565 réponses à ce sujet

[Skyhawk02]

The Angry One wrote...

Doing something that the villain approves of and desires cannot be said to be defying the odds.

Yes it can, that sounds incredibly unlikely in my opinion.

 Not only that, but if the Catalyst loves Destroy, Control, and Synthesis so much, then why doesn't he pick them himself when you choose Reject?  Maybe because his first choice is to continue the cycle as it is.

[Lili Dragunova]

LegendaryBlade wrote...

I don't think the new endings are great, infact I think they're 'mediocre' to 'okay', but that is one giant leap forward to what we have. A C+ is a lot better than an F-.

I agree with this. Just because something is "better" doesn't necessarily mean it's "good."

Modifié par Lili Dragunova, 30 juin 2012 - 09:19 .

[Skyhawk02]

The Angry One wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Maybe you just aren't prepared to face the mature themes present in Mass Effect.

Stopped reading here. Don't bother responding again, because I am now ignoring you.

That's too bad because no offense was intended and I am really enjoying our discussion.  

Also, just because you are ignoring me doesn't mean I won't respond as there are a lot of other people watching and discussing on this thread so I will share my thoughts with anyone who will listen.

Modifié par Skyhawk02, 30 juin 2012 - 09:20 .

[xsdob]

Since I'm going to be going to bed now (2:15 am) and I've had a very stressful day, allow me to leave this parting analogy for this thread.

Now, this isn't meant to derail the discussion, on the contrary I think this is a great endless loop discussion and has a lot of good points in it, but to simply sum up what's going on for anyone looking for a laugh.

Immovable object, meet unstoppable force. Unstoppable force, immovable object.

Begin headbutting eachother until one of you stops disagreeing.

also, shepard isn't batman, he doesn't have to swear an oath against guns because one killed his parents. Shepard doesn't have to ignore using the choices the cataylst clearly doesn't want you to pick just because he presents them, part of a good liar is spinning truths into the lies after all, so nothing says the options do not do exactly what the catalyst say's they'll do, and synthesis is the lie.

Modifié par xsdob, 30 juin 2012 - 09:21 .

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

but you refuse to remove the catalyst, therefore it's still around to tell them what to do.

Because the reject ending is designed as an insult that freezes our Shepard into inaction when they should be calling the fleet to eliminate the Catalyst right there and then.

How would they eliminate the Catalyst? By blowing up the Citadel? There's a lot of innocent people in the Citadel.

By blowing up the Presidium tower, where the Catalyst's core likely is, as that's where the Crucible interfaces with it.
And really, as a destroy supporter you're bringing up the people on the Citadel? A significant number of them will have died when you shot that tube, shelters or no.

The Citadel is intact after shooting the tube. I'd imagine shooting at the tower would make a lot of things go boom and kill a lot of people. I'm willing to make the necessary sacrifices, but you're not willing to sacrifice the geth, then why are you willing to sacrifice the people on the Citadel?

[The Angry One]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Maybe you just aren't prepared to face the mature themes present in Mass Effect.

Stopped reading here. Don't bother responding again, because I am now ignoring you.

That's too bad because no offense was intended and I am really enjoying our discussion.

Then don't tell me I'm not prepared to face "mature" themes.
This is not "mature", this is gratuitous, and I am sick and tired of people defending Mac Walters' work by calling it mature, "edgy" or philosophical when it isn't.
It's a mess that was only made slightly more coherent in the EC and I find it insulting how people can honestly think this is the way Mass Effect should end, smugly proclaiming that convictions aren't worth dying over.

[TheBlackBaron]

xsdob wrote...

Immovable object, meet unstoppable force. Unstoppable force, immovable object.

Begin headbutting eachother until one of you stops disagreeing.

Since when has anybody actually backed down in an internet argument? I'm doing this because it's entertaining.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 30 juin 2012 - 09:21 .

[KillerJudgement]

The Angry One wrote...

KillerJudgement wrote...

Second, synthesis is the melding of synthetics and organic tissue. Everyone would be on the same level of evolution, so no one can not indoctrinate the other. All view points are equal (in regards to evolutionary extinction), and that is a little something called "peace".

Because everybody being the same has never resulted in conflict.

Thirdly, if the catalyst knows it's plan no longer works, it talks with it's adversary to negotiate a solution. Another step towards a little something called "peace", which was the reapers plan all along; to stop chaos... to bring peace.

On their terms. By their rules. Their definition of "peace" is not mine, and not the galaxy's.

I've never known a situation where everyone is the same, and it results in conflict. Conflicting, by definition, means incompatible, aka; not the same

Well, then you can still destroy them. Problem solved.

Modifié par KillerJudgement, 30 juin 2012 - 09:22 .

[The Angry One]

nicocap24 wrote...

The Citadel is intact after shooting the tube. I'd imagine shooting at the tower would make a lot of things go boom and kill a lot of people. I'm willing to make the necessary sacrifices, but you're not willing to sacrifice the geth, then why are you willing to sacrifice the people on the Citadel?

The tower being destroyed would cause no more damage than the entire structure of the Citadel shattering in destroy, that's my point.

[The Angry One]

KillerJudgement wrote...

I've never known a situation where everyone is the same, and it results in conflict. Conflicting, by definition, means incompatible, aka; not the same

Civil war.
Unless you brainwash people into permanent cooperation, people will find ways to fight each other over anything.

Or are you seriously, seriously saying eliminating all difference of opinion is a good thing?

Well, then you can still destroy them. Problem solved.

Sure, all I have to do is murder my allies because the genocidal maniac claims they're the problem.

Modifié par The Angry One, 30 juin 2012 - 09:24 .

[xsdob]

The Angry One wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Citadel is intact after shooting the tube. I'd imagine shooting at the tower would make a lot of things go boom and kill a lot of people. I'm willing to make the necessary sacrifices, but you're not willing to sacrifice the geth, then why are you willing to sacrifice the people on the Citadel?

The tower being destroyed would cause no more damage than the entire structure of the Citadel shattering in destroy, that's my point.

Which no longer occurs in the EC, meaning you'll be doing what the crappy destory pre-ec ending did.

Congrats on duplicating the ****tly presented endings results.

Modifié par xsdob, 30 juin 2012 - 09:23 .

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Maybe you just aren't prepared to face the mature themes present in Mass Effect.

Stopped reading here. Don't bother responding again, because I am now ignoring you.

That's too bad because no offense was intended and I am really enjoying our discussion.

Then don't tell me I'm not prepared to face "mature" themes.
This is not "mature", this is gratuitous, and I am sick and tired of people defending Mac Walters' work by calling it mature, "edgy" or philosophical when it isn't.
It's a mess that was only made slightly more coherent in the EC and I find it insulting how people can honestly think this is the way Mass Effect should end, smugly proclaiming that convictions aren't worth dying over.

I find it insulting that people think Amelie is a good movie. What's that? People have different opinions?

This thread was going so well and we had to get aggressive...

[Fireblader70]

Why would it bother me? It makes the Catalyst a more interesting character, and it's up to the player as to whether they trust it or not.

Personally? I like to believe the Catalyst is a misguided rogue AI that genuinely believes it is preventing a conflict between synthetics and organics, but the appearance of the Crucible and Shepard shows that its solution actually has flaws. It wants to find another one. If Shepard refuses to choose an option, then the cycle may as well continue. The Reapers being the victims of a misguided AI sort of brings back their dark nature.

And when it makes itself visible in the form of the child and speaks in the same voice, I see that as a way to ensure Shepard doesn't automatically judge the Catalyst for what it is - the king of the Reapers. When Shepard refuses, it has no reason to keep that charade up anymore, so it reveals its normal voice and says 'so be it'.

This is about a million times better than the original endings... for me, anyway.

[Gorkan86]

The Angry One wrote...
On their terms. By their rules. Their definition of "peace" is not mine, and not the galaxy's.

What terms? What rules? 

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Citadel is intact after shooting the tube. I'd imagine shooting at the tower would make a lot of things go boom and kill a lot of people. I'm willing to make the necessary sacrifices, but you're not willing to sacrifice the geth, then why are you willing to sacrifice the people on the Citadel?

The tower being destroyed would cause no more damage than the entire structure of the Citadel shattering in destroy, that's my point.

It shattered  in the old ending. It doesn't in the EC.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
That is just another platitude brought to you by the resident lying, manipulative genocidal maniac the Catalyst.

It' is manipulative but it did not lie once.

Synthesis is a process that violates all life,

At some point, you have make a choice between individual rights and what is better for your society. Shepard, as a leader, should understand this.
The possibilties opened by Synthesis are just too good to pass up.

makes it the same,

Compare the physical appearance of the different races and realize they are still distinct races.
Compare their different architectural styles and realize their culture, the soul of their races remains unique.

stagnates their growth,

EDI mentions organics and synthetics will rebuild their previous glory and surpass it to achieve a state of being she can't even imagine.
Does that sound like stagnation to you?
 

links them forever to the Reapers

And? The Reapers are people too.
Ok, seriously, having acess to the collective knowledge of millions of billions of years old civilization is a major victory for all of us.
For someone so principled, you seem quite intent on causing their genocide.
 

and forces them to like it and maintain peace through brainwashing.

From where exactly did this idea come from? The absence of conflict in the Synthesis ending?
Well, if you would check the Paragon Destroy ending, you would see conflict between the different races is not mentioned aswell.
Should we assume everyone is brainwashed in all endings or simply that Bioware preferred to avoid showing the negative consequences of all choices because happy customers tend to complain less?
 

It is the most vile and disgusting outcome I have ever witnessed in a game.

It's beautiful beyond words.

Modifié par MisterJB, 30 juin 2012 - 09:25 .

[TheBlackBaron]

The Angry One wrote...

Then don't tell me I'm not prepared to face "mature" themes.
This is not "mature", this is gratuitous, and I am sick and tired of people defending Mac Walters' work by calling it mature, "edgy" or philosophical when it isn't.
It's a mess that was only made slightly more coherent in the EC and I find it insulting how people can honestly think this is the way Mass Effect should end, smugly proclaiming that convictions aren't worth dying over.

Frankly it blows my mind that people can claim with a straight face they should be allowed to dictate the consequences or lack thereof of their choices and invent whatever details are necessary to make sure they come to fruition. 

But I suppose that is where we differ. 

[KillerJudgement]

The Angry One wrote...

KillerJudgement wrote...

I've never known a situation where everyone is the same, and it results in conflict. Conflicting, by definition, means incompatible, aka; not the same

Civil war.

Well, then you can still destroy them. Problem solved.

Sure, all I have to do is murder my allies because the genocidal maniac claims they're the problem.

Civil war is from a conflict of views. They are not the same.

If given the ultimatum, would you rather save 90% of your allies (destruction), 100% of your allies and enemies (synthesis / control), or 0% of your allies (so be it)? If you truly want to be selfish enough to not let your enemies live, then you only have one good option.

[The Angry One]

xsdob wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Citadel is intact after shooting the tube. I'd imagine shooting at the tower would make a lot of things go boom and kill a lot of people. I'm willing to make the necessary sacrifices, but you're not willing to sacrifice the geth, then why are you willing to sacrifice the people on the Citadel?

The tower being destroyed would cause no more damage than the entire structure of the Citadel shattering in destroy, that's my point.

Which no longer occurs in the EC, meaning you'll be doing what the crappy destory pre-ec ending did.

Congrats on duplicating the ****tly presented endings results.

Yeah I'm sure everybody survived that.

[xsdob]

@MisterJB:

Oh this is going to be worse than even my arguing with TAO,.

anyone with a weak constitution please leave, things are going to get ugly really ****ing fast.

Modifié par xsdob, 30 juin 2012 - 09:28 .

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

Sure, all I have to do is murder my allies because the genocidal maniac claims they're the problem.

And reject isn't killing your allies? And for a much more petty reason, too.

[Arcadian Legend]

Yalision wrote...

No. I still don't know how Anderson ended up at the end before me, or where the Illusive Man came from. Do I think the Normandy evac was awkward? Yes, somewhat, but I can reason with what was going on around it and accept the possibility. Beyond that, the A.I. child's voice is the voice of the actual A.I. rather than the interpretation it was trying to make for Shepard for his initial conversation. That is neither a big deal, nor surprise to me.

At the end of the day, what the Catalyst said was true. The endings speak for themselves, and the Mass Effect team made them as direct as possible. What subtle hints there are to anything otherwise is, to me, the reflection of a desperate mind looking for reason to argue against something it still doesn't find satisfactory. If that's the case, better luck elsewhere. I look forward to giving Bioware my attention again - albeit cautious.

Anderson got to the beam first and unharmed because he's a tough as nails baws, and well due to great luck. If you look at recordings on Cronos Station I think it was said that TiM was making his way to the Citadel before alerting the reapers there or something like that. I will give you the Normandy thing though. I just chalk it up to the fact that Harby was more focused on killing those closest to the beam than those retreating the scene.

[KingZayd]

Gorkan86 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
On their terms. By their rules. Their definition of "peace" is not mine, and not the galaxy's.

What terms? What rules? 

That we have to even "choose a solution".

Shepard said we'd rather keep our own form, implying we'd rather be left alone. Starchild said "No." If the Reapers wanted peace, then that would be simple. They clearly don't.

[Captiosus77]

KillerJudgement wrote...

Second, synthesis is the melding of synthetics and organic tissue. Everyone would be on the same level of evolution, so no one can not indoctrinate the other. All view points are equal (in regards to evolutionary extinction), and that is a little something called "peace".

I have to agree with TAO's assessment on Synthesis.

Listen to EDI's narration during the Synthesis epilogue again. I mean, really listen.
Shared collective knowledge?
Highest evolution?

Another sci-fi series discussed these principles at great lengths. The benefit of evolution by melding organics and synthetics, the vast amount of knowledge we could gain from forced homogenization, et cetera. And, as I seem to recall, they were considered primary villains for holding that very point of view.



Make no mistake. THIS is the face of Synthesis.
Individualism, natural evolution, and diversity sacrificed for a homogenized galactic collective.

[translationninja]

If the catalyst were to say "Shepard, I like your looks", do you think Shep should shoot himself in the face immediately?