6432 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Greylycantrope wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

My post wasn't really directed at anyone.

But I saw Seival talking about eventually converting people into liking the endings.

Seival believes in many things, not all of them true, remember the test flight theory?

thats why were not his comments serious

[Calamity]

alleyd wrote...

 Thank you 3DandBeyond
I do not particularly  want one of favourite brands to suffer the same fate as so many others though that 'loyalty' is down to nostalgia. Going forward Bioware will have to work harder to catch my attention and engage with me. I have been so disappointed by the lack of reasoned debate with Bioware representatives it has seriously affected by brand loyalty. To ignore a consumer, only discredits the brand more and is a serious failing in such a sophisticated organisation IMO.
That silence I perceive as the most negative aspect. Most threads that try to form a bridge end up getting swamped or derailed and I wonder at the motivations sometimes. The O/P piece was emotional plea, but it was also valid comment and I believe we all should embrace the sentiment and the message.

Build us a bridge Bioware and you may mend some Broken hearts. Bunkering down in the manner that I perceived since March, playing some sort of waiting game will, inevitably, only lead to more people turning away from the brand with a negative perception. 

And a brand has so much more to lose than a consumer in that case. 

Beautifully said, Alleyd

[Zan51]

Seival wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

The endings are fine. Leviathan pretty much explained star kid to a tee. Everything else is nitpicking.
Let it go people. Looking forwards to omega

I'm glad to see more and more pro-enders. We should help all anti-enders to become pro-enders. It's hard, but still achievable.

BioWare, you are not alone. You can count on us. We will stay by your side, defending the amazing story of Mass Effect.

Oh puleese! You and Neville Chamberlin would have made good buddies! "Peace in our time" if we sacrifice the Sudetenland with many of the Czechoslovakian banks and most of its own border defenses! Oh, and they didn't invite the Czechs to that meeting, so they got no say in how they got carved up!  And the military alliance Czechoslovakia had with France and United Kingdom was not honoured by those countries signing up with Germany!

Yeah, sacrifices have to be made, morals have to be twisted in gordian knots to make it the right decision in your opinion! To quote Shepard, "How did that work out for you, big guy?" Hitler was not appeased! We just handed the Sudetenland to him on a plate with all the money in the banks there to finance his war, and all their defenses at his disposal!

You. Do. Not. Give. In. To. Bullies. History teaches us that, and we were bullied into that ending in ME3. You like it, great, enjoy it, I won't take that from you or try to change it.

I will hope for something less twisted as an ending because when put to the test in my real life, I did not deviate from my moral values for the victory the "enemy" was willing to hand me on a plate. I am proud that I held out at personal cost for a true and lasting victory both in my life, and this game.

Modifié par Zan51, 12 septembre 2012 - 07:37 .

[yukon fire]

Zan51 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

The endings are fine. Leviathan pretty much explained star kid to a tee. Everything else is nitpicking.
Let it go people. Looking forwards to omega

I'm glad to see more and more pro-enders. We should help all anti-enders to become pro-enders. It's hard, but still achievable.

BioWare, you are not alone. You can count on us. We will stay by your side, defending the amazing story of Mass Effect.

Oh puleese! You and Neville Chamberlin would have made good buddies! "Peace in our time" if we sacrifice the Sudetenland with many of the Czechoslovakian banks and most of its own border defenses! Oh, and they didn't invite the Czechs to that meeting, so they got no say in how they got carved up!  And the military alliance Czechoslovakia had with France and United Kingdom was not honoured by those countries signing up with Germany!

Yeah, sacrifices have to be made, morals have to be twisted in gordian knots to make it the right decision in your opinion! To quote Shepard, "How did that work out for you, big guy?" Hitler was not appeased! We just handed the Sudetenland to him on a plate with all the money in the banks there to finance his war, and all their defenses at his disposal!

You. Do. Not. Give. In. To. Bullies. History teaches us that, and we were bullied into that ending in ME3. You like it, great, enjoy it, I will hope for something less twisted as an ending because when put to the test, I did not deviate from my moral values for the victory the "enemy" was willing to hand me on a plate. Well I am proud that I held out at personal cost for a true and lasting victory both in my life and this game.

Not to disagree or take away from what you were saying but he actually said "Peace for our time", "Peace in our time" is from a 7th century latin hymn: Da pacem Domine! in diebus nostris, Alleluja. 

[Zan51]

@yukon fire:
Not to disagree or take away from what you were saying but he actually said "Peace for our time", "Peace in our time" is from a 7th century latin hymn: Da pacem Domine! in diebus nostris, Alleluja.

Thank you for the correction! I'm tired, just finished work a couple of hours ago, 11 hour day with commute!

[Archonsg]

Still its nice to see someone who remembers History (ancient history to some) and that I wasn't the only one to think of Neville Chamberlain in regards to the ending.

[yukon fire]

Ars sine scienta nihil est

[Archonsg]

Artifex est, qui non vis intelligere patronum pauperem



And... back on topic, thinking back to how Dragon Age 2 was structured, I am pretty sure they were experimenting on a format that would allow them to sell DLCs as adventure modules, as even the main campaign felt like separate single disconnected "chapters / modules" that made up the whole. And as with ME3, they ended that game with a "wtf?!" moment (well moments) which left the player thinking "why would I want to continue playing this?". As opposed to DA:O, ME1 and ME2, where the player, that is I was left wanting MORE.

Bioware sadly kept on this course of "lets destroy the worlds we built" and Mass Effect became the latest victim of their current crop of writers.

Please, stop this.
Perhaps you didn't have a clue as to just how much love you had for the worlds you created, and perhaps its not too late to salvage them all. At least, for ME3 franchise, there is still some hope.

Or would even producing an OPTIONAL. DLC for alternative endings / Romance be considered too much of an expense?
I put both Romance and alternative endings in the same category since they both tie in together at an intimate level and in making one, especially if its an alternate end, you are likely to sell the other.

I miss the Bioware who used to talk to us. Even back when all the fuss about how the Original Baldur's Gate 2 (pre-throne of Bhall) or Aribeth's fate unfolded, we fans and Bioware had some form of discussion.

Modifié par Archonsg, 12 septembre 2012 - 12:30 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

The endings are fine. Leviathan pretty much explained star kid to a tee. Everything else is nitpicking.
Let it go people. Looking forwards to omega

I'm glad to see more and more pro-enders. We should help all anti-enders to become pro-enders. It's hard, but still achievable.



BioWare, you are not alone. You can count on us. We will stay by your side, defending the amazing story of Mass Effect.

funny you should say that when another person who liked the endings said they wouldn't mind this at all and it wouldn't ruin the game for them. Once again your invalid with your jealousy

I think when everyone accept the endings as they are, no one will even think about asking for any changes. This will be better for everyone, believe me.

Psssst, psssssst.

I think Seival is pro indoctrination..........

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Seival wrote...


Don't worry. This is not off-topic, and the thread will not be locked because of me.

But I have to hold the line and remind people that not only devs are against any changes to ME Story.

This has nothing to do with this thread.  And it's for the devs to say what they will do.


I am asking Bioware and not you to consider DLC.  You don't have to play it.

The mature thing would be to realize you have an opinion and so do others and everyone is entitled to one.

BioWare already told they will never change the story. Told a lot of times already. I just support that decision.

Fer the love of..............

Seiv.............. they changed it with the ECDLC.

Here. Read this

~Change

verb
to make or become different; alter
sometimes foll by to or into to transform or convert or be transformed or converted
noun
the act or fact of changing or being changed

a variation, deviation, or modificationthe substitution of one thing for another; exchange

anything that is or may be substituted for something elsevariety or noveltyThey have changed the endings by definition. Therefore you need to be more specific in what they did not change.




What you are, I think, trying to say is that they did not change the direction they wanted to go in how ME3 ended.

Modifié par Redbelle, 12 septembre 2012 - 12:12 .

[Archonsg]

Reminds me of Bubbles.



@redbelle

Perhaps that needs to be clarified little more, that Bioware wants to keep the direction wherein Shepard is in one way or another removed from the Mass Effect World. But if so and this they seemed to realized a little too late, and they have said so, was too bleak an outcome.


Hence the "breath scene".
Many aren't opposed to this scene. (gee, I wonder why)
So, building upon it, isn't such a big deal is it?

It still all boils down to, one group saying "There's still so more that can be done, make it optional, and we are willing to pay for it." and another group saying "we don't care if it's optional, the possibility of such optional DLCs devalue what *we* have. We don't care if you don't get what you want."

So, who is the selfish ones here?

Ps: edited for formatting / bsn hates smartphones

Modifié par Archonsg, 12 septembre 2012 - 01:10 .

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

Still its nice to see someone who remembers History (ancient history to some) and that I wasn't the only one to think of Neville Chamberlain in regards to the ending.

Yes, Zan51 hit that on the head.  A great many do feel it's like capitulating and just deciding "I don't want to fight" with no real idea of what not fighting means.  I'm not arguing the validity within the story of a go at a conventional victory since the writers wrote that into a corner and determined that this would be the most idiotic group of people ever, but I'm saying this: in the face of a lot of bad odds, what did Shepard do?  Shepard rallied people to fight.  In the face of being called deluded, hallucinating, and even crazy, Shepard wanted to fight and did fight.  Whenever there was a fight to be had, Shepard fought.  So, when it's most important and everything is on the line, what does Shepard do?  The exact opposite of fighting.  Even a real argument or disagreement would have been refreshing.

And if adding on or creating some alternate or more true win ending would be bad because it would be too good, then the others that now exist are not as great as many say they are.  Or, if the others are truly great, then they should be able to stand on their own merits and not be threatened by some other way.  I suspect it is just because those choices were not deemed by the writers to be that great and wonderful that is why the cost was added to destroy in the first place.  I'm not saying it's not valid or ok for anyone to like the endings that they now have; my feeling is just as has been said they seem to have more to do with just plain deciding not to fight than anything else.

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

Artifex est, qui non vis intelligere patronum pauperem



And... back on topic, thinking back to how Dragon Age 2 was structured, I am pretty sure they were experimenting on a format that would allow them to sell DLCs as adventure modules, as even the main campaign felt like separate single disconnected "chapters / modules" that made up the whole. And as with ME3, they ended that game with a "wtf?!" moment (well moments) which left the player thinking "why would I want to continue playing this?". As opposed to DA:O, ME1 and ME2, where the player, that is I was left wanting MORE.

Bioware sadly kept on this course of "lets destroy the worlds we built" and Mass Effect became the latest victim of their current crop of writers.

Please, stop this.
Perhaps you didn't have a clue as to just how much love you had for the worlds you created, and perhaps its not too late to salvage them all. At least, for ME3 franchise, there is still some hope.

Or would even producing an OPTIONAL. DLC for alternative endings / Romance be considered too much of an expense?
I put both Romance and alternative endings in the same category since they both tie in together at an intimate level and in making one, especially if its an alternate end, you are likely to sell the other.

I miss the Bioware who used to talk to us. Even back when all the fuss about how the Original Baldur's Gate 2 (pre-throne of Bhall) or Aribeth's fate unfolded, we fans and Bioware had some form of discussion.

I think there is a lot to this to be honest.  Just look at the chronology of things and how much external content or extra-core game content has been released here.  This past summer there were a few comics released that fill in the gaps supposedly between ME2 and 3.  The game is out with endings and Leviathan that impacts in a way with some story to explain the ending gets released after the ending.  And up and coming is the Paragon movie about Vega.  All of this is backstory to a game with and ending that is known.  All of those people in all of that content have a "future" that so far isn't great IMO.  I feel bad getting to know them better to be quite honest.  How can it possibly help me to know about Jimmy Vega's early years or Vega's fights against Collector's when my options are to allow reapers to control his existence, externally or internally with greenism, or if I'm actually helping to create a galaxy that will make it far more likely for the kid's predictions to come true?  Or, if I just let him die?

As I see it there was a real desire to not only kill off Shepard at the end of his/her story arc, but a real desire to fully kill off this galaxy and even ME altogether.  Why do that?  I know some say this is a real trend in other games (as if that makes it ok), but I've played a lot of games and have actually not had this happen a lot or even to any extent that I can remember.

Even though in all of the choices the writers have walked back the notion of showing or purposely destroying the galaxy outright, the results would most likely get us there anyway. 

I think all of the choices effectively destroy the future for the sake of some immediate problem.  No one is thinking about what destruction is being done-inside or outside of the game.

[3DandBeyond]

I do think that we all see things differently, but I also have to say continuing on in this way is kind of like what the game endings say to me. I see them as asking just which flavor of screw the galaxy do you want? And handling this whole situation with a closed mind, closed ears, and closed mouth is like asking just how fast do you want to ruin this franchise. I'm not saying it's ruined now, but I've played other games and visited their forums and they were way more happy and vibrant even after the games had been out for a year.

Reviewers have not rallied around Leviathan. And I see some little cracks in some of the things they feel now about how all this came to be. Even a little move on all of that is an indication of "something". And it's amazing to me that if we are here saying we don't want to see ME go down in flames or actually be phased out with a whimper and we would like to see BW succeed and make more, we get criticized for that. It's like it's always got to be a war and not only here. Youtube videos start fights. Other forums discussing this feature fighting. Most on both sides are just giving up. Is that how they want ME to be remembered. A game about a hero who wanted to right some wrongs, who fought to save people, is quite possibly going to be remembered as one of the most divisive of all video games ever.

The game, ME3, that Bioware thought would allow them to make their mark and solidify or promote their vision, their Star Wars breakout game, might well be remembered for words like "hater", "whiner", and so on. And good PR can never overcome the phrase "entitled fans". This idea promoted by review sites and oft-repeated here indicates to many that they are not allowed to voice any complaint. None of these things are what a company wants either their game or that company to be remembered for. It's toxic. It's why some companies after a bad even change their company names. But in gaming doing that spells death just as surely as not turning around a toxic atmosphere will.  Why not change the discussion and see how to create a truly vibrant and fun game again and a great and fun BSN?  Turn lemons into lemonade.

Videogames are sold partly because of the game company behind them and the devs gain their reputation due to the games they sell. Bioware is ME and DA and KOTOR, just as surely as the reverse is true. They can't ignore either one or it will chip away at them. DA and KOTOR are part of why many won't give BW a pass here. And the reception for DA3 might partly be based on how ME was handled. I think many have written it off due to ME3 and this seemingly mutual hatred. I still assert that in a down economy you build bridges between the customers you have and have had and could have-those that have truly appreciated what you have done and will do. And you do that by going back to doing what you do best, keeping an eye on the future, but remembering what worked and recognizing what didn't.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 12 septembre 2012 - 02:02 .

[wantedman dan]

Bioware? Do the right thing?

HAHAHAHA.

[Remanentmoss01]

You know, Thats what i find most baffling about all this, Would they really destroy this universe, would they even kill Shepard, I mean in Shepard EA has thier very own Master Chief. A character who would sell a bucketload of games and we know EA likes money, I find it very hard to believe that EA are just going to let Shepard draw his last breath under that rubble

[3DandBeyond]

wantedman dan wrote...

Bioware? Do the right thing?

HAHAHAHA.

Everyone can change and certainly everyone can even be misunderstood.  Mistakes do need to be handled in a more appropriate way.  I truly do believe people in this just see things differently.  I think it's all been handled in the worst way and there is a real opportunity to make it right. 

We all must participate if we do care.  Fans on both sides have made real mistakes as well.  You can't keep going back, facing the past, and pointing fingers.  And we can't all (BW and fans, even me) keep saying, "but he did it first".

We do need to get beyond all the rhetoric and noise.  I do see one thing here and it is that those that oppose an idea that could provide an opening here to in some way "fix" things reinforce the notion that this is the right thing to do.  And by that I mean asking for them to reconsider and take another less volatile look at the whole thing, what was done right and what was done wrong-and to look and really see what people are trying to say.  And then to try and see a real way to go forward from there.

[Blueprotoss]

Taboo-XX wrote...

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?

Mine as well but Shepard still "died".

[Blueprotoss]

iakus wrote...

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.

Tagic characters don't need to be undone by their flaws but Shepard was undone by his/her flaw of simply being human and couldn't avoid destiny.

[Blueprotoss]

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*).

How am I depressed even when every Bioware game has tragic heroes.  Either way you can't avoid tragic heroes whether its the Odyssey, Macbeth, Gladiator, Gran Torino, Angel, Stargate, Soul Reaver, and Max Payne.  Death isn't always the end for tragic heroes.

[3DandBeyond]

Remanentmoss01 wrote...

You know, Thats what i find most baffling about all this, Would they really destroy this universe, would they even kill Shepard, I mean in Shepard EA has thier very own Master Chief. A character who would sell a bucketload of games and we know EA likes money, I find it very hard to believe that EA are just going to let Shepard draw his last breath under that rubble

Thisis the thing for me as well.  There is first of all the idea that not including Shepard in any future games as a real character is hard for some to take, but I think we could get past that and it does make some sense (if you keep Shepard then you must keep all the LIs at a minimum, but it goes even further-Garrus is my buddy, there's no Shepard without Vacarian).  This kind of thing is just so difficult to do even for big budget movies with big big payrolls.  And if a game is in the future and Blue babies are real for me and Rannoch is real for someone else, that game would be difficult to make.  I mean, in just those 2 scenarios would Shepard be off flying around the galaxy with Liara at home watching the kids or Tali watching crops grow and painting some new portico?  What that does is shuts off having an LI in the game-and I think having them was pretty popular.  I also can't think of any of the LIs just sitting back and waiting for Shepard to come back home once in awhile.  Or say Kaidan/Ashley/Sam waiting for some stolen moments on the ship.  Or Jack waiting for anything.  And so on. 

I think it could be fun if Shepard and crew got together and became privateers so that people like Miranda and Jack, Ashley or Kaidan, Cortez, Joker, and EDI, and say even Kolyat and Bailey could become part of the crew-as well as Tali, Liara, Garrus, and the whole gang (I probably forgot someone).  And apart from any real outside authority (not Alliance anymore, but still a Spectre), I think the LI prospects could be opened up a bit.  And they could actually be working for the Shadow Broker-might have their own ships and you might do missions as another character.  These for me are fun things to think about.  I can fully see Miranda commanding a ship.  Or acting as second in command in a Firefly like scenario.

However.  This is all just fun thinking.  The reality is keeping such a big group together is hard to do.  What it boils down to is that future games could well reference a living Shepard.  That means not necessarily killing of Shepard-and still keeping him/her alive in spirit in games that come later and have their own stories and own new hero.  I'd love for it to be Shepard herself (mostly a fem in my games), but she carries a lot of other people along with her, that I don't see as expendable.

[Blueprotoss]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

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.

So Shepard never "saved" the Galaxy at the end of ME1 then quickly died in the beginning of ME2?

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 

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.

One of the best examples of a tragic hero is Odysseus and he didn't die at the end of his story.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Not directed at anyone in particular, but my dad told me that if I get the urge to head butt someone I'd know why.

He just wants to have fun since he's a badass Krogan. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 12 septembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Tagic characters don't need to be undone by their flaws but Shepard was undone by his/her flaw of simply being human and couldn't avoid destiny.

At the end Shepard didn't try to avoid destiny.  Shepard goes along with some skewed form of it, and tacitly agrees that certain things that s/he never saw as inevitable, are inevitable.  Shepard embraces a flawed view of destiny, solidifying that view as reality.  Making a choice promises that what the kid says is inevitable will indeed be inevitable.  Shepard creates a destiny for all that was never inevitable, but will be.

Shepard doesn't even consider his/her own journey to get where s/he is and just ignores what is at his/her core being: you sacrifice for the good, but you don't sacrifice someone else in achieving it.  The choices at the end destroy everything Shepard worked, fought, died once for and will mostly die for this time.  Diversity (destroyed by synthesis), unity (destroyed by destroy), autonomy (destroyed by control) are banished.  If one choice is made, all of these themes are destroyed, because making a choice agrees that the reason for their existence is true.

[3DandBeyond]

I do think control and synthesis will very easily will create conflict and they rely on reaper intervention even more fully than before and the reapers are alive. Actually, the kid AI is "alive" as well in both.

But, though I support Destroy in theory and in part as it is, I do see that it has some really equally disturbing aspects to it that would not lead necessarily to a great future. It is of course first and foremost in my mind abhorrent because I like EDI and the geth and so it is genocide to me. I don't play to the end if I play the game at all now.

But furthermore, neither of the choices address the future at all. Destroy is no different.

Even if Shepard dies destroy fully creates the foundation for the kid's predictions to be fulfilled. If you look at EDI and the geth prior to that you see that neither one really felt that they would always become victims of organics because at their core they knew that in some way there were those that valued them. Destroy smashes that. No one ever has to even know that Shepard was aware the geth and EDI and synthetic lives would be targeted and they'd die. All they have to see is the aftermath of it. They aren't mourning EDI and the geth. Even at the memorial wall we don't get to see Joker mourning EDI. We see the reaction of losing Shepard. Joker may mourn, but we don't see it.

The galaxy isn't exactly mourning the geth loss. And amidst all the horror of what has happened, they very likely would be the last ones mourned. If you look at how out of place Javik felt and how disdainful he was over the rise of those that he felt were beneath his race-they were when his race died, you can see in part what could happen on a bigger and even more pernicious scale. Synthetic beings of the future would know just who was "sacrificed" in order to save organic life. They don't need to know synthetics were purposedly thrown on the fire, but they'd see the result and realize that the galaxy didn't really mind that. If Shepard can decide it's ok to kill synthetics to save organics and Shepard is the best the galaxy has to offer, then other people wouldn't be mourning the loss of the geth and that doesn't bode well for the future.

I'm only pointing this out because I've always seen real problems for the future with synthesis and control-I don't think they solve more problems than they create-but destroy has always seemed to have just the immediate cost as its biggest problem. I think the future could be far worse, just as with the other choices.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 12 septembre 2012 - 03:15 .