565 réponses à ce sujet

[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. Edit: there would be no conflict of views on the subject of evolution. Ironically, this would also resolve the views of religion. The 2 major reasons we have wars (evolutionary dominance, and religious dominance) would be out the window.

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.

Modifié par KillerJudgement, 30 juin 2012 - 09:29 .

[Skyhawk02]

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.

I defend my statement in the rest of my comment where I give my reasons for why I think the themes are Mature and highly relevant to some major issues of our day.  I have always tried to acknowledge that Mass Effect 3 is not to everyone's taste, and in that particular comment I did it in a mildly condescending way, which was an accident, I usually try to carefully edit my comments so that they are not offensive but the discussion was going really fast and I didn't look it over carefully so that slipped out.

Modifié par Skyhawk02, 30 juin 2012 - 09:48 .

[ElementL09]

The Catalyst had flawed logic in the original ending, but now as we know more about him and his origins from the EC, he's pretty much a rogue AI.

The Catalyst does bother me, alot. Its seems so increadibly stupid its mind boggling.

[xsdob]

translationninja wrote...

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

Yes, because he'd rather die than live as something the reapers find attractive.

In all seriousness though, keep hyperbole to a minimum.

Also,

Shepard: "I will never choose synthesis"
Catalyst: "No shepard, you are synthesis"

And than shepard shot the tube and grabed the control rods at the same time.

Modifié par xsdob, 30 juin 2012 - 09:33 .

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

OK, I was wrong about the Citadel. But still, more people survive there than if you chose to refuse. 

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
smugly proclaiming that convictions aren't worth dying over.

Die for your convictions all you like, that's not my problem.
Sacrificing the entire galaxy on the altar of your convictions, however...
It's interesting how someone who accuses Pro-Synthesis of forcing a choice on all the galaxy would do the very same thing.

[zombieord]

The Angry One wrote...
[...]
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 would just like to personally thank you for fighting the good fight. The forced moral dilemmas of the endings are such a betrayal of what I enjoyed the most about the series.

It's a shame.

The only way I can swallow the ending is to reject the Catalyst and headcannon the rest. Forget twitter, I thought the Extended Cut was our clarity.

[xsdob]

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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.

OK, I was wrong about the Citadel. But still, more people survive there than if you chose to refuse. 

Alright, I was wrong too. I picked paragon control as my cannon though, so I guess I played into the synthesis plan by not picking it and downright saying how horrible it was to the catalyst face before kicking him out and running the reapers to work with organics and synthetics instead of ruling them.

That's what renegade control is for.

[Frakel]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

What do you want him to do? Shoot the Reaper with his carnifex?

"Shepard to Hackett. The Crucible's a no-go. But the controller of the Reapers is here. Have your targetting VIs lock on my position and fire. Destroy the Presidium tower. It's been an honour, sir. Shepard out."

Then in your version of Shepard's story that IS what he said, that is what's so great about ambiguous endings, you can imagine that whatever you wanted to happen, DID happen.

TAO: It is a great line and would have been great to see it in the game with the rejection ending.
But Im also with Skyhawk02 here... This could easily be what happened in YOUR story... And I hope you will allow me to also put it into MY story, everytime I end a game with the rejection ending.

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...
It' is manipulative but it did not lie once.

It lied about not killing organics.
It lied about preserving all civilisations.
It lied about it's purpose (it contradicts it not two minutes later).

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.

I sincerely, sincerely hope you are never put in charge of anything.

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.

Their DNA is altered to be similar. Their thoughts are implied to. They become homogenised, and EDI implies this will happen more and more.

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?

You know what it sounds like?
"There is a real of existence so far beyond your own, you cannot even imagine it."

It sounds like a Reaper.
 

And? The Reapers are people too.

They are abominations, built on the suffering and death of billions of innocent lives.

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.

Genocide? They're already dead. Their civilisations perverted into the Catalyst's chosen form.
Synthesis mocks their memory by turning everyone and everything into a being made in their image.
They deserve to rest in peace, not be exploited even more.
 

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?

You cannot avoid conflict. Destroy doesn't say peace is permanent, merely that the races will work together. They won't be forced to cooperate for some everlasting peace without meaning.

It's beautiful beyond words.

It frightens me that anyone can truly think that.

[TheBlackBaron]

zombieord wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
[...]
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 would just like to personally thank you for fighting the good fight. The forced moral dilemmas of the endings are such a betrayal of what I enjoyed the most about the series.

It's a shame.

The only way I can swallow the ending is to reject the Catalyst and headcannon the rest. Forget twitter, I thought the Extended Cut was our clarity.

Moral dilemmas have been a talking point for the series since the beginning. Actual implementation of those dilemmas has sometimes been sketchy at best, but they've always been there. In fact, the previous two games ended with a moral dilemma. 

What, pray tell, led you to believe this would not be the case for the third installment?

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 30 juin 2012 - 09:34 .

[nicocap24]

xsdob wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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.

OK, I was wrong about the Citadel. But still, more people survive there than if you chose to refuse. 

Alright, I was wrong too. I picked paragon control as my cannon though, so I guess I played into the synthesis plan by not picking it and downright saying how horrible it was to the catalyst face before kicking him out and running the reapers to work with organics and synthetics instead of ruling them.

That's what renegade control is for.

Control makes me nervous. I just get the feeling that the new Shepcatalyst will be corrupted and do stupid stuff like the old catalyst did.

[xsdob]

nicocap24 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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.

OK, I was wrong about the Citadel. But still, more people survive there than if you chose to refuse. 

Alright, I was wrong too. I picked paragon control as my cannon though, so I guess I played into the synthesis plan by not picking it and downright saying how horrible it was to the catalyst face before kicking him out and running the reapers to work with organics and synthetics instead of ruling them.

That's what renegade control is for.

Control makes me nervous. I just get the feeling that the new Shepcatalyst will be corrupted and do stupid stuff like the old catalyst did.

In paragon control it's made clear shepard won't, in renegade control it's made clear shepard will.

That's the beauty of the ending, it's the only one where alaignment is accounted for, and I love it.

[The Angry One]

KillerJudgement wrote...

Civil war is from a conflict of views. They are not the same. Edit: there would be no conflict of views on the subject of evolution. Ironically, this would also resolve the views of religion. The 2 major reasons we have wars (evolutionary dominance, and religious dominance) would be out the window.

Conflicts happen over anything. Resources, land, ethnicity, opinion, looking at someone funny.
You can no more stop this than you can stop the tides, unless you mess with people's heads.

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.

I love people calling rejection selfish because I choose to do what I set out to do, what the whole galaxy agreed to do - fight the Reapers. To the end if need be.

[Jackums]

I think it's safe to conclude that all of The Angry One's anti-ending arguments are a product of petulance, not some great moral stand or logical thinking.

>sacrificing the entire galaxy is better than sacrificing a tiny fraction of that population to save the whole
>refusing the Catalyst's offers based on your morals and pride, resulting in the deaths of trillions, is more "good" than putting aside your own petty sentiments for the better of the whole

Etc, etc.

[nicocap24]

xsdob wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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.

OK, I was wrong about the Citadel. But still, more people survive there than if you chose to refuse. 

Alright, I was wrong too. I picked paragon control as my cannon though, so I guess I played into the synthesis plan by not picking it and downright saying how horrible it was to the catalyst face before kicking him out and running the reapers to work with organics and synthetics instead of ruling them.

That's what renegade control is for.

Control makes me nervous. I just get the feeling that the new Shepcatalyst will be corrupted and do stupid stuff like the old catalyst did.

In paragon control it's made clear shepard won't, in renegade control it's made clear shepard will.

That's the beauty of the ending, it's the only one where alaignment is accounted for, and I love it.

Oh, I haven't seen the paragon version. I guess my next paragon Shepard will pick control.  

[The Angry One]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

zombieord wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
[...]
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 would just like to personally thank you for fighting the good fight. The forced moral dilemmas of the endings are such a betrayal of what I enjoyed the most about the series.

It's a shame.

The only way I can swallow the ending is to reject the Catalyst and headcannon the rest. Forget twitter, I thought the Extended Cut was our clarity.

Moral dilemmas have been a talking point for the series since the beginning. Actual implementation of those dilemmas has sometimes been sketchy at best, but they've always been there. In fact, the previous two games ended with a moral dilemma. 

What, pray tell, led you to believe this would not be the case for the third installment?

There is no moral dilemma. You either submit and take the easy way out or you die. That's not a moral dilemma, that's stupidity is the only option.

[translationninja]

The Angry One wrote...


You cannot avoid conflict. Destroy doesn't say peace is permanent, merely that the races will work together. They won't be forced to cooperate for some everlasting peace without meaning.

Peace without meaning....wow....there's a concept....

This really baffled me for a sec....peace without meaning....

I'm pretty sure "peace without meaning" is a concept only those can understand that have never seen the cruel reality of the opposite of peace...

[The Angry One]

JackumsD wrote...

I think it's safe to conclude that all of The Angry One's anti-ending arguments are a product of petulance, not some great moral stand or logical thinking.

>sacrificing the entire galaxy is better than sacrificing a tiny fraction of that population to save the whole
>refusing the Catalyst's offers based on your morals and pride, resulting in the deaths of trillions, is more "good" than putting aside your own petty sentiments for the better of the whole

Etc, etc.

Strawman some more.

[babachewie]

No. I'm normally nice till someone pisses me off as well. So I don't see the problem. Even Legion loses his temper when you choose the quarians. So again no.

[The Angry One]

translationninja wrote...

Peace without meaning....wow....there's a concept....

This really baffled me for a sec....peace without meaning....

I'm pretty sure "peace without meaning" is a concept only those can understand that have never seen the cruel reality of the opposite of peace...

What is the point of peace if it's forced? Nobody will gain anything from it. We might as well be automatons pre-programmed to get along.

Mass Effect was about peace through understanding and cooperation between diverse species, organic and synthetic. Not about peace forced through DNA rearranging.

[zombieord]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

zombieord wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
[...]
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 would just like to personally thank you for fighting the good fight. The forced moral dilemmas of the endings are such a betrayal of what I enjoyed the most about the series.

It's a shame.

The only way I can swallow the ending is to reject the Catalyst and headcannon the rest. Forget twitter, I thought the Extended Cut was our clarity.

Moral dilemmas have been a talking point for the series since the beginning. Actual implementation of those dilemmas has sometimes been sketchy at best, but they've always been there. In fact, the previous two games ended with a moral dilemma. 

What, pray tell, led you to believe this would not be the case for the third installment?

I'm perfectly happy with the moral dilemmas present in all 3 games. Curing the genophage? That's not cut and dry. Let Legion upload the Reaper code? Another brilliant dilemma.

The betrayal was not giving Shepard the option to stay in character. All options presented are of the enemy's bidding.

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Peace without meaning....wow....there's a concept....

This really baffled me for a sec....peace without meaning....

I'm pretty sure "peace without meaning" is a concept only those can understand that have never seen the cruel reality of the opposite of peace...

What is the point of peace if it's forced? Nobody will gain anything from it. We might as well be automatons pre-programmed to get along.

Mass Effect was about peace through understanding and cooperation between diverse species, organic and synthetic. Not about peace forced through DNA rearranging.

Ok, I can see what you don't like about destroy and synthesis. What about control?

[KillerJudgement]

The Angry One wrote...

KillerJudgement wrote...

Civil war is from a conflict of views. They are not the same. Edit: there would be no conflict of views on the subject of evolution. Ironically, this would also resolve the views of religion. The 2 major reasons we have wars (evolutionary dominance, and religious dominance) would be out the window.

Conflicts happen over anything. Resources, land, ethnicity, opinion, looking at someone funny.
You can no more stop this than you can stop the tides, unless you mess with people's heads.

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.

I love people calling rejection selfish because I choose to do what I set out to do, what the whole galaxy agreed to do - fight the Reapers. To the end if need be.

The point of THIS conflict is that it's one conflict that is now completely unavoidable.

Also, if you're so one track minded to do something only because you set out to do it, then yes... that is selfish.

[KotorEffect3]

The Angry One wrote...

KillerJudgement wrote...

Civil war is from a conflict of views. They are not the same. Edit: there would be no conflict of views on the subject of evolution. Ironically, this would also resolve the views of religion. The 2 major reasons we have wars (evolutionary dominance, and religious dominance) would be out the window.

Conflicts happen over anything. Resources, land, ethnicity, opinion, looking at someone funny.
You can no more stop this than you can stop the tides, unless you mess with people's heads.

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.

I love people calling rejection selfish because I choose to do what I set out to do, what the whole galaxy agreed to do - fight the Reapers. To the end if need be.

Yet you won't use the one tool that can defeat them, the only tool that can defeat them.  So in order to satisfy a self righteous sense of morality you allow the entire sword fleet, all the ground forces, ane ultimately every advanced civilization to die in vain in order to satisfy a sense of pride.