4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Exactly. You have to make a really tough choice in the end of the story, which built around difficult moral decisions. Only one ending, or too many advantages for one of the endings would make the entire story trivial.

Except in retroperspective, the side effect of destroy just comes off as being tacked on, so the "difficult decision" feels artificial.

You mean in case of Destroy noone will remember anything good about EDI and the Geth later? Noone will care about them anymore? Well, I think all heroes (even Shepard) of the war harvest will be almost forgotten in time. Unless some of those heroes are still alive, which is only possible in case of Control or Synthesis.

The right legacy is important to prevent repeating the same mistakes in the future. But final choice in not only about providing Galactic Civilization's legacy. Final choice is mostly about Shepard's personality. In each ending Shepard has to sacrifice something in order to stop the Reapers. Each sacrifice is dire. The question is which sacrifice your Shepard prefers.

No, I mean from a meta game perspective. Looking back at it, the Geth/EDI deaths just comes off as being added for the sake of drama and to add some drawback to destroy.

Well, the endings have to be balanced. If there was at least one perfect ending, then there was no point in making different endings at all. And story built around moral choices without a moral choice in the end is an absurd...

...And actually I don't find Destroy sacrifices "artificial". I think they are logical enough. The problem is that people choose Destroy refusing to understand and accept EDI's and Geth's death. They think about "disney" ending instead.  Also Destroyers somehow trying to ignore Leviathans, and worlds full of dead Reaper bodies. And that attitude is actually artificial.

Should the endings be balanced? Sure, but they should be balanced in a way that does noy come off as artifical, ME2 did this fairly well with its end choice regarding the base.

And I perfectly understand and accept that EDI and the Geth are gone in destroy, that does not stop me from thinking its dumb and forced.

Sometimes I wonder if the endings would have been better off if they ditched the "Synthetics vs organics" crap from the final 5 minutes and boiled the choice down to destroy or control (with destroy not killing robots, but has some other drawback like making recovery much slower). The first part I am almost sure would be better.

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Exactly. You have to make a really tough choice in the end of the story, which built around difficult moral decisions. Only one ending, or too many advantages for one of the endings would make the entire story trivial.

Except in retroperspective, the side effect of destroy just comes off as being tacked on, so the "difficult decision" feels artificial.

You mean in case of Destroy noone will remember anything good about EDI and the Geth later? Noone will care about them anymore? Well, I think all heroes (even Shepard) of the war harvest will be almost forgotten in time. Unless some of those heroes are still alive, which is only possible in case of Control or Synthesis.

The right legacy is important to prevent repeating the same mistakes in the future. But final choice in not only about providing Galactic Civilization's legacy. Final choice is mostly about Shepard's personality. In each ending Shepard has to sacrifice something in order to stop the Reapers. Each sacrifice is dire. The question is which sacrifice your Shepard prefers.

No, I mean from a meta game perspective. Looking back at it, the Geth/EDI deaths just comes off as being added for the sake of drama and to add some drawback to destroy.

Well, the endings have to be balanced. If there was at least one perfect ending, then there was no point in making different endings at all. And story built around moral choices without a moral choice in the end is an absurd...

...And actually I don't find Destroy sacrifices "artificial". I think they are logical enough. The problem is that people choose Destroy refusing to understand and accept EDI's and Geth's death. They think about "disney" ending instead.  Also Destroyers somehow trying to ignore Leviathans, and worlds full of dead Reaper bodies. And that attitude is actually artificial.

Should the endings be balanced? Sure, but they should be balanced in a way that does noy come off as artifical, ME2 did this fairly well with its end choice regarding the base.

And I perfectly understand and accept that EDI and the Geth are gone in destroy, that does not stop me from thinking its dumb and forced.

Sometimes I wonder if the endings would have been better off if they ditched the "Synthetics vs organics" crap from the final 5 minutes and boiled the choice down to destroy or control (with destroy not killing robots, but has some other drawback like making recovery much slower). The first part I am almost sure would be better.

Well, I still think that in case of Destroy EDI and Geth deaths are logical and not artificial. It's obvious that destroying the Reapers without harming all organics means brutal damaging vital synthetic systems. That's why EDI and the Geth are also affected.

Why doesn't Control affect EDI and the Geth then? I already said that I believe that Control changes the Reapers on atomic level, because the Catalyst can't be reprogrammed. That's why you need galactic scale explosion, not a hacking system to replace the old Catalyst with new one. Such explosion can only affect the Reapers hardware, nothing else.

Modifié par Seival, 24 septembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[CrutchCricket]

Lizardviking wrote...
You are missing my point.

Could something as advanced as the Reapers be built through other means? Sure, I guess so, I am not arguing against that.

What I was talking about was that such things never mattered to me, because in my headcanon the catalyst will in the end leave the galaxy so that galactic civilization truly can govern themselves in the end.

My reply was more to Xilizhra, but yes, I agree with you about Commander leaving. And the two points are unrelated anyway.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
You are missing my point.

Could something as advanced as the Reapers be built through other means? Sure, I guess so, I am not arguing against that.

What I was talking about was that such things never mattered to me, because in my headcanon the catalyst will in the end leave the galaxy so that galactic civilization truly can govern themselves in the end.

My reply was more to Xilizhra, but yes, I agree with you about Commander leaving. And the two points are unrelated anyway.

Can't say that I like your reason for commander leaving, it is just too cynnical and depressing for my taste.

[CrutchCricket]

Lizardviking wrote...
Can't say that I like your reason for commander leaving, it is just too cynnical and depressing for my taste.

Really? I was under the impression that we were on the same page.

And how is it cynical? Or depressing?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
Can't say that I like your reason for commander leaving, it is just too cynnical and depressing for my taste.

Really? I was under the impression that we were on the same page.

And how is it cynical? Or depressing?

I find it depressing in the sense that Shepard sacrifices so much, only to become indifferent in the end towards everything he thought for.

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
Can't say that I like your reason for commander leaving, it is just too cynnical and depressing for my taste.

Really? I was under the impression that we were on the same page.

And how is it cynical? Or depressing?

I find it depressing in the sense that Shepard sacrifices so much, only to become indifferent in the end towards everything he thought for.

That's why I think that Shepard died. And created Catalyst-Shepard can't become indifferent at all, because its personality based on my Shepard's personality, and it has all Shepard's memories.

Modifié par Seival, 25 septembre 2012 - 11:23 .

[CrutchCricket]

Lizardviking wrote...
I find it depressing in the sense that Shepard sacrifices so much, only to become indifferent in the end towards everything he thought for.

In the end?

Nothing ends. Nothing ever ends.

[Massa FX]

I am always surprised to read control enders believing Shepard exists after watching skin fly off a body that's clearly turning to a husk and then disappearing entirely. The AI was born from that point. It isn't Shepard. It has a memory of Shepard... but that's it. Its a fancy computer housed in a blue box casing somewhere.

Under Control, Shepard dies with no chance for revival.

There is no Shepard AI, there's only a new Catalyst that's had an upgrade in software.

Modifié par Massa FX, 25 septembre 2012 - 05:21 .

[CrutchCricket]

Massa FX wrote...

I am always surprised to read control enders believing Shepard exists after watching skin fly off a body that's clearly turning to a husk and then disappearing entirely. The AI was born from that point. It isn't Shepard. It has a memory of Shepard... but that's it. Its a fancy computer housed in a blue box casing somewhere.

Under Control, Shepard dies with no chance for revival.

There is no Shepard AI, there's only a new Catalyst that's had an upgrade in software.

Wow... even pointing you to a rebuttal seems like a waste of time and effort.

But let it not be said that I didn't answer. Check the sig.

[Seival]

Massa FX wrote...

I am always surprised to read control enders believing Shepard exists after watching skin fly off a body that's clearly turning to a husk and then disappearing entirely. The AI was born from that point. It isn't Shepard. It has a memory of Shepard... but that's it. Its a fancy computer housed in a blue box casing somewhere.

Under Control, Shepard dies with no chance for revival.

There is no Shepard AI, there's only a new Catalyst that's had an upgrade in software.

Exactly my point. Catalyst-Shepard is Shepard's offspring, who inherit her way of thinking and memories. Human-Shepard died while giving birth to Catalyst-Shepard. And that is one of the dire prices you have to pay choosing Control path...

...And I'm saying that as possibly the biggest Control ending fan on BSN. I mean that I'm fully aware of price I have to pay, and great risk I have to take. My Shepard just couldn't make different choice. And more importantly, she is really ready to give birth to the New Catalyst, which will stop the Cycles forever.



EDIT: There is only one thing I disagree in your post. I think the Catalyst is hardware, not a software. That's why you need galactic-scale explosion to remake it. Catalyst can't be reprogrammed. It can be only changed on atomic level.

Modifié par Seival, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:01 .

[Uncle Jo]

Lizardviking wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
You are missing my point.

Could something as advanced as the Reapers be built through other means? Sure, I guess so, I am not arguing against that.

What I was talking about was that such things never mattered to me, because in my headcanon the catalyst will in the end leave the galaxy so that galactic civilization truly can govern themselves in the end.

My reply was more to Xilizhra, but yes, I agree with you about Commander leaving. And the two points are unrelated anyway.

Can't say that I like your reason for commander leaving, it is just too cynnical and depressing for my taste.

Just passing by and not trolling. CrutchCricket's Theory about Control is IMO one of the most realistic interpretations, I honestly recommend the read. And I'm really not a fan of the blue option.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:20 .

[Seival]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
You are missing my point.

Could something as advanced as the Reapers be built through other means? Sure, I guess so, I am not arguing against that.

What I was talking about was that such things never mattered to me, because in my headcanon the catalyst will in the end leave the galaxy so that galactic civilization truly can govern themselves in the end.

My reply was more to Xilizhra, but yes, I agree with you about Commander leaving. And the two points are unrelated anyway.

Can't say that I like your reason for commander leaving, it is just too cynnical and depressing for my taste.

Just passing by and not trolling. CrutchCricket's Theory about Control is IMO one of the most realistic interpretations, I honestly recommend the read. And I'm really not a fan of the blue option.

I suppose "realistic" is too tricky word in this case. Realistic in terms of modern technologies we see around us is one thing. But realistic in terms of some fictional super-advanced technologies is completely different. We can imagine anything in this case and call it "realistic".

[Seival]

Volc19 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings.

No. Not in the slightest. People are trying to find something to grasp to, in large part, but don't mistake this for the endings having even the slightest glimmer of quality.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

Hardly. Anyone could still want to control the Reapers if they wanted their power hanging around instead of just destroying them. How is it satisfying to choose a different ending just because you want to avoid completely arbitrary genocide instead of actually, you know, wanting that outcome?

Also, Control is unsustainable over the long term, as you can't replace lost Reapers unless you restart the cycle.

Disagree, but will not argue (because I already discussed that too often).

About Control is unsustainable over the long term... That's why I think Synthesis in inevitable anyway. In case of Control, Shepard just bought some time to improve Synthesis mechanics and prepare everyone for the transformation. Controlled Synthesis will remove synthetics-vs-organics issue without adding too many new issues in the process.

Or we could just remove Synthesis from our minds entirely.

I look upon Synthesis like I do ME:Deception. Too silly to be canon.

As I already said, it's not really hard to make Synthesis inevitable without making any of the endings "canon". Synthesis is not silly at all. I really hope devs will follow this path, and create the sequel.

Modifié par Seival, 26 septembre 2012 - 08:22 .

[CrutchCricket]

Volc19 wrote...

Or we could just remove Synthesis from our minds entirely.

I look upon Synthesis like I do ME:Deception. Too silly to be canon.

If only Bioware would disown it like it has Deception.

But they'd sooner stick sporks in their eyes then touch their beloved "artistic integrity".

[Seival]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Or we could just remove Synthesis from our minds entirely.

I look upon Synthesis like I do ME:Deception. Too silly to be canon.

If only Bioware would disown it like it has Deception.

But they'd sooner stick sporks in their eyes then touch their beloved "artistic integrity".

Let's not forget that they are storytellers here. And they have the right and will to defend their creation.

And that artistic integrity actually led you to prefering Control over all other endings. I think you will never want some silly holywodish ending instead of you already have right now.

[CrutchCricket]

Seival wrote...
Let's not forget that they are storytellers here. And they have the right and will to defend their creation.

Yes well I suppose that technically I have the right to defend the "Captain's log" I just flushed down the toilet as well. Doesn't make me terribly smart to do so though, does it?

And that artistic integrity actually led you to prefering Control over all other endings. I think you will never want some silly holywodish ending instead of you already have right now.

Preferring dirt in an option between **** or worse is no real preference.

The consequences of Control appeal to me, the individual. That's it. Once you stop giving a damn about the ME world (if they don't, why should I?) Control is the only option that makes sense.

[Xilizhra]

I've come around, I think, to accepting Control... but only if Shepard can be brought back to life, physically. Otherwise, I'll refuse to acknowledge any ending. As of now, anyway.

[CrutchCricket]

Xilizhra wrote...

I've come around, I think, to accepting Control... but only if Shepard can be brought back to life, physically. Otherwise, I'll refuse to acknowledge any ending. As of now, anyway.

I saw your thread about it. Amidst the trolling, you were given plenty of suggestions as to how that might happen.

Shepard being recreated physically is peanuts to the new entity.

[Xilizhra]

Well, one hopes. Though my copy of ME3 has bugged out, so the point may be entirely moot. But it did so in the middle of Priority: Earth, so it was hardly at a bad time.

[CrutchCricket]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, one hopes. Though my copy of ME3 has bugged out, so the point may be entirely moot. But it did so in the middle of Priority: Earth, so it was hardly at a bad time.

lol.

Priority: Earth may be underwhelming but at least it's consistent. The real bull**** begins after Anderson dies. Before I gave up on the ME world and went with control, that was the Alt-F4 point. I just made up my own ending after that.

I personally like the consequences of Control. Doesn't change how I feel about this RGB debachle any. That I've since adapted my canon around control and was able to get most of what I wanted in my post-ME3 world is simply adaptation, no thanks to Bioware.

[Xilizhra]

So what else did you want?

[CrutchCricket]

Xilizhra wrote...

So what else did you want?

Well in the months leading up to ME3 I wasn't even thinking about the war. I was thinking of all the stuff that could be done after the war. Back then, I (foolishly) trusted that they can handle the war just fine. I left them to it and as long as the world and all characters are pretty much intact I could then do whatever I wanted. The ME world as it was then had a lot of potential to become an expanded universe where many stories about many charactes could be told, like what Star Wars is (referring only to the sandbox nature, not necessarily themes and structure).

So basically I started imagining what the Shepard and the gang would do after the war future problems they'd face, etc. Of course now I realize that I initally and naively maintained the status quo a little too much- the galaxy would be very different after facing down a galactic threat. But all the major players would still be there, and the setting would remain (Citadel, mass relays etc).

Then the ending hit. All of a sudden we have space magic, the Citadel gets inexplicably moved, relays blow up (or are retconned to be only "damaged) everyone's acting weird, especially Shepard who for 2.9 games in typical game protagonist fashion didn't give a damn who or what tried to stop him or tell him x course of action was impossible, he did it anyway. Until now, where he meekly submits to the greatest pile of bull**** this side of farmland. Reapers are cheapened from incomprehensible cosmic level horrors to mere giant killbots at the behest of an insane genocidal holokid. In a nutshell, those last 5 min completely destroyed everything we've spent 60+ hours building and experiencing. I still cannot imagine a more thorough eradication of what we were fighting for.

So all of a sudden, my protagonist is a mewling idiot, my enemies are reduced to the laughable, my galaxy's destroyed and plunged in a dark age and I'm still not sure what happened.

I rejected the endings outright and Alt-F4'd after Anderson dies making up my own where the holokid is just a Reaper trick that Shepard sees through and flips off, all on his way to actually taking control of the Crucible which fires Death Star-esque lasers that one-shots Reapers. There's no space magic so Shepard has to use the Citadel to deploy the weapon in each system, with the fleets giving him cover. Now that would've been an ending that a) fits with everything else we've been doing and b)actually makes use of that war asset business. The number of systems you can save is directly impacted by how much support you've managed to get as well as your own Shepard's constitution. In the end, even with the best results some Reapers escape but we are victorious. Shepard then either dies, or with high enough EMS is merely found unconscious and brought back to the Normandy. Oh and Javik takes control of the weapon and flies it into Dark space to eliminate the Dark Relay (Citadel counterpart)

From then on I had entire plotlines planned out about the political state of the galaxy, warring factions alliances, betrayals, everything. ME3 wasn't an end for me, it was only the beginning. The universe would've kept on spinning.

When the EC came out it fixed some of the glaring issues but nowhere near enough. And since it was obvious that the whole thing was planned and they weren't going to renounce their bull**** "artistic integrity" I said **** it, done with ME, the universe can rot for all I care. Giving up on all that made control the only logical choice, because like I said I personally like what it entails and even my Shepard  said screw this, bring on the power and ascension.

Over time, I was able to adapt most of what I wanted to Control and in all fairness, I must admit it gave me some new ideas as well (ideas that I argue would logically happen regardless of ending choice). But it's not perfect. Relationships still suffer as you're very much aware. I can reconcile Miranda, my LI but I also rp'd a deep friendship with Kasumi and that's harder to maintain (plus ME3 itself made sure to sabotage that). And looking back, that Dark Relay plot is still exciting and I wish I could fit it in. But with Commander, what's the point? It's got all the Reapers, all the Reaper tech. There's no mystery there. Maybe I can do it with other characters. But it's not the same.

Anyway sorry for the rant. But as you can tell I was quite invested in this.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 28 septembre 2012 - 04:29 .

[cyrexwingblade]

I'm just surprised folks think there is only one correct interpretation of the Shepard before Control and the Shepard after Control.

You can make numerous plot-plausible points for Shepard simply being transformed into a demigod-AI, but still being *Shepard* just as much as for Shepard dying to make a new entity modeled after her personality.

The difference is what level of plot-device you want to infer or not. The "woman/man I was..." lines can be interpreted multiple ways just as easily. You expand a person mind to demigod status, they probably wouldn't view themselves as the same person. Doesn't mean they *aren't* same person. It also doesn't mean they ARE.

Just saying that have one-set-answer in a situation like this is basically silly. Preferences are fine, and head-canon explanations are fun to explore, but getting dogmatic about a fictional world with flexible physics in the first place is a bit silly, isn't it?

[CrutchCricket]

cyrexwingblade wrote...

I'm just surprised folks think there is only one correct interpretation of the Shepard before Control and the Shepard after Control.

You can make numerous plot-plausible points for Shepard simply being transformed into a demigod-AI, but still being *Shepard* just as much as for Shepard dying to make a new entity modeled after her personality.

The difference is what level of plot-device you want to infer or not. The "woman/man I was..." lines can be interpreted multiple ways just as easily. You expand a person mind to demigod status, they probably wouldn't view themselves as the same person. Doesn't mean they *aren't* same person. It also doesn't mean they ARE.

Just saying that have one-set-answer in a situation like this is basically silly. Preferences are fine, and head-canon explanations are fun to explore, but getting dogmatic about a fictional world with flexible physics in the first place is a bit silly, isn't it?

I can't speak for others, but if you check the link in my sig I do address this (among other things).

Technically speaking the control entity is NOT Shepard. It is much more than that- controller of the Reapers, aggregate consciousness, what have you. It isn't just Shepard sitting in cyberspace pulling the strings.

That being said, there is still continuity between Shepard and the control entity. One doesn't simply end and the other begins. Rather one "becomes" the other. Everything about Shepard is uploaded. The question is one of identity which if you look at it carefully, isn't as obvious as it seems. I argue there is the same continuity between Shepard and Commander (my name for the entity) as there is between any person and their past self even though the two are different entities (the key isn't what's lost but what's added).

So while the assertion "The control entity is not Shepard" is technically correct and one I would technically agree with, the way this is usually brought up implies that Commander is a mere copy, a fake of the original Shepard and that there is something intrinsic about the original Shepard that was lost. If anything that last part is the one I adamantly disagree with.