257 réponses à ce sujet

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

SunValleyKing wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

No, what I asked you, why story must mandate for somebody to be killed for Shepard to live.

[As to why I feel that someone must die so that Shepard may live]

By making it possible for Shepard to live without sacrificing anything, you make the decision cheap and easy.  The majority of players would pick that one because it doesn't carry any real consequences.  This series has never been about making easy choices.

Why the only type of hard choice or "consequence" that you'd want is about killing someone?
And if any decision, why there must be a hard decision right at the end at all? Is it the only way to make enjoyable games?

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:06 .

[SunValleyKing]

Ryzaki wrote...


What if the Krogan decide to rebel? (if Genophage cured despite Eve and Wrex's influence)

What if Geth and Quarians get into it again? (if Peace)

What if Geth are persecuted by others (if Quarians dead)

What if Salarians reattempt to create genophage? 

(Those won't be an issue in Control or Synthesis since a. can be STFU or I kill you! and B. apparently results in everyone farting rainbows).

There's plenty of things that could go wrong despite the ending. Just different things varying on the endings. (Only ending that averts this is Synthesis.)

Thus I don't see how EDI and Geth surviving destroy makes it Disney. Hell post Reaper war could invite several heavy anti-synthetic sentiments that EDI and the Geth have to struggle to overcome (especially if the Geth are the only ones left on Rannoch). Maybe disheartened they seperate from organics starting the cycle all over again when other organics try to wipe them out. Maybe they go with some organics and other organics disrupt the peace they have with each other.

There's plenty of ways things can go wrong in Destroy with living EDI and the Geth.

In my opinion, it makes it so that destroy doesn't carry as much risk as the other endings, and thus, makes it an easy choice for the player.

[ghost9191]

to be fair, in the moment, without metagamimg, you don't know that shepard lives, catalyst even says shep will die. my shep died first play throug when i chose destroy, it is a bonus shep lives but reapers get destroyed so wewt, geth are a sacrifice

" Yes people will die.Maybe we'll lose half the galaxy, maybe more. But i will do whatever it takes to rid the galaxy of the reaper threat"

Modifié par ghost9191, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:08 .

[Ryzaki]

SunValleyKing wrote...
In my opinion, it makes it so that destroy doesn't carry as much risk as the other endings, and thus, makes it an easy choice for the player.

And in my opinion the so called downside to destroy is trite, ridculous and just there to make Destroy look bad even though it makes little to no sense.

[Fiannawolf]

I for one needed a "from the rubble" moment...darn you 1 sec breath scene. Hmmm...



Ahh! Better now!

[SunValleyKing]

Ryzaki wrote...

Then why doesn't control control them? Logically speaking if one results in them all being destroyed because of the code surely the other should all control them via the same code. EDI flat out says she has priorities.

As for B. That's your belief. I don't share it. Not to mention that doesn't mean said decision has no consequences. For all we know the Geth and EDI surviving the war with post anti-synthetic sentiments (since Shep killed the Reapers) would be enough of a consequence. (Another war could start, the singularity could speed up, who knows).

Destroy and Control are both (there's a reason Control has paragon and renegade variants) neither ending is one specific morality.

For the same reason that the catalyst couldn't control them.  Because they contain Reaper tech, but are not a part of the Reaper's collective consciousness.  Since Shepard essentially becomes the new catalyst, it is logical that the same rules that applied to the catalyst, also apply to Shepard.

[Ryzaki]

SunValleyKing wrote...
For the same reason that the catalyst couldn't control them.  Because they contain Reaper tech, but are not a part of the Reaper's collective consciousness.  Since Shepard essentially becomes the new catalyst, it is logical that the same rules that applied to the catalyst, also apply to Shepard.

Yeah I kind of put away that garbage of the Reapers having a collective consensiousness (it's utterly silly and manages to make both Sovereign and Harbinger look ridculous). But you're right.

Edit: Actually the Reapers DID manage to control the Geth. Quite easily might I add. It's why Rannoch was such an issue.

And that still doesn't make Destroy (consider the Reapers are PART synthetics) killing all synthetics somehow killing all the Reapers successfully along with EDI and the Geth (NVM that Shep gets hit by the same blast and manages to survive in the best destroy ending.) If they'd claimed it somehow undid Reaper code then I'd get it but as it is...

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:16 .

[SunValleyKing]

ghost9191 wrote...

to be fair, in the moment, without metagamimg, you don't know that shepard lives, catalyst even says shep will die. my shep died first play throug when i chose destroy, it is a bonus shep lives but reapers get destroyed so wewt, geth are a sacrifice

" Yes people will die.Maybe we'll lose half the galaxy, maybe more. But i will do whatever it takes to rid the galaxy of the reaper threat"

The catalyst never once says that destroy will kill Shepard.  It points out that Shepard is partly synthetic.  That can be taken any number of ways.  It seems that a large number of players take that to mean that Shepard would die if that option was chosen.  The way I took it was that the catalyst was pointing out the hypocrisy in destroying synthetics since Shepard wouldn't be alive without synthetics.  It is all a matter of interpretation.

[Mr.House]

This is how ME3 should have ended.

[Bfler]

Mr.House wrote...

This is how ME3 should have ended.

Yup. Kill the Reapers, nothing more. Same as in Dragon Age. Kill Darkspawn and Archdemon.

[Zjarcal]

Oh for the love of god...

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Bfler wrote...
Same as in Dragon Age. Kill Darkspawn and Archdemon.

...and you can actually live without killing ("sacrificing") anybody! Blasphemy! Disney Ending!
Well, there is a "ominous consequence" of your surviving, but it made into vague speculation. Exactly oppposite of ME3, where negative consequences are clear and positive are mostly left to speculate upon.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:26 .

[SunValleyKing]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yeah I kind of put away that garbage of the Reapers having a collective consensiousness (it's utterly silly and manages to make both Sovereign and Harbinger look ridculous). But you're right.

 
So you are willing to accept that the Geth can have a collective consciousness, and Shepard can still interact with Legion independent of that collective consciousness, but the same is not possible of the Reapers?

Edit: Actually the Reapers DID manage to control the Geth. Quite easily might I add. It's why Rannoch was such an issue. 

  

The Reapers had to broadcast a specific signal to control them, so I guess if control Shepard wanted to do the same, it would be possible.

And that still doesn't make Destroy (consider the Reapers are PART synthetics) killing all synthetics somehow killing all the Reapers successfully along with EDI and the Geth (NVM that Shep gets hit by the same blast and manages to survive in the best destroy ending.) If they'd claimed it somehow undid Reaper code then I'd get it but as it is...

Umm... please consider revising that paragraph.  I don't mean to be a grammar ****, but that paragraph is hard to follow.

Modifié par SunValleyKing, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:27 .

[SunValleyKing]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Bfler wrote...
Same as in Dragon Age. Kill Darkspawn and Archdemon.

...and you can actually live without killing ("sacrificing") anybody! Blasphemy! Disney Ending!
Well, there is a "ominous consequence" of your surviving, but it made into vague speculation. Exactly oppposite of ME3, where negative consequences are clear and positive are mostly left to speculate upon.

Except that in order for everyone to survive killing the Archdemon, you have to make a deal with a witch that results in some kind of archdemon Godchild.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

That wasn't very good in my opinion.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

SunValleyKing wrote...
Except that in order for everyone to survive killing the Archdemon, you have to make a deal with a witch that results in some kind of archdemon Godchild.

Yes, but you don't even know if he's evil, or he will be actually freed from curse of insanity and true Old God. As I said, its left to speculate upon. At least probably until some further DA.
And my point was that you didn't have to kill somebody to survive. This was to illustrate my point that difficult choice does not necessary involve becoming a murderer for protagonist to survive.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:35 .

[Zjarcal]

So essentially this would be a uniform ending for everyone... I thought you people wanted actual differences between endings.

[Lenimph]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Bfler wrote...
Same as in Dragon Age. Kill Darkspawn and Archdemon.

...and you can actually live without killing ("sacrificing") anybody! Blasphemy! Disney Ending!
Well, there is a "ominous consequence" of your surviving, but it made into vague speculation. Exactly oppposite of ME3, where negative consequences are clear and positive are mostly left to speculate upon.

 

Right because these aren't mechanical beings that could be created again or repaired and said they were willing to do anyhing to to stop the Reapers for good. 

Yep yep 

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Zjarcal wrote...

So essentially this would be a uniform ending for everyone... I thought you people wanted actual differences between endings.

They do. But it needs to be a happy ending! We all deserve that, for some reason! A HAPPy ENDING"!!!

[Ryzaki]

SunValleyKing wrote...
So you are willing to accept that the Geth can have a collective consciousness, and Shepard can still interact with Legion independent of that collective consciousness, but the same is not possible of the Reapers?

There's something about a true advanced AI and the Geth not being such during Rannoch quest line. They were on their way but not completely there. EDI also says something to the extent that the Geth aren't intelligent (or rather a true intelligence) without relying on each other.

So yes in a way. Not to mention Sovereign and Harbinger are completely ignorant of Starchild (otherwise there's no way they'd be spewing garbage like "we are each a nation" they all follow one person's law. They have no true self ability to do anything if they're bound to one person's laws. The same isn't true of Legion with the rest of the Geth. They show the ability to disagree with each other (heretic and true geth split). You never see that with the Reapers.

The Reapers had to broadcast a specific signal to control them, so I guess if control Shepard wanted to do the same, it would be possible.

Yet this isn't even thought of. (NVM the ending slides ALWAYS showing the Geth ONLY with the Reapers (unless you Synthesis in which case they're no longer pure synthetics anyway). And they even glow the same color. It's weird.

Umm... please consider revising that paragraph.  I don't mean to be a grammar ****, but that paragraph is hard to follow.

Eh NVM too lazy.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:40 .

[SunValleyKing]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Yes, but you don't even know if he's evil, or he will be actually freed from curse of insanity and true Old God. As I said, its left to speculate upon. At least probably until some further DA.
And my point was that you didn't have to kill somebody to survive. This was to illustrate my point that difficult choice does not necessary involve becoming a murderer.

But it is still a risk.  The immediate reults may not include becoming a murderer, but who knows what happens down the line?  What if the kid is evil, and decides to start slaghtering people wholesale once he gets older?

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

SunValleyKing wrote...
But it is still a risk.  The immediate reults may not include becoming a murderer, but who knows what happens down the line?  What if the kid is evil, and decides to start slaghtering people wholesale once he gets older?

Maybe. But I'd take this choice over killing one of my friends right here right now anytime. Strange if you don't see a difference.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:42 .

[SunValleyKing]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
Maybe. But I'd take this choice over killing one of my friends right here right now anytime. Strange if you don't see a difference.

I guess it all depends on how much you trust Morrigan.  I didn't trust her, so I either sacrificed myself (if Loghain is dead) or I let 
Loghain find his redemption in sacrificing himself to kill the Archdemon.

[Ryzaki]

SunValleyKing wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
Maybe. But I'd take this choice over killing one of my friends right here right now anytime. Strange if you don't see a difference.

I guess it all depends on how much you trust Morrigan.  I didn't trust her, so I either sacrificed myself (if Loghain is dead) or I let 
Loghain find his redemption in sacrificing himself to kill the Archdemon.

DX

How could you do that to poor Alistair?

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

SunValleyKing wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
Maybe. But I'd take this choice over killing one of my friends right here right now anytime. Strange if you don't see a difference.

I guess it all depends on how much you trust Morrigan.  I didn't trust her, so I either sacrificed myself (if Loghain is dead) or I let 
Loghain find his redemption in sacrificing himself to kill the Archdemon.

Man... You are amazing in derailing the discussion.
All I said is that even if you want protagonist to make a difficult decision just to survive, said decision does not have to require protagonist to become an immediate direct murderer.
I am tired now, so I will stop.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:56 .