[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
That's a huge misrepresentation of all 3 endings there mate. You're also a liar.
You're also flat-out lying about the Destroy ending. With the EC, the relays are no longer forever destroyed, they are only damaged. Admiral Hackett makes it very clear that they can be repaired. There is hope. No one is stranded. BioWare said so. The EC said so.
In fact, the relays are damaged in all 3 endings. All 3 of them. But in all 3 they can be repaired. In the Control ending we see the reapers repairing them. In the Synthesis ending we don't see any repairs but lets go ahead and assume that in this ending it is also the reapers that repair the relays. In Destroy Admiral Hackett makes it clear that the species that survived the reaper war will work together and repair the relays. Heck, even the goddamn Starchild tells us that the relays can be repaired in the Destroy ending, he specifically says so![/quote]
No need for insults, friend. At face value none of what you claim is true. Your extrpolating your desired outcome; however, the game's lore invalidates your conclusion.
[quote]
TTG wrote...*snip*
All of the epilogue slides involve a narrator speaking about what they foresee will happen, want to happen, hope will happen or plan to make happen. The slides do not actually occur in real-time. Nothing in the slides actually occur in-game. It's not set in stone. *snip*[/quote]
Difference between Destroy and the other two is that the Reapers supposedly survive and repair them. Their FTL speeds are twice as fast as ours, they actually know how to repair them and they are already practically everywhere already. Each reaper is capable of doing the repairs. Every small colony, outposts, etc. is not. Without Reapers to rebuild them we first have to figure out how they work, recover/remake lost and destroyed parts, do the repairs and then FTL to the next relay. This is on top of other concerns like locating and treating survivors, securing sustainable food (especially for Turians and Quarians), rebuilding infrastructure, securing shelter, etc. And repairing the relays will require a new subculture based on the Quarian Flotilla. Liveships will need to be built to make the long journeys between relays and for the extremely long distant primary relays the children of the repair crews will be required to learn from their parents as it may be a centuries trip. There are hard times ahead in Destroy. Bioware polished a turd and counted on people seeing what they wanted to see instead of what is actually there.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
As for the Control ending: It doesn't look like sunshine and butterflies at all, especially not when you played as a renegade, like I did. Basically in Control what you get is a reaper dictatorship. While a dictatorship isn't necessarily bad, it's far from sunshine and butterflies.[/quote]
There is no difference between paragon or renegade Control other than tone. Both pledge to protect the galaxy.
Example:
Paragon: To ensure that all have a voice in their future.
Renegade: To provide a voice for those too weak to speak for themselves. (Does that sound like a dictator?)
To paraphrase the entire narration:
One says, "I will be a guardian protector and stand vigil, ensuring peace."
The other says, " I wish a motherf*cker would disturb the peace on my watch."
Same difference.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
The only ending that does come of as sunshine and bunnies is the Synthesis ending. I can't deny that Synthesis is a bit too idealistic and a bit too perfect for my taste. I don't like it at all. Not to mention that the whole premise of Synthesis is absolutely unrealistic. Changing the DNA of all organic life with a simple flash of the Crucible? Yeah right.[/quote]
This isn't abut what we like or prefer. This is about taking the in-game evidence and formulating a logic conclusion. All events dictate that Control and Synthesis cannot end in the way the player hopes.
The entire premise of Control is unrealistic. One individual human mind dominating trillions of Reaper minds. And this is achieved by interacting with a
reaper device in which the Reapers constructed themselves of their own volition? I'm sorry, but nothing good can come of Control. It is narratively and thematically implausible for anything good to come of it.
Please
read (at least the bottom section) before you reply as I've already made my case on this.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And to say nothing is sacrificed in Control and Synthesis is a big fat lie too. At first, Shepard himself is sacrificed in both Control and Synthesis, while Shepard
lives in Destroy.[/quote]
Whoopty-do. A man commits suicide because the "Reaper Commander" told him it was a good idea. One man's life is nowhere near an entire species of sentients, along with a personal friend, being snuffed out along with the Reapers. And the somewhat betrayl of another friend's sacrifice. Not to mention the addtional unknown collatoral with people who depend on synthetic technology to live.
And rather or not Shepard ultimately lives or dies is a matter of headcanon. One can say he lives in Control as well. As a player I get no payoff for Destroy so he is dead for all practical intents and purposes. The breath scene offers no perks of any kind. Regardless of ending, Shepard's story comes to a scretching halt in the docking chamber. Furthermore, due to this ambiguouity Shepard actually more easily survives in Control than in Destroy. He actually narrates Control.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
In Control, self-determination and true freedom is sacrificed. All species live under the dictate of the reapers.
In Synthesis, again, self-determination is sacrificed. The perverted idea of synthesis is forced upon the whole galaxy by Shepard's choice.[/quote]
Senseless war is averted. That is all. There is no evidence whatsoever that Shepard intends to function as anything other than a protector. He is to the galaxy what Concord is in EVE Online.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
In Destroy, the galaxy still has their self-determiniation and freedom left. Shepard lives and the galaxy can finally move on naturally, in peace, without a reaper dictatorship and without a forced unnatural upgrade to transhumanism.[/quote]
Peace is not assured. The Rachni could return to warmongering, the krogan could decide to seek revenge on the galaxy, the Salarians could make a power play as the Reapers didn't seem to concentrat on them. Anyhting is possible. We don't have a Shreaper deterrent to defend and keep the peace. As mentioned above galactic civilization as we know it is over. Everyone is cut off from each other for the foreseeable future. Rough times are ahead and we don't have an army of husk variants to help with the heavy lifting.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
NO, 1 and 2
AREN'T bull****, that's just
YOUR personal interpretation of it.
And
NO, they aren't thematically and narratively presented as indoctrinated endings. That's just
YOUR interpretation of it.[/quote]
Yes. They
ARE bull****. It's simply your personal
DESIRE that they not be.
Shepard's irrational trust in the Reapers is not narratively or thematically sound outside of indoctrination. Feel free to make a rebuttal of my
thesis if you disagree. Otherwise, your words are empty and come of as a petulant child pouting because things don't play out how they'd like it to.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
No, the IT is about bnlind absolute faith to maintain peace of mind. [/quote]
Peace of mind that the galaxy has just went to hell? Oookay...
I'm waiting for your rivetting rebuttal of my thesis. I can't wait for you to demonstrate how I'm not basing my conclusion on in-game events and that I'm pulling my conclusion out of my backside. Obviously that would have to be the case if I'm operating on blind faith. I'm literally on pins and needles in anticipation.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
The ITers can't accept that ME3's story is crap.[/quote]
^
Blind faith at it's best.
Tim: ME3 It is crap writting.
Bob: How so?
Tim: Because its endings don't make sense.
Bob: But they do make sense. Here's the evidence and as you can see it all makes sense.
Tim: No, its bad writting.
Bob: If you're going to maintain that stance then rebute my evidence. Otherwise, your protests ring hollow.
Tim: ...Um, no! It's just crap writting. You just have to take it on faith.
You're entire premise is that Mass Effect 3 is bad writting because you think it's bad writting. You fail to make the distinction between "bad writting" and "a story you dislike"
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Also, there is no evidence for the IT. There never will be. The IT is all based on speculation and personal interpretations. BioWare is so kind to acknowledge your IT interpretation, but they never intented IT and nor will they make it canon.[/quote]
You dictate absolutes despite your ignorance of Bioware's intent or future plans. So now you
know the truth. Not based on evidence, but merely because you say so. classic blind faith.
[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
To BioWare, The IT interpretation is just as valid at the litteral interpretation of the endings. BioWare will not pick sides. But the fact that BioWare so far did nothing to expand on the IT gives me the feeling that BioWare always intented for the endings to be interpretated literally,
you know, just like the other 99% of the Mass Effect trilogy, which is also all meant to be interpretated literally. Always was.
[/quote]
IT does not require that Bioware expand on it. That's like saying the endings aren't literal because Bioware hasn't explanded on literalist interpretations.
It funny you tried (and failed) to make such a point, because my thesis represents a complete and narratively sound story. Where literalist can't even so much as explain why Shepard would trust the Reapers. Not just trust them, but trust them so much that he would take his own life to further their supposed agenda in the case of Synthesis. Well, I guess Dr Kenson wasn't indoctrinated either then when she displayed the same willignness to die to further Reaper goals after going through all that preperation to destroy the alpha relay. And in Control Shepard completely forget his stance moments prior when conversing with The Illusive Man, but now thinks it's a good idea to mess with a reaper device (because that always turns out good, right?) just because the Reapers said it would be OK. Yeah, that's a real narratively consistent action on the part of a non-indoctrinated.
Bioware definitely need to expand on the story of ME3 for literalist interpretation to carry any validity.
[quote]
TTG wrote...Why deceive the player?
If Control and Synthesis ended like the Refusal Ending it would invalidate those endings for the majority of players. Refuse was only added because players requested the option (albeit with a different outcome in mind). The player must be allowed to believe in the endings or else everyone would simply reload and pick Destroy. It would defeat the effort put into making the endings. Shepard falling prey to indoctrination, although not the ideal conclusion, is still a narratively sound outcome. And in this way the writers keep those endings valid by having the epilogue continue from the indoctrinated perspective. Who would pick an indoctrinated ending otherwise? Not many.[/quote]
Modifié par The Twilight God, 25 août 2012 - 10:58 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
