1199 réponses à ce sujet

[KLGChaos]

I think the problem is that the ending forces you to sacrifice too much, which keeps it from feeling like a victory-- your friends, your soul, the freedom of choice. Everything you fought for. Losing people along the way in a heroic epic is acceptable-- like the Virmire Survivor, Mordin, Thane, the billions already dead, etc. However, when it comes to the ending, you definitely need an end that leaves you feeling like you really accomplished something.

I didn't get that feeling from any of the endings. I played through an epic, heroic space opera and in the end, I didn't feel at all heroic. I felt like a guy caving in to a space god or dying because I didn't. After everything Shep went through, I felt he deserved a chance to be happy. He earned it.

That's just my own opinion, though. I just wish we had the option to save everyone who was left and survive, without having to commit genocide, suicide or force space magic on the entire galaxy. Just the option... and I don't really see where having the option would diminish the others if you had to work really hard to get it. People could still choose to sacrifice if they wanted. It's what role-playing is all about.

The whole ending just felt too much like a Matrix Revolutions wannabe... Too much philosophy in my sci-fi heroic epic... and we all know how that movie was received.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 30 juin 2012 - 03:36 .

[De1ta G]

For me, after everything my Shepard has been through. Dying to destroy the reapers is the most fitting way to end. I think if Shepard survived do to how high your EMS was, it wouldn't have felt right. And I did everything in the game, so I would have had an high enough EMS. Luckily for me I got the ending I wanted after the EC came out.

[De1ta G]

KLGChaos wrote...

I think the problem is that the ending forces you to sacrifice too much, which keeps it from feeling like a victory-- your friends, your soul, the freedom of choice. Everything you fought for. Losing people along the way in a heroic epic is acceptable-- like the Virmire Survivor, Mordin, Thane, the billions already dead, etc. However, when it comes to the ending, you definitely need an end that leaves you feeling like you really accomplished something.

I didn't get that feeling from any of the endings. I played through an epic, heroic space opera and in the end, I didn't feel at all heroic. I felt like a guy caving in to a space god or dying because I didn't.

That's just my own opinion, though. I just wish we had the option to save everyone who was left and survive, without having to commit genocide, suicide or force space magic on the entire galaxy. Just the option... and I don't really see where having the option would diminish the others if you had to work really hard to get it. People could still choose to sacrifice if they wanted.

The whole ending just felt too much like a Matrix Revolutions wannabe... Too much philosophy in my sci-fi heroic epic... and we all know how that movie was received.

Everyone looks at these things differently. You said you didn't get the feeling that you accomplished anything after doing so much stuff. After seeing all the pictures and listening to what Hackett said in the EC, I do feel like I accomplished saving the galaxy and had to sacrifice myself to do it. The "breath" seen I got really doesn't make much of a difference because it doesn't neccessarily mean Shepard lived.

You see destroying the Geth as genocide while I see it as collateral damage. The geth, I believe, would have chosen to die in order to not be like the reapers or to need them for their future.

Modifié par De1ta G, 30 juin 2012 - 03:39 .

[Zu Long]

De1ta G wrote...

For me, after everything my Shepard has been through. Dying to destroy the reapers is the most fitting way to end. I think if Shepard survived do to how high your EMS was, it wouldn't have felt right. And I did everything in the game, so I would have had an high enough EMS. Luckily for me I got the ending I wanted after the EC came out.

If living without necessitating genocide had been one of the options though, would you have even picked it? Given that the ending you wanted was available, would it have mattered if there was another one with the outcome many in this topic wanted?

[LordJeyl]

A happy ending is not interesting? Ha. As much as BioWare thinks that a happy ending would be tacked on, it doesn't help the fact that the now four choice system is such a tacked on element that it comes completely out of nowhere.

I mean, it's like if Mario got to Bowser's castle, saved the Princess, and after everyone groups together at the end, this glowing goomba comes out and tells Mario that he has to choose who lives and who dies. Luigi, Peach, or Toad. Why would you have something like that when nothing like that has happened in the previous games? The Virmire casualty you say? That actually made sense and the consequences of that choice affected the later stories. The suicide mission? You can save EVERYONE! Both of these incidents are gradually built up, executed very well and never leave the player feeling like this was out of place or out of context.

This whole choice ending with the Catalyst exists only for it's own sake and it does not reflect why we wanted to play this game in the first place.

[De1ta G]

Zu Long wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

For me, after everything my Shepard has been through. Dying to destroy the reapers is the most fitting way to end. I think if Shepard survived do to how high your EMS was, it wouldn't have felt right. And I did everything in the game, so I would have had an high enough EMS. Luckily for me I got the ending I wanted after the EC came out.

If living without necessitating genocide had been one of the options though, would you have even picked it? Given that the ending you wanted was available, would it have mattered if there was another one with the outcome many in this topic wanted?

How would the option be presented though? If it were choose this and you win and live or choose this and you win but you die, it wouldn't make any sense for my character in that case to say "Hey, I think I'll choose to die to make for a better story!" The only way I could see living in the end as an option is having a high enough EMS. But then it that case, it wouldn't be an option. If you had a high enough points you lived and if you didn't, you would die. So having a forced death, I believe, was the way to go. I can see why people would want the option, but I don't see how it could work as an actual option.

EDIT: Also, as I mentioned earlier. I don't think killing the geth was genocide, but collateral damage.

Modifié par De1ta G, 30 juin 2012 - 03:58 .

[Miekkas]

De1ta G wrote...

EDIT: Also, as I mentioned earlier. I don't think killing the geth was genocide, but collateral damage.

gen·o·cide/ˈjenəˌsīd/Noun:"The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

You can debate semantics all you want, but the act committed in the game fulfills the definition of genocide whether you like it or not. You shouldn't be attempting to pass off the act committed in the game as merely being collateral damage to avoid the moral implications of genocide. Instead of attempting to deny that the act was genocide, you should focus on debating if the genocidal act was justified.

Modifié par Miekkas, 30 juin 2012 - 04:20 .

[De1ta G]

Miekkas wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

EDIT: Also, as I mentioned earlier. I don't think killing the geth was genocide, but collateral damage.

gen·o·cide/ˈjenəˌsīd/Noun:"The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

You can debate semantics all you want, but the act committed in the game fulfills the definition of genocide whether you like it or not. You shouldn't be attempting to pass off the act committed in the game as merely being collateral damage to avoid the moral implications of genocide. Instead of attempting to deny that the act was genocide, you should focus on debating if the genocidal act was justified.

It's not as if your going "HAHA. I'm going to kill all the geth!" It as to be done to outright destroy the reapers, which was your goal from the begining. It was a neccessary sacrifice that can be deemed collateral damage. Also, the geth are machines and no one will missed them. All the organics will agree with me that it was neccessary to destroy the geth and EDI so that the reapers would also be eliminated. There would be no moral implications of destroying a race of synthetics.

[KLGChaos]

De1ta wrote...

It's not as if your going "HAHA. I'm going to kill all the geth!" It as to be done to outright destroy the reapers, which was your goal from the begining. It was a neccessary sacrifice that can be deemed collateral damage. Also, the geth are machines and no one will missed them. All the organics will agree with me that it was neccessary to destroy the geth and EDI so that the reapers would also be eliminated. There would be no moral implications of destroying a race of synthetics.

Maybe in your game, but my Shep made peace with the Geth and Quarians. He made friends with EDI and Legion. Hell, a huge part of the story was the question of Legion having a soul. Synthetics or organics, they're sentient, self-determined living beings. By saying "no one would care if they're dead", that shows your prejudice against the synthetics right there, which fulfills the "ethnic" portion of genocide quite well. Genocide isn't just about gleefully slaughtering people. It's just as bad if you care less whether an entire race dies as long as it suits your goals.

[Miezul_Carpatin]

De1ta G wrote...


It's not as if your going "HAHA. I'm going to kill all the geth!" It as to be done to outright destroy the reapers, which was your goal from the begining. It was a neccessary sacrifice that can be deemed collateral damage. Also, the geth are machines and no one will missed them. All the organics will agree with me that it was neccessary to destroy the geth and EDI so that the reapers would also be eliminated. There would be no moral implications of destroying a race of synthetics.

Wnat if someone else chose your race to be colatteral damage? I am sure every human would absolutely gladly sacrifice himself to destroy the reapers.
What if a single member of a more advanced race considererd humans little more than animals and is willing to sacrifice them for him to achieve a certain goal?

Modifié par Miezul_Carpatin, 30 juin 2012 - 04:55 .

[saracen16]

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

That's not Mass Effect, nor will it EVER be. Choice involves sacrifice in the ME universe. Yours is just a fantasy.

[X in 415]

What the OP brought up is basically what I want. I dont want to have to speculate or use my imagination anymore than I already do when gaming to get this ending that I want. It might be cheesy to some, but if that option was available, I would take it. As it is now, my Shepard that I spent hundreds of hours with is lying under a pile of rubble while his crew ditched out, and I need to rely on fanfic or my imagination to invision the ending that my Shepard deserves. I dont like that.

[KLGChaos]

The ME world is just a fantasy.... And there's plenty of choices in the game where you sacrifice. But the endings always have an option to be uplifting and heroic without needing to sacrifice everything to do it.

I just don't get all the hatred for happy endings these days.

[De1ta G]

KLGChaos wrote...

De1ta wrote...

It's not as if your going "HAHA. I'm going to kill all the geth!" It as to be done to outright destroy the reapers, which was your goal from the begining. It was a neccessary sacrifice that can be deemed collateral damage. Also, the geth are machines and no one will missed them. All the organics will agree with me that it was neccessary to destroy the geth and EDI so that the reapers would also be eliminated. There would be no moral implications of destroying a race of synthetics.

Maybe in your game, but my Shep made peace with the Geth and Quarians. He made friends with EDI and Legion. Hell, a huge part of the story was the question of Legion having a soul. Synthetics or organics, they're sentient, self-determined living beings. By saying "no one would care if they're dead", that shows your prejudice against the synthetics right there, which fulfills the "ethnic" portion of genocide quite well. Genocide isn't just about gleefully slaughtering people. It's just as bad if you care less whether an entire race dies as long as it suits your goals.

I did also unite the Geth and Quarians. I did also become friends with EDI and even encouraged the relationship between her and Joker. The Destroy ending is all about these things. You learn all this stuff about synthetics and then are faced with killing them. That's why it is sacrifice. If it weren't for that, everyone would pick Destroy unless they just wanted to be like TIM or Saren for some reason. 

[Master Xanthan]

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

This would be a nice ending. If they were to make an ending like this it would have to be challenging to get this ending (and wouldn't require multiplayer either).

[De1ta G]

Miezul_Carpatin wrote...

De1ta G wrote...


It's not as if your going "HAHA. I'm going to kill all the geth!" It as to be done to outright destroy the reapers, which was your goal from the begining. It was a neccessary sacrifice that can be deemed collateral damage. Also, the geth are machines and no one will missed them. All the organics will agree with me that it was neccessary to destroy the geth and EDI so that the reapers would also be eliminated. There would be no moral implications of destroying a race of synthetics.

Wnat if someone else chose your race to be colatteral damage? I am sure every human would absolutely gladly sacrifice himself to destroy the reapers.
What if a single member of a more advanced race considererd humans little more than animals and is willing to sacrifice them for him to achieve a certain goal?

You tell me. All of these are what ifs. Seriously. What if?

[Anduin The Grey]

LordJeyl wrote...

This whole choice ending with the Catalyst exists only for it's own sake and it does not reflect why we wanted to play this game in the first place.

I disagree, the Catalyst sets up the ME franchise future be set in the stories past or future. A conventional ending was ruled out in ME1 when it took everything the Alliance fleet could throw at Sovreign to destroy it.

I read earlier about the Geth possibly being able to challenge the Reapers? I can't comment on whether that would have been possible but I do know that Legion mentions in ME2 if I recall correctly that the heretic numbers represented about 5% of the total Geth.

[Anduin The Grey]

saracen16 wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

That's not Mass Effect, nor will it EVER be. Choice involves sacrifice in the ME universe. Yours is just a fantasy.

This sums up ME for me. Ever since the first ads for ME came out the game has always been about choice and consequence, you may choose but you must live with the consequences. ME2 was the same, choose the wrong fire teams and you lose people and more.

[Miezul_Carpatin]

De1ta G wrote...

Miezul_Carpatin wrote...

De1ta G wrote...


It's not as if your going "HAHA. I'm going to kill all the geth!" It as to be done to outright destroy the reapers, which was your goal from the begining. It was a neccessary sacrifice that can be deemed collateral damage. Also, the geth are machines and no one will missed them. All the organics will agree with me that it was neccessary to destroy the geth and EDI so that the reapers would also be eliminated. There would be no moral implications of destroying a race of synthetics.

Wnat if someone else chose your race to be colatteral damage? I am sure every human would absolutely gladly sacrifice himself to destroy the reapers.
What if a single member of a more advanced race considererd humans little more than animals and is willing to sacrifice them for him to achieve a certain goal?

You tell me. All of these are what ifs. Seriously. What if?

I think you are a souless person with a poor sense of morality that is willing to do everything to reach his goals. If you are like this in real life I pity you.

[Soggy-Snake-]

Conventional victory was never on option. So no.

Take out the starchild and everything is fine.

[Anduin The Grey]

Miezul_Carpatin wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

Miezul_Carpatin wrote...

De1ta G wrote...


It's not as if your going "HAHA. I'm going to kill all the geth!" It as to be done to outright destroy the reapers, which was your goal from the begining. It was a neccessary sacrifice that can be deemed collateral damage. Also, the geth are machines and no one will missed them. All the organics will agree with me that it was neccessary to destroy the geth and EDI so that the reapers would also be eliminated. There would be no moral implications of destroying a race of synthetics.

Wnat if someone else chose your race to be colatteral damage? I am sure every human would absolutely gladly sacrifice himself to destroy the reapers.
What if a single member of a more advanced race considererd humans little more than animals and is willing to sacrifice them for him to achieve a certain goal?

You tell me. All of these are what ifs. Seriously. What if?

I think you are a souless person with a poor sense of morality that is willing to do everything to reach his goals. If you are like this in real life I pity you.

I think the Reapers, despite each being distilled from the race they came from, lack the one thing everyone on this forum have in abundance, a soul. The Catalyst may have been playing God but he could not grant the spark of life that actually mattered.

[RethenX]

The more I think about it conventionally winning the battle for Earth may have been possible, but the war, I really don't think so. By the time the battle is over on Earth, the victory fleet would probably be in a critical state, and not at all able to provide assistance to the other theaters of war. Not to mention, if the Reapers decided to counter attack in full force, that would probably be it for the allies.

[De1ta G]

Miezul_Carpatin wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

Miezul_Carpatin wrote...

De1ta G wrote...


It's not as if your going "HAHA. I'm going to kill all the geth!" It as to be done to outright destroy the reapers, which was your goal from the begining. It was a neccessary sacrifice that can be deemed collateral damage. Also, the geth are machines and no one will missed them. All the organics will agree with me that it was neccessary to destroy the geth and EDI so that the reapers would also be eliminated. There would be no moral implications of destroying a race of synthetics.

Wnat if someone else chose your race to be colatteral damage? I am sure every human would absolutely gladly sacrifice himself to destroy the reapers.
What if a single member of a more advanced race considererd humans little more than animals and is willing to sacrifice them for him to achieve a certain goal?

You tell me. All of these are what ifs. Seriously. What if?

I think you are a souless person with a poor sense of morality that is willing to do everything to reach his goals. If you are like this in real life I pity you.

It's different when it's high tech mechanical contructs with adapting personalities that have no soul. If the option were for Destroy "You can destroy the reapers but you will die and so will all humans." Of course I wouldn't choose it. If it were "you can destroy the reapers but you will die and so will all quarians." I still wouldn't chose it. There is no morality issues with killing robots.

[De1ta G]

RethenX wrote...

The more I think about it conventionally winning the battle for Earth may have been possible, but the war, I really don't think so. By the time the battle is over on Earth, the victory fleet would probably be in a critical state, and not at all able to provide assistance to the other theaters of war. Not to mention, if the Reapers decided to counter attack in full force, that would probably be it for the allies.

I believe the crucible should of worked in a way that made it possible for a conventional victory. When Sovereign's shield went down in ME 1 it took one blast from the Normandy to kill it. If the crusible sent off a blast that took down the Reapers shields, it is very plausible that the war could have been won conventionally after that. Especially with upgraded thanax cannons on every ship.

[Eradyn]

Wait, we're going to judge whether someone/thing has the right to exist based on the vague criteria of an element no being can prove the existence of? And we're just going to randomly ascribe to ourselves the power to become arbiters of who does and does not bear this element, a soul? Really? This sounds so wrong on so many levels.

Modifié par Eradyn, 30 juin 2012 - 05:26 .