80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightingale]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Before the EC, I used to think the destroy ending was our hope for the IT to be true, especially since it left the question of whether the Crucible would destroy all synthetics or just reaper tech, and you saw EDI alive in the Normandy scene. But after the EC, BW changed the destroy ending, getting rid of EDI from the ending and making it clear to us that all synthetics would be destroyed. This to me, proved that even the destroy ending is the wrong choice, since it breaks the ME theme of true sacrifice such as Thane, Mordin, and Legion, and replaces it with Mass genocide and murder of your friends and allies.
Not even the breathing scene can change my mind about the destroy ending.

I disagree with destroy being genocide based on intention.
"the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
Since you don't deliberately destroy the Geth, nor do you do it systematically, this would not fall under the realm of genocide. I see it as necessary sacrifice. There are plenty of quotes from squadmates about necessary sacrifice, inculding many from EDI and the Geth themselves.

I still think it only destroys the Reaper code in them and they go back to being what they were before the "upgrades." They could still build the superstructure Legion talked about and regain it on their own - as Legion wanted - so I wouldn't even call it a true sacrifice in that case. As for EDI, she was partly created by the ruins of Sovereign but even she may survive. After all, she was the AI on Luna. She may have just reverted to that while retaining her...memories. Her body could have been destroyed, I don't remember how Eva was constructed (if it ever said), so I can't really talk about that, but she still has the Normandy. That appeared, at least, to be operational.

Edit: Oh man, my idiotic ramblings made first post...

Modifié par DrTsoni, 16 août 2012 - 10:38 .

[BansheeOwnage]

DrTsoni wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Speculation withdrawal syndrome:P

That's about how I'm feeling, anyway, since I don't have acess to my computer right now
I probably won't be able to keep up a conversation for long, but have I missed anything big in the last...250 or so pages?

Hey DrTsoni! Haven't seen you in a while! Sorry though, I can't really recall any single thing that was important. Simon_Says made cool article, and we discussed the similarities between the beginning and end of the game yesterday.

You too, I never seem to be online when you are. Hm..I'll have to dig up Simon's stuff when I get my PC back, then. I'm not really surprised we haven't had much to speculate about, though. Looks like we're all still waiting on Leviathan. I think I heard it'd be out somewhere around the 28th to the beginning of September. Any truth to that or is it wishful thinking?
I actually just played the beginning again and I have to agree. I could almost believe the theory that when Shepard gets blown back by the explosion that is when the hallucinations start, but...I don't know. Things don't really get weird until about Cronos and I don't think Bioware would intentionally write it so the entire game was up to debate.
Also, does anyone know if they fixed that glitch where if you continued a romance with Tali and then got her killed on Rannoch, she would then still show up before Cronos?

I think Simon's post is linked in MaximizedAction's sig, if you happen to come across that first. I agree that the beginning doesn't really feel unreal, but I still think it is important to the end. Everything fits, except we still need Anderson to help us up.
Also, what time zone are you in?

[DJBare]

plfranke wrote...
Right now there's too much speculation and no one really has any idea what happened, only that we all hope that the ending we got isn't the real deal.

Unfortunately I believe Bioware when they said the EC was it, that's your ending, no more changes, we might get variations caused by DLC, now I did not mind the EC because it was free, but if it turns out we do not get to see a victory without purchasing DLC then a lot of the playerbase is going to be up in arms, because no matter how you cut it, that means paying for "The real ending"

[Bill Casey]

legaldinho wrote...

My point is Javik's words are not foreshadowing IT.

I didn't say they were?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 16 août 2012 - 10:41 .

[BansheeOwnage]

DJBare wrote...

plfranke wrote...
Right now there's too much speculation and no one really has any idea what happened, only that we all hope that the ending we got isn't the real deal.

Unfortunately I believe Bioware when they said the EC was it, that's your ending, no more changes, we might get variations caused by DLC, now I did not mind the EC because it was free, but if it turns out we do not get to see a victory without purchasing DLC then a lot of the playerbase is going to be up in arms, because no matter how you cut it, that means paying for "The real ending"

I suppose that would be unfortunate, but I'd prefer paying for it than being wherever we are now.

[FreddyCast]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Before the EC, I used to think the destroy ending was our hope for the IT to be true, especially since it left the question of whether the Crucible would destroy all synthetics or just reaper tech, and you saw EDI alive in the Normandy scene. But after the EC, BW changed the destroy ending, getting rid of EDI from the ending and making it clear to us that all synthetics would be destroyed. This to me, proved that even the destroy ending is the wrong choice, since it breaks the ME theme of true sacrifice such as Thane, Mordin, and Legion, and replaces it with Mass genocide and murder of your friends and allies.
Not even the breathing scene can change my mind about the destroy ending.

I disagree with destroy being genocide based on intention.
"the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
Since you don't deliberately destroy the Geth, nor do you do it systematically, this would not fall under the realm of genocide. I see it as necessary sacrifice. There are plenty of quotes from squadmates about necessary sacrifice, inculding many from EDI and the Geth themselves.

That's exactly what the destroy ending is according to the EC. The Godbrat makes it clear to you what the consequences are. Choosing destroy means that you whole heartedly accept destroying an entire sentient species just to destroy the Reapers. And you do it by your own hands. That's not necessary sacrifice, that's genocide. It's the same as killing all the Jews just to kill all the ****s. I'm reminded of what Shepard said to Garrus at the Memorail wall. He said if we allow ourselves to start killing our friends because of this war, then this war just ends up being murder.
I know that sometimes we don't get the easy way out, but in the ending we don't even get the Hard way out. Instead we allow the Catalyst to decide our fate. Remember that the choices come from the Citadel, not the Crucible, which is a complete contradiction to the narrative of the story.
EDIT: that censored part is not a curse word, its Hitler's party.

Modifié par FreddyCast, 16 août 2012 - 10:44 .

[Nightingale]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Speculation withdrawal syndrome:P

That's about how I'm feeling, anyway, since I don't have acess to my computer right now
I probably won't be able to keep up a conversation for long, but have I missed anything big in the last...250 or so pages?

Hey DrTsoni! Haven't seen you in a while! Sorry though, I can't really recall any single thing that was important. Simon_Says made cool article, and we discussed the similarities between the beginning and end of the game yesterday.

You too, I never seem to be online when you are. Hm..I'll have to dig up Simon's stuff when I get my PC back, then. I'm not really surprised we haven't had much to speculate about, though. Looks like we're all still waiting on Leviathan. I think I heard it'd be out somewhere around the 28th to the beginning of September. Any truth to that or is it wishful thinking?
I actually just played the beginning again and I have to agree. I could almost believe the theory that when Shepard gets blown back by the explosion that is when the hallucinations start, but...I don't know. Things don't really get weird until about Cronos and I don't think Bioware would intentionally write it so the entire game was up to debate.
Also, does anyone know if they fixed that glitch where if you continued a romance with Tali and then got her killed on Rannoch, she would then still show up before Cronos?

I think Simon's post is linked in MaximizedAction's sig, if you happen to come across that first. I agree that the beginning doesn't really feel unreal, but I still think it is important to the end. Everything fits, except we still need Anderson to help us up.
Also, what time zone are you in?

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. Why is Anderson helping Shepard up odd, though? I mean, sure, Shep could get up on her own, but he was just being polite

I'm on pacific time. It's...3:43pm atm.

[BansheeOwnage]

DrTsoni wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Before the EC, I used to think the destroy ending was our hope for the IT to be true, especially since it left the question of whether the Crucible would destroy all synthetics or just reaper tech, and you saw EDI alive in the Normandy scene. But after the EC, BW changed the destroy ending, getting rid of EDI from the ending and making it clear to us that all synthetics would be destroyed. This to me, proved that even the destroy ending is the wrong choice, since it breaks the ME theme of true sacrifice such as Thane, Mordin, and Legion, and replaces it with Mass genocide and murder of your friends and allies.
Not even the breathing scene can change my mind about the destroy ending.

I disagree with destroy being genocide based on intention.
"the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
Since you don't deliberately destroy the Geth, nor do you do it systematically, this would not fall under the realm of genocide. I see it as necessary sacrifice. There are plenty of quotes from squadmates about necessary sacrifice, inculding many from EDI and the Geth themselves.

I still think it only destroys the Reaper code in them and they go back to being what they were before the "upgrades." They could still build the superstructure Legion talked about and regain it on their own - as Legion wanted - so I wouldn't even call it a true sacrifice in that case. As for EDI, she was partly created by the ruins of Sovereign but even she may survive. After all, she was the AI on Luna. She may have just reverted to that while retaining her...memories. Her body could have been destroyed, I don't remember how Eva was constructed (if it ever said), so I can't really talk about that, but she still has the Normandy. That appeared, at least, to be operational.

Edit: Oh man, my idiotic ramblings made first post...

That's a good hypothesis actually; I've never heard that before! And don't be so hard on yourself, I'm sure many people enjoy reading your posts. My favourite point is the one about the Normandy still working btw.

[BansheeOwnage]

DrTsoni wrote...

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. Why is Anderson helping Shepard up odd, though? I mean, sure, Shep could get up on her own, but he was just being polite

I'm on pacific time. It's...3:43pm atm.

Proof that chivalry isn't dead in the future! Also, it seems we are in the same timezone.

[DJBare]

BansheeOwnage wrote...
I suppose that would be unfortunate, but I'd prefer paying for it than being wherever we are now.

If it be the case, that's what Bioware/EA are banking on, it's an old television series ploy, leave the viewer's hanging and wanting more.

[BansheeOwnage]

Flog61 wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I really wanna know what the new area is! If it's got something to do with the endings I will literally explode with orgasms

Every time i check this topic it becomes sexual? wtf!

You should see all the top-of-the-page posts  

[BansheeOwnage]

DJBare wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...
I suppose that would be unfortunate, but I'd prefer paying for it than being wherever we are now.

If it be the case, that's what Bioware/EA are banking on, it's an old television series ploy, leave the viewer's hanging and wanting more.

Yeah, and it's working on me.  I just hope it pays off...

[Skeem]

DJBare wrote...

Unfortunately I believe Bioware when they said the EC was it, that's your ending, no more changes

[Hrothdane]

DJBare wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...
Well I definitely agree with that last part. I don't think they royaly screwed up though. I think the playerbase screwed up.

That would be the "majority" of the playerbase.
To me that just says the delivery and execution failed, I'm a reasonably intelligent person, at least that's what I've been told, but at the end of Mass Effect 3 IT did not even occur to me until I saw the original IT thread, that's why I was one of those who joined in the outrage, then some hope came as I started reading these threads, but now it's seems like Bioware are trying to fix a mess with more mess, at some point I have to question how much longer this goes on, I want Bioware to succeed and hit us with some big revelation, but right now it's just looking like a mess.

I'm gonna start with a brief divergence into aesthetics, so bear with me. I believe that art is the merger of form and function created with intention to communicate meaning, for reasons I won't go into here. Anything that meets all those criteria is art, whether it be architecture, a book, a video game, etc....

Anything that lacks that communicative element is at best an artistic exercise, not a piece of fulfilled art. The problem with the ME3 ending (and the MGS2 ending for that matter) is that while we can sense the intention to communicate meaning, the actual delivery of said meaning lacks the finesse and elegance for the audience to easily grasp. Unfortunately, many others can't even see the intention. Ultimately, I look at this as ultimately a failure on the part of the designers. It's the responsibility of the communicator to make sure their message is understood by the audience.

I admire what Hideo Kojima tried to do and what the evidence points to Bioware doing now, but their execution needs work.

[paxxton]

Control is Destroy. You destroy who the Reapers are.

[BansheeOwnage]

FreddyCast wrote...

That's exactly what the destroy ending is according to the EC. The Godbrat makes it clear to you what the consequences are. Choosing destroy means that you whole heartedly accept destroying an entire sentient species just to destroy the Reapers. And you do it by your own hands. That's not necessary sacrifice, that's genocide. It's the same as killing all the Jews just to kill all the ****s. I'm reminded of what Shepard said to Garrus at the Memorail wall. He said if we allow ourselves to start killing our friends because of this war, then this war just ends up being murder.
I know that sometimes we don't get the easy way out, but in the ending we don't even get the Hard way out. Instead we allow the Catalyst to decide our fate. Remember that the choices come from the Citadel, not the Crucible, which is a complete contradiction to the narrative of the story.
EDIT: that censored part is not a curse word, its Hitler's party.

I get what you mean, it's just that I don't see it as genocide if it's not intentional (meaning you want to kill them). You lose in refuse (in a literal sense) so the next best option is refuse. Also, if I had to let 10 billion people die so 20 billion others could live, I would. It's better that all of them dying. I'd definitely be on board with refuse if Shepard at least tried to fight/you saw allies fighting to the death or if we ever get a victory through refuse.

[D.Sharrah]

Question:

Is the assumption that because we don't see EDI's "new body" (as in new to ME 3) in the memorial scene, that "Destroy" eliminates all synthetics?

Or is it possible, and what others have said, about "Destroy" just eliminating the "reaper" code - that other synthetics simply revert to their "pre-upgrade" state? For example; since we do not hear any of the actual ambient noise from the Memorial Wall scene at the end, can we be sure that EDI is not "present". She could simply be observing from the ship...

Modifié par D.Sharrah, 16 août 2012 - 10:52 .

[TheConstantOne]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Before the EC, I used to think the destroy ending was our hope for the IT to be true, especially since it left the question of whether the Crucible would destroy all synthetics or just reaper tech, and you saw EDI alive in the Normandy scene. But after the EC, BW changed the destroy ending, getting rid of EDI from the ending and making it clear to us that all synthetics would be destroyed. This to me, proved that even the destroy ending is the wrong choice, since it breaks the ME theme of true sacrifice such as Thane, Mordin, and Legion, and replaces it with Mass genocide and murder of your friends and allies.
Not even the breathing scene can change my mind about the destroy ending.

I disagree with destroy being genocide based on intention.
"the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
Since you don't deliberately destroy the Geth, nor do you do it systematically, this would not fall under the realm of genocide. I see it as necessary sacrifice. There are plenty of quotes from squadmates about necessary sacrifice, inculding many from EDI and the Geth themselves.

I've thought about the decisions from both a literalist point of view where the Crucible fires and sort of does what the kid says, but not completely as he is trying to bias your decision and I have noticed something odd.  It might actually be proof within the ending scenes that, when taken semi-literally, imply the geth are still alive in the destroy ending but are considerably less than they were.  Let me explain that last part...

First, consider the geth slide that shows in the destroy ending.  There is a Reaper in the background.  If the geth had their free will, they would likely vote to try and develop along their own path, right?  Is that a heretic geth faction or...is Shepard controlling the geth now?  After, it is a Reaper code that is giving them individuality and the Crucible is not portrayed by Starkid as a very picky weapon.... We have no reason to believe that the Crucible would be more specific for Control and a wildly reckless energy burst for both other options for no reason.

If what I just said is true and Shepard controls the geth, then we could infer that the Control option is acting on 
Reaper coded constucts.  This would mean that the Destroy option might not destroy the geth but rather destroy their Reaper code given individuality.  So, in a sense, you *are* killing millions of geth but you are not driving them to extinction.  You are reverting them to what they were before the war.  A huge set back for them certainly, but that's the sacrifice.

As for EDI, I'm not sure she would truly die in this case.  Her body likely has some kind of Reaper tech but does her actual core in the Normandy?  The answer to this is at the Cerberus base but I can't remember exactly how she was built up.  The extreme shock of her body's loss might have killed her or she could have been "stunned" like Sovreign was after he lost his body.

In short, the Crucible acts on Reaper code and not just organics and synthetics.  This kind of make Synthesis more scary...using the Crucible and relay networks dark energy to mass produce nanites of Reaper tech to infest all life? Yikes... Anyway, while this isn't in the IT school of thought that we are all fans of I thought it was interesting speculation.  It might even tie into some versions of IT...any thoughts here?

[Hrothdane]

paxxton wrote...

Control is Destroy. You destroy who the Reapers are.

Equivocation fallacy. Sentence one is using destroy as noun and shorthand for the destroy ending. Sentence two is using destroy as a verb and in the dictionary definition.

Modifié par Hrothdane, 16 août 2012 - 10:53 .

[DJBare]

Hrothdane wrote...
Anything that lacks that communicative element is at best an artistic exercise, not a piece of fulfilled art. The problem with the ME3 ending (and the MGS2 ending for that matter) is that while we can sense the intention to communicate meaning, the actual delivery of said meaning lacks the finesse and elegance for the audience to easily grasp. Unfortunately, many others can't even see the intention. Ultimately, I look at this as ultimately a failure on the part of the designers. It's the responsibility of the communicator to make sure their message is understood by the audience.

Thank you for elegantly putting across what I was trying to say but ultimately failing to find the words.

[Nightingale]

BansheeOwnage wrote...
That's a good hypothesis actually; I've never heard that before! And don't be so hard on yourself, I'm sure many people enjoy reading your posts. My favourite point is the one about the Normandy still working btw.

Glad you think so  I think I posted part of it on the second thread but everyone was still talking about EC so it probably got lost pretty quickly.
The Normandy still working makes absolutely no sense to me if EDI is truly dead. It can operate without her but considering what happened when she just tried to transfer part of herself into her new body, I'd think it would need serious repairs without her.

And as for being on the same time zone...that'd be cool if I didn't have such aweful timing 

[legaldinho]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

plfranke wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

They aren't difficult or repellent or atrocities to the people who picked them...

That's because if they were atrocites to them, people wouldn't pick them. They are flawed or misguided.
"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people controllers and synthesizers. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people controllers or synthesizers. "
- House

Actually a completely rational argument would favor control and synthesis over destroy so I don't know what you're talking about

A rational argument that takes ethics into consideration.

I really don't like cases to be overstated.

In terms of the stated consequences, viewed in isolation from the rest of the game and its key themes, control and synthesis are arguably rational, ethical choices. I had to really bite my tongue there. I think Synthesis is odious. It's creepy. The extended cut made it even worse. What gives Shepard the right to choose for others what their very genetic identity should be? Agh... those krogan children with the green eyes! What was the point of curing the genophage if that's the result? What about diversity?

Anyway, ignoring my -personally insurmountable- objections, it's arguable both control and synthesis are rational choices. They result in the fewest deaths, again, as presented.

IT does not mandate that these choices, as presented, are immoral or irrational. IT flows from the CONTEXT of the game. The longpost by Simon is really the best place to go to now, but I'll give you my tidbits:

- The entire game is spent fighting the reapers. They are an uncompromising enemy. Throughout your resolve is to stop them. You have to stop them. Your solution must do that.
- The reapers have shown that they can bend others' mind to their will, one way being to convince otherwise fully competent, capable, even worthy individuals that a particular goal is right. Slavery is preferable to extinction (Saren 1), reaching the next step in our evolution (Saren 2), worshipping the reapers as our saviour (Dr Kelson? name?), controlling the reapers in order to elevate the place of humans in the galaxy (TIM) These goals all furthered reaper interests, whether the person whose goals they were knew it or not.
- You just got through slamming TIM about the latter goal- the sheer nonsensical nature of his belief. In five minutes, it will take something pretty major to perform a volte-face.
- The end of the game, from the reaper beam onwards, is very hazy and dreamlike. Seen in the context of the previous games, we should be fairly suspicious.
- The very end of the game, the godchild part, flies against what some players will have achieved- peace between geth and quarian. The technological singularity point is introduced too late, too unconcingly. The questions we want to ask ("why do you look like the child I saw on Earth?") cannot be asked. Shepard is not himself ("Um... I don't know").

It's not that the endings per se are irrational. It's that in the context of the whole game, they should arouse suspicion, as should the God Child. In that context, destroy- an apparently difficult choice because EDI and the Geth will be destroyed- appears the truest form of expression of Shepard's will throughout all three games. Given that I don't trust the child, that I'm not sure I'm being sold a lemon like TIM and Saren, I'm going to choose... well, what I came here to do. And let's see if it does something.

That's what IT says about the ending, as I understand it. Stay true, smell a rat, choose destroy. It does nothing, because it seems, shepard, you've been caught in a rat's nest mate. I'm sorry to say, but I think the reapers are having a go at making a Tim out of you. DON'T YOU ****ING LET THEM.

Modifié par legaldinho, 16 août 2012 - 10:58 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Hrothdane wrote...

DJBare wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...
Well I definitely agree with that last part. I don't think they royaly screwed up though. I think the playerbase screwed up.

That would be the "majority" of the playerbase.
To me that just says the delivery and execution failed, I'm a reasonably intelligent person, at least that's what I've been told, but at the end of Mass Effect 3 IT did not even occur to me until I saw the original IT thread, that's why I was one of those who joined in the outrage, then some hope came as I started reading these threads, but now it's seems like Bioware are trying to fix a mess with more mess, at some point I have to question how much longer this goes on, I want Bioware to succeed and hit us with some big revelation, but right now it's just looking like a mess.

I'm gonna start with a brief divergence into aesthetics, so bear with me. I believe that art is the merger of form and function created with intention to communicate meaning, for reasons I won't go into here. Anything that meets all those criteria is art, whether it be architecture, a book, a video game, etc....

Anything that lacks that communicative element is at best an artistic exercise, not a piece of fulfilled art. The problem with the ME3 ending (and the MGS2 ending for that matter) is that while we can sense the intention to communicate meaning, the actual delivery of said meaning lacks the finesse and elegance for the audience to easily grasp. Unfortunately, many others can't even see the intention. Ultimately, I look at this as ultimately a failure on the part of the designers. It's the responsibility of the communicator to make sure their message is understood by the audience.

I admire what Hideo Kojima tried to do and what the evidence points to Bioware doing now, but their execution needs work.

Good point. I'll settle for saying they could have executed the delivery better and the fans could have received it with a more open mind and less negativity.

[FreddyCast]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

That's exactly what the destroy ending is according to the EC. The Godbrat makes it clear to you what the consequences are. Choosing destroy means that you whole heartedly accept destroying an entire sentient species just to destroy the Reapers. And you do it by your own hands. That's not necessary sacrifice, that's genocide. It's the same as killing all the Jews just to kill all the ****s. I'm reminded of what Shepard said to Garrus at the Memorail wall. He said if we allow ourselves to start killing our friends because of this war, then this war just ends up being murder.
I know that sometimes we don't get the easy way out, but in the ending we don't even get the Hard way out. Instead we allow the Catalyst to decide our fate. Remember that the choices come from the Citadel, not the Crucible, which is a complete contradiction to the narrative of the story.
EDIT: that censored part is not a curse word, its Hitler's party.

I get what you mean, it's just that I don't see it as genocide if it's not intentional (meaning you want to kill them). You lose in refuse (in a literal sense) so the next best option is refuse. Also, if I had to let 10 billion people die so 20 billion others could live, I would. It's better that all of them dying. I'd definitely be on board with refuse if Shepard at least tried to fight/you saw allies fighting to the death or if we ever get a victory through refuse.

The cold hard calculus of war doesn't apply to the destroy ending. The difference is: in a cold hard calculus, you allow 10 billion people to die at the hands of your enemies so that others may live. Sort of like The Protheans abandoning a planet, leaving the population at the hands of the Reapers, so that the Protheanscan regroup.
In the destroy ending, you don't allow 10 billion Geths to die so that 20 billion people of other races may live. You pull the trigger yourself on 10 billion Geth heads, doing the Reapers job for them. That's cold harded murder, not cold hard calculus.