467 réponses à ce sujet

[iamweaver]

o Ventus wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Show me one dialogue tree where someone seriously thought that this was guaranteed, or heavily likely to be, a one-way trip. What was correctly said was, this might very well be a one-way trip, which is accurate.
 

"This isn't time for emotional entanglement! You and I know more about the Collectors than anybody. We both know just how unlikely it is that we're coming back alive..."

-Miranda, penultimate romance conversation

"We both know this is likely a 1-way trip."

- The Illusive Man, before launching the suicide mission

Ah - never romanced Miranda.  And I had forgotten what TIM says, because... well, I find him annoying on successive playthroughs, so I <spacebar> him .  I made the typical Internetz "assume you remember correctly" mistake, though - my bad!

I'm still not sure why everyone thought it was a Suicide mission, though.   I can clearly remember, from back on my first playthrouth, thinking, "bunk.  There's nothing suicidal about this".

[3DandBeyond]

iamweaver wrote...

I'm sorry to hear about the tragedies in your life.  Though I honestly don't think I have deliberately insulted you personally, only made arguments against your position in this SF game, I could be wrong, and if so I apologize.


Assuming that you hadn't, say, read up on some spoiler guide or something beforehand, in many ways the end game decision of ME3 is the toughest one that I have ever made in a video game.  There were a great number of variables to juggle, and though with 20/20 hindsight, I think I would probably stick with my original answer even after reasing a lot of cogent arguments on the board for all 4 of the endings, that's actually more luck than anything.

As a note, this is what actual command its like.  You make the best decision you can at the time, with the information that you have learned.  You hope you haven't missed anything vital, so hopefully as a leader you work hard to make sure you are up-to-date on what you can do, and your environment, but often you will make the wrong call.

I appreciate your sincerity.  I happen to force myself to see tihngs in a better light and that was why ME games appealed to me.  They let you live kind of through the story and make decisions that might not work and then you could go back and make another that worked for you.  The endings have nothing that works for me and I was "promised" they would.  I don't ask that anyone agrees with me, but then like you they have what they want.  Want something sadder or sacrificial and you have that.  Where is my win ending?  I won ME1 and I won ME2.  I can't win ME3 and I won't sacrifice the galaxy for some outcome that I feel makes life not worth the cost.

I understand that commanders weigh options.  I've had to deal with that (not in the military but working with law enforcment).  I had to make decisions on which emergency was more important and maybe risk someone dying.  I had to weigh losing my job and livelihood against doing the right thing.  I had to weigh the life of someone I loved vs. death.  I had to decide if the quality of life was worth more than the quantity/longevity of it.  And sometimes as hard as it is a life that is crappy and long is not worth one that is short but honorable and full.

Commanders weigh the odds but they live with the impossibilities in their heads.  They don't tell soldiers that they can't win or won't come out alive.  They will tell them they probably can't win and probably won't come out alive and then they pump them up and tell them that's not gonna happen.  Because they know they have to be able to envision possible wins even if it's remote.

I saw ME as positive games where you have to weigh decisions and they were sometimes tough, but hard choices led to decent outcomes.  For me there is no decent outcome.  Your opinion differs and that's fine.  I am glad it works for you-I wish one did for me.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 30 juillet 2012 - 09:56 .

[3DandBeyond]

iamweaver wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Show me one dialogue tree where someone seriously thought that this was guaranteed, or heavily likely to be, a one-way trip. What was correctly said was, this might very well be a one-way trip, which is accurate.
 

"This isn't time for emotional entanglement! You and I know more about the Collectors than anybody. We both know just how unlikely it is that we're coming back alive..."

-Miranda, penultimate romance conversation

"We both know this is likely a 1-way trip."

- The Illusive Man, before launching the suicide mission

Ah - never romanced Miranda.  And I had forgotten what TIM says, because... well, I find him annoying on successive playthroughs, so I <spacebar> him .  I made the typical Internetz "assume you remember correctly" mistake, though - my bad!

I'm still not sure why everyone thought it was a Suicide mission, though.   I can clearly remember, from back on my first playthrouth, thinking, "bunk.  There's nothing suicidal about this".

Because it was an ME game and they never meant anything to be impossible?  Just sayin'

[o Ventus]

iamweaver wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

THen it's not a SUicide Mission.  A suicide mission is one where you *know* that you will fail, or that the odds are heavily stacked against you.  A better name for this would have been the Flying Blind Mission, because that's what it was.  I find it hard to believe that you don't know what a suicide is...

They're invading the Collector "homeworld" with 1 frigate-class ship and a crew of 13 combatants (including Shepard). I would say that puts the odds pretty heavily out of Shepard's favor.

THis, I disagree with.

If it were true that, upon exiting the Mass Effect Relay, Normandy found out that there was an entire homeworld and a zillion ships on the other side, then I'm thinking that there would have to be some rethinking going on.  IMO, this scenario was unlikely, as we only saw one collector ship, maybe two, in action simultaneously - but it could have happened.

But if it happened, Shepherd would be an idiot to attack the homeworld, guns a-blazing.

Well, if this isn't a non-answer...

How is this a non-answer?  If upon showing up, Shepherd can quickly assess the situation and recognize that she's not going to be able to do much, her best bet would be to stooge around hoping that however the Collectors saw him last time, they won't this time, while she gathers info to take back with her.

It's a non-answer because it doesn't address anything in my post.

[iamweaver]

3DandBeyond wrote...

<snip>

I saw ME as positive games where you have to weigh decisions and they were sometimes tough, but hard choices led to decent outcomes.  For me there is no decent outcome.  Your opinion differs and that's fine.  I am glad it works for you-I wish one did for me.

This is one of the real drawbacks of ME3.  There are no good endings - you have to decide which of 4 decisions with terrible consequences you choose.

Well, unless you are playing MeglomaniacShep, in which case Control is right up your alley.

Or destroy, I guess, if you let the Geth die, then you only have to think about EDI's death, and yours and anyone else wearing ReaperWear™.

Personally, I don't mind that kind of ending for a movie, book or even Video game.  But I'm not so sure its a good plan in general, especially given the other discussions about whether your choices are even valid or not.

[iamweaver]

o Ventus wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

THen it's not a SUicide Mission.  A suicide mission is one where you *know* that you will fail, or that the odds are heavily stacked against you.  A better name for this would have been the Flying Blind Mission, because that's what it was.  I find it hard to believe that you don't know what a suicide is...

They're invading the Collector "homeworld" with 1 frigate-class ship and a crew of 13 combatants (including Shepard). I would say that puts the odds pretty heavily out of Shepard's favor.

THis, I disagree with.

If it were true that, upon exiting the Mass Effect Relay, Normandy found out that there was an entire homeworld and a zillion ships on the other side, then I'm thinking that there would have to be some rethinking going on.  IMO, this scenario was unlikely, as we only saw one collector ship, maybe two, in action simultaneously - but it could have happened.

But if it happened, Shepherd would be an idiot to attack the homeworld, guns a-blazing.

Well, if this isn't a non-answer...

How is this a non-answer?  If upon showing up, Shepherd can quickly assess the situation and recognize that she's not going to be able to do much, her best bet would be to stooge around hoping that however the Collectors saw him last time, they won't this time, while she gathers info to take back with her.

It's a non-answer because it doesn't address anything in my post.

Ah.  I was just addressing the idea of attacking an actual home world with just a frigate.  But Shepherd and her team of super-spy-soldiers has regularly been able to do things that are beyond the abilities of normal mortals, so I'm not sure what makes attacking the Collector base any more suicidal than  taking out Saren's camp in Virmire, or any of her other missions.  It was dicey, certainly, as you had no clue what to expect.  I just objected to the  (IMO) overdramatic use of the word, "suicide".

Modifié par iamweaver, 30 juillet 2012 - 10:11 .

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
It's called the suicide mission because no one ever has returned from beyond the Omega IV relay.  Over the last thousand years people have gone through it and never returned.  That's why you need the reaper IFF, but they don't even know if that will work.  The Collectors come through it because it recognizes them.

THen it's not a SUicide Mission.  A suicide mission is one where you *know* that you will fail, or that the odds are heavily stacked against you.  A better name for this would have been the Flying Blind Mission, because that's what it was.  I find it hard to believe that you don't know what a suicide is...

Well thank you for telling me what I don't know.  My sister committed suicide by getting in the garage and turning on her car till she was dead.  Thank you so much.  You self-important people have no idea and don't care what you say to anyone.  Real people are behind these words.  But alright since it's so important for you to be right.  You are so smart and right.  Stupid me.  I was playing a freaking game.  I wasn't playing one where I am forced into genocide, molestation/rape-and oh yes before you ask what I'd know about that-I was raped when I was young, and godhood/totalitarianism.

So sorry I expressed an opinion and ruined your life.  Oh and before you ask I doubly know what suicide is because a good friend of mine committed suicide and I've talked people out of doing it.  I've also seen enough dead people to last a lifetime.  I am so sick and tired of people equating art with death and coolness with immoral depressing disgusting choices that do not belong in this game.  I could see if they were in a game called "Let's Be Morose", but not this game. Oh and then for good measure standing up and saying you won't make a choice because it insults your morality to do so is rewarded with death because as you've shown me here I am just too stupid to understand.

Everyone here who has disagreed with my opinion has insulted me and acted like I am a 2 year old.  Well I may not know everything but I've lived a life none of you would want to live and I have a far more positive view of others than you.  ME was about that.  If you can't see that then I pity you.  Nothing is inevitable and nothing is impossible and I like my heroes alive.

I knew there was more to it than what was on the surface. The only thing anyone can reply with is their apology, but cannot take responsibility for the tragedy that befell you. And/or equating a simple video game with it either. No one can change the way the human condition works, we've had a few hundred years at it, but dehumization still exists, too bad it's invaded our social fabric. Most would deplore your situation and be sympathetic to your consideration, but cannot attatch to a video game, such emotion. I suspect you shouldn't play these types of games, if they even romotely remind you of such trauma. It's not your fault they are that way. It's not players fault they are that way. Its the nature of the world, as is. The bright side of all that is that slowly, with such social media, it's possible that there is a ray of hope, that such dehumanization can be identified, and understood, possibly removed from the mainstream, but it'll be a while..a long while for that to occur.

[tanisha__unknown]

LOL

But yeah, valid point

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
You really played a Shepard who can't tell when a situation is hopeless? Who thinks he's living in some sort of fantasy world where if he just tries really hard he can do anything he wants to do? How did he explain his failure on Virmire? Did he just not want to rescue both squadmates enough?

Some things are impossible. No matter how much Hitler thought he could turn things around in late 1944, he couldn't.

(Sorry for Godwinning there, but it's a perfect example of someone being unable to understand that a war really is lost.)

I played a game.  I live real life.  In the game, I had to make hard choices but never had the feeling ever that I couldn't win because I always did.  Or there would be no Shepard in ME3 and my teammates would be gone.  Sorry forr this, but if all you saw was dispair or hopelessness, what game were you playing?

If ME was about not finding a way to win, ME2 and ME3 wouldn't exist.

And we do have a way to win. It's called the Crucible. The impossible thing isn't winning, it's winning a conventional war.

Which is just one of many things that are impossible for Shepard to do. Like saving both squadmates on Virmire, beating Saren to the Conduit, convincing the Council to take his visions seriously, getting the Alliance to handle the Collector threat so Shep doesn't have to work with Cerberus, stopping Santiago while saving the refinery workers....and so forth.

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
 I don't think someone in that position seeing that the kid lives where the choices are and he knows all about them and the kid is insane would believe all this and would need to know more.  I couldn't go on trust.

Sometimes I think what really upsets you is that if you personally were in Shepard's position, you would have doomed the galaxy.

Well this is the most preposterous of all.  If I were in any position I would defer to people that actually know how to write SF and to make endings that make some sense within a series of stories and games.  Really this is a joke.  I don't mind hard choices.  I just like choices that don't insult my intelligence and could exist within the realm created.  If this were a dark fantasy then fine.  If it were real life then of course sadness exists-I've had my share.  But this is a game and within the game there were hard choices, but they existed for a reason.  They weren't put there arbitrarily so the writers didn't have to actually write anything.  But instead in ME3 every intelligent mind goes crazy and they desperately better hope for a MacGuffin and a DeM-and there they are.

Well, from the quote above it sounded like you were arguing what someone actually in the position would do, rather than the merits of the choices as a component of a work of fiction. I'm not actually sure how else I could have read that paragraph.

So maybe I should make this a questionj. You're actually in Shepard's position, and this is not a game. What do you do?

(For me, it's between Control and Destroy -- I don't have the right to either doom the galaxy with Refuse or transform the galaxy with Synthesis. I'm not honestly sure which one I'd pick)

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 juillet 2012 - 11:31 .

[AlexMBrennan]

none of which line up with his morals or original goals.

Shepard's original goal was destroying the Reaper threat. The Destroy option does just that.

Seriously, there's no logical reason to pick anything EXCEPT refuse.

Sorry, but logic does not work that way. Shepard knows that Crucible is the only way they can survive. He also knows that betting everything on the Crucible fixing everything failed - they built it, but the final bit is in Reaper hands and they don't know how it works anyway.

Hammer's dead, the fleets are getting hammered, and Coat's force is falling back. There aren't going to be any reinforcements, and there's no time to disassemble the thing and look for a better option.

So it comes down to the following: You have three buttons. If you don't press any button, everyone will die. What's the worst that could happen? Everyone's dead anyway if you don't press the button.

[Skirata129]

Well, to be more clear, the most logical thing would be to refuse the Catalyst's choices and then actually look for the console that would interact with the crucible. What kind of device activates through killing the operator or having pieces of it shot?

[AlexMBrennan]

Yeah, I'm sure Shepard will have no trouble at all operating a piece of technology the galaxy's best and brightest scientists haven't been able to figure out while literally bleeding to death before the Reaper fleet takes out the Crucible.

[AlanC9]

Anyway, you can try that. Walk around the room. There isn't any such console.

[SMichelle]

RenegonSQ wrote...

You're right, refusal is the best ending....





FOR YOU! Stop forcing your endings on people, none of them are "the best". Jesus Christ

Agree.  It's called a RPG for a reason. 

[Skirata129]

yeah, no console in that room. though I couldn't figure out why Shep didn't apply medigel when he had a healthy supply of it before stepping into the beam.

[SMichelle]

Skirata129 wrote...

yeah, no console in that room. though I couldn't figure out why Shep didn't apply medigel when he had a healthy supply of it before stepping into the beam.

Because his armor was a smoking ruin.    I'm sure any medigel on hand would have been vaporized as well.

[Pelle6666]

Also, the refusal ending is the most open ending of the ones we got. We never learn what fate any of the main characters met. As Liara once said, the harvest of a cycle can take centuries to complete, Shepard and the others could theoretically have survived the battle for earth and kept fighting for survival all through the galaxy.
The fact that refusal and destroy offers the player the chance to imagine what happened after the end of ME3 is for me what makes these two options the best ones in the game.

[Skirata129]

yeah, about that... funny how a Reaper capital ship's beam can make mincemeat out of cruisers specced to withstand atmospheric reentries, but can't kill one soldier in armor designed to stop anti-personnel rounds.

[carrmatt91]

 well... here i go...

DESTROY:

catalyst is lying = everyone dies - cycle continues - reapers can now counter the crucible later on now that they know it exists

catalyst is not lying = reapers destroyed - synthetics die in a case of unavoidable friendly fire - everyone else lives

CONTROL:

catalyst is lying = everyone dies - cycle continues - reapers can now counter the crucible later on now that they know it exists 

catalyst is not lying = AI shep now controls the reapers for his own agenda - everyone including geth live

SYNTHESIS:

catalyst is lying = everyone dies - cycle continues - reapers can now counter the crucible later on now that they know it exists 

catalyst is not lying = some freaky a** space magic ocurrs and everyone lives happily ever after with the reapers singing cumbaya around the campfire

REFUSAL: 

catalyst is lying = everyone dies - cycle continues - reapers can now counter the crucible later on now that they know it exists  

catalyst is not lying = everyone dies - cycle continues - reapers can now counter the crucible later on now that they know it exists 


as i see it without metagaming 3/4 of the choices have a 50% chance of success whereas refusal has <1% chance of success at best, so how can it possibly be the best choice whilst keeping the interests of the galaxy at large in mind along with your military orders?

[iamweaver]

Skirata129 wrote...

yeah, about that... funny how a Reaper capital ship's beam can make mincemeat out of cruisers specced to withstand atmospheric reentries, but can't kill one soldier in armor designed to stop anti-personnel rounds.

Oh, come on - be serious.  By ME3, I cannot believe that you haven't seen the amazing strength of Shep's plot armored underwear.

[3DandBeyond]

Wayning_Star wrote...

I knew there was more to it than what was on the surface. The only thing anyone can reply with is their apology, but cannot take responsibility for the tragedy that befell you. And/or equating a simple video game with it either. No one can change the way the human condition works, we've had a few hundred years at it, but dehumization still exists, too bad it's invaded our social fabric. Most would deplore your situation and be sympathetic to your consideration, but cannot attatch to a video game, such emotion. I suspect you shouldn't play these types of games, if they even romotely remind you of such trauma. It's not your fault they are that way. It's not players fault they are that way. Its the nature of the world, as is. The bright side of all that is that slowly, with such social media, it's possible that there is a ray of hope, that such dehumanization can be identified, and understood, possibly removed from the mainstream, but it'll be a while..a long while for that to occur.

Just to be clear I don't want pity.  I shared personal info because a poster tried to say I didn't know the meaning of suicide, but I do.

My opinion is ME3 offers no ending for me and many others like me and that it veers from what ME1 and 2 showed as possibilities.  This was the end of the story arc for a lot of characters and it was a series about perseverance and overcoming overwhelming odds.  If others see it some other way then I can't see how we've played the same games.  I never minded a variety of endings that reflected the decisions made in the 3 games, but those decisions are mostly meaningless.  On the one hand you can metagame it and think one thing. 

On the other hand you see it as Shepard sees it and see another.  If you can make a choice then I'm happy for you.  I can't and I hate what they did to this story.  I don't mind hard choices but I want them to make sense.  Listen to the catalyst describe Destroy and then ask what it all means and then really ask why any person wouldn't have more questions about it.  That's one example.  To me, it's garbage writing.  Endings taken from other stories and slapped onto this.  You may disagree and that's fine.  But if the roles were reversed I really would want you to be able to enjoy the game as much as me.  That's it.  I want to like the game.  The ending ruined it and I'm not pessimistic or cynical at all.  I don't look at games as substitutes for life, but I look to them to entertain me.  If the standard at Bioware is to start a game fixed within a certain reality and then enter a parallel universe for their art derived from other sources, then I'm done with them. 

This was a game and not the world and that's the problem.  The world doesn't have to be inserted into every game.  If they had been truthful, I wouldn't have bought this game.  They lied and I have an unfinished story.  I read a lot of books and most publishers wouldn't let this kind of thing get out there because of 2 plot contrivances.  But our standards are pretty low in gaming. 

I'm not saying video games remind me of trauma but when someone can actually make a statement to a stranger that basically they don't know what suicide means then I see that people are really not considering what they are saying.  I also am saying that life is already hard enough.  Want to see tragedy for no good reason, turn on the news.  I don't like it infesting all games and not one like this-the endings feature Shepard's needless death for poor reasons.  And don't even say then I haven't played other games-I've played hundreds over many years.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


When you approach it with an atitude of 'all my enemy says is lies', yes. That is incredibly illogical. It isn't supported by history (the Reapers aren't big on lying when the communicate), and it isn't supported by what the Catalyst actually says (two of the three options giving the organics victory over the Reapers).

The bolded part is completely senseless, tell that to Amanda Kenson, also, and like I said before, to believe your enemy you must be completely mindless.

The Catalyst and Reapers didn't lead on TIM or Saren. Saren believed subjugation was the means to survival for his own reasons: it was based on a mistaken logic (that the Reapers would keep tools), but Saren was working for the Reapers before he was indoctrinated. TIM believed in Control likewise for his own reasons, and was only indoctrinated well after he started down that path.

You still have to give me reason to even believe my enemy is the slightest, and your wrong about TIM and Saren. Even thought your right about what you stated, that still leaves the notion that the reason why it happen was because they got either to close with the enemy, or tried to reason with them, the same thing Shepard does when accepting the Catalyst ultimatum

Except Refusal already has a zero percent chance for success, as everyone within the game has been telling you since the start. By the end of the game all but one of the major homeworlds has fallen, the Reapers are on the advance on all fronts, and the fleet for Earth is a last-ditch effort to use the Crucible.

If the Crucible doesn't work, regardless of the Catalyst lying or not, you are dead because the Crucible was the only path to survival. Refusing to attempt it has no better chance for survival than it being a trap by the Reapers.

There's many indication that you might have puny chance {1-2} percent chance that you can defeat the Reapers. And even if not, if you still believe that the Catalyst is lying, and you have no chance of surviving. You can do something, lower the numbers for the next cycle, pass down information, maybe get on stasis pods and survive to the next cycle, something.


But all endings suck anyway so why argue it?

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 31 juillet 2012 - 03:07 .

[Aggie Punbot]

Skirata129 wrote...

Simply put, from Shepard's point of view, he is being confronted with a VI that claims to have created the Reapers, and who presents a very flawed argument before presenting 3 choices to him, none of which line up with his morals or original goals. These choices are not even presented in a professional manner, such as inputting them in a terminal. Instead, for all shepard knows, the VI who admits to being a Reaper ally just told him to either shoot a fuel tank at close range, grab a live power line, or step into a giant beam of energy that will disintegrate him.


Seriously, there's no logical reason to pick anything EXCEPT refuse.

The bolded part is what I have an issue with. *My* Shepard's goal has always been to destroy the reapers, no matter what. Thus, choosing 'Destroy' is completely in line with his/her morals and original goal(s). Your logic has been refuted; I Refuse to accept your reasoning.

Modifié par TS2Aggie, 31 juillet 2012 - 03:10 .

[daecath]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

none of which line up with his morals or original goals.

Shepard's original goal was destroying the Reaper threat. The Destroy option does just that.

Seriously, there's no logical reason to pick anything EXCEPT refuse.

Sorry, but logic does not work that way. Shepard knows that Crucible is the only way they can survive. He also knows that betting everything on the Crucible fixing everything failed - they built it, but the final bit is in Reaper hands and they don't know how it works anyway.

Hammer's dead, the fleets are getting hammered, and Coat's force is falling back. There aren't going to be any reinforcements, and there's no time to disassemble the thing and look for a better option.

So it comes down to the following: You have three buttons. If you don't press any button, everyone will die. What's the worst that could happen? Everyone's dead anyway if you don't press the button.

First, unless Shepard has suddenly developed the ability to see the future, he doesn't "know" anything. The general belief is that they can't win, but they don't know that for certain. What he does know is that his enemy routinely tries to manipulate and lie to them, ie through indoctrination. He knows that everything the catalyst has said is utter BS as far as this cycle is concerned, since there's not a single example of any synthetic making the willful decision to rebel against their masters for no reason. And he knows that every option presented will kill him. Given those known quantities, it makes more sense to refuse the catalyst and look for another option than it does to give in and accept whatever the catalyst says. Especially since even if the catalyst is telling the truth, the other three options are less than ideal. Destroy an entire race, try to enslave the reapers, or mess with the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy in a way that's completely unknown and  undefined. And again, you've seen that the reapers aren't invulnerable. You know they can be killed, so which is the riskier choice - trusting your enemy when he tells you to pick how you want to die, or holding out hope that you can figure out some other way?