314 réponses à ce sujet

[Jassu1979]

Flog61 wrote...
Godwin's law.

Because bringing this up in a context that involves death camps and the systematic murder of millions as a final "solution" comes *totally* out of the blue and is entirely inappropriate. Right?

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jonata wrote...
Now, what does that say about gamers as a whole? My answer to this question is simple: nothing that we didnt' already know. Gamers have a straight-forward mind, are often incline to violence, and take everything at face value. Oh, sure, they'll love the s*** out of a man in a red coat behaving like a 13 years old while fighting Space Demons, but please don't try to send them a message that isn't "kill the evil basterds".

Gamers knows only one thing: hate. To make a succesful game you just have to give them someone to hate and someone they can relate with, i.e. someone who's the best dude in the Universe because that's how they want to feel when they play a videogame.

I used to love videogames, and I really think that in their own way, games like Mass Effect 3, Heavy Rain and even Skyrim (from a gameplay perspective) are trying to elevate their genre. But guess what? Gamers are not ready. They don't want to understand the psychological deep of a character, they' don't want to question themselves about morality or what does it takes to be alive. They want to f*** bad people up because that's justified violence, glorified hate.

Gamers never creates. They Destroy.

I'd say this is a undeserving generalization, given the depth of discussion we've had here at times. Look into the character forum to see some really good discussion going on.

But admittedly the people contributing to those appear to be a minority. Discussing the endings of ME3 has indeed been educational, and not in a good way, that I can tell you. Last time I felt as good not belonging to a majority was at school, and that was a few decades ago. Should I suddenly turn into a cynic within the next few months, I'm sure interaction here on BSN will be part of the reason.

Let me just say for the record: I hate this narrow mindset where everything must turn into "kill the bad guys", and I appreciate that ME3 could end in a different way. Those people who say "Destroy should be the only option" or "We don't need to know, we don't need to understand, we just want to kill the Reapers", whose narrow-minded revenge fantasies smother all desire to know, theirs is a mindset I find despicable.

And with that I'm out of here. I don't think this will end well.

You think you're so wise and open-minded, but you're just as guilty of tunnel-vision and generalizations as anyone else.

[wolfsbane12]

In war, sacrifices must be made, i'd sooner sacrifice a synthetic race of machines then organic civilizations. I know that sounds cold but the geth can be remade (hopefully a tad bit better then they were before) and edi is a tragic casualty but one gone AI is better then billions of organics harvested and created into new collectors.

[bas_kon]

I made an "unlucky Shepard" playthrough from ME to ME3, to see if I could pick any ending other than Destroy, without being influenced by his history with his LI, and keeping in mind, he would end up sacrificing himself for the greater good.

He was a colonist, sole survivor and had a crush on Kaidan but sacrificed him on Virmire and never got over it. Never romanced anyone else, so he wouldn't have any reason to wish to live, apart from stopping the Reapers.
Then, when I got to the part where I had to choose, I pondered the pros and cons of the choices, as if I was that Shepard, without metagaming. Ended up Gibbed-modding my EMS and reloading the last save to ensure he could die in the Destroy ending, so he would make the ultimate sacrifice.

So no, I don't pick Destroy because Shepard lives (that's a plus I very much like), or because I take pleasure in the suffering of others, I choose it because I cannot bring myself to die leaving those murderous disgusting machines alive, let alone the stupid starbrat and I find the other two endings very disgusting.

Modifié par bas_kon, 12 août 2012 - 08:18 .

[Jadebaby]

The only thing it says is that Mass Effect guided us to hate the Reapers, I find the notion of living in a society with them disgusting. The only reason that is, is because BioWare made me feel that way.

[clennon8]

To me, trusting the Catalyst and committing suicide on his behest so that indoctrination death-machines can continue existing after billions of years of systematically exterminating galactic civilizations goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past the point of open-mindedness to brains-went-splat-on-the-floor. It's as simple as that. It's not about taking away choices. It's about the fact that you made the wrong one. How's that for something different in a videogame? YOU LOST.

[Essalor]

There's a good reason why not understanding Reapers motives is not a bad idea and it has nothing to do with people being dumb. Fear of something supreme or unknown is the most potent thing ever, not able to understand something is scary. Try thinking about void and infinity of universe and see how your head starts to hurt.
The cold calculating, powerful beings with zero agenda but to wipe out races to enforce the cycle is not that dumb. It's inevitability is scary in the way death is scary.

[SpamBot2000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jonata wrote...
Now, what does that say about gamers as a whole? My answer to this question is simple: nothing that we didnt' already know. Gamers have a straight-forward mind, are often incline to violence, and take everything at face value. Oh, sure, they'll love the s*** out of a man in a red coat behaving like a 13 years old while fighting Space Demons, but please don't try to send them a message that isn't "kill the evil basterds".

Gamers knows only one thing: hate. To make a succesful game you just have to give them someone to hate and someone they can relate with, i.e. someone who's the best dude in the Universe because that's how they want to feel when they play a videogame.

I used to love videogames, and I really think that in their own way, games like Mass Effect 3, Heavy Rain and even Skyrim (from a gameplay perspective) are trying to elevate their genre. But guess what? Gamers are not ready. They don't want to understand the psychological deep of a character, they' don't want to question themselves about morality or what does it takes to be alive. They want to f*** bad people up because that's justified violence, glorified hate.

Gamers never creates. They Destroy.

I'd say this is a undeserving generalization, given the depth of discussion we've had here at times. Look into the character forum to see some really good discussion going on.

But admittedly the people contributing to those appear to be a minority. Discussing the endings of ME3 has indeed been educational, and not in a good way, that I can tell you. Last time I felt as good not belonging to a majority was at school, and that was a few decades ago. Should I suddenly turn into a cynic within the next few months, I'm sure interaction here on BSN will be part of the reason.

Let me just say for the record: I hate this narrow mindset where everything must turn into "kill the bad guys", and I appreciate that ME3 could end in a different way. Those people who say "Destroy should be the only option" or "We don't need to know, we don't need to understand, we just want to kill the Reapers", whose narrow-minded revenge fantasies smother all desire to know, theirs is a mindset I find despicable.

And with that I'm out of here. I don't think this will end well.

Hmmm... I'd say the Reapers are a pretty damn extreme case as hate objects go. Not exactly a representative example of "everything". 

And speaking as someone whose mindset you find despicable, I'd like to clarify that the reason for wanting Destroy to be the only option goes a little beyond a simple revenge fantasy, into catalyst-removal territory. This would in fact save  the Reapers from the undignified idiocy BW subjected them and us to. You congratulate yourself on your open mind and desire to learn. Well, we all did learn. It starts with "Yo dawg..." It's all there is. Fascinating stuff, huh?

[Xamufam]

An underlying problem with Synthesis is its need for headcanon contrivances

I ignore synthesis because it does not make any sense, it's poorly done,it came from nowhere & their is too much magic, even the catalyst is poorly done.

Edi & the geth have alredy proved that they are alive & understands organic:

EDI and her humanity
Endgame goodbyes: EDI
Legion after the SM

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The only thing it says is that Mass
Effect guided us to hate the Reapers, I find the notion of living in a
society with them disgusting. The only reason that is, is because
BioWare made me feel that way.

Modifié par Troxa, 12 août 2012 - 08:55 .

[Delaney]

Chosing destroy says absolutely NOTHING ABOUT gamers ... If it says something then that many gamers thought that this was the right decision in this particular situation in the game/in their own experience. And well ... For what were we fighting for throughout the series? Pretty ... no, 100% clear IMO. And then came the end ... But that's another story, you know.

[The Mega Cake]

dreman9999 wrote...

No. It says that few people trust the catalyst with good reason.

[Ieldra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
And speaking as someone whose mindset you find despicable, I'd like to clarify that the reason for wanting Destroy to be the only option goes a little beyond a simple revenge fantasy, into catalyst-removal territory. This would in fact save  the Reapers from the undignified idiocy BW subjected them and us to. You congratulate yourself on your open mind and desire to learn. Well, we all did learn. It starts with "Yo dawg..." It's all there is. Fascinating stuff, huh?

That's a completely different problem. I dislike the Catalyst and wouldn't mind its removal one bit. But I like the final choice and its three options.

Or don't you think finding some sort of Crucible manual instead of having to speak with the Catalyst would've saved quite a lot of complaints?

As for the desire to know, that's why I play these games. Deciphering ,my fictional universe, right along with interacting with its characters, is why I read, play or watch sci-fi stories. Without that, they would be boring and shallow. I fully understand why people want to destroy the Reapers, but I hate the mindset that (a) says we don't need to know (insert anything) and ( the mindset that there shouldn't be any other option available. Don't we have enough of those stories in games already? Stories with some super-evil super-boss we need to kill to save the world? Kill X, save the world? Is that what stories in games come down to these days?

[SpamBot2000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
And speaking as someone whose mindset you find despicable, I'd like to clarify that the reason for wanting Destroy to be the only option goes a little beyond a simple revenge fantasy, into catalyst-removal territory. This would in fact save  the Reapers from the undignified idiocy BW subjected them and us to. You congratulate yourself on your open mind and desire to learn. Well, we all did learn. It starts with "Yo dawg..." It's all there is. Fascinating stuff, huh?

That's a completely different problem. I dislike the Catalyst and wouldn't mind its removal one bit. But I like the final choice and its three options.

Or don't you think finding some sort of Crucible manual instead of having to speak with the Catalyst would've saved quite a lot of complaints?

As for the desire to know, that's why I play these games. Deciphering ,my fictional universe, right along with interacting with its characters, is why I read, play or watch sci-fi stories. Without that, they would be boring and shallow. I fully understand why people want to destroy the Reapers, but I hate the mindset that (a) says we don't need to know (insert anything) and ( the mindset that there shouldn't be any other option available. Don't we have enough of those stories in games already? Stories with some super-evil super-boss we need to kill to save the world? Kill X, save the world? Is that what stories in games come down to these days?

I'd personally be interested in other kinds of stories, yes. But BioWare decided to focus on the Reapers in Mass Effect. And once they hammered home the standard operating procedure of these things, it certainly became imperative for me to get rid of them. And in some extreme cases, trying to understand a point of view may well only serve to corrupt one's own thinking. I guess that means I have no absolute confidence in objective reason, but them's the breaks.

Ultimately it comes down to the Reapers being anti-life, and since living is the essence of our being, we are unable to take an authentic position of understanding outside these parameters.  

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 12 août 2012 - 10:49 .

[F4H bandicoot]

I stuck to my guns. I didn't back down to the Catalyst. What does that say about me??

[BloodyTalon]

I oddly went with control.

My reason was not so much for the power, but it would maintain the galaxy intact and give the reapers a better purpose, while allowing life to progress more naturally.


Needless to say first time around without EC was a bit disappointing next time around was pleased with the ec.

Hope that doesn't sound odd.

[BloodyTalon]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

I stuck to my guns. I didn't back down to the Catalyst. What does that say about me??

Says what it says about all of us posting in this tpic, we are nerds and proud of it!

[estebanus]

It says that gamers know crappy writing and DEMs are never a good thing.

If the series wouldn't foreshadow the destruction of the reapers being the only solution, then I might've pick something else.

Modifié par estebanus, 12 août 2012 - 10:52 .

[Hannah Montana]

No we don't want bad writing and mumble jumble.

[ElementL09]

1. Halo says hi with Forge. And so do other games like Minecraft and Trials and Little Big Planet.

2. I chose destroy, not because I wanted to destroy everything, its just that with destroy while I sacrfice the Geth and EDI, it was all for the greater good of the galaxy. EDI and the Geth will be remembered and even the Geth can be recreated. I chose destroy because I couldn't possibly chose Synthesis and Control, I couldn't possibly control an enemy who have been taking innocent lives, both organic and even synthetic (AI created originally by organics), I couldn't possibly rob the universe of its diversity and stagnate evolution and culture.

[JyrikGauldy]

or maybe we just want to do what we were trying to do for 100 hours and across three games, DESTROY THE REAPERS

[Versus Omnibus]

Choosing Destroy doesn't make those who chose it violent war mongers (it might be true with Renegade Shepards, but it still depends on the player's motives). I may not like Destroy but I still understand why people chose it. If it weren't for the genocide of all synthetic life I would even go with Destroy, but sadly...

[zambot]

posting in a troll thread.

[Reorte]

I chose Destroy because it's the most surefire way to stop the violence and atrocities. Control is just asking for them to continue (it's an incredibly dangerous choice and the tone of the EC Control epilogue, both paragon and renegade, reaffirm that) and Synthesis is a far bigger crime than anything Destroy does for reasons that have already been discussed to death. To me it seems like chosing anything else is damning the galaxy to avoid taking the decision with the immediate harsh consequences. Give me some cast iron solid reason that Control won't end in disaster then I might consider it.

And it's slightly less offensive in terms of idiotic space magic than the others (although not by much compared to Control). It also fits the narrative better.

[Sailears]

Troll thread or not you do hit on a valid point - most things are about "destroying" in one way or another, which I don't particularly like either. I wonder when games will start to move on from that to offer different challenges other than killing things.

But in the case of ME3 endings none of them are good choices; you've just got to pick the one you feel least disturbed by.

Modifié par Curunen, 13 août 2012 - 12:41 .