358 réponses à ce sujet

[iggy4566]

ShadowSoldier89 wrote...

iggy4566 wrote...

ShadowSoldier89 wrote...

I have improved my original graph and now present this one

Shadow of the colossus and Ico those two games and their endings are Art Pure art they anlong with Flower and Joruney are to change them that would be messing artist vision.

totally agree, not sure if u were against my chart or not, if u were please notice the scale on the left

I did thanks for giving SOTC the respect it needs it ending is art and it fits with in its world ties very nicely to Ico's storyline.

[Subject M]

Reorte wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Reorte wrote...


No, it is NOT genocide because you are not deliberately trying to destroy the geth. It is the difference between leaving someone to stay behind to save the rest, knowing that they'll probably die and shooting that person.

You can argue about whether it was the right choice, whether it was justified or utterly unacceptable but it simply is not genocide.

It's nothing like that. It's like an alien race blowing up the entire planet earth because one country fired a missile at them. If an alien race killed every single creature on earth because it was the easiest way to kill the one person who attacked them, it would still be genocide,

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? The Reapers have done a hell of a lot more than fire one missile. They very, very definitely threaten the lives of every single advanced species in the galaxy, and most non-advanced ones that just happen to be on the same planets.

No-one is attacking the geth. If an alien race killed every creature on earth because it was the only convincing way to stop themselves and everyone else they knew from being wiped out they'd be entirely justified in doing it. It's not the easiest way. What are the alternatives? Control is a massive, massive gamble on everyone's lives, not just the geth's. Synthesis is vile for reasons that have been discussed thoroughly enough elsewhere. And now we've got the new choice of letting the Reapers kill everyone else anyway.

Deliberate means "with full realization of what one is doing." Unless you don't realize that the red beam will kill the geth, you are deliberately killing them. If that's not genocide, it's pretty darn close.

Deliberate means that your intention is to kill the geth, that's why you chose it.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that genocide requires intent? At worst it's the difference between murder and manslaughter. All too often I see people latch onto incomplete definitions of words, say "They're bad" and therefore act as if that defines everything. Look beyond the words at what's actually going on instead of "Killing lots of people == genocide == bad and therefore you shouldn't do it." That's oversimplifying far too much.

Isnt the act of knowingly doing something that will wipe out every life form of a certain kind just to get to an extremely hostile enemy and supspeices an act of genocide?

Would it not be like genocide to, during the WW2,  push a button that would kill all enemies in Japan but simultaneously wipe out all Asians? Or at least all Japanese and Koreans? Even if the intention was just to destroy the Japanese war-effort ?

Modifié par Subject M, 26 juin 2012 - 11:26 .

[MelancholyV]

I will give them credit for fixing some plot holes, such as how the final run team got to the Normandy, how the Normandy escaped, rebuilding the relays, etc.

The reason why I'm personally not satisfied lies in the fact that this should not have happened in the first place. "Too little, too late" is a good way of putting it. We got some clarification, yes, but it didn't fix the first half of why we hated the ending so much, and Bioware/EA/whoever have pushed off acknowledging their mistakes so long that it doesn't feel as though they put much effort into it. The Starchild is still unexplained and remains the random god-like entity that we're forced to listen to. Synthesis is still space magic. Does Shepard survive in the best destroy ending? Who knows.

The "refusal" ending is a nice touch, even if it leads to everyone failing. At least we have the option now to say no. I admit that I'm partial to becoming supreme Reaper overlord for no particular reason.

[irishgamer67]

Well I don't like the endings and I never will, all because of starchild and the final choices. I just think they go against every theme  from the first two games. I mean you fought against synthesis in the first and control in two and three with shepards ultimate goal being destroy but that's turned on it's head at the end.

Also I think synthesis goes against every thing Mass effect stands for as a whole, freewill, freedom of choice. I mean when you pick synthesis you're condeming every species in the galaxy to become....well one species, what if they don't want that. With destroy that's just mass genocide, killing the geth and EDI so every one else can live. As for control well I don't really mind that apart from the reapers turning against their master and the whole thing just starts all over again. Starchild does say the created will always rebel against their creaters.

Anyway that's just my two cent's, I don't feel any hatred towards casey and bioware, I just think this trilogy deserved a better ending.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

When they first came out with Mass Effect, they were asked where they got the idea for Commander Shepard. It was Astronaut Alan Shepard, they said. I met Alan Shepard when I was a teenager back in the 1960s in Houston. This ending spits on his name and character.

-------------------------------

But if you want the best outcome, follow the plan I outlined in my thread of yesterday, and add the following....

If you must romance as femShep make your choice 1) Jacob, or 2) Thane.

If you must romance as maleShep make your choice 1) Miranda, or 2) Jack.

Do not romance Tali, Liara, Garrus, Samantha, Kaiden, or Ashley.

This will spare Shepard the agony of having their loved one taken away on the Normandy and never seeing them again, well maybe not until 70.

But what confuses me is this breath scene + memorial scene. So I guess Shepard lives for about 30 seconds. Again more of Bioware toying with the player. F*** them.

I'm going to be finishing Witcher 2, while they work out the bugs in Dawnguard.

[Shadow Shep]

Stian7 wrote...

It gave me closure and the hollow feeling I got the first time was gone.

[Derp88]

Meohfumado wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Most of the complaints I have seen today and I have been reading a lot of threads, is coming from people who wanted Shepard tol live happy ever after or the most fanatical of the IDT theorists. Some people don't like the fact they couldn't win by using just conventional means or convince a computer AI that it is wrong with mere arguing which is silly to begin with but more often than not its the IDT theorists and blue babies kind that have been complaining the most.

Considering how illogical the computer AI is, it shouldn't have been hard to prove his logic as fallacious.

Starchild: "Biologicals and synthetics cannot peacefully coexist."

Shepherd: "Umm...just five minutes ago I hammered out a mutually beneficial peace accord between biologicals and synthetics."

Starchild: "B..b.b..b..but biologicals and synthetics cannot peacefully coexist.  Its impossible."

Shepherd: "But I just did it!  I just spent hours doing just that.  Not only is it not impossible, its just happened!  Here, come to the Quarian homeworld, I can show you Geth and Quarian working together for mutual benefit.  Peace has been achieved, it clearly is possible because it just happened."

Yes. But how long would the peace  last?

One of the original purposes of the AI was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics. It states that everytime it ended in conflict. Granted we don't know the sample size, but I'm guessing it spanned over quite a few cycles.

So maybe the AI has had more experience in  relations between organics and synthetics, whereas Shepard has only experienced a conflict that has lasted a few hundred years between the Geth and Quarians..

So its not really illogical.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

ShadowSoldier89 wrote...

I have improved my original graph and now present this one

Brilliant. I never played SOTC or FFXIII-2, but it does illustrate the polished turd I envision.

[Tocquevillain]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
No it's still true.

Again, Shepard's limited options are the result of countless civilizations making the Crucible to certain specifications, the current galactic community ignoring the threat until it was already on their doorstep, and the Reapers themselves for necessitating such rash actions.  It is not a war crime to use the Crucible, in fact the only true war crime is the ending in which Shepard refuses to use it.

So you're saying that if you have a weapon that can end a war in three ways, two of which have no casulaties and one which commits genocide, it's not a warcrime to use the weapon on the "warcrime" setting rather than on one of the other settings?

Makes sense.

So you're basically agreeing with me that we're not forced to commit a warcrime.  Good on ya.

Oh, a sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention.

Once again the argument is "Deliberately killing every single member of a race isn't a crime if it  saves my life and I think it's cooler than my other options that would also save everone except me."

If you don't see why that's a bad moral for a work of fiction to have, I can't help you.

I think it's wonderful that you have such strong moral convictions.You could do wonderful things for many humanitarian causes in this world.

That being said...I wouldn't vote for you. Your stance reminds me of Chamberlain. Not prepared to break a few eggs.

You've phrased the argument wrong. The argument is "do I save all organic life by killing the Reapers at the expense of organic life". You cleverly phrased it in such a way as to make it seem as though he was selfish.

Modifié par Tocquevillain, 26 juin 2012 - 11:44 .

[Jarcander]

It bothers me that I can't remember jack from Halo 2's plot. Maybe itll come to me after some sleep.

[mcguireptr1]

I would give them credit, if there fixes themselves didn't need more fixs. I will list them.
1. When Hammer is getting decimated by harbinger, how the hell did the normady just fly in there stop, land, and sit idly by while rescueing your team. ( and by the way I had Javik with me and he wanted to stay and fight. It is illogical for my Shepard to refuse him since I know after it is over he is going to kill himself anyway.)
2. Who did Anderson make it on when everyone way dead.
3. If your armor is nearly destroyed how is your comm still working, does shepard have an implant is his head that i missed.
4. every single thing that comes out of the Star childs mouth.
5. The lazy explaination of Hackett saying, "Everyone get to the rendezvous point" that is not how a offensive military advance works" their is not a predetermined retreat point. There would be check points, rally points, casualty colloction points( usualy not predetermined) and a limit of advance. this whole retreat to the rendezvous point is just lazy and stupid, Yeah and it was nice of the Fleet to completely abandon me and all the ground troops they are supose to support. I know if i was down there i would want to kill that dumb admiral.
6. The only way to get the breathing scene is to choose the destroy option. who could Shepard survive that explotion on the citadel.

I could go on but it gets a little redundant. And i think i made my point.

Modifié par mcguireptr1, 26 juin 2012 - 11:48 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Derp88 wrote...

Meohfumado wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Most of the complaints I have seen today and I have been reading a lot of threads, is coming from people who wanted Shepard tol live happy ever after or the most fanatical of the IDT theorists. Some people don't like the fact they couldn't win by using just conventional means or convince a computer AI that it is wrong with mere arguing which is silly to begin with but more often than not its the IDT theorists and blue babies kind that have been complaining the most.

Considering how illogical the computer AI is, it shouldn't have been hard to prove his logic as fallacious.

Starchild: "Biologicals and synthetics cannot peacefully coexist."

Shepherd: "Umm...just five minutes ago I hammered out a mutually beneficial peace accord between biologicals and synthetics."

Starchild: "B..b.b..b..but biologicals and synthetics cannot peacefully coexist.  Its impossible."

Shepherd: "But I just did it!  I just spent hours doing just that.  Not only is it not impossible, its just happened!  Here, come to the Quarian homeworld, I can show you Geth and Quarian working together for mutual benefit.  Peace has been achieved, it clearly is possible because it just happened."

Yes. But how long would the peace  last?

One of the original purposes of the AI was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics. It states that everytime it ended in conflict. Granted we don't know the sample size, but I'm guessing it spanned over quite a few cycles.

So maybe the AI has had more experience in  relations between organics and synthetics, whereas Shepard has only experienced a conflict that has lasted a few hundred years between the Geth and Quarians..

So its not really illogical.

But if you show it Rannoch, it will do something to the synthetics to make them do something nasty to the organics that causes the organics to do something nasty back and thus begin another war. Then will look at you and say "See? I told you so." That's how this ****er operates.

[nwntask]

as for the fourth choice,am iI the only one that finds it insulting?it's like they are teliing us "here is the choice you made such fuzz about!" and then punished us with its outcome and loughed at our face..

[Meohfumado]

Derp88 wrote...

Meohfumado wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Most of the complaints I have seen today and I have been reading a lot of threads, is coming from people who wanted Shepard tol live happy ever after or the most fanatical of the IDT theorists. Some people don't like the fact they couldn't win by using just conventional means or convince a computer AI that it is wrong with mere arguing which is silly to begin with but more often than not its the IDT theorists and blue babies kind that have been complaining the most.

Considering how illogical the computer AI is, it shouldn't have been hard to prove his logic as fallacious.

Starchild: "Biologicals and synthetics cannot peacefully coexist."

Shepherd: "Umm...just five minutes ago I hammered out a mutually beneficial peace accord between biologicals and synthetics."

Starchild: "B..b.b..b..but biologicals and synthetics cannot peacefully coexist.  Its impossible."

Shepherd: "But I just did it!  I just spent hours doing just that.  Not only is it not impossible, its just happened!  Here, come to the Quarian homeworld, I can show you Geth and Quarian working together for mutual benefit.  Peace has been achieved, it clearly is possible because it just happened."

Yes. But how long would the peace  last?

One of the original purposes of the AI was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics. It states that everytime it ended in conflict. Granted we don't know the sample size, but I'm guessing it spanned over quite a few cycles.

So maybe the AI has had more experience in  relations between organics and synthetics, whereas Shepard has only experienced a conflict that has lasted a few hundred years between the Geth and Quarians..

So its not really illogical.

Hey, if he busted out some charts with statistics, I could at least accept his cold, hard statistics in this regard.  And Starchild could accuse Shepherd of being emotional, and short-sighted, etc.  That would at least make sense.  But it never happens.

And its still terrible storytelling in any case, particularly with a video game.  It makes Shepherd's struggle to unite the Geth and Quarians utterly worthless.  Why make a character spend 3 hours doing something, only to immediately turn around and say, "Yeah, you did the 'impossible', but none of that matters anymore because its not going to last."

[Bill Casey]

The refuse choice is great...
It's now the second best option...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 juin 2012 - 11:50 .

[darkstarxt]

Unsatisfied because of the lack of reunion scene after destroy ending. The actual destroy ending even BUILDS UP to such a scene but then there is... credits

[Grifman1]

Subject M wrote...

Isnt the act of knowingly doing something that will wipe out every life form of a certain kind just to get to an extremely hostile enemy and supspeices an act of genocide?

Would it not be like genocide to, during the WW2,  push a button that would kill all enemies in Japan but simultaneously wipe out all Asians? Or at least all Japanese and Koreans? Even if the intention was just to destroy the Japanese war-effort ?

The world isn't perfect, you don't always get perfect solutions.  If this were the only way to win, then yeah, you do it for the greater good of the galaxy.  If it's either one species (the Geth) vs. losing the entire galaxy, yeah, I'll sacrifice the Geth as sad as that would make me.  Do I wish the game gave me another choice, sure, but it didn't and you have to go with the cards you have, not the ones you wish you had.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Tocquevillain wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Once again the argument is "Deliberately killing every single member of a race isn't a crime if it  saves my life and I think it's cooler than my other options that would also save everone except me."

If you don't see why that's a bad moral for a work of fiction to have, I can't help you.

I think it's wonderful that you have such strong moral convictions.You could do wonderful things for many humanitarian causes in this world.

That being said...I wouldn't vote for you. Your stance reminds me of Chamberlain. Not prepared to break a few eggs.

You've phrased the argument wrong. The argument is "do I save all organic life by killing the Reapers at the expense of organic life". You cleverly phrased it in such a way as to make it seem as though he was selfish.

No, Destroy isn't the only way to save organic life. All the information we have access to implies that the other two options also save the lives of every living sentient. Destroy only saves organic life in a way that you, personally, find more convenient, palatable, or pleasing.

There's also difference between risking a platoon of soldiers in a fight and eradicating an entire friendly race. If you legitimately don't see any difference between sending a large number of soldiers into war  where they may well die and eradicating every surviving member of a race when you know there are other options... I cannot explain it to you.

My point isn't that people are killing the geth to be jerks, my point is that the game is forcing you to do something awful and then leading you to minimize it... and I think that's a poor thing for fiction to do.

[Grifman1]

Meohfumado wrote...

  It makes Shepherd's struggle to unite the Geth and Quarians utterly worthless.  Why make a character spend 3 hours doing something, only to immediately turn around and say, "Yeah, you did the 'impossible', but none of that matters anymore because its not going to last."

I agree with this.  The game spent a lot of time on the whole Quarian/Geth problem and even allows you to solve it.  Heck, the Geth not only make peace with the Quarians and help them restore their world, but they join the war against the Reapers!  Yet you're never allowed to use this evidence to prove Star Child wrong about the inevitability of war between organic and synthetic life.  This was such an obvious retort to Star Child's argumen but instead, it's as if this never even happened.

Total fail by Bioware here, very disappointing IMO.

[MIBO765]

I'm wondering about the "preservation - solution". If each reaper contains all that once was a race, why should they just do, what they are created for? (like the Starchild says) What sense in "preservation" when it turns out only to be some kind of datastorage in reaperform?

Btw: I think that breathing-scene is in fact our Shepard. Why else would they use a female voice and a male voice for the last gasp?

[jinxter69]

The writers of this 3rd game had an OBVIOUS disconnect from the writers of the ending. How else do you explain having a possibility of ending the Geth/Quarian war which invalidates the starchild only argument for destroying everything. How in the heck could a game get written with that obvious a plot-hole?

The first 2 games had a hero's journey...don't really know what the 3rd game was about...other than to accomplish the very thing the deus-ex machina character in the end says is impossible.

[Ratham]

Velocithon wrote...

I still feel no closure. All the "closure" stuff came in the form of powerpoint slides. Which is very cheap and emotionless.

[Grifman1]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Destroy only saves organic life in a way that you, personally, find more convenient, palatable, or pleasing.

Well, that's what it comes down to in the end, right, personal preference.

My point isn't that people are killing the geth to be jerks, my point is that the game is forcing you to do something awful and then leading you to minimize it... and I think that's a poor thing for fiction to do.

Who's minimizing it?  All I see is people being unhappy with that being a part of the Destroy solution, but still feeling it is for the best nevertheless.  I don't see anyone "minimizing" it.

[AM94]

Can anyone fill me in on what races and people can show up in the end cinematics because i feel like some were missing. The Salarians didnt appear in mine even though i had the support, the Krogan did, the Asari did, the Turians did, the Quarian homeworld did without the Quarians or Geth because i wiped both of them out throughout the course of the game, and obviously the Humans did. The other minor races didnt nor do i really care, im not that nitpicky.

Also some but not all of my ME2 squadmates showed up. The ones that did being Jacob, Samara, Zaeed, Kasumi, Jack, and Grunt. Miranda was the only one that didnt even though she was alive at least after Sanctuary anyway, wondering if anyone else got her to show up. It also showed Thane, Mordin, Legion, and EDI but as a recognition of their sacrifice. James didnt show up either, not sure if i remember seeing him when they put up the plaque for Shepard.

Just wondering about all the possible things that appear in the end based on how you did. Really enjoyed the endings despite some issues like the Normandy appearing in front of Harbinger without getting shot but that didn't bother me. Needless to say i wasnt unsatisfied whatsoever as i was a couple months ago.

Modifié par AM94, 27 juin 2012 - 12:10 .

[mcguireptr1]

I may be overly harsh on the ending. The reason is because bioware did so much right with 3 games of the series, hundreds of hours of near perfection, and all of it was undermined by the last ten minutes. How could they do that get hundreds of hours perfect and take it all back in less than ten minutes. I think why myself, and possible many other, are so upset about this fact because we are so invested. other games by bethesba, ubisoft, microsoft, etc. don't get me this upset but i think that is because i don't get into their games as much. those usually have way more errors or plot holes, but those go ignored, but bioware when they mess up it is so in your face you can't ignore.
In the end though, I forgave bioware for DA2, I forgave SWTOR, and I gave them one more shot with This EC. But I now see they have lost their touch and their concept of art, artistric integrity be damned with these clowns, and fail to make games for their fans but instead get your hopes up with fixes that are not fixes. I will not be buying the next bioware game unless by some miracle they redeme themselves and I find out that they come out with something that is equavalent to DA" Origins( which i think is the best game ever).

Modifié par mcguireptr1, 27 juin 2012 - 12:13 .