6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Blueprotoss]

Troxa wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Troxa wrote...

LOL.....you know....I really hope I don't see a future Bioware announce Mass4 with the return of Shepard.....with quotes "Shepard lives because the fans demanded it"..........that would be taking the ****** big time.
It isn't about that, there is no way to make sense of the story.
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/playlist

Opinions are opinions.

Troxa wrote... 

If shep was a tragic hero then i can see shep dying
Tragic and epic genres and how BW got them mixed... the opinion of a professional writer
The Hero's Journey: Return with the Elixir

Yet Shepard has been a tragic hero since ME1.

you just say opinions oppinions when you can't counter.
Shepard is not tragic & never has been, a tragic character is for  exampel Kratos from God Of War 3 a hero of a tragedy

Opinions are opinions especially when you're using opinions as the basis of what you beleive.  If Shepard wasn't a tragic character then why would he/she billions of soldier die around him/her throughout the series, a destiny is forcefully thrown at him/her in ME1, and dies at the beginning of ME2 then dies at the end of ME3.  

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 septembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[Blueprotoss]

iloveexplosives wrote...

maybe he says opinions are a opinions because your too stubborn your logic goes both ways

This works because his opinion and logic are one instead of being separate.  Everyone at times will get stubborn when they want opinion to override the facts.

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
Yet Shepard has been a tragic hero since ME1.

Uh, no.  Shepard was a living hero since ME1, even resurrected just to put a stamp on that fact.  The tragedy existed outside of Shepard, but Shepard always went for that ray of light at the end.  That's why Joker says in ME2 that he's glad Shepard's in charge, because Shepard has no plans of failure and not getting back home.  The tragic hero is a mis-played and often mis-used idea and it is so badly abused at the end.

That dead Shepard is no hero, nor is the torso.  So, that's not as Drayfish aptly described it, in keeping with any idea of a tragic hero.  Even though Shepard has no concern for his/her own life, that's not what defines a tragic hero at all.  It's defined by how the hero uses his/her life and its sacrifice.  These choices for me are not the greater good-there could be a real ending that showed that.  That Shepard must die in a true destroy ending to save the galaxy and everything in it.  That is sacrifice. 

And that was one kind of ending I would have embraced-and yes still want one possible way to avoid that.  I'd want both because Shepard has always sacrificed way more than anyone else in this whole thing, other than maybe Mordin and Legion.  And the galaxy has suffered as well and if the galaxy is to go on and have a clue and a brain, it needs more than dead heroes.  It's gonna need a lot of help-so tragedy is all around and lies ahead.  Sacrifice is for something and not merely for expediency.  The tragedy is that all this is seen as some great life-affirming sacrifice, when it easily is seen by many as exactly the opposite.  And both can be valid.  I obviously do disagree vehemently that the endings are fun and good and cool, but I don't want to take them from those that think otherwise.

So, to get back on point, all of this is moot. Keep the endings you have, but consider that it does you no good to continually object to and deny others a different way and a way to enjoy the game too.

Shepard's tragic hero journey started when you created his/her background while Eden Prime, Noveria, and Virmire shaped that tragedy.  The rest is history with the death then resurrection in ME2 and death in ME3 along with the many sacrifices that were made.

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Opinions are opinions especially when you're using opinions as the basis of what you beleive.  If Shepard wasn't a tragic character then why would he/she billions of soldier die around him/her throughout the series, a destiny is forcefully thrown at him/her in ME1, and dies at the beginning of ME2 then dies at the end of ME3.  

Nope.  At ME3's ending you get dies, dies, dies, ambiguity.  The tragedy is that this is considered closure and fun and a game.

But no matter, again.  This keeps derailing things and is not important.  You see it differently, fine, smile, you have sad and demented and you think it's cool.  Good, enjoy. 

We want to ask BW and not you, if it's possible for something more than fifty shades of dead and an ambiguous torso fish.

This isn't a pro and anti ending thread.  This is a pro better ending for those that want it thread.  The pro and anti ending discussions just won't ever be solved because we have widely differing views on the whole thing so it gets us nowhere to keep saying it over and over again.  It's been said and you know how people feel about it.  So, enjoy what you have-I don't want you to lose anything here.  I want a bit of a win for others.  You've already won.  So, bask in the win and leave us to asking if we could please have one too. 

I don't care how much you like your endings-you have them, be happy.  I don't want them taken from you.  And I don't wish to rehash ad nauseum never to be changed ending opinions.  You have been here long enough to know this-we won't and can't change how we feel about the endings anymore than can you.  It won't change, so stop trying to change it.  Feelings are feelings and for me the endings feel hollow and empty.  I fully understand them and don't like them.  You may as well tell me to like mustard and peanut butter sandwiches-it won't happen.  I don't.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 septembre 2012 - 05:21 .

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Nope.  At ME3's ending you get dies, dies, dies, ambiguity.  The tragedy is that this is considered closure and fun and a game.

Hero's actually die a lot after trilogies and it doesn't matter what medium it is.  Also every question won't have an anwser.

3DandBeyond wrote... 

But no matter, again.  This keeps derailing things and is not important.  You see it differently, fine, smile, you have sad and demented and you think it's cool.  Good, enjoy.

Agreed.

3DandBeyond wrote... 

We want to ask BW and not you, if it's possible for something more than fifty shades of dead and an ambiguous torso fish.

Its not surprising that the Reapers had a creator, but thats a question that doesn't need to be anwered.

3DandBeyond wrote... 

This isn't a pro and anti ending thread.  This is a pro better ending for those that want it thread.  The pro and anti ending discussions just won't ever be solved because we have widely differing views on the whole thing so it gets us nowhere to keep saying it over and over again.  It's been said and you know how people feel about it.  So, enjoy what you have-I don't want you to lose anything here.  I want a bit of a win for others.  You've already won.  So, bask in the win and leave us to asking if we could please have one too.

I know this but some people just want to do that because they don't wnat to compromise in one way or another.

3DandBeyond wrote... 

I don't care how much you like your endings-you have them, be happy.  I don't want them taken from you.  And I don't wish to rehash ad nauseum never to be changed ending opinions.  You have been here long enough to know this-we won't and can't change how we feel about the endings anymore than can you.  It won't change, so stop trying to change it.  Feelings are feelings and for me the endings feel hollow and empty.  I fully understand them and don't like them.  You may as well tell me to like mustard and peanut butter sandwiches-it won't happen.  I don't.

Agreed.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
And in previous posts Iedra2 is indicating it might well be the canon choice-destroy.  Because without EDI and the geth dying everyone would choose it.  I assume that means Iedra2 would also choose it, so if you would choose it and if a lot of others that don't now pick destroy, would choose it, remind me why that would be a bad thing?

No. I said it would be perceived as the canon choice by many. it would have a weight in the player base's perception that would make it pseudo-canonical regardless of intent.

I may not have said it, but am not, in principle, against an ending where we don't have to compromise our principles. I am, however, against ONE ending being of that kind and not the others, while all get an equally bright future. I recall I once argued to replace the death of the synthetics with the destruction of the relays in Destroy while keeping them intact in the other endings. Would that have been acceptable? Probably not I guess.

Really, all I'm seeing here is the wish to replace the downside with something that isn't felt that keenly. I can understand, but if you get it in your Destroy-the-Reapers scenario, I want it in my transapient future as well. I'd like an ending where I get that without having to rewrite all life.

(I would've played 100 hours of MP to get that, btw, and yeah, I would pay for it)

Good points, though the control analogue for what you propose seems tricky.  Just let the reapers leave and they promise to be good?

For me, I more dead against the idea of BW making, what I think, would be very boring DLC.  Just a waste of resources, I'd prefer they work on something more worthwhile.

[Iakus]

Blueprotoss wrote...

]Shepard's tragic hero journey started when you created his/her background while Eden Prime, Noveria, and Virmire shaped that tragedy.  The rest is history with the death then resurrection in ME2 and death in ME3 along with the many sacrifices that were made.

Do I have to remind you how Shepard is not a tragic hero unless you let it happen?

[3DandBeyond]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
And in previous posts Iedra2 is indicating it might well be the canon choice-destroy.  Because without EDI and the geth dying everyone would choose it.  I assume that means Iedra2 would also choose it, so if you would choose it and if a lot of others that don't now pick destroy, would choose it, remind me why that would be a bad thing?

No. I said it would be perceived as the canon choice by many. it would have a weight in the player base's perception that would make it pseudo-canonical regardless of intent.

I may not have said it, but am not, in principle, against an ending where we don't have to compromise our principles. I am, however, against ONE ending being of that kind and not the others, while all get an equally bright future. I recall I once argued to replace the death of the synthetics with the destruction of the relays in Destroy while keeping them intact in the other endings. Would that have been acceptable? Probably not I guess.

Really, all I'm seeing here is the wish to replace the downside with something that isn't felt that keenly. I can understand, but if you get it in your Destroy-the-Reapers scenario, I want it in my transapient future as well. I'd like an ending where I get that without having to rewrite all life.

(I would've played 100 hours of MP to get that, btw, and yeah, I would pay for it)

Good points, though the control analogue for what you propose seems tricky.  Just let the reapers leave and they promise to be good?

For me, I more dead against the idea of BW making, what I think, would be very boring DLC.  Just a waste of resources, I'd prefer they work on something more worthwhile.

Boredom is only from a certain POV.  I don't like watching tennis, but others do.  Doesn't mean I'd tell them not to go to tennis matches.

And interesting content has been suggested and not content tied in any way to MP.  What has been suggested might also help them have the resources to create more worthwhile things.

[Blueprotoss]

iakus wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

]Shepard's tragic hero journey started when you created his/her background while Eden Prime, Noveria, and Virmire shaped that tragedy.  The rest is history with the death then resurrection in ME2 and death in ME3 along with the many sacrifices that were made.

Do I have to remind you how Shepard is not a tragic hero unless you let it happen?

Thats like saying none of the Bioware heros aren't tragic heros.  Shepard takes the path of a tragic hero and you can't prevent that just like the Reapers were inevitable.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 septembre 2012 - 05:47 .

[Shaigunjoe]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
And in previous posts Iedra2 is indicating it might well be the canon choice-destroy.  Because without EDI and the geth dying everyone would choose it.  I assume that means Iedra2 would also choose it, so if you would choose it and if a lot of others that don't now pick destroy, would choose it, remind me why that would be a bad thing?

No. I said it would be perceived as the canon choice by many. it would have a weight in the player base's perception that would make it pseudo-canonical regardless of intent.

I may not have said it, but am not, in principle, against an ending where we don't have to compromise our principles. I am, however, against ONE ending being of that kind and not the others, while all get an equally bright future. I recall I once argued to replace the death of the synthetics with the destruction of the relays in Destroy while keeping them intact in the other endings. Would that have been acceptable? Probably not I guess.

Really, all I'm seeing here is the wish to replace the downside with something that isn't felt that keenly. I can understand, but if you get it in your Destroy-the-Reapers scenario, I want it in my transapient future as well. I'd like an ending where I get that without having to rewrite all life.

(I would've played 100 hours of MP to get that, btw, and yeah, I would pay for it)

Good points, though the control analogue for what you propose seems tricky.  Just let the reapers leave and they promise to be good?

For me, I more dead against the idea of BW making, what I think, would be very boring DLC.  Just a waste of resources, I'd prefer they work on something more worthwhile.

Boredom is only from a certain POV.  I don't like watching tennis, but others do.  Doesn't mean I'd tell them not to go to tennis matches.

And interesting content has been suggested and not content tied in any way to MP.  What has been suggested might also help them have the resources to create more worthwhile things.

Sure, if I was apethetic toward ME I wouldn't care what they did. Since you like analogies, if I like a form of tennis called exciting tennis, and you like boring tennis, and you could only have so many tennis matches in a year, I would prefer they put on the tennis I like.

Time is also a resources, and you can't get that back.

[Taboo]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Thats like saying none of the Bioware heros aren't tragic heros.  Shepard takes the path of a tragic hero and you can't prevent that just like the Reapers were inevitable.

Ah yes but mine survived. Where is your god now?

[Iakus]

Blueprotoss wrote...

iakus wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

]Shepard's tragic hero journey started when you created his/her background while Eden Prime, Noveria, and Virmire shaped that tragedy.  The rest is history with the death then resurrection in ME2 and death in ME3 along with the many sacrifices that were made.

Do I have to remind you how Shepard is not a tragic hero unless you let it happen?

Thats like saying none of the Bioware heros aren't tragic heros.  Shepard takes the path of a tragic hero and you can't prevent that just like the Reapers were inevitable.

::sigh::

Tragic heroes are tragic because they are undone by their own character flaws.  Shepard may be a tragic hero if played that way.  Or may be a more classical hero.  Who gets railroaded down a tragic ending.

[Taboo]

The ending is tragic to you because you've made it so. Wallowing in despair isn't helping anyone. It's a fact that needs to be stated bluntly.

It's depressing, but only up until the point that you want start making it happy.

The endings blow, but Bioware has given you everything you need while retaining whatever **** integrity they have.

Why must everyone make everything worse than it needs to be?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 11 septembre 2012 - 06:11 .

[Redbelle]

At least BW took some steps to rectify the original ending. It may not have been the final epic battle blow out we were expecting and ME was building up to, but at least they remembered to add more context to the final dialogue.

[Iakus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The ending is tragic to you because you've made it so. Wallowing in despair isn't helping anyone. It's a fact that needs to be stated bluntly.

It's depressing, but only up until the point that you want start making it happy.

The endings blow, but Bioware has given you everything you need while retaining whatever **** integrity they have.

Why must everyone make everything worse than it needs to be?

They haven't given me everything I need.

Look upon ME1's ending.  Put even a fraction of that into ME3's breath scene and I'll be happy. 

[liggy002]

So, how's that plea coming along? Are they ignoring you? Yes? I thought so. I hate all of those people.

[Redbelle]

iakus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The ending is tragic to you because you've made it so. Wallowing in despair isn't helping anyone. It's a fact that needs to be stated bluntly.

It's depressing, but only up until the point that you want start making it happy.

The endings blow, but Bioware has given you everything you need while retaining whatever **** integrity they have.

Why must everyone make everything worse than it needs to be?

They haven't given me everything I need.

Look upon ME1's ending.  Put even a fraction of that into ME3's breath scene and I'll be happy. 

Endings have alot of different takes. From 'The End', to Halo: Reach's last Spartan going down swinging, DMC's playable ending credits, MGS3's game over scene that turned out not to be the case till you bit that revival pill (I know, not really an end but still....)

I think that for BW. A company that has in the past made terrific end game content + are able to expertly weave gameplay and narrative together we were expecting something with a little more Oomph. A desperate battle, some sort of dream walking sequence............ After Harby's beam hit and Shep woke up again I was sure things had gone a bit inner mind.

Modifié par Redbelle, 11 septembre 2012 - 06:37 .

[Ozida]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Shepard's tragic hero journey started when you created his/her background while Eden Prime, Noveria, and Virmire shaped that tragedy.  The rest is history with the death then resurrection in ME2 and death in ME3 along with the many sacrifices that were made.

My God, you must be a depressed person.  My Shepard's story was quite different. Was I playing the wrong game? Because pretty much almost nobody died in ME2 for me. in ME1 it was only that soldier auto-killed in first couple of minutes of the game and Virmire (which was done beautifuly, if I may say. A true sacrifice with a purpose). And in ME3 you could have avoid many death too, despite couple "key" ones. And also, you know, my Shep had an LI, he had a drink with his best friend, he laughed, he joked, he admired other worlds, he believed in what he was doing... I mean he was so much more than good ol' tired soldier with a sad face.

Just because writers decided to through some "balancing deaths" in the end not to make it too happy, doesn't mean it was expected by every player. Destory option death is one of the most stupid one, if you ask me, and it was crearly created just to make people pick something else (*cough* Synthesis *couch*).

[Iakus]

Ozida wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
Shepard's tragic hero journey started when you created his/her background while Eden Prime, Noveria, and Virmire shaped that tragedy.  The rest is history with the death then resurrection in ME2 and death in ME3 along with the many sacrifices that were made.

My God, you must be a depressed person.  My Shepard's story was quite different. Was I playing the wrong game? Because pretty much almost nobody died in ME2 for me. in ME1 it was only that soldier auto-killed in first couple of minutes of the game and Virmire (which was done beautifuly, if I may say. A true sacrifice with a purpose). And in ME3 you could have avoid many death too, despite couple "key" ones. And also, you know, my Shep had an LI, he had a drink with his best friend, he laughed, he joked, he admired other worlds, he believed in what he was doing... I mean he was so much more than good ol' tired soldier with a sad face.

Just because writers decided to through some "balancing deaths" in the end not to make it too happy, doesn't mean it was expected by every player. Destory option death is one of the most stupid one, if you ask me, and it was crearly created just to make people pick something else (*cough* Synthesis *couch*).

You I like

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I think what we've been asking for is a less polluted destroy ending.

Please explain.

It's been stated repeatedly from the OP on and even in places where you've previously participated. 

Destroy's description by the kid starts off with the statement that the crucible is largely intact.  That means it is either not finished or damaged, since it is not intact. He then goes on to say it will not discriminate and will target all synthetics and then says a lot of stuff that makes it rather a mess of a description.  The key seems to be that something for targeting the thing is missing.  If that's found, it might be able to hit the reapers only.  That doesn't mean that true collateral damage (unintended damage and death) could not and would not occur.  It just means that it would see and shoot at only reapers.  The geth as a race would not be a target.  All synthetics would not be a target.  Even you who are partly synthetic (as are others) might not end up a torso Shepard. 

And the crucible could do whatever it was truly intended to do.  The flip side is that bad things still could happen (much like a low EMS destroy ending).  And this destroy which would be difficult to get would lead to some true even one scene reunion for a living Shepard, along with a real authentic aftermath of a galaxy in a shambles and needing people to come together to rebuild.  People would at last be without the reapers deciding the direction of the future.  Something neither of the other 2 choices allow-self-determination and self-reliance.

That is one way to do it.

I've also said that it's pretty curious to me that with high EMS the state of the crucible (largely intact) is only mentioned in destroy.  What if it also had an impact on the other 2 choices?  And why wouldn't it?  It may be assumed that quite possibly it does have an impact.  Destroy is the very first thing the kid describes and he tells you then that the thing is largely intact.  That could mean it does affect how good it is at achieving the other 2 choices.  Wouldn't it be interesting if the only reason Shepard's life is needed in synthesis is because the thing is not complete?  Wouldn't it be interesting if the only reason Shepard has to die in control is because the crucible is not intact?  What if all endings had another form of variety added to them as well?  I have no problem with any of that and think it could be a lot of fun for everyone.  And games are meant to be fun.  But I'd really like to have the possibility to feel good at the end of ME3.  That's why I played ME games.

See? I miss a lot when I sleep.

Now, I'll expound on this a bit. Say if you have a N7 rank of 2500 in multi-player and you gathered everything in the game, and did this before you played the game the first time. This should give you over 10,000 in war assets and if you do have that high of a N7 rank you probably have a galactic readiness of 100% meaning you have a 10,000 EMS rating. From this one can reasonably guess that the Crucible suffered no damage getting to the Citadel.

Now this would mean that the next item that our dear friend Starboy said "largely intact" means is that something is missing from it. A component we have yet to find that allows it to target only reapers.

Also why is this largely intact only mentioned in Destroy and not the others?

Also why is Shepard's life needed for Synthesis? Anderson is right down the elevator and that's only a few seconds away, and he's dead, but DNA is DNA and that doesn't change. He's fresh, and not indoctrinated. Cellular breakdown hasn't begun yet, so why couldn't Shepard say, "Hey, I'm going to choose Synthesis, and there's a fresh body down below and he's not more than 10 minutes passed. The DNA is prime. Could you send me down that elevator and I'll bring him up and throw him in the beam. No tricks, I promise. You can come with me to make sure." Shepard shouldn't need to sacrifice herself.

[Redbelle]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I think what we've been asking for is a less polluted destroy ending.

Please explain.

It's been stated repeatedly from the OP on and even in places where you've previously participated. 

Destroy's description by the kid starts off with the statement that the crucible is largely intact.  That means it is either not finished or damaged, since it is not intact. He then goes on to say it will not discriminate and will target all synthetics and then says a lot of stuff that makes it rather a mess of a description.  The key seems to be that something for targeting the thing is missing.  If that's found, it might be able to hit the reapers only.  That doesn't mean that true collateral damage (unintended damage and death) could not and would not occur.  It just means that it would see and shoot at only reapers.  The geth as a race would not be a target.  All synthetics would not be a target.  Even you who are partly synthetic (as are others) might not end up a torso Shepard. 

And the crucible could do whatever it was truly intended to do.  The flip side is that bad things still could happen (much like a low EMS destroy ending).  And this destroy which would be difficult to get would lead to some true even one scene reunion for a living Shepard, along with a real authentic aftermath of a galaxy in a shambles and needing people to come together to rebuild.  People would at last be without the reapers deciding the direction of the future.  Something neither of the other 2 choices allow-self-determination and self-reliance.

That is one way to do it.

I've also said that it's pretty curious to me that with high EMS the state of the crucible (largely intact) is only mentioned in destroy.  What if it also had an impact on the other 2 choices?  And why wouldn't it?  It may be assumed that quite possibly it does have an impact.  Destroy is the very first thing the kid describes and he tells you then that the thing is largely intact.  That could mean it does affect how good it is at achieving the other 2 choices.  Wouldn't it be interesting if the only reason Shepard's life is needed in synthesis is because the thing is not complete?  Wouldn't it be interesting if the only reason Shepard has to die in control is because the crucible is not intact?  What if all endings had another form of variety added to them as well?  I have no problem with any of that and think it could be a lot of fun for everyone.  And games are meant to be fun.  But I'd really like to have the possibility to feel good at the end of ME3.  That's why I played ME games.

See? I miss a lot when I sleep.

Now, I'll expound on this a bit. Say if you have a N7 rank of 2500 in multi-player and you gathered everything in the game, and did this before you played the game the first time. This should give you over 10,000 in war assets and if you do have that high of a N7 rank you probably have a galactic readiness of 100% meaning you have a 10,000 EMS rating. From this one can reasonably guess that the Crucible suffered no damage getting to the Citadel.

Now this would mean that the next item that our dear friend Starboy said "largely intact" means is that something is missing from it. A component we have yet to find that allows it to target only reapers.

Also why is this largely intact only mentioned in Destroy and not the others?

Also why is Shepard's life needed for Synthesis? Anderson is right down the elevator and that's only a few seconds away, and he's dead, but DNA is DNA and that doesn't change. He's fresh, and not indoctrinated. Cellular breakdown hasn't begun yet, so why couldn't Shepard say, "Hey, I'm going to choose Synthesis, and there's a fresh body down below and he's not more than 10 minutes passed. The DNA is prime. Could you send me down that elevator and I'll bring him up and throw him in the beam. No tricks, I promise. You can come with me to make sure." Shepard shouldn't need to sacrifice herself.

I like this idea! Toss Anderson's body into the beam...... use him as a human shield in destroy. Or just toss him onto the control rods and see what happens to the Reapers when no mind is grafted into their psyche......

It could be worse though..... imagine if Conrad Verner turned up and made the sacrifice instead? Reap-rads for control? It would be a nightmare for Shep. Imagine a load of Reapers following you everywhere...... And how would shooting them in the foot put them off?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Troxa wrote...

LOL.....you know....I really hope I don't see a future Bioware announce Mass4 with the return of Shepard.....with quotes "Shepard lives because the fans demanded it"..........that would be taking the ****** big time.
It isn't about that, there is no way to make sense of the story.
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/playlist

Opinions are opinions.

Troxa wrote... 

If shep was a tragic hero then i can see shep dying
Tragic and epic genres and how BW got them mixed... the opinion of a professional writer
The Hero's Journey: Return with the Elixir

Yet Shepard has been a tragic hero since ME1.

How do you figure.

Shepard does not fall into the tragic hero mould of Macbeth, Brutus, Achilles, Oedipus, Hamlet, Lear, William Wallace, Yuri Zhivago.  Shepard actually has more in common with the likes of John McClane (Die Hard), John Matrix (Commando), Douglas Quaid (Total Recall 1990), Dutch (Predator 1987), Captain John Sheridan (Babylon 5 -- see Sheridan death and resurrection -- I'll explain this), Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek TNG -- death and resurrection). Mostly a combination of John Matrix and John Sheridan.

The last two mentioned specifically to serve as examples for the Phoenix myth. Sheridan died in one episode where he met the last of the First Ones and was given a second life. Now the Phoenix myth either give 1) immortality or 2) a life of the same length as one lived already. And in Sheridan's case that meant he would live to 66.

In Shepard case that would mean she would live to 66 as well (due to her death in ME2 and project Lazarus). You follow me? Shepard cannot die in the rubble and be consistent with the myth.

Picard lost his heart in a fight. It was ripped out, and it was replaced by an artificial heart. Death and resurrection, and Picard went on to become a hero. Q showed Picard what would have happened if he avoided that event. A dull life as a technician. The Phoenix myth.

Only the player can turn Shepard into a tragic hero through sacrifice in Control or Synthesis. Otherwise Shepard is the Phoenix.

[Archonsg]

Getting Conrad to "take control"?
Shepard Cosplaying Reapers. I can see it now.

Tossing him into the beam though, is a really, really bad idea.
Shepard : "Are you saying I have parts of Conrad inside me?!"
Liara : "Yes, Synthesis did that, spread his DNA to every single matter in the galaxy."
Shepard : "I feel like I need a bath. How is that even possible?"
Liara : "We all have part of him inside us, Wrex, Garrus, Tali, even ... me."
Shepard : "NOT HELPING LIARA. Now I need mental soap to wash that image off."

He would however do great in Destroy though.
Shepard : "Okay Conrad, now remember, shoot the tube AFTER you see me and the Normandy jump out of Earth space. You got that?"
Conrad : "And I'll be a real hero like you?"
Shepard : "Yeah, as Zaeed would say, a big goddamn hero."
Conrad : "Hot dogity! .... You aren't just saying that now are you?"
Shepard : "No Conrad, you will be remembered and they will teach about you in schools..."
Conrad : "Wowwwwww ... in schools ... Okay. Shoot the tube when I see the Normandy jump out. Got it."

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 septembre 2012 - 08:16 .

[3DandBeyond]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


See? I miss a lot when I sleep.

Now, I'll expound on this a bit. Say if you have a N7 rank of 2500 in multi-player and you gathered everything in the game, and did this before you played the game the first time. This should give you over 10,000 in war assets and if you do have that high of a N7 rank you probably have a galactic readiness of 100% meaning you have a 10,000 EMS rating. From this one can reasonably guess that the Crucible suffered no damage getting to the Citadel.

Now this would mean that the next item that our dear friend Starboy said "largely intact" means is that something is missing from it. A component we have yet to find that allows it to target only reapers.

Also why is this largely intact only mentioned in Destroy and not the others?

Also why is Shepard's life needed for Synthesis? Anderson is right down the elevator and that's only a few seconds away, and he's dead, but DNA is DNA and that doesn't change. He's fresh, and not indoctrinated. Cellular breakdown hasn't begun yet, so why couldn't Shepard say, "Hey, I'm going to choose Synthesis, and there's a fresh body down below and he's not more than 10 minutes passed. The DNA is prime. Could you send me down that elevator and I'll bring him up and throw him in the beam. No tricks, I promise. You can come with me to make sure." Shepard shouldn't need to sacrifice herself.

My thought is that the kid explains (sort of) destroy first.  When you are told about control and synthesis he has already told you it's not intact.  Ha ha SJ, another post you missed.  Busy, busy, busy.

Why then would completing the thing not also alter synthesis and control.  I can envision possible differences to them that (uh oh, here we go), could leave Shepard alive for both of them and not mean what they mean now.  Shepard is needed for both of them because a component is missing.  In each choice, something is missing.  Find that piece and the "cost" and badness goes away.  Control might actually allow you to send the reapers careening into each other or into the sun (woot woot) and synthesis might allow for a better way for synthetics and organics to get along, not internal change, but something else (heck, it's still space magic but maybe it could be for real good).

I do think it's more like something is missing, but it could go either way and be ok-just whatever is wrong needs to be taken care of so that that battery just works.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Imagine if Mass Effect 2 had those endings...

-Shudders-