565 réponses à ce sujet

[xsdob]

Anyway, seeing how the catalyst is destroyed in 3 out of 4 endings I don't really see the problem here, he tries to make me pick synthesis, fails, and loses.

Simple as that.

[nicocap24]

M25105 wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The Catalyst isn't driven by logic though, is it? 

He's driven by flawed logic. His creators probably messed up something when they made him. 

"Hey Bob, I think you forgot to add this piece here."
"What? What piece? It's already packed and shipped. Show me."
"There ya go, it says common sense"
"Oh ****! Well hopefully no one will notice."

Stop blaming Bob! He didn't even know what he had to do, Kyle was supposed to supervise him. That stupid Kyle.

[Ridwan]

xsdob wrote...

Anyway, seeing how the catalyst is destroyed in 3 out of 4 endings I don't really see the problem here, he tries to make me pick synthesis, fails, and loses.

Simple as that.

How is he destroyed in Synthesis?

[Jadebaby]

The Angry One wrote...

The Catalyst isn't driven by logic though, is it? 

Didn't he say that organics seek understanding through technology while synthetics seek understanding through knowledge?

That would make him think logically wouldn't it?

[Jackums]

Eterna5 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...


I take issue with punishing those of us who reject it's manipulations.

Why? Shepard knew full well what would happen if he.she didn't use the crucible: Everyone dies.

You choose no just to make a cheesy speech about your morals and everyone in the galaxy pays the price for your pride. Sounds fair to me.

^

[Skyhawk02]

The Angry One wrote...

The Catalyst isn't driven by logic though, is it? It's making false assumptions.
It assumes conflict will lead to extinction, but it never has. It all but admits this fact.

And like it or not, "SO BE IT!" demonstrates anger and contempt. It's reversion to it's child voice is an attempt at condecension after it calms down.

I agree with everything you said.  This makes the final decision all the more troubling.  Because of the Catalyst's unwillingness or inability to see reason, I now am left with 4 less desirable options.  I find this prospect terrifying and exciting.

[Flidget]

M25105 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Anyway, seeing how the catalyst is destroyed in 3 out of 4 endings I don't really see the problem here, he tries to make me pick synthesis, fails, and loses.

Simple as that.

How is he destroyed in Synthesis?

He isn't, I think that's the OP's point.

[Ridwan]

Flidget wrote...

M25105 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Anyway, seeing how the catalyst is destroyed in 3 out of 4 endings I don't really see the problem here, he tries to make me pick synthesis, fails, and loses.

Simple as that.

How is he destroyed in Synthesis?

He isn't, I think that's the OP's point.

So that's 2 out of 2 endings then, that the stupid kid gets to prance about in the Citadel.

[xsdob]

M25105 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Anyway, seeing how the catalyst is destroyed in 3 out of 4 endings I don't really see the problem here, he tries to make me pick synthesis, fails, and loses.

Simple as that.

How is he destroyed in Synthesis?

He isn't, reject ending allows the next cycle to defeat the reapers, it should be noted that unless it comes from the offical bioware twitter page or is included in game, I refuse to believe mike gambles tweet is anything other than his own personal cannon.

As this game's cannon is set for the players and not mike gamble, I believe that is a fair assumption. The endings and what happens in them is only cannon to the player, just like shepard's gender.

So destroyed in destroy, deleted in control, destroyed in reject after a short reprive, and spared in synthesis.

Modifié par xsdob, 30 juin 2012 - 08:27 .

[Skyhawk02]

Captiosus77 wrote...

Destroy, Synthesis, AND Control are all "gray" choices which don't neatly fit into any of the morality paradigms. If a player behind a Paragon Shep feels as though they can't pick Destroy because of the implied genocide, can't pick Synthesis because of the implied forced homogenization, and can't pick Control because of the implied slavery, how, then, could a Paragon Shep choose rejection knowing that means mass genocide?

Therein lies the problem. Because every choice is gray and has elements unappealing to both sides of the morality scales, at the very end, the choices expose that the entire concept of morality (not to mention the EMS/War Assets) is a complete and utter sham.

You make a great point, I really enjoyed your post, but I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a fascinating moral dilemna.  This is the kind of thought-provoking stuff I want to see in video games.  

On the EMS thing, I too don't like the EMS system, I think it would be better to have fewer choices, and no fetch quests, but make make each choice more meaningful in a direct way, really show me the consequences of my actions, and surprise me with them.

[Jadebaby]

xsdob wrote...

M25105 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Anyway, seeing how the catalyst is destroyed in 3 out of 4 endings I don't really see the problem here, he tries to make me pick synthesis, fails, and loses.

Simple as that.

How is he destroyed in Synthesis?

He isn't, reject ending allows the next cycle to defeat the reapers, it should be noted that unless it comes from the offical bioware twitter page or is included in game, I refuse to believe mike gambles tweet is anything other than his own personal cannon.

As this game's cannon is set for the players and not mike gamble, I believe that is a fair assumption. The endings and what happens in them is only cannon to the player, just like shepard's gender.

So destroyed in destroy, deleted in control, destroyed in reject after a short reprive, and spared in synthesis.

It's not illogical to assume Mike Gamble would know what Mac Walters intention was wiith reject.. Either way, Gamble tweeting it is pretty much trolling the entire reject crowd.

[Skyhawk02]

xsdob wrote...

He isn't, reject ending allows the next cycle to defeat the reapers, it should be noted that unless it comes from the offical bioware twitter page or is included in game, I refuse to believe mike gambles tweet is anything other than his own personal cannon.

As this game's cannon is set for the players and not mike gamble, I believe that is a fair assumption. The endings and what happens in them is only cannon to the player, just like shepard's gender.

So destroyed in destroy, deleted in control, destroyed in reject after a short reprive, and spared in synthesis.

I think you're absolutely right that the endings are meant to be interpreted by the player, I definitely think it was a mistake if Mike Gamble really tweeted about that.

[xsdob]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

M25105 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Anyway, seeing how the catalyst is destroyed in 3 out of 4 endings I don't really see the problem here, he tries to make me pick synthesis, fails, and loses.

Simple as that.

How is he destroyed in Synthesis?

He isn't, reject ending allows the next cycle to defeat the reapers, it should be noted that unless it comes from the offical bioware twitter page or is included in game, I refuse to believe mike gambles tweet is anything other than his own personal cannon.

As this game's cannon is set for the players and not mike gamble, I believe that is a fair assumption. The endings and what happens in them is only cannon to the player, just like shepard's gender.

So destroyed in destroy, deleted in control, destroyed in reject after a short reprive, and spared in synthesis.

It's not illogical to assume Mike Gamble would know what Mac Walters intention was wiith reject.. Either way, Gamble tweeting it is pretty much trolling the entire reject crowd.

I don;t care, I will inflict upon mike gamble the greatest insult a troll can suffer, to be ignored.

Modifié par xsdob, 30 juin 2012 - 08:40 .

[The Angry One]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The Catalyst isn't driven by logic though, is it? 

Didn't he say that organics seek understanding through technology while synthetics seek understanding through knowledge?

That would make him think logically wouldn't it?

Not really, since what it says is a load of old cobblers.
I mean really. Organics don't seek understanding? Synthetics don't improve themselves with technology?

This is another example of the Bratalyst making divisions where there are none to promote his idiotic brand of synthesis.

Modifié par The Angry One, 30 juin 2012 - 08:43 .

[Captiosus77]

Skyhawk02 wrote...
You make a great point, I really enjoyed your post, but I don't see it
as a problem, I see it as a fascinating moral dilemna.  This is the kind
of thought-provoking stuff I want to see in video games.  

A moral dilemma indeed. To take it a step further, I'd also say it's only a dilemma in this particular medium where we have rigidly defined morality "scales". We know, from character creation onward, what we have to do to make our "blue points" or  our "red points" increase. By knowing this, it  actively influences how we choose to play and how we see our character. Only in this medium do we know, ahead of time, how to be 100% good or 100% "bad" (well, let's be honest, "bad" in games like these is more "ruthless puppy kicking a**hole" than "evil genocidal dictator").

Early on, I enjoyed this type of morality subsystem in games. It was great in KOTOR. I loved the extra morality interactions and the depth it brought to games. Now, after years of overuse by many game developers (not just BioWare) the limitations of these types of morality systems have become apparent. A large part of the problem with the endings in ME3 are the morality conundrums presented by all of them. Those problems are often reflected when people post "But that's not how MY Shepard would have done it".

I like the concept of morality and having it affect future decision making in games but, I'm hoping, in the future, that will be something that is done behind the scenes rather than presented as part of a UI that can then be easily gamed by the players.

Modifié par Captiosus77, 30 juin 2012 - 08:45 .

[Torrible]

If the Catalyst wanted to survive or continue being King of the Reapers, then all he had to do was simply not appear while the Reaper forces destroy the Alliance. Shepard won't be touching anything unless he knew what they could do.

So much for being a master manipulator.

[The Angry One]

Torrible wrote...

If the Catalyst wanted to survive or continue being King of the Reapers, then all he had to do was simply not appear while the Reaper forces destroy the Alliance. Shepard won't be touching anything unless he knew what they could do.

So much for being a master manipulator.

What it wants is synthesis. It flat out admits this. It is trying to manipulate you into going that route.
Failing that, it will try to convince you to reshape the galaxy on it's terms.

Survival is not a key issue here. A psychopath's true concern is not survival, but remaining in control until the very end and sometimes beyond.

Modifié par The Angry One, 30 juin 2012 - 08:45 .

[TheBlackBaron]

As I choose to a) not persist in the fantasy that there is or ever was a possibility of defeating the Reapers straight up in a conventional war (and contrary to what is often claimed, no, ME3 and the Crucible plot did not change this - it was self-evident to anybody paying attention to the series since ME1), and refuse to pettily condemn the entire allied force and every advanced species in the galaxy to death to satisfy my own morality, no, it doesn't bother me.

Or at least, not as much as choosing Reject would. Pretty amazing how the Paragon philosophy - morals before methods - winds up being the basis for what is quite possibly the most evil act in the entire trilogy.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 30 juin 2012 - 08:45 .

[The Angry One]

Yes, standing up for convictions and not becoming a slave to an omnicidal maniac's agenda is evil.

This is what Mass Effect has become. It's become a story where people can actually make that argument. Pitiable.

[v TricKy v]

Captiosus77 wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...
You make a great point, I really enjoyed your post, but I don't see it
as a problem, I see it as a fascinating moral dilemna.  This is the kind
of thought-provoking stuff I want to see in video games.  

A moral dilemma indeed. To take it a step further, I'd also say it's only a dilemma in this particular medium where we have rigidly defined morality "scales". We know, from character creation onward, what we have to do to make our "blue points" or  our "red points" increase. By knowing this, it  actively influences how we choose to play and how we see our character. Only in this medium do we know, ahead of time, how to be 100% good or 100% "bad" (well, let's be honest, "bad" in games like these is more "ruthless puppy kicking a**hole" than "evil genocidal dictator").

Early on, I enjoyed this type of morality subsystem in games. It was great in KOTOR. I loved the extra morality interactions and the depth it brought to games. Now, after years of overuse by many game developers (not just BioWare) the limitations of these types of morality systems have become apparent. A large part of the problem with the endings in ME3 are the morality conundrums presented by all of them. Those problems are often reflected when people post "But that's not how MY Shepard would have done it".

I like the concept of morality and having it affect future decision making in games but, I'm hoping, in the future, that will be something that is done behind the scenes rather than presented as part of a UI that can then be easily gamed by the players.

Dragon Age:Origins and the Witcher games have that. There a no points, just choices and their consequences, especially in the Witcher series

[Ridwan]

I'll quote myself from another post.

"Thanks for the free DLC though. I hope you at least learned your lesson. Keep things simple and don't try to get all philosophical on us. There is a reason why "Baddies dies, good guys win, hero gets together with his lover" formula works and why the "dark, bitter sweet ending" doesn't, save for the dressed in black, hipster crowd who think they're intellectually superior, but can't seem to find financial success in life (yes, yes I know. I'm generalising). "

[Skyhawk02]

Captiosus77 wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...
You make a great point, I really enjoyed your post, but I don't see it
as a problem, I see it as a fascinating moral dilemna.  This is the kind
of thought-provoking stuff I want to see in video games.  

A moral dilemma indeed. To take it a step further, I'd also say it's only a dilemma in this particular medium where we have rigidly defined morality "scales". We know, from character creation onward, what we have to do to make our "blue points" increase or our "red points" increase which then actively influences how we choose to play. Only in this medium do we know, ahead of time, how to be 100% good or 100% "bad" (well, let's be honest, "bad" in games like these is more "ruthless puppy kicking a**hole" than "evil genocidal dictator").

Early on, I enjoyed this type of morality subsystem in games. It was great in KOTOR. I loved the extra morality interactions and the depth it brought to games. Now, after years of overuse by many game developers (not just BioWare) the limitations of these types of morality systems have become apparent. A large part of the problem with the endings in ME3 are the morality conundrums presented by all of them. Those problems are often reflected when people post "But that's not how MY Shepard would have done it".

I like the concept of morality and having it affect future decision in games but I'm hoping, in the future, that will be something that is done behind the scenes rather than presented as part of a UI that can then be easily gamed by the players.

I totally agree with everything you said.  I think this is one thing that Bioware did well with Dragon Age: Origins, except they spoiled it by showing you your companion influence.  I think one problem people have with the endings is that the game appears to be making judgement calls about the ending, partly by color coding them.  It would be better to present the choices without making any judgements on what is good or bad, let the player decide how to define good or bad.  

For example, on my 1st playthrough my Shepard actually decided that curing the genophage was evil because it could lead to more war in the future(not my position personally) but Shepard still got Renegade points implying I had done something wrong.  I do not like this.

[Shallyah]

Why would it bother me? Does it bother you that when you want to cause a good impression in a job interview and take a long bath, use collogne/perfume and put on your best suit/dress, and smile or appear to look more charming than you are in your regular life? And when going out to find a boy/girl to hit on?

Hypocresy is powerful here.

Everyone knew the Catalyst is smooth talking you to pick Control/Synthesis from the beginning (except a few delusional people that actually thought he was some kind of truthsaying overgod). I don't know why it surprises anyone. Some people are really gullible.

Modifié par Shallyah, 30 juin 2012 - 08:51 .

[Jackums]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

As I choose to a) not persist in the fantasy that there is or ever was a possibility of defeating the Reapers straight up in a conventional war (and contrary to what is often claimed, no, ME3 and the Crucible plot did not change this - it was self-evident to anybody paying attention to the series since ME1), and refuse to pettily condemn the entire allied force and every advanced species in the galaxy to death to satisfy my own morality, no, it doesn't bother me.

Or at least, not as much as choosing Reject would. Pretty amazing how the Paragon philosophy - morals before methods - winds up being the basis for what is quite possibly the most evil act in the entire trilogy.

+1

[wh00ley 06]

Yeah that tweet actually ruined the ending for me more than the Extended Cut of Synthesis. Such a throwaway comment without an ounce of thought or sense behind it. It's like George Lucas saying that Luke Skywalker died of a nosebleed at the ewok party on Endor.