those some are going too far.It's generally agreed upon that there are very real moral issues with the ME3 endings, just differing views on which ones are worse, whether or not they're justifiable, etc. Anyone who is preaching that one of these paths are totally good or totally evil is just an ideologue not worth taking seriously (and they typically never are).
Even the ending... Paragon Control: end the war, use the enemy's power for something useful, everyone lives. The contrived angst at the choices of the ending with this option available just shows how stubbornly people want to hold on to their complaints.I don't like the idea of a perfect ending but Shepard can fairly easily circumnavigate ME3 avoiding tough choices.
Created one more post-synthesis picture.
I really hope it's not worse than the previous one 
Indeed. IMO it's a shame that the best results aren't achieved with a well-balanced Shepard (which isn't necessarily a 50-50 one).
Very few people have ever claimed that any of them are totally good. Your post read though as a criticism of anyone who expressed an opinion on them at all - there's nothing wrong with thinking that some options are better or worse than others, and that of those some are going too far.
For what reason, though? Take Synthesis, for example. You can argue that people's biochemistriy shouldn't be changed without their consent, and that following this principle is worth accepting the downsides of one of the other ending options. I would argue, however, that this is all about you and not enough about the galaxy, an ultimately self-centered way to think. The argument "You don't have the right to make that decision" is hypocritical. You've been making wide-ranging decisions all the time, and that you like this one less than the others is no reason to discount its legitimacy. The thing is, like it or not, you are in a position of power like nobody else ever was in this story, and like anyone else with the power to make decisions that affect many others, you will inevitably tread on someone's "rights". The only way in such a situation to keep your hands clean is to do nothing, and then everyone will die. You aren't playing God, you are given a god's power and asked to act responsibly with it, asked to accept the admittedly crushing responsibility that comes with it. The argument that you shouldn't "play God" is denying the situation. With a word or three, you are going to set yourself up as a god, make galaxy-wide changes to life or consign one species and the remnants of countless others to oblivion.
IMO the decision shouldn't be about you and your principles. It should be about what's best for the galaxy. We've been arguing about that forever, but I find people are stubbornly unwilling to accept that anything they feel uncomfortable to bring about because of their principles can actually be good. Thus, people claim the endings are all bad. However, there is no necessary connection between your principles and the outcome of any decision that breaks them.
Of course the decision should be about principles. It's just that BW loves to conflate the discomfiting with the actually immoral.
Of course the decision should be about principles. It's just that BW loves to conflate the discomfiting with the actually immoral.
Well, actually the endings are amoral not immoral. And that's a good thing.
Of course the decision should be about principles. It's just that BW loves to conflate the discomfiting with the actually immoral.
If every action you can take goes against your principles and you choose inaction because of that, everyone dies. That's what I call self-centered. The higher the stakes are, the more, I think, we're obliged to look at the outcome and choose for that, even if what we have to do to get it goes against our principles.
To refuse to do anything because it goes against your principles, in my eyes, is not "honorably standing up for what's right"; but sacrificing the life of your civilization to your vanity. It is prideful to think that one person's principles can be weighed against a whole civilization.
That Bioware indeed tends to conflate the discomfiting with the immoral, that's a separate problem. It mirrors real life in that doing certain kinds of things "feels wrong" to people without actually being morally questionable, but with the stakes being as they are in the ME games, people should rather be called to rise above such irrationality and think things through. I think that's a fundamental problem in the ME games, and also applies to DA's blood magic.
I'm not sure if this is in the same vain as Synthesis but i saw this book for sale in the supermarket called Robogenesis. The green robot eyes grabbed my attention and made me think of Synthesis. Sounds like it covers some of the organic vs synthetic ideals touched on in ME.
Anyone read this or the prequel novel?
Now, see, this largely describes my own interpretation of Synthesis right from the start and I've argued for it ad nauseum over the years with people who were shrieking about how 'monstrous' it was. I've explored how I think the actual emergence of it might play out in a series of post-ME3 m/m Shenko fanfics I'm writing... so if anyone's interested in that, I'm publishing them at http://archiveofouro...Imperator/works
^ On the topic of fanfic, I actually just finished the piece I was working on. It was a huge undertaking. I started March 4 of last year.
It follows my canon and takes place after ME3. In writing, my main interests were tying up various loose ends while fleshing out the setting into one that would be ripe for more stories. And, with the recent news about ME:N, it looks like the Milky Way has been left to the realm of fanfic altogether. So be it, then.
One major ending-relating topic I covered was the Leviathan/Catalyst backstory. I made it into more of an actual story than Leviathan's vague summary.
Here's a summary of that sub-story (spoiler on my work, ahoy!)...
Anyway, that is just a taste of my piece. I will drop a link to the entire work here soon enough, just thought I would share some tidbits to pique interest.
How this information was uncovered is perhaps the highlight of the story.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
It mirrors real life in that doing certain kinds of things "feels wrong" to people without actually being morally questionable, but with the stakes being as they are in the ME games, people should rather be called to rise above such irrationality and think things through. I think that's a fundamental problem in the ME games, and also applies to DA's blood magic.
Blood magic has a bad rep because of mind control and enthrallment. Objecting to it isn't irrational... Wanting a sense of self is a reasonable request. There aren't any real life counterparts to it, except domination and slavery. This was Gaider's first reason for creating it. He was inspired by the Charm magic from D&D and actually considered how questionable it is. That it's not all fun and games.
For what reason, though? Take Synthesis, for example. You can argue that people's biochemistriy shouldn't be changed without their consent, and that following this principle is worth accepting the downsides of one of the other ending options. I would argue, however, that this is all about you and not enough about the galaxy, an ultimately self-centered way to think. The argument "You don't have the right to make that decision" is hypocritical. You've been making wide-ranging decisions all the time, and that you like this one less than the others is no reason to discount its legitimacy. The thing is, like it or not, you are in a position of power like nobody else ever was in this story, and like anyone else with the power to make decisions that affect many others, you will inevitably tread on someone's "rights". The only way in such a situation to keep your hands clean is to do nothing, and then everyone will die. You aren't playing God, you are given a god's power and asked to act responsibly with it, asked to accept the admittedly crushing responsibility that comes with it. The argument that you shouldn't "play God" is denying the situation. With a word or three, you are going to set yourself up as a god, make galaxy-wide changes to life or consign one species and the remnants of countless others to oblivion.
IMO the decision shouldn't be about you and your principles. It should be about what's best for the galaxy. We've been arguing about that forever, but I find people are stubbornly unwilling to accept that anything they feel uncomfortable to bring about because of their principles can actually be good. Thus, people claim the endings are all bad. However, there is no necessary connection between your principles and the outcome of any decision that breaks them.
To the first highlighted part: In choosing synthesis are you? And to the second...is synthesis what's best for the galaxy? I would argue in us playing our individual roles as Shep it has everything to do with our principles. Essentially it's what you are doing in arguing in favor for synthesis. For you it is essentially the only valid choice.
No matter how many times I play through the ME-series I simply cannot get beyond the sense that synthesis is exactly what the Reapers want you to do...and in lieu of that Control...which I believe perpetuates the cycle of harvests. Both choices are optimal for star-child and therefore traps for organics. Destroy is the only optimal outcome for organics because it is the only choice that results in Reapers being well and truly gone. So I think in the end it really comes down to whether the player character feels like he or she can trust what the Catalyst says. I do not. Maybe synthesis and control does work, but if it fails then you've left thousands free to once again threaten the galaxy with extinction. That's simply not a chance I'd want to take.
No matter how many times I play through the ME-series I simply cannot get beyond the sense that synthesis is exactly what the Reapers want you to do...and in lieu of that Control...which I believe perpetuates the cycle of harvests. Both choices are optimal for star-child and therefore traps for organics. Destroy is the only optimal outcome for organics because it is the only choice that results in Reapers being well and truly gone. So I think in the end it really comes down to whether the player character feels like he or she can trust what the Catalyst says. I do not. Maybe synthesis and control does work, but if it fails then you've left thousands free to once again threaten the galaxy with extinction. That's simply not a chance I'd want to take.
So you're not willing to trust Synthesis or Control, and feel that they might be traps. I can entirely agree with that logic - for all we know, they might be. But if that's the case, why aren't you extending the same caution towards Destroy? I mean, the Reapers are offering you a chance to wipe them out. Why are you not equally suspicious of Destroy compared to Control or Synthesis?
Retour en haut
