6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Zan51]

This game was never advertised as Shepard trying to get to understand the reapers and give up and die in order to choose some easy way out with no real consequences.

You see, I fully believe the games should have showed those real consequences.  Thessis in ruins, Earth
nearly obliterated, Palaven burning, billions dead and dying, and so on.  It should have honored that sacrifice and not glossed it all over. 
And the aftermath needed to be real.  Just as the goal should have remained the goal, in order to be authentic.  My opinion.  The trailers said, "Take Earth Back", but you don't.  You get to ask for it back.

Absolutely! You do NOT get to Take Back Earth, you get to - Green, Blue or Red it! And yes, I believe in consequences for our actions, but over and over again in ME3 the consequenceces of our previous decisions are swept aside for the new denouemnet at the end, that of the star brat,  that flies in the face of everything we expected, given pre-release quotes and blurb and trailers.

Why is it that in the years I have been on this forum, that I always see more people posting in threads they disagree with and trying to tear down and destroy what we build here? Yes, I DO only post in Threads whose title I agree with, or ones asking for my opinion.

Do you, you know who you are, post here to Destroy us because you are so unsure of your own choices? Phychology would tell me that's why you do it. If you can't say or contribute something positive, why post here?

Modifié par Zan51, 30 août 2012 - 10:06 .

[MerchantGOL]

3DandBeyond wrote...



You see, I fully believe the games should have showed those real consequences.  Thessis in ruins, Earth nearly obliterated, Palaven burning, billions dead and dying, and so on.  It should have honored that sacrifice and not glossed it all over.  And the aftermath needed to be real.  Just as the goal should have remained the goal, in order to be authentic.  My opinion.  The trailers said, "Take Earth Back", but you don't.  You get to ask for it back.

U dont ask for ****, You fight every step of the way, and at the  end your  options are revealed.

To say they gloosed over any thing is also wrong, we see the death and destruction every where.

[3DandBeyond]

MegaSovereign wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...


If people would pay for it, it would increase the likelihood of other DLC being made, it would add to resources BW would have to make more content and nothing I've suggested would take time or attention away from Omega-it could go hand in hand with that.  In fact, all that I have suggested would be adding to EMS and changing some dialogue for the kid and then adding some minor content to just the destroy ending-slide show, narration by Shepard instead of Hackett and even some other minor changes.  It would be a bit more than what they changed with Leviathan and considering they could release 4 DLCs for ME3 (or even more if well-received), it could be very minor changes with each new DLC.  It would be a win-win for all of us.  You'd certainly get more DLC, because more people would want to buy it if it rehabilitated the game for them.  That is my question.  You see it as pulling resources away and I see it as adding to those resources so you get more game and I get an ending.

This is selfish reasoning.

They already pushed back their DLC schedule for the EC. Releasing more ending DLC would push other DLCs back. Those that are already happy with the EC (which there are a lot of according to polls on social sites) would want new DLCs, not reimaginings of the current ones.

They're not going to release premium ending DLC to satisfy your specific criteria. Which was what Dragoonlordz's point was. If the endings really bother you that much then its time to move on.

You totally ignored what I wrote.  If my posts bother you so much, then perhaps you should take your own advice.  I didn't advocate they merely focus on some new ending DLC exclusively.  And I submit it is you who is being selfish.  You have the ending you are happy with so everyone else should just go away.  I was making a case for it being profitable for BW to do this which would also mean they'd have resources to make more DLC for you as well.  And that's selfish?  Funny.

I also didn't ask them to reimagine the current endings.  I asked them to consider adding to one or the other of them and to discuss it, to consider the value of it on their pocket book and therefore the resources that could lead to more content that all of us would then be able to like. 

[AresKeith]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

There's a few flaws in your logic here. Firstly you have no evidence that you die in control, you change and your body dies but same can be said about those who are religious and believe in a soul. Their bodies die too yet they believe they live on in a different form. Control change is also merely a different form. Secondly you say it was genocide in Arrival so by your logic you do not become genocidal at the end of ME3, you remain genocidal since Arrival so why are you not asking for Arrival to change instead of ME3 ending? Arrival made you genocidal not the ME3 ending by your logic.

control = a Shepard AI with his/her memories and nothing else is controlling the Reapers, Dead. Arrival became irrelevant since Bioware retconned Relays in endings, and in Destroy you wipe out the Geth and EDI and probably other AIs which in genocide

[Dragoonlordz]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And this is selfish too. In fact, even more so, since the objective is to please the happy even more. 

Those of us who like the game are not as selfish as those who do not. You had EC, even Leviathan was partially ending related even if did not change the ending it explains the backstory of what the Catalyst is and how it came to be. Omega is potentially the first DLC not in theory relating to the ending.

[Hudathan]

3DandBeyond wrote...

This game was never advertised as Shepard trying to get to understand the reapers and give up and die in order to choose some easy way out with no real consequences.

You see, I fully believe the games should have showed those real consequences.  Thessis in ruins, Earth nearly obliterated, Palaven burning, billions dead and dying, and so on.  It should have honored that sacrifice and not glossed it all over.  And the aftermath needed to be real.  Just as the goal should have remained the goal, in order to be authentic.  My opinion.  The trailers said, "Take Earth Back", but you don't.  You get to ask for it back.

Bioware is not in charge of advertisement, that's EA's job. I'm not concerned about what a trailer says about a game, I care about what's actually the reality of the thing. In fact, I'm glad that trailers don't reflect a lot of finished products because I like to have some surprise in what I'm getting. Terminator 2 marketed as a rematch with Arnold? Turns out he's a protector, what an interesting twist!

You do take Earth back. You build the Crucible, you unite the fleets, and you fight your way to the Citadel. And in the end, you get to decide how to use it and every option stops the Reapers and regains control of Earth. Your statement about not being able to take Earth back is simply untrue. What you mean to say is that you didn't get to win the way you wanted to, so call it what it is.

[Applepie_Svk]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Firstly you have no evidence that you die in control, you change and your body dies but same can be said about those who are religious and believe in a soul. Their bodies die too yet they believe they live on in a different form. Control change is also merely a different form. Secondly you say it was genocide in Arrival so by your logic you do not become genocidal at the end of ME3, you remain genocidal since Arrival so why are you not asking for Arrival to change instead of ME3 ending? Arrival made you genocidal not the ME3 ending by your logic.

Control ending: Thru her/his death, I was created ... pretty much for that

[Dragoonlordz]

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

There's a few flaws in your logic here. Firstly you have no evidence that you die in control, you change and your body dies but same can be said about those who are religious and believe in a soul. Their bodies die too yet they believe they live on in a different form. Control change is also merely a different form. Secondly you say it was genocide in Arrival so by your logic you do not become genocidal at the end of ME3, you remain genocidal since Arrival so why are you not asking for Arrival to change instead of ME3 ending? Arrival made you genocidal not the ME3 ending by your logic.

control = a Shepard AI with his/her memories and nothing else is controlling the Reapers, Dead. Arrival became irrelevant since Bioware retconned Relays in endings, and in Destroy you wipe out the Geth and EDI and probably other AIs which in genocide

What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea the state of mind of Shepard in an AI form just like you have no idea the state of form those who are religious believe will become when their body dies. You have no proof that he or she is not still Shepard morally and emotionally even when merged with the AI, you just assume it. So your basically arguing on assumption. As for Arrival they did not retcon the mass death toll of your actions at that time 300k Batarians were still killed. This is going by his logic, he said it was genocide I said if feels that way then it is not that became genocidal when reached end of ME3, by his own words he was already genocidal after Arrival. It was his words so why you trying to argue about that?

[SpamBot2000]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And this is selfish too. In fact, even more so, since the objective is to please the happy even more. 

Those of us who like the game are not as selfish as those who do not. You had EC, even Leviathan was partially ending related even if did not change the ending it explains the backstory of what the Catalyst is and how it came to be. Omega is potentially the first DLC not in theory relating to the ending.

Now this here makes no sense at all. Think about it.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 30 août 2012 - 10:12 .

[3DandBeyond]

Zan51 wrote...

This game was never advertised as Shepard trying to get to understand the reapers and give up and die in order to choose some easy way out with no real consequences.

You see, I fully believe the games should have showed those real consequences.  Thessis in ruins, Earth
nearly obliterated, Palaven burning, billions dead and dying, and so on.  It should have honored that sacrifice and not glossed it all over. 
And the aftermath needed to be real.  Just as the goal should have remained the goal, in order to be authentic.  My opinion.  The trailers said, "Take Earth Back", but you don't.  You get to ask for it back.

Absolutely! You do NOT get to Take Back Earth, you get to - Green, Blue or Red it! And yes, I believe in consequences for our actions, but over and over again in ME3 the consequenceces of our previous decisions are swept aside for the new denouemnet at the end, that of the star brat,  that flies in the face of everything we expected, given pre-release quotes and blurb and trailers.

Why is it that in the years I have been on this forum, that I always see more people posting in threads they disagree with and trying to tear down and destroy what we build here? Yes, I DO only post in Threads whose title I agree with, or ones asking for my opinion.

Do you, you know who you are, post here to Destroy us because you are so unsure of your own choices? Phychology would tell me that's why you do it. If you can't say or contribute something positive, why post here?

This is exactly what one person seemed to be saying.  He has posted in other threads that if BW made some other ending where Shepard lives then that would become canon and everyone would pick that.  That's such a funny concept and I answered it, but he ignored the answer.

If some Shepard lives ending (not my only wish for an ending, but surely one wish) was to become canon then that means people don't like the endings as much as they claim they do.  It also would mean they have not yet gotten the best ending or they ending they want.  I don't believe everyone would pick that all the time, but it would just be opened up as a possibility-no one would ever have to choose it.

But for some reason this threatens people.  If I ask for it (ask), then I'm selfish, even when I'm suggesting it would help to bring back a lot of lost revenue and lost customers which would mean money for more DLC.

And the truth is a Shepard lives ending would be popular because the hero wins ending is the most popular for movies and for books and for games for a reason.  People like them and they earn their creators a lot of money.  But, I don't get why this bothers others so much.

[Xellith]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Xellith wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Many of us have said this repeatedly-the endings are genocide, totalitarianism, and forced eugenics, along with suicide.

Not to sound arrogant but I simply couldn't continue reading after this.

That's a massive over-simplification of what the endings actually are. Especially by calling Destroy "genocide." That's like saying Shepard murdered the victim left behind at Virmire. And this is wrong. Both instances are actually collateral damage.


Above all "Do the Right Thing" implies that Bioware did something wrong. Step back for a second and consider the fact that this is just a videogame. If you do that then you would understand why your plea is silly.

Control.  You die.  Your mind is uploaded.  Your mind depending on if you were paragon or renegade will either enslave the reapers and use them to protect everyone or enslave the reapers and use them as part of an army that nobody would dare oppose.  The fact that Synthesis allows each individual reaper to be a "person" does go to show that each individual "reaper" is in fact now enslaved.

Synthesis.  You forcibly change everyone in the galaxy to be something they are not.  If this changes the way you reason or evaluate problems and situations then you have been compromised as a person.  You arnt technically "you".  Just like how the AI shepard isnt technically shepard.  Everyone is forced into being something they are not.  Everyone is made "the same".

Destroy.  You wipe out every single reaper.  Every single geth and any and all other Synthetic life in the galaxy both known and unknown.  Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",  You are clearly told you would destroy the reapers and the geth.  Sure its collateral damage - but its still genocide.  Just as destroying the Batarian relay was genocide.

In each of those scenarios you die.  Destroy is debatable depending on what you choose to speculate on.  The Reapers are defeated and the cycle ended.

LOL

Why should you care about the ethics of controlling a Reaper? They're Reapers. They're. ****ing. Reapers.

As for Destroy, I never denied it was genocide. I just think this is a massive oversimplification. The blame should be put on the Reapers as they forced Shepard's hand on this. If Destroy is genocide then leaving the Virmire victim behind is murder....See why oversimplifications are misleading?

Because Reapers intellegence is formed by the enslavement of organic minds.  People were murdered.  Their minds uploaded and enslaved inside a reaper vessel.  A reaper intellegence created by using the enslaved minds.

If they were uploaded in a similar fashion to Shepard (who after control is the collective intellegence of the reapers) then you are basically not only enslaving the reapers - but you are enslaving each and every individual ever uploaded into a reaper.  For all we know they are still "alive" inside the reapers but enslaved to work its processes and whatnot.

With control you are enslaving the reapers and potentionally the minds of those who were killed and processed by the reapers.  With destroy you are killing each individual reaper but setting those enslaved minds free. 

And Virmire isnt murder.  Murder is killing with malicious intent.. Your example is flawed.

Modifié par Xellith, 30 août 2012 - 10:15 .

[MegaSovereign]

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...


If people would pay for it, it would increase the likelihood of other DLC being made, it would add to resources BW would have to make more content and nothing I've suggested would take time or attention away from Omega-it could go hand in hand with that.  In fact, all that I have suggested would be adding to EMS and changing some dialogue for the kid and then adding some minor content to just the destroy ending-slide show, narration by Shepard instead of Hackett and even some other minor changes.  It would be a bit more than what they changed with Leviathan and considering they could release 4 DLCs for ME3 (or even more if well-received), it could be very minor changes with each new DLC.  It would be a win-win for all of us.  You'd certainly get more DLC, because more people would want to buy it if it rehabilitated the game for them.  That is my question.  You see it as pulling resources away and I see it as adding to those resources so you get more game and I get an ending.

This is selfish reasoning.

They already pushed back their DLC schedule for the EC. Releasing more ending DLC would push other DLCs back. Those that are already happy with the EC (which there are a lot of according to polls on social sites) would want new DLCs, not reimaginings of the current ones.

They're not going to release premium ending DLC to satisfy your specific criteria. Which was what Dragoonlordz's point was. If the endings really bother you that much then its time to move on.

You totally ignored what I wrote.  If my posts bother you so much, then perhaps you should take your own advice.  I didn't advocate they merely focus on some new ending DLC exclusively.  And I submit it is you who is being selfish.  You have the ending you are happy with so everyone else should just go away.  I was making a case for it being profitable for BW to do this which would also mean they'd have resources to make more DLC for you as well.  And that's selfish?  Funny.

I also didn't ask them to reimagine the current endings.  I asked them to consider adding to one or the other of them and to discuss it, to consider the value of it on their pocket book and therefore the resources that could lead to more content that all of us would then be able to like. 

Your post doesn't bother me because I didn't bother reading past the part I quoted earlier.

@ the bolded part.

That wasn't the point I was making. Facebook polls that have an upward of 25K votes (larger sample size than any EC poll on BSN) suggests that the majority like the EC ending. They will not push back their DLC schedule for you and the minority.

I'm not even trying to sound harsh. This is what it is. Capitalism. 

[MegaSovereign]

Xellith wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Xellith wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Many of us have said this repeatedly-the endings are genocide, totalitarianism, and forced eugenics, along with suicide.

Not to sound arrogant but I simply couldn't continue reading after this.

That's a massive over-simplification of what the endings actually are. Especially by calling Destroy "genocide." That's like saying Shepard murdered the victim left behind at Virmire. And this is wrong. Both instances are actually collateral damage.


Above all "Do the Right Thing" implies that Bioware did something wrong. Step back for a second and consider the fact that this is just a videogame. If you do that then you would understand why your plea is silly.

Control.  You die.  Your mind is uploaded.  Your mind depending on if you were paragon or renegade will either enslave the reapers and use them to protect everyone or enslave the reapers and use them as part of an army that nobody would dare oppose.  The fact that Synthesis allows each individual reaper to be a "person" does go to show that each individual "reaper" is in fact now enslaved.

Synthesis.  You forcibly change everyone in the galaxy to be something they are not.  If this changes the way you reason or evaluate problems and situations then you have been compromised as a person.  You arnt technically "you".  Just like how the AI shepard isnt technically shepard.  Everyone is forced into being something they are not.  Everyone is made "the same".

Destroy.  You wipe out every single reaper.  Every single geth and any and all other Synthetic life in the galaxy both known and unknown.  Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",  You are clearly told you would destroy the reapers and the geth.  Sure its collateral damage - but its still genocide.  Just as destroying the Batarian relay was genocide.

In each of those scenarios you die.  Destroy is debatable depending on what you choose to speculate on.  The Reapers are defeated and the cycle ended.

LOL

Why should you care about the ethics of controlling a Reaper? They're Reapers. They're. ****ing. Reapers.

As for Destroy, I never denied it was genocide. I just think this is a massive oversimplification. The blame should be put on the Reapers as they forced Shepard's hand on this. If Destroy is genocide then leaving the Virmire victim behind is murder....See why oversimplifications are misleading?

Because Reapers intellegence is formed by the enslavement of organic minds.  People were murdered.  Their minds uploaded and enslaved inside a reaper vessel.  A reaper intellegence created by using the enslaved minds.

If they were uploaded in a similar fashion to Shepard (who after control is the collective intellegence of the reapers) then you are basically not only enslaving the reapers - but you are enslaving each and every individual ever uploaded into a reaper.  For all we know they are still "alive" inside the reapers but enslaved to work its processes and whatnot.

And Virmire isnt murder.  Murder is killing with malicious intent.. Your example is flawed.

So is the Geth sacrifice in Destroy or the 300K batarians in Arrival.

That was the point I was getting at, all those oversimplifications are flawed.

Shepard wasn't actively seeking to kill any of those people. His hands were tied. He did what he had to do.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 30 août 2012 - 10:17 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

MegaSovereign wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It's fine if dislike the endings, the first month it was reasonable to ask for changes though I feel the way many went about it at that time left me feeling they not deserve to have any changes made. Second month even then is rational to specify what changes would like to take place in the EC. But almost seven months on now it is no longer amusing, rational or reasonable to expect them to go back and change it again after EC came out. It is merely denial and unhealthy form of it too.

It won't happen and it shouldn't happen (imho). After seven months almost it is time to accept that your not going to get everything you want, that it is not going to be remade to your specifications and that instead of wasting more time and money on remaking the ending they should produce content for those who like the game and will keep refunding it's development cost for future DLC. Leviathan was pretty entertaining especially in parts, now they should focus their time and attention on Omega DLC as far as I am concerned.

Why shouldn't it happen if I'm willing to pay for it and if it is optional-which means you wouldn't ever have to even play it?  Well, it's also nice to label it as unhealthy-you don't know me or anyone else here.

I'm truly interested in all these people that for some reason think this kind of thing is threatening to themselves personally.

I explained why it shouldn't in the very thing which you quoted.

If people would pay for it, it would increase the likelihood of other DLC being made, it would add to resources BW would have to make more content and nothing I've suggested would take time or attention away from Omega-it could go hand in hand with that.  In fact, all that I have suggested would be adding to EMS and changing some dialogue for the kid and then adding some minor content to just the destroy ending-slide show, narration by Shepard instead of Hackett and even some other minor changes.  It would be a bit more than what they changed with Leviathan and considering they could release 4 DLCs for ME3 (or even more if well-received), it could be very minor changes with each new DLC.  It would be a win-win for all of us.  You'd certainly get more DLC, because more people would want to buy it if it rehabilitated the game for them.  That is my question.  You see it as pulling resources away and I see it as adding to those resources so you get more game and I get an ending.

This is selfish reasoning.

They already pushed back their DLC schedule for the EC. Releasing more ending DLC would push other DLCs back. Those that are already happy with the EC (which there are a lot of according to polls on social sites) would want new DLCs, not reimaginings of the current ones.

They're not going to release premium ending DLC to satisfy your specific criteria. Which was what Dragoonlordz's point was. If the endings really bother you that much then its time to move on.

BioWare will ultimately address this flaw in their game.  The economics will be too compelling.  And the people there who ultimately decide to do it, won't care about "art."  They'll do it because it makes money for shareholders.

[Applepie_Svk]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And this is selfish too. In fact, even more so, since the objective is to please the happy even more. 

Those of us who like the game are not as selfish as those who do not. You had EC, even Leviathan was partially ending related even if did not change the ending it explains the backstory of what the Catalyst is and how it came to be. Omega is potentially the first DLC not in theory relating to the ending.

I had a bad feeling that Omega has to do something with ending too... And that´s not how you are making the art when you cut out some important content related to main plot and sell it later, just imagine how great it would be if every writer took away few pages from the middle of book to sell them later.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 30 août 2012 - 10:18 .

[Xellith]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Your post doesn't bother me because I didn't bother reading past the part I quoted earlier.

@ the bolded part.

That wasn't the point I was making. Facebook polls that have an upward of 25K votes (larger sample size than any EC poll on BSN) suggests that the majority like the EC ending. They will not push back their DLC schedule for you and the minority.

I'm not even trying to sound harsh. This is what it is. Capitalism. 

https://www.facebook...6509146424475/  Thats the official one I believe.

Modifié par Xellith, 30 août 2012 - 10:19 .

[MegaSovereign]

BioWare will ultimately address this flaw in their game. The economics will be too compelling. And the people there who ultimately decide to do it, won't care about "art." They'll do it because it makes money for shareholders.

This is under the assumption that the majority loathed the EC.

If this is then the laws of mighty Capitalism will take it from here and they will eventually release new "ending DLC" But that's the thing, the majority doesn't loathe it. Hell I'd even argue that some of those that didn't like it wouldn't pay extra for an ending they would like.

[Moirai]

Fully agree with you OP. Great post.

Over to you Bioware...

[3DandBeyond]

MerchantGOL wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...



You see, I fully believe the games should have showed those real consequences.  Thessis in ruins, Earth nearly obliterated, Palaven burning, billions dead and dying, and so on.  It should have honored that sacrifice and not glossed it all over.  And the aftermath needed to be real.  Just as the goal should have remained the goal, in order to be authentic.  My opinion.  The trailers said, "Take Earth Back", but you don't.  You get to ask for it back.

U dont ask for ****, You fight every step of the way, and at the  end your  options are revealed.

To say they gloosed over any thing is also wrong, we see the death and destruction every where.

EDI, post synthesis, "I am alive."  Ok, she already told me that in London.  The slide shows show a happy sappy galaxy easily rebuilding everything and the reapers are fixing stuff and green eyes are smiling and everyone's united and it's all very trite.

But you make my case-even if Shepard lives, horrible things have happened and the galaxy shouldn't be a pretty place.

And those options are not the result of anything you did, nor what you wanted to do totally.  At the end you have a conversation and get to ask some questions of the guy in control of your enemy-the things with people goo in them.

But, I'm not talking about even changing those things.  That wasn't my goal here at all.  You can have that if that is everything you wanted ME3 to be.  Go for it.  I can't imagine anyone starting the game thinking they'd do anything other than try to fight reapers-I certainly can't believe anyone hoped it would end like this, but if so, then rejoice.  You have the dream ending you wanted. 

My wishes are not yours and they need not bother you at all because they wouldn't impact your ending at all.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

MegaSovereign wrote...

BioWare will ultimately address this flaw in their game. The economics will be too compelling. And the people there who ultimately decide to do it, won't care about "art." They'll do it because it makes money for shareholders.

This is under the assumption that the majority loathed the EC.

If this is then the laws of mighty Capitalism will take it from here and they will eventually release new "ending DLC" But that's the thing, the majority doesn't loathe it. Hell I'd even argue that some of those that didn't like it wouldn't pay extra for an ending they would like.

I think it's just reaching the point where some people need to ask: "how many tries would Bioware need to get it right?"

[Applepie_Svk]

Xellith wrote...


https://www.facebook...6509146424475/  Thats the official one I believe.

Funny - it´s not about happiness but about expectations...

I was expecting just a polishing and yet they retcon endings and add one more which they lied about - so in fact it didn´t met my expectations...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 30 août 2012 - 10:22 .

[dreman9999]

Warrior Craess wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...
Here is the counter point that many of us are trying to get you to understand. There isn't anything difficult, or hard about the ending choices of ME3.  There is no emotive context to it, becuase the rest of the theme of the ME series has been discarded. The options are nothing more than which one do I like best at this point. There is no morality to thses choices, because there is no history to it (at least in game).  The EC made the endings better, but still not thematically consistant with the rest of the ME series. 

Huh? You seem to be saying that whether a decision is hard depends on stuff outside the consequences of that decision. If that's you point, count me as another one who doesn't understand it.

it may be confusing becuase it's the tail end of a rather large reply pyramid. I simply removed most of the pyramid so that it wouldn't be so cumbersome.

Let me break it down for you. It's a game (hopefully we can all agree on that). In this game we have choices that can be made. As has been pointed out, it doesn't really matter what you choose, becuase in the end you can win the game. 

Dreman9999 is saying that the entire point of the game is to make those choices. He also says that those choices don't matter, becuase in the end you win the game. 

My point, is that those choices only matter based on the context we, the players, give them. This context is based on our interpretations of the game - something dreman9999 has discounted.  According to him there is a literal theme to this game. And that theme is Choice.  

The reason that many of us find the endings so abhorent is that the final choice, the one that should mean the most, actually means the least, becuase it is so disconnected from the rest of the series. The Final choice takes my interpretation of the series and smashes it to smithereens. Why would I then attach any emotional context at all to the final choice? 

The endings are subjective by design. Speculation for everyone = interpretation, not choice. Much of the reason I'm annoyed with BW over this is that they wanted specualtion (interpretation) then told us we're doing it wrong.  Sorry but how can my intrepretation of a subjective ending be wrong? Dreman999 annoys me for the same reason. In the ME series you can not invalidate a players interpretation, due to the fact that it's designed to achieve just that. 

I never stated the choice don't matter. What I mean is that morality does not matter. That what's important is how you get the asseist. What I'm saying is morality is what limits our action to how we get them. Of coures morality changes how we see the choices given. Morality by nature is relitive. My point is that the limit of the reality in hand casue conflit with your morality.

Aka,ME is a case of morality vs logic aka conflicts of ethics. What is important is the goal but what limits the actions taken togetting to that goal is you morality. Sure, you moraly decide how you see the action you do but it does not defer the fact something has to be done to get to your goal.
You have to do something to acheive your goal and you morals decide you actions.

This means that what you willing to do based on your moraily decide your asseits.

The means the theme is what the paly is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force.

That argument works fine until the ending. What morality is there in choosing 1 of 3 very bad choices? 2 of which the person providing you with said choises states are not solutions at all. They are just a termporary halt on the harvesting.

Gee if I truly want to stop the cycles of harvesting, I gotta make everyone in the universe into some weird synthetic/organic hybrid..  otherwise I really on delay the inevitable.  

Gee if I want to truly destroy the reapers, I only got 1 option.. destroy them and the geth and EDI. 

Gee if I want to be a powerhungry tyrant/despot I choose control.  

Sorry I don't see any moral conflict in that set of choices. 

It's not 3 different ways to destroy the reapers, each with their own emotional context. It's very simple set of options with no vested interest in at least 2 of them.  Destroy being the only one that involves more than just personal sacrifice on shepards part.

No , my argument still covers the ending. the last choiceis made to make moralconflit and see whatryou are will to do. It ask , if you don't like any of the choices, if you willing to abandon or turn away from you morals to stop the reapers. It bring up the fact that the only way to stop the reapers is to do something tht may be immoral.
That is morality vs logic. That is my point. You morality limits what you choise and you logic limit how much you defer to you moral. 
That is still asking what you are willing to do to stop an unstoppable force. The game ask form a sacrific of friend, people, to fianl a sacrific of you morals. It about making hard choices...Aka, how far your willing to go to stop an unstoppable force.
You don't get to choose what choices you have but what your will to do.

But you also miss the fact that morality is realitive, a persons moraliy does not have to cominconflitwith the last choices.
That still means the theme is a quetion of what lenghts the player is willing to do, even if the player is ok with the choices given.

[A-Slice-of-Pink]

i read the OP while listening to a moment of silence from the EC soundtrack, it was...beautiful:crying: + 999 OP, i dont think im wrong in saying that the vast majority of ME fans share your view. i hope Bioware listen.

[AresKeith]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

There's a few flaws in your logic here. Firstly you have no evidence that you die in control, you change and your body dies but same can be said about those who are religious and believe in a soul. Their bodies die too yet they believe they live on in a different form. Control change is also merely a different form. Secondly you say it was genocide in Arrival so by your logic you do not become genocidal at the end of ME3, you remain genocidal since Arrival so why are you not asking for Arrival to change instead of ME3 ending? Arrival made you genocidal not the ME3 ending by your logic.

control = a Shepard AI with his/her memories and nothing else is controlling the Reapers, Dead. Arrival became irrelevant since Bioware retconned Relays in endings, and in Destroy you wipe out the Geth and EDI and probably other AIs which in genocide

What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea the state of mind of Shepard in an AI form just like you have no idea the state of form those who are religious believe will become when their body dies. You have no proof that he or she is not still Shepard morally and emotionally even when merged with the AI, you just assume it. So your basically arguing on assumption. As for Arrival they did not retcon the mass death toll of your actions at that time 300k Batarians were still killed. This is going by his logic, he said it was genocide I said if feels that way then it is not that became genocidal when reached end of ME3, by his own words he was already genocidal after Arrival. It was his words so why you trying to argue about that?

Control: "Thru her/his death, I was created" this clearly means Shepard is dead, and the Starbrat even said that part of Shepard will be gone.

I'm sure he was saying Shepard was caused Genocide in Arrival, thats what the original trial intro was gonna be about. And yes they did retcon the Relays at the ending which made Arrival irrelevant, because the lore/codex on the Relays is that if they are destroyed or severely damaged they will go Supernova.

[MegaSovereign]

Xellith wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Your post doesn't bother me because I didn't bother reading past the part I quoted earlier.

@ the bolded part.

That wasn't the point I was making. Facebook polls that have an upward of 25K votes (larger sample size than any EC poll on BSN) suggests that the majority like the EC ending. They will not push back their DLC schedule for you and the minority.

I'm not even trying to sound harsh. This is what it is. Capitalism. 

https://www.facebook...6509146424475/  Thats the official one I believe.

Correct.

Over 25K votes.

~20.6 K of those played the EC. 17K of those that played it at least met most of their expectations.