80611 réponses à ce sujet

[byne]

IsaacShep wrote...

byne wrote...

If IT is not true, utopian endings where everyone is happy and nothing makes sense are correct, I guess.

Yup, and at least Bioware didn't forget completly that Mass Effect was suppoused to be an RPG, as they would if IT was true and only the choice widely percieved as Paragon led to win invalidating completly other moral paths.

Destroy is widely perceived as paragon? Really? 

Wiping out all synthetics, including a party member, does not seem super paragon to me. Nor does enslaving the Reapers, or forcibly rewriting the galaxy's DNA. Whether people see any choice as being paragon doesnt make it so.

And pro-tip: having a single ending does not stop something from being an RPG. Only having a single ending does not change the fact that you had plenty of other choices that mattered and had real effects. Claiming otherwise is just being disingenuous.

The fact that having sex with Morinth immediately causes you to lose the game and is declared as an invalid choice did not stop ME2 from being an RPG.

Modifié par byne, 15 octobre 2012 - 01:15 .

[shepskisaac]

spotlessvoid wrote...

RPG does not mean all choices are valid

No, hence why we have fail version of Destroy & Control where galaxy goes to ****. But an RPG that incorporated at least two moral paths needs to stick to its design and make more than one path to win valid.

spotlessvoid wrote...

Says you. Bioware did "pick sides" though. With the EC. Then in the final real proper ending they'll show which side is really true.

So you say they picked sides but won't show it till final real proper ending? Oh. When's that real proper ending coming again. 'Cause ya know, I've been hearing that since March. It's October now and Omega doesn't come out till end of November. Then there's Citadel DLC already slated which will take another 2-3 months. So we'll be in February 2013 already. And ME3 DLC cycle was said to be only 1 year. This thread is running out of time I would say hmmm

[byne]

IsaacShep wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

RPG does not mean all choices are valid

No, hence why we have fail version of Destroy & Control where galaxy goes to ****. But an RPG that incorporated at least two moral paths needs to stick to its design and make more than one path to win valid.

I really dont get why you're so obsessed with assigning specific morality to any of the ending choices.

[shepskisaac]

byne wrote...

I really dont get why you're so obsessed with assigning specific morality to any of the ending choices.

Are we pretending that one of the main reasons IT exists is not the fact that its supporters consider Destroy as the best morally ending and are inclined towards Paragon choices? I mean, it ain't really any accusation, just observation. However, the problems start when one side wants the other choice(s) to be the lesser/worse/wrong one

Modifié par IsaacShep, 15 octobre 2012 - 01:22 .

[Andromidius]

Personally I think the three choices scale in stupidity or gullibility, rather then morality.

Paragon or Renegade, Shepard isn't stupid.

[V-rcingetorix]

BatmanTurian wrote...

byne wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Something of a series reboot? That could actually work fairly well, although I think Wrex might be dead at this point; he was quite old already.

I dont think we ever got any sort of confirmation on how old krogan actually live to be, or when Wrex was even born, for that matter.

I think they live just a little less long than the Asari. Not sure, but I know it's far past Humans, Turians, or Salarians.

In ME2, Charr and his Asari gf are "taking a break." The asari tells Shepard that "With a human you just put up with them until they die....sorry. But with a Krogan...is he bondmate material?"

Also, the Matriach Atheyta (Liara's...er...father?) comments that her dad was a Krogan, and her mother was an asari commando, and that both had fought in the krogan rebellions. Dad finds out, both call up Atheyta, make her promise to love the winner, and then kill each other. To me, that indicates a fairly similar aging rate.

Finally, the Patriarch and Aria go back 100 years, and Aria is younger. Not sure about the correlation of age, but it looks like the Patriarch is still pretty tough despite his longevity. Aria is only pre-Matriarch stage, I think.

[byne]

IsaacShep wrote...

byne wrote...

I really dont get why you're so obsessed with assigning specific morality to any of the ending choices.

Are we pretending that one of the main reasons IT exists is not the fact that its supporters consider Destroy as the best morally ending and are inclined towards Paragon choices?

I dont think any of the ending choices are particularly morally superior. They all have huge downsides.

I like destroy less because I think it is morally superior, but more because thats what I've been working towards for three games.

You really dont seem to like paragons, though.

Also: completely unrelated question. Is the kaidan duck thing in your sig a reference to Psyduck and its habit of getting headaches?

Because if so that took me way longer to get than it should have.

[401 Kill]

Andromidius wrote...

Personally I think the three choices scale in stupidity or gullibility, rather then morality.

Paragon or Renegade, Shepard isn't stupid.

Yes.

[shepskisaac]

byne wrote...

You really dont seem to like paragons, though.

I don't like when Paragons want/demand Paragon pandering. This problem ain't exclusive to ME franchise, it happens with pretty much all RPGs

byne wrote...

Also: completely unrelated question. Is the kaidan duck thing in your sig a reference to Psyduck and its habit of getting headaches?

Correct

[spotlessvoid]

Think whatever you want. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to go convince you. You really think Bioware is going out on a short monologue and slide show? Believe whatever you want. Do itwsomewhere else

[Xilizhra]

Control: An AI clone of myself oversees and controls the Reapers.

Synthesis: The entire galaxy has been genetically synthesized with the Reapers.

..... what moral paths? They're certainly not ETHICAL, at least.

They have their own ethical possibilities, particularly for avoiding genocide.

[ealeander]

IsaacShep wrote...

byne wrote...

I really dont get why you're so obsessed with assigning specific morality to any of the ending choices.

Are we pretending that one of the main reasons IT exists is not the fact that its supporters consider Destroy as the best morally ending and are inclined towards Paragon choices?

The variations on IT suggest Destroy is the "happiest" ending because it's the only one where Shepard wins, regardless of whether he's renegade or paragon. And as per my quasi-IT interpretation from a few pages back, what makes IT and Destroy compelling for Paragon characters is that it plays into the game's recurrent themes of some choices not fitting neatly into a clear good/evil category where you always have a path towards saving all the innocents and avoiding all negative consequences (a theme rooted in the Kaidan/Ashley choice that is raised repeatedly in conversations with Mordin, Javik, Garrus and even Vega's back story). Basically, for me, it's an interesting ending precisely because it conflicts with Paragon Shepard's instincts... but remains the only way to truly eliminate the Reaper threat, just as sending a squadmate to their death was the only way to "win" in ME1. For both Renegade and Paragon, there is an option designed to tempt them into indoctrination. For Renegade, it's the [false] promise of power in "Control." For Paragon, it's the [false] promise of a peace where everyone survives in "Synthesis." In both cases, "Destroy" isn't CLEARLY a good Paragon/Renegade choice (especially, for Renegades, if you accept the Catalyst's claim that it means Shepard dies), and it asks either one to resist his/her instincts to avoid indoctrination and achieve victory.

At the same time, while this only leaves one choice that leads to "victory," it still leaves it up to the player whether his character accepts that or gives in to temptation. Obviously, most people will choose "victory," but those who would choose the temptation of indoctrination have told just as "valid" a story, just an even darker one.

More generally, I don't see why players are obligated to a game world where the consequences conform to the wishes of their character. Just in terms of storytelling, that's not very interesting, and I'd rather have an end scenario that takes every character out of their "comfort zone" and reinforces some of the game's more compelling, debatable themes as opposed to just giving everyone a "Yep, you're right, good job" ending.

EDIT: FWIW, I'm satisfied with the ending being left vague and not having Bioware confirm my particular interpretation, and I think it's very much possible for a sequel to be written while leaving Shepard's final decision ambiguous enough for Control/Synthesis people to believe that their ending actually happened. However, in any case, I think two things will be necessary for any sequel: (1) the Reapers are gone and (2) Shepard disappeared.

Modifié par ealeander, 15 octobre 2012 - 01:57 .

[V-rcingetorix]

Ethics? In war? Yeah, they exist. But they degrade to a degree, as exemplified by a books eries kindly introduced to me here: The Lost Fleet. Thank you for that enjoyable read.

Control seems to be paragon, because of the least amount of life lost; however, it is TIM's choice (renegade figure), and is the solution voted "most likely to fail."

Destroy is the simplest; and the one endorsed by Anderson (paragon figure). EDI and the Geth both state they are willing to terminate their existence to end the Reaper threat. Taking them at their word is not renegade, but killing a majority of the synthetic races does seem renegade to me. Or, it can be compared as a Ashley/Kaiden scenario, risk failure or take a certain victory that kills a friend?

Synthesis...not trusting that. At. All. Reapers suggested it, even though the Geth/Quarians seem to be moving in that direction already, why? Reapers have displayed only aggression; deceptive aggression in their "sleeper agents," literal assault in their attacks via the Collectors, Sovereign and their own invasion, and no morals whatsoever, in their Indoctrination preference. Who would trust an amoral individual?

[TSA_383]

IsaacShep wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

"This is a roleplaying game, people who choose to side with the main reaper AI shouldn't be punished by the game"

LOL

Imagine that, a game that allows you to take control of the enemy to win. Blasphemy!

Choosing to believe the reaper AI isn't "taking control" of ****.

Believing that your enemy for the past 100+ hours of gameplay is being completely on the level with you isn't just retarded, it's so monumentally stupid that I struggle to imagine how you believe this **** without your head trapped in a vat of boiling chlorine...

I mean, MOTHER OF GOD how do you possibly justify believing what the reaper AI tells you, when minutes earlier you've either killed or forced to suicide the last guy who believed what the reaper AI told him?

That's like choosing that banshees just need a little love and could probably be domesticated if you just gave them a cuddle. You're free to give it a go but the game doesn't need to pander to your ****ing retarded choices.

[Home run MF]

IsaacShep wrote...

byne wrote...

I really dont get why you're so obsessed with assigning specific morality to any of the ending choices.

Are we pretending that one of the main reasons IT exists is not the fact that its supporters consider Destroy as the best morally ending and are inclined towards Paragon choices? I mean, it ain't really any accusation, just observation. However, the problems start when one side wants the other choice(s) to be the lesser/worse/wrong one

I'm a renegade player myself and I don't consider IT a way out for paragons but a good mind trick, and I particularly don't care what other people do (it's their game and Shepard) but sometimes I'm rather annoyed by trolls that make fun of IT and they don't even bother reading the OP. I just like ME and the people in this thread.

Also I don't mind if they never release a "Revelation" DLC, but this is just my opinion. 

[ZerebusPrime]

Woot!  After much slogging, I finally got the Combat Mastery achievement and the Dog of War tag!  .... oh.  Indoctrination thread.  Whoops.  Shifting gears...  um......

SwobyJ wrote...


All it is, is resisting the Reapers til the end. Of the game.

Mass Effect's story isn't done yet, I'm almost completely sure.

This bears notice.  The end of Mass Effect 3 is the ending only because we ran out of game.

The nonending endings feel very much like the setup for something else.  Is Shepard going to be in that something else?  Possibly, but maybe not in the way we'd expect.

[ThisOneIsPunny]

Xilizhra wrote...

Control: An AI clone of myself oversees and controls the Reapers.

Synthesis: The entire galaxy has been genetically synthesized with the Reapers.

..... what moral paths? They're certainly not ETHICAL, at least.

They have their own ethical possibilities, particularly for avoiding genocide.

Rose colored glasses, genocide can happen in the other endings too.
Control can become really bad based on whatever moral alignment Shepard was. If another war were to start like the krogan rebellion or the rachni wars, renegadeAIshep would crush it with the reapers. ParagonAIshep's only difference with this response would be the reasoning behind it.
Are you asking why I think this? Maybe you are! Here is my rationalizing of it per in-game fact and evidence:
-AIshep's speech in general based on moral alignment of real shep, particularly near the beginning "The woman/man I was used these words..."
-The extreme the Catalyst went to in order to preserve organic life and protect it from conflict with synthetics.

Synthesis. Remember the catalyst saying "A new dna"? You may as well call that genocide, metaphorical or not. Everyone's dna is the same, everyone in the galaxy is composed of the synthetic/organic hybrid dna now. One race. Or did the organics get the short end of the stick on this one, considering synthetics gained understanding of organics? Did they gain dna too? I can't remember.