6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Snypy]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Snypy wrote...
But what ME3 ending boils down to is that no matter what you do in life, no matter how well you prepare, your final action will result in an atrocity.

How does choosing Control result in an atrocity?

If I wanted to learn how our decisions and lives are meaningless (nihilism), I would read Nietzsche's books. I certainly wouldn't have played a sci-fi trilogy which motivates players until the last 15 minutes that almost anything is achievable.

Bolded for emphasis.

I would also like to draw attention to Javik's statement:  "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer."   Whether you are forced to sacrifice your life is an open question. I don't think so. But you are forced to sacrifice your honor, so to speak. That's the true sacrifice of ME3's ending. If you are not willing to do it and choose Refuse, you reap the consequences. This has nothing to do with nihilism. It sends the message that there are times when outcomes are more important than principles. Life itself, the lives of those who survived to this point and those you might still save by your decision - those are more important than your principles. More important than wreaking justice on the Reapers, more important than the life of any one species, more important than the fear that power will corrupt you, more important than the biochemical purity of organic life.

It's not nihilism. It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy. For me, all three main choices are acceptable. Because ending the cycle and saving the civilizations of the galaxy - the present one, the future ones and depending on your viewpoint even the past ones - from the harvesting, yes, I consider that *way* more important than sticking to some moral principle.

*snipped*

3DandBeyond explained it much more thoroughly than me.

Modifié par Snypy, 19 septembre 2012 - 01:50 .

[3DandBeyond]

Snypy wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Snypy wrote...
But what ME3 ending boils down to is that no matter what you do in life, no matter how well you prepare, your final action will result in an atrocity.

How does choosing Control result in an atrocity?

If I wanted to learn how our decisions and lives are meaningless (nihilism), I would read Nietzsche's books. I certainly wouldn't have played a sci-fi trilogy which motivates players until the last 15 minutes that almost anything is achievable.

Bolded for emphasis.

I would also like to draw attention to Javik's statement:  "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer."   Whether you are forced to sacrifice your life is an open question. I don't think so. But you are forced to sacrifice your honor, so to speak. That's the true sacrifice of ME3's ending. If you are not willing to do it and choose Refuse, you reap the consequences. This has nothing to do with nihilism. It sends the message that there are times when outcomes are more important than principles. Life itself, the lives of those who survived to this point and those you might still save by your decision - those are more important than your principles. More important than wreaking justice on the Reapers, more important than the life of any one species, more important than the fear that power will corrupt you, more important than the biochemical purity of organic life.

It's not nihilism. It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy. For me, all three main choices are acceptable. Because ending the cycle and saving the civilizations of the galaxy - the present one, the future ones and depending on your viewpoint even the past ones - from the harvesting, yes, I consider that *way* more important than sticking to some moral principle.

*snipped*

3DandBeyond explained it much more thoroughly than me.

I talk too much.  

[sdinc009]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Snypy wrote...
But what ME3 ending boils down to is that no matter what you do in life, no matter how well you prepare, your final action will result in an atrocity.

How does choosing Control result in an atrocity?

If I wanted to learn how our decisions and lives are meaningless (nihilism), I would read Nietzsche's books. I certainly wouldn't have played a sci-fi trilogy which motivates players until the last 15 minutes that almost anything is achievable.

Bolded for emphasis.

I would also like to draw attention to Javik's statement:  "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer."   Whether you are forced to sacrifice your life is an open question. I don't think so. But you are forced to sacrifice your honor, so to speak. That's the true sacrifice of ME3's ending. If you are not willing to do it and choose Refuse, you reap the consequences. This has nothing to do with nihilism. It sends the message that there are times when outcomes are more important than principles. Life itself, the lives of those who survived to this point and those you might still save by your decision - those are more important than your principles. More important than wreaking justice on the Reapers, more important than the life of any one species, more important than the fear that power will corrupt you, more important than the biochemical purity of organic life.

It's not nihilism. It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy. For me, all three main choices are acceptable. Because ending the cycle and saving the civilizations of the galaxy - the present one, the future ones and depending on your viewpoint even the past ones - from the harvesting, yes, I consider that *way* more important than sticking to some moral principle.

Wrong and wrong. Control is an atrocity because it violates the story structure. The whole series the protagonist is repeated saying over and over and over again that controlling the Reapers is not an option. This gets repeated in one of the final scenes with TIM and it even possible to convince him of the error of his ways resulting in him putting a gun to his head. And then in the very next scene some out of the blue random character shows up, changes many deep rooted vital components of the story, and all of a sudden the protagonist is fine with the very thing he/she has objected to over a trilogy!? No, that's dumb and ****** poor writing. Next:

ni·hil·ism  (n-lzm, n-)
n.
1. Philosophy
a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

Now, the argument could be made that the choices do indedd have nihilistic undertones given how they nall have a sense of moral ambiguity, however that is not the point I am addressing here. What I am going to address is that your claim that, "It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy." And again this is a false statement. The objection most of have is not that Shepards actions in the final scene do not agree with our values, it is that they do not agree with his/her values or pre-defined character traits as defined within the story structure. Shepard, as a character has evolved to represent an avatar symbloic of over coming impossible obstacles, never comprimising to tyraniccal ultimatums, and never sacrifising his/her belief in what is right. Yet that character that has been constructed, by the player over 3 games is no longer present in the final scene. Where did they go? Because the pathetic defeated dumb-ass talking to the glowstick spewing retard logic that accepts any of the tri-color choices is sure as hell not the Shepard I, or anyone else has built over 3 games. The problem with the ending is that it breaks so much of what has already been firmly established within the story's structure.

[sdinc009]

Primarily, the big problem with Tardo von Glowboy is that it opens a closed plot point for no reason. Everything that occurs after his opening statements is totally unnecessary because it is regarding a plot point that has already been addressed and resolved within the story. "Organics vs. Synthetics" is the sub plot of the entire Rannoch missions which culminates in Shepard deciding to destory the geth, help them cause they're not really the threat, or create a peace between synthetics and organics. Yay!!! And now we move on to... whoa, wait Tardo, I've already taken care of this issue that has apparently taken you millions of years. It's no longer a problem look out the, um ok there's no window and I'm standing in space right now, but if there was a window look out that and see, the only synthetics causing a problem are under your control. So, really the Catalyst needs to just go away. Retcon that idiot dwarf away cause nothing it says after, "Wake up!" makes a lick of sense or fits within the story. Just remove him and cut straight to awesome epic battle, boss fight with Harbinger, various endings showing varying levels of defeat or victory based on EMS WITH A TRUE VICTORY POSSIBLE. Oh, and if you want to work in the Crucible, fine, then it utilizes the Reaper signal found on Sanctuary to weaken their defenses allowing everyone to get the upper hand. There story wrapped up, plot points closed, how f#$%ing HARD IS THAT!!

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Snypy wrote...
But what ME3 ending boils down to is that no matter what you do in life, no matter how well you prepare, your final action will result in an atrocity.

How does choosing Control result in an atrocity?

If I wanted to learn how our decisions and lives are meaningless (nihilism), I would read Nietzsche's books. I certainly wouldn't have played a sci-fi trilogy which motivates players until the last 15 minutes that almost anything is achievable.

Bolded for emphasis.

I would also like to draw attention to Javik's statement:  "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer."   Whether you are forced to sacrifice your life is an open question. I don't think so. But you are forced to sacrifice your honor, so to speak. That's the true sacrifice of ME3's ending. If you are not willing to do it and choose Refuse, you reap the consequences. This has nothing to do with nihilism. It sends the message that there are times when outcomes are more important than principles. Life itself, the lives of those who survived to this point and those you might still save by your decision - those are more important than your principles. More important than wreaking justice on the Reapers, more important than the life of any one species, more important than the fear that power will corrupt you, more important than the biochemical purity of organic life.

It's not nihilism. It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy. For me, all three main choices are acceptable. Because ending the cycle and saving the civilizations of the galaxy - the present one, the future ones and depending on your viewpoint even the past ones - from the harvesting, yes, I consider that *way* more important than sticking to some moral principle.

Wrong and wrong. Control is an atrocity because it violates the story structure. The whole series the protagonist is repeated saying over and over and over again that controlling the Reapers is not an option. This gets repeated in one of the final scenes with TIM and it even possible to convince him of the error of his ways resulting in him putting a gun to his head. And then in the very next scene some out of the blue random character shows up, changes many deep rooted vital components of the story, and all of a sudden the protagonist is fine with the very thing he/she has objected to over a trilogy!? No, that's dumb and ****** poor writing. Next:

ni·hil·ism  (n-lzm, n-)
n.
1. Philosophy
a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

Now, the argument could be made that the choices do indedd have nihilistic undertones given how they nall have a sense of moral ambiguity, however that is not the point I am addressing here. What I am going to address is that your claim that, "It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy." And again this is a false statement. The objection most of have is not that Shepards actions in the final scene do not agree with our values, it is that they do not agree with his/her values or pre-defined character traits as defined within the story structure. Shepard, as a character has evolved to represent an avatar symbloic of over coming impossible obstacles, never comprimising to tyraniccal ultimatums, and never sacrifising his/her belief in what is right. Yet that character that has been constructed, by the player over 3 games is no longer present in the final scene. Where did they go? Because the pathetic defeated dumb-ass talking to the glowstick spewing retard logic that accepts any of the tri-color choices is sure as hell not the Shepard I, or anyone else has built over 3 games. The problem with the ending is that it breaks so much of what has already been firmly established within the story's structure.

Yes!  This is exactly it.  Thank you for saying what I've been trying to say.  Not my morality or values, (though mine are in there too), but by and large the character within the game and what choices were allowed to be made.  There was never an option where Shepard could just love TIM and say "Control I love that" or "Shut up Mordin, Synthesis sounds great!"  And killing a whole race of people as well as a friend-yeah right, never in a million years.  Never in a million cycles.  Shepard in Arrival had way more concern about people nobody liked, the Batarians, but in destroy (as well as all decisions here) Shepard doesn't even make an attempt to say anything to the geth or EDI.  What if jamming technology could minimize the effects and still allow them to be damaged, but not destroyed.  Shouldn't and wouldn't Shepard even try to contact someone?  In every conversation about the reapers and other things there was never a clear choice to have Shepard believe these are good ideas.  And the worst, most complete versions of them are set up as choices.

Shepard didn't even like minor versions of each of these things.  So, when it's for all the marbles, Shepard is suddenly going to choose the harshest most extreme versions of them?  Talk about suspension of disbelief.  My disbelief not only could not be suspended in order to accept this, but it would slap me in the face and say "wake up" if I even tried to consider suspending it for these choices. 

[Ozida]

masleslie wrote...

It is meant to be an impossible choice with no obvious 'happy ending', not to spoil our fun but to challenge us intellectually, emotionally & morally. Which actually it does quite well.

Your post is very well-written, and while I am "on another side of fence", I appreciate you expressing your point respectfully to supports of this thread. I will try to do the same.

I have quoted the last part, because this part has actually made me thinking of something. Of many things, in fact. This is more of my own experience analysis, but I would guess that some people would find it close to their experiences as well.

The first thought I had when I've read about "tough decisions" in your post, was how much I am actually burnt by original endings (pre-EC). While I agree, that EC made it better (not in terms of quality, in my opinion, but in terms of state of universe), I always keep the picture of original disaster in mind. Once again, I am not talking about my feelings about the ending overall, but rather about what happened to the ME universe in original endings due to my understanding of it. Remember all that: "Will they starve to death?", "The will all die in explosions from mass relays", "Normandy is all crushed, they are doomed" and so on? Well, surprisingly, I still remember, and it seems that those original endings will always affect my view of ME, no matter what improvements they made or will make. It is beyond of my control, unfortunately, but the image of doomed galaxy is imprinted in my brain now.

For that reason, I didn't buy happy endings in EC either. I was looking for those dark moments without realizing it, and I found them. To me, galaxy still stays in a very gloomy situation even after EC, no matter which one of 4 choices I pick. And this challenges me emotionally... yet skipping the intellectual and moral part. Why bother with morality, when, to my opinion, I will get the same terrible results? Once again, I am not talking now about the quality of writing or anything like this, I am talking about my vision of universe. Even Destroy seems to be missing the victory sense as Geths are gone along with other synthetic civilizations. We are also practically not shown negative results of our choices, only positive impact (talking about high EMS, of course).

And this is why I do not consider those choices tough or challenging. I just consider them bad. Maybe if they were written or executed better, it would be easier for me to follow BioWare's lead to philosophical view of video game. But at this point I do not feel challenged, I feel depressed.

Many people have been guessing if the Dark Energy plot would work better. I do not want to place any bets because we will never know now. But reading the draft choices to be made at the end, I had more pleasant "trouble" picking between those two. It would've been really challenging for me, I must say, to pick between humanity and Reapers. With the right approach, it could've been presenting almost as saving humanity is a bad choice, which would've make it even harder. I also refer to my signature often to a link of a fan-made endings that got me thinking as well. Just to show what I am talking about and what I was looking for in ME3.

Morality choices as those were you have to pick for the best of all by sacrificing something personal. Bad choices are those, were you have to pick the best from the worst by sacrificing something larger than you could control. For example, in Destroy you have to kill a race. I find this is not a personal matter, it is something Shepard has no rights to decide for. Same happens with Control and Synthesis. Honestly, if it was "Save Shepard and let Reapers kill half of galaxy - or kill Shepard and save every and single one living thing", I would have more fun time picking the choices rather than "Let Shepard make a dramatic decision in 5 seconds that would probably require several years of debates in real life". Honestly, even calling his friends and Hacket from Citadel and consulting before picking any of those 3 choices would work better. It would show that Shepard is involved, but he is not "the chosen one" to make the final choice for the rest of the galaxy.

And I am also I big believer of variety. Maybe BioWare was going for intellectual challenges... but shouldn't they also consider people who did not want to be challenged? I mean, this strictly comes to  testing your product first and running some polls, but ME fans are not all philosophers seeking for morality stimulations. Heck, I cannot even understand how Synthetic works and this "intellectual challenge" makes me fell dumb. I do not like to feel dumb, and I especially don't like to feel dumb because of a video game. Should they want keep 3 choices as main approach, fine. Make a easy happy-end almost impossible to reach without some real hard work. Make it unlocked after first play through, or make a different DLC ( ).

The last note is just a personal note. When I heard Shepard saying: "But you are taking our hope. And without a hope we are no better than machines", and then seeing those 3 original endings, I felt a huge clash between overall ME feel and ME3 endings. In my personal opinion, ME was not a game to try out some intellectual/ moral/ emotional challenges. It was a game about kicking some butts, and it should've stayed that way. But this is IMHO, of course.


P.S. Sorry for the wall of text, everybody, I guess I got carried away a little bit.

Modifié par Ozida, 19 septembre 2012 - 03:12 .

[dreman9999]

sdinc009 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Snypy wrote...
But what ME3 ending boils down to is that no matter what you do in life, no matter how well you prepare, your final action will result in an atrocity.

How does choosing Control result in an atrocity?

If I wanted to learn how our decisions and lives are meaningless (nihilism), I would read Nietzsche's books. I certainly wouldn't have played a sci-fi trilogy which motivates players until the last 15 minutes that almost anything is achievable.

Bolded for emphasis.

I would also like to draw attention to Javik's statement:  "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer."   Whether you are forced to sacrifice your life is an open question. I don't think so. But you are forced to sacrifice your honor, so to speak. That's the true sacrifice of ME3's ending. If you are not willing to do it and choose Refuse, you reap the consequences. This has nothing to do with nihilism. It sends the message that there are times when outcomes are more important than principles. Life itself, the lives of those who survived to this point and those you might still save by your decision - those are more important than your principles. More important than wreaking justice on the Reapers, more important than the life of any one species, more important than the fear that power will corrupt you, more important than the biochemical purity of organic life.

It's not nihilism. It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy. For me, all three main choices are acceptable. Because ending the cycle and saving the civilizations of the galaxy - the present one, the future ones and depending on your viewpoint even the past ones - from the harvesting, yes, I consider that *way* more important than sticking to some moral principle.

Wrong and wrong. Control is an atrocity because it violates the story structure. The whole series the protagonist is repeated saying over and over and over again that controlling the Reapers is not an option. This gets repeated in one of the final scenes with TIM and it even possible to convince him of the error of his ways resulting in him putting a gun to his head. And then in the very next scene some out of the blue random character shows up, changes many deep rooted vital components of the story, and all of a sudden the protagonist is fine with the very thing he/she has objected to over a trilogy!? No, that's dumb and ****** poor writing. Next:

ni·hil·ism  (n-lzm, n-)
n.
1. Philosophy
a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

Now, the argument could be made that the choices do indedd have nihilistic undertones given how they nall have a sense of moral ambiguity, however that is not the point I am addressing here. What I am going to address is that your claim that, "It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy." And again this is a false statement. The objection most of have is not that Shepards actions in the final scene do not agree with our values, it is that they do not agree with his/her values or pre-defined character traits as defined within the story structure. Shepard, as a character has evolved to represent an avatar symbloic of over coming impossible obstacles, never comprimising to tyraniccal ultimatums, and never sacrifising his/her belief in what is right. Yet that character that has been constructed, by the player over 3 games is no longer present in the final scene. Where did they go? Because the pathetic defeated dumb-ass talking to the glowstick spewing retard logic that accepts any of the tri-color choices is sure as hell not the Shepard I, or anyone else has built over 3 games. The problem with the ending is that it breaks so much of what has already been firmly established within the story's structure.

:lol::lol::lol:........No it doesn't.

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

Primarily, the big problem with Tardo von Glowboy is that it opens a closed plot point for no reason. Everything that occurs after his opening statements is totally unnecessary because it is regarding a plot point that has already been addressed and resolved within the story. "Organics vs. Synthetics" is the sub plot of the entire Rannoch missions which culminates in Shepard deciding to destory the geth, help them cause they're not really the threat, or create a peace between synthetics and organics. Yay!!! And now we move on to... whoa, wait Tardo, I've already taken care of this issue that has apparently taken you millions of years. It's no longer a problem look out the, um ok there's no window and I'm standing in space right now, but if there was a window look out that and see, the only synthetics causing a problem are under your control. So, really the Catalyst needs to just go away. Retcon that idiot dwarf away cause nothing it says after, "Wake up!" makes a lick of sense or fits within the story. Just remove him and cut straight to awesome epic battle, boss fight with Harbinger, various endings showing varying levels of defeat or victory based on EMS WITH A TRUE VICTORY POSSIBLE. Oh, and if you want to work in the Crucible, fine, then it utilizes the Reaper signal found on Sanctuary to weaken their defenses allowing everyone to get the upper hand. There story wrapped up, plot points closed, how f#$%ing HARD IS THAT!!

The fact that it could have been something difficult to find (as you said something that you needed to find in some out of the way corner of the game) and that you might not have found initially in the game means it could have been both difficult and easy to achieve.   I would have much rather preferred that (if we had to have these 3 choices) there was something you had to search for that would make the crucible not necessarily destroy the reapers but weaken them and then we could really fight them and win the thing for ourselves.  Then, it would have been fine if you might originally even get a destroy ending that just messes things up, where Shepard dies, we lose, and so on.  And the other choices are still there for people that want that.  That way, like the suicide mission in ME2, you could go back and try and find what you need to get a better ending, but it wouldn't be that easy even after you get that piece and weaken the reapers.  It would have made for a much better game and a really great ending.  Easy to envision, but apparently destroying the plot worked really well.

I still hold out hope that something else could happen-I don't expect anything, but I cannot see that any new ME could work as a prequel if this is not fixed (even so, any prequel would lead to some depressing outcome) and no sequel could work either.  Imagine if it was Bioware's story all along to make destroy really lead to the destruction of the reapers through a real victory.  Sad that it's not so now.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

:lol::lol::lol:........No it doesn't.

This is unnecessary and not constructive.  Please stay on topic and don't start attacking people here.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

:lol::lol::lol:........No it doesn't.

This is unnecessary and not constructive.  Please stay on topic and don't start attacking people here.

you know he argues for the sake of arguing, just ignore him

[sdinc009]

sdinc09 wrote....

Wrong and wrong. Control is an atrocity because it violates the story structure. The whole series the protagonist is repeated saying over and over and over again that controlling the Reapers is not an option. This gets repeated in one of the final scenes with TIM and it even possible to convince him of the error of his ways resulting in him putting a gun to his head. And then in the very next scene some out of the blue random character shows up, changes many deep rooted vital components of the story, and all of a sudden the protagonist is fine with the very thing he/she has objected to over a trilogy!? No, that's dumb and ****** poor writing. Next:

ni·hil·ism  (n-lzm, n-)
n.
1. Philosophy
a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

Now, the argument could be made that the choices do indedd have nihilistic undertones given how they nall have a sense of moral ambiguity, however that is not the point I am addressing here. What I am going to address is that your claim that, "It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy." And again this is a false statement. The objection most of have is not that Shepards actions in the final scene do not agree with our values, it is that they do not agree with his/her values or pre-defined character traits as defined within the story structure. Shepard, as a character has evolved to represent an avatar symbloic of over coming impossible obstacles, never comprimising to tyraniccal ultimatums, and never sacrifising his/her belief in what is right. Yet that character that has been constructed, by the player over 3 games is no longer present in the final scene. Where did they go? Because the pathetic defeated dumb-ass talking to the glowstick spewing retard logic that accepts any of the tri-color choices is sure as hell not the Shepard I, or anyone else has built over 3 games. The problem with the ending is that it breaks so much of what has already been firmly established within the story's structure.[/quote]
dreman9999 wrote.....

:lol::lol::lol:........No it doesn't.

[/quote]

sdinc09 wrote....

You're right, the ending doesn't work, it doesn't makes sense, Tardo doesn't work in the story, and Shepard doesn't act according to his/her previously defined character traits.

Modifié par sdinc009, 19 septembre 2012 - 03:11 .

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Snypy wrote...
But what ME3 ending boils down to is that no matter what you do in life, no matter how well you prepare, your final action will result in an atrocity.

How does choosing Control result in an atrocity?

If I wanted to learn how our decisions and lives are meaningless (nihilism), I would read Nietzsche's books. I certainly wouldn't have played a sci-fi trilogy which motivates players until the last 15 minutes that almost anything is achievable.

Bolded for emphasis.

I would also like to draw attention to Javik's statement:  "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer."   Whether you are forced to sacrifice your life is an open question. I don't think so. But you are forced to sacrifice your honor, so to speak. That's the true sacrifice of ME3's ending. If you are not willing to do it and choose Refuse, you reap the consequences. This has nothing to do with nihilism. It sends the message that there are times when outcomes are more important than principles. Life itself, the lives of those who survived to this point and those you might still save by your decision - those are more important than your principles. More important than wreaking justice on the Reapers, more important than the life of any one species, more important than the fear that power will corrupt you, more important than the biochemical purity of organic life.

It's not nihilism. It's just that the message doesn't agree with your value hierarchy. For me, all three main choices are acceptable. Because ending the cycle and saving the civilizations of the galaxy - the present one, the future ones and depending on your viewpoint even the past ones - from the harvesting, yes, I consider that *way* more important than sticking to some moral principle.

I was able to get through ME 1 sticking to my principles.

I was able to get through ME2 sticking with my principles.

I was even able to get through most of ME3 with my honor intact.

It's only in the closing minutes of the game when I'm told that honor, principle, hope, are all meaningless concepts.  Honor used to matter.  Now all that matters is a number and a color.  To me, that's not roleplaying. Pick an atrocity and then die" is not fun.  And EC's "Put smiley faces on the endings" method only goes so far..

And that's why I no longer have ME3 installed.  Let that silence in Bioware's data collection be their answer.

[CronoDragoon]

sdinc009 wrote...

Shepard, as a character has evolved to represent an avatar symbloic of over coming impossible obstacles

This is something I definitely agree with, considering the Paragon/Renegade dialogue system that the series is famous for.

I will say though that taken as an isolated game, the endings make more sense tonally and thematically. You can't make peace, as far as I recall, in the geth/quarian conflict without an imported save, and all the discussion about the cruel calculus of war and that not everything will work out all right rings true.

However, being a sequel to ME1 and ME2, the previous games set up an expectation that instead of being forced to deal with the hand Shepard is dealt, he can be the one to change the rules of the game. If they had gone all-out on the "no way out" choices throughout the series (ie more Virmire and less Tali loyalty mission) I think the endings would have made sense tonally from a series perspective. Of course, this would also necessitate the elimination of Paragon/Renegade points & dialogue choices altogether, and then we are barely talking about Mass Effect anymore.

I think that people who are all right with the "hard choices" paradigm of game choice would be accepting of it in any circumstance, regardless of the game. To which I respond that implementing depressing/realistic decisions in a game that largely features heroic triumphs is no more meaningful than a game filled with hard choices and sacrifice that ultimately ends in a perfect happy ending.

Of course, as stated above, those who look at ME3 as a standalone game see it as the latter paradigm of "hard choice throughout" and therefore it makes sense that they would support the tone of the endings from this perspective.

Also, 1. Nietsche wasn't a nihilist, 2. Destroy isn't nihilistic but hardcore consequentialist. Most people are a mix of consequentialism and some form of deontology, so an ending like Destroy that appears to be 100% consequentialist seems overly cold and inhumane.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 septembre 2012 - 04:24 .

[Xellith]

I figured that my actions would dictate the consequences of the end game.... oh how wrong I was... when I reached the catalyst I more or less said "we arnt getting a suicide mission 2.0 are we..."

[3DandBeyond]

Xellith wrote...

I figured that my actions would dictate the consequences of the end game.... oh how wrong I was... when I reached the catalyst I more or less said "we arnt getting a suicide mission 2.0 are we..."

I guess he also told us, didn't he.  Some impudent little one that was inserted to make Shepard have feelings at the beginning, is the last face Shepard sees in glowy goodness in the game.  Makes complete sense to me.

[Ieldra]

@Cronodragon:
I can agree with you there. Whatever I'm thinking of the ending now, I certainly did not expect anything of the kind and people who say they couldn't reasonable expect it are completely correct. In fact, long before we even knew Earth would be invaded, I posted an End of the Reaper War scenario that would probably satisfy most of the people in this thread. Should you read it, consider the part you only get to know if you read the linked story: at one point, Shepard makes a strategic decision that gets half of Earth's population killed in order to win the war, but at least that decision is his own as the leading admiral's and not suggested by the leader of the enemy.

Anyway, the difference in my perspective is, I used to rail against the setup of the ME1/ME2 decisions where there was always a way out and people never had to compromise in anything really important, with the exception of Virmire and Arrival. I've always felt that ME1/2 pitted a delusionary feel-good morality where people could have their cake and eat it and doing the right thing would always pay off (Paragon) against a stupid **** attitude (Renegade) good for nothing but presenting a contrast to the blue. So perhaps it's not surprising that the moral dimension of ME3's final choice plays to my preferences.

@3DAndBeyond:
Am I understanding you correctly: your main complaint is that you feel your Shepard is out of character at the end because she accepts the presented options without even trying to find a way out? Or is it that there is no way out? Because if it's the latter, then I disagree that there has to be a way out. Shepard does not control the situation she's put in, and I don't have a problem with the writers putting the protagonist in an impossible situation. If it's the former, then I can agree with you to a point. One of my main complaints with the ending is that you can't bring up the geth/quarian peace against the organic/synthetic problem. I'd be ok with a reasonable explanation of why it doesn't count, but Shepard not bringing it up is definitely out of character.

About Control though, I have a totally different perspective. After ME2 revealed the nature of the Reapers (Legion's version, not EDI's), I've looked for more understanding rather than just way to destroy the Reapers, and I felt my Shepard was out of character in the conversations with TIM when he didn't ask "How the hell would you do that" (control the Reapers) or "I'm listening, but if it involves more of that [points at the changed Cerberus soldier], I'm not interested." I feel like I'm forced into an antagonism to TIM I never felt justified. The two instances where you can ask Hackett "What if it's possible" (to control the Reapers) don't make up for the lack of roleplaying opportunity there. Near the end, he snapped into character again with "Cerberus was supposed to be humanity's sword, not a dagger in our back" and "You failed humanity." Note that if you use the Renegade options on the Citadel, you don't argue against Control, but rather point out TIM's indoctrination and failure.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 septembre 2012 - 05:31 .

[dreman9999]

@sdinc009 

As long as you keep telling your self that it won't.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 septembre 2012 - 05:01 .

[CronoDragoon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Anyway, the difference in my perspective is, I used to rail against the setup of the ME1/ME2 decisions where there was always a way out and people never had to compromise in anything really important, with the exception of Virmire and Arrival. I've always felt that ME1/2 pitted a delusionary feel-good morality where people could have their cake and eat it and doing the right thing would always pay off (Paragon) against a stupid **** attitude (Renegade) good for nothing but presenting a contrast to the blue. So perhaps it's not surprising that the moral dimension of ME3's final choice plays to my preferences.

I don't think it's a delusionary morality. If anything it's the opposite. What draws people to ME1 and ME2 is not that they believe it accurately reflects life but that it does not. In other words, the ability to see life lived as it should be instead of how it is. I think escapist is a better word there, although escapist has largely been saddled with negative connotations that I don't believe it deserves.

One thing I will say, is that if Mass Effect were a TV show, it would be infinitely better with no Paragon/Renegade scenarios. For example, Tali's loyalty mission gets infinitely more interesting to watch if the choice is limited to exile or the destruction of her father's name and distance in the Tali/Shepard friendship/romance.

[GarvakD]

My thoughts are similar to yours OP. All I want is another few hours with Shepard. This should either be carried out in an elongated post ME3 DLC or you play as Shepard first three hours of ME4 (which should be the final ME game). I'm going to use destroy ending as an example since its the one I always choose, except for once (it would vary from choice to choice. Synthesis people are screwed and refuse would have to be allowed. This would lead to heavy losses though due to Reaper strength). Crew and LI would come to pull Shep out of rubble. Recovery process and reuniting with crew and LI. Afterwards, Shep would leave with LI (like with Tali to Rannoch). Maybe, shortly afterward, Shep would be called up to deal with a final Cerberus remnant in a LotSB sequence mission. Then finish and return with/to LI and live out damned happy retirement. But as Shep, I would probably help with rebuilding efforts occasionally somehow, but w/e. that's it. That's all I want.

As for more dialogue with LI throughout the game, I am mostly fine. I take my LI on every mission possible so experience all dialogue in addition to third person an cinematic dialogue. Maybe one more cutscene dialogue on the Normandy at some point.

Modifié par GarvakD, 19 septembre 2012 - 05:38 .

[sdinc009]

CronoDragoon wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

Shepard, as a character has evolved to represent an avatar symbloic of over coming impossible obstacles

This is something I definitely agree with, considering the Paragon/Renegade dialogue system that the series is famous for.

I will say though that taken as an isolated game, the endings make more sense tonally and thematically. You can't make peace, as far as I recall, in the geth/quarian conflict without an imported save, and all the discussion about the cruel calculus of war and that not everything will work out all right rings true.

However, being a sequel to ME1 and ME2, the previous games set up an expectation that instead of being forced to deal with the hand Shepard is dealt, he can be the one to change the rules of the game. If they had gone all-out on the "no way out" choices throughout the series (ie more Virmire and less Tali loyalty mission) I think the endings would have made sense tonally from a series perspective. Of course, this would also necessitate the elimination of Paragon/Renegade points & dialogue choices altogether, and then we are barely talking about Mass Effect anymore.

I think that people who are all right with the "hard choices" paradigm of game choice would be accepting of it in any circumstance, regardless of the game. To which I respond that implementing depressing/realistic decisions in a game that largely features heroic triumphs is no more meaningful than a game filled with hard choices and sacrifice that ultimately ends in a perfect happy ending.

Of course, as stated above, those who look at ME3 as a standalone game see it as the latter paradigm of "hard choice throughout" and therefore it makes sense that they would support the tone of the endings from this perspective.

Also, 1. Nietsche wasn't a nihilist, 2. Destroy isn't nihilistic but hardcore consequentialist. Most people are a mix of consequentialism and some form of deontology, so an ending like Destroy that appears to be 100% consequentialist seems overly cold and inhumane.

I'm not entirely certain what the point is that you're trying to get across. The wordage used seems to almost contradict itself and you're not really focusing on a particular issue just raising mulitple and very differing issues. The "hard choice" paradigm has always been a staple theme of the entire series. ME 3 is the end of a trilogy so it can't really be taken as a stand alone game. It must conform to what has come before it or the narrative falls apart. I don't know where Nietsche is coming from, I've for one have never mentioned him nor have I refered to him as a nihilist. I'm not really arguing with anything in your post mainly because I found it confusing in what was said. Please feel free to elaborate on what exactly the point you're trying to make is because it didn't come across very clear. I mean no offense simply trying to understand what is being said

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

Shepard, as a character has evolved to represent an avatar symbloic of over coming impossible obstacles

This is something I definitely agree with, considering the Paragon/Renegade dialogue system that the series is famous for.

I will say though that taken as an isolated game, the endings make more sense tonally and thematically. You can't make peace, as far as I recall, in the geth/quarian conflict without an imported save, and all the discussion about the cruel calculus of war and that not everything will work out all right rings true.

However, being a sequel to ME1 and ME2, the previous games set up an expectation that instead of being forced to deal with the hand Shepard is dealt, he can be the one to change the rules of the game. If they had gone all-out on the "no way out" choices throughout the series (ie more Virmire and less Tali loyalty mission) I think the endings would have made sense tonally from a series perspective. Of course, this would also necessitate the elimination of Paragon/Renegade points & dialogue choices altogether, and then we are barely talking about Mass Effect anymore.

I think that people who are all right with the "hard choices" paradigm of game choice would be accepting of it in any circumstance, regardless of the game. To which I respond that implementing depressing/realistic decisions in a game that largely features heroic triumphs is no more meaningful than a game filled with hard choices and sacrifice that ultimately ends in a perfect happy ending.

Of course, as stated above, those who look at ME3 as a standalone game see it as the latter paradigm of "hard choice throughout" and therefore it makes sense that they would support the tone of the endings from this perspective.

Also, 1. Nietsche wasn't a nihilist, 2. Destroy isn't nihilistic but hardcore consequentialist. Most people are a mix of consequentialism and some form of deontology, so an ending like Destroy that appears to be 100% consequentialist seems overly cold and inhumane.

The problem here is that ME1,2, and 3 have both types of sercomstances where the player is forced to make a choice or have a 3rd way out of a hard choice.
The 3rd way out only come when a question of morality vs morality comes up. The 3rd way out is always the use of logic.

examples:Mirada vs Jack. You force to pick a side, but you see that they are fighting over a moral issue.(Over cerberus and it morality.)
You have a intimadation /charm choice to pick that get you to use logic to compromise.

That the thing that always happens withoptions that have a 3rd way out.

But in choices where the player has to pick it's an issue based on logic vs logic. The reality of the event on hand vs what the player has to do.

This is the case of vermire, the battle of the citadel,  the geth choice in ME2, the collector base choice, and tuchanka.

There is no logical way out but to pick a side and these case are where morality usually is a burden. It not out of place to have this type of choice at the end of ME3 being that these choice have been in the game before and in the ends of the other 2 games as well.

[Netsfn1427]

Mostly agree with Ieldra2 on the hard choices. Bioware games in general need more of them. Even the one time you could get the ideal ending with the Quarian./Geth solution, that ending required balancing Paragon and Renegade choices throughout ME2 and 3. Sticking with just one option meant that the odds were good one of the two races was going to die.

But I have to ask this question of the people who say they couldn't stick to their principles or that their morality was horribly compromised. Isn't the true test of one's morality and beliefs when they are put into a difficult choice? There are moral reasons to choose each ending, and moral reasons why each of the endings are horrible. That's the test. The endings are forcing you to value what is most important to you (or to your Shepard, if you want to role play a specific type of character). No, they aren't comfortable questions, but true tests of morality aren't supposed to be comfortable. Otherwise, they wouldn't be true tests.

As I've said in other threads, there isn't anything wrong with not wanting to face a difficult choice. But that doesn't make Mass Effect 3 a bad game for having it. Nor does it make Bioware a bad game company because they want to keep that choice in there and feel adding another option would cheapen it.

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Anyway, the difference in my perspective is, I used to rail against the setup of the ME1/ME2 decisions where there was always a way out and people never had to compromise in anything really important, with the exception of Virmire and Arrival. I've always felt that ME1/2 pitted a delusionary feel-good morality where people could have their cake and eat it and doing the right thing would always pay off (Paragon) against a stupid **** attitude (Renegade) good for nothing but presenting a contrast to the blue. So perhaps it's not surprising that the moral dimension of ME3's final choice plays to my preferences.

I don't think it's a delusionary morality. If anything it's the opposite. What draws people to ME1 and ME2 is not that they believe it accurately reflects life but that it does not. In other words, the ability to see life lived as it should be instead of how it is. I think escapist is a better word there, although escapist has largely been saddled with negative connotations that I don't believe it deserves.

One thing I will say, is that if Mass Effect were a TV show, it would be infinitely better with no Paragon/Renegade scenarios. For example, Tali's loyalty mission gets infinitely more interesting to watch if the choice is limited to exile or the destruction of her father's name and distance in the Tali/Shepard friendship/romance.

That is not why people play ME. That maybe your reason, but it's not the general reason. ME never was a black and white word where the bad guy always loses and the good guys alwas wins. It shades of gray. There is not one ME game where on form of corruption or another comes up.

The entire cancept of ME is based on a question of what the player is willing to to do to stop an unstappable force.

Look at the origianal ads for ME1.....
One brings up the issue of many choice to be made for the player and none of the easy. 
The other state the player needs to sacrific to defeat the unstoppable force.
 

ME2 was even darker.
ME3 is even more extreme withthe choices.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

snipped
@3DAndBeyond:
Am I understanding you correctly: your main complaint is that you feel your Shepard is out of character at the end because she accepts the presented options without even trying to find a way out? Or is it that there is no way out? Because if it's the latter, then I disagree that there has to be a way out. Shepard does not control the situation she's put in, and I don't have a problem with the writers putting the protagonist in an impossible situation. If it's the former, then I can agree with you to a point. One of my main complaints with the ending is that you can't bring up the geth/quarian peace against the organic/synthetic problem. I'd be ok with a reasonable explanation of why it doesn't count, but Shepard not bringing it up is definitely out of character.

About Control though, I have a totally different perspective. After ME2 revealed the nature of the Reapers (Legion's version, not EDI's), I've looked for more understanding rather than just way to destroy the Reapers, and I felt my Shepard was out of character in the conversations with TIM when he didn't ask "How the hell would you do that" (control the Reapers) or "I'm listening, but if it involves more of that [points at the changed Cerberus soldier], I'm not interested." I feel like I'm forced into an antagonism to TIM I never felt justified. The two instances where you can ask Hackett "What if it's possible" (to control the Reapers) don't make up for the lack of roleplaying opportunity there. Near the end, he snapped into character again with "Cerberus was supposed to be humanity's sword, not a dagger in our back" and "You failed humanity." Note that if you use the Renegade options on the Citadel, you don't argue against Control, but rather point out TIM's indoctrination and failure.

TBH, I've discussed all this with you before.  I have no wish to write another novel here.  You can disagree with the idea that there has to be a way out, but that has never been a tenet within the ME series, until the Arrival, and I think that is a part of what is so wrong with the endings.  And it was optional content.  The endings aren't and they put a stamp on the games and are way more restrictive than the other endings of ME1 and 2 are.  This breaks with the milieu of the stories and games.  It also destroys the emotion of it all for a lot of people.  There's a lot wrong with the endings, but these things are certainly a part of what's wrong. 

I know you want to have understanding of the reapers.  But that's not ever a resounding need within the game-it's not relevant to anything except now in finding the Leviathans, but even that is stated as something to help fight the reapers, not to get the reapers to lay down on a couch for psychotherapy.  My view of the reapers is this-they were created by a very flawed AI created by the most idiotic programming team in all known history who seemed so persistently stupid that they must have created synthetics that wanted to destroyl them, so they created an AI that all but destroyed them.  So, why would I ever need to get to know them?

And while you can imagine that Shepard should have cared how TIM was going to try and control the reapers or that Shepard wanted to ever listen and know why TIM wanted to do that, you are totally ignoring what was going on in the game and making the case that Shepard disregarded that as a rational idea.

Your words here: "I feel like I'm forced into an antagonism to TIM I never felt justified."  Honestly?  Did you play ME2?  Do you remember that TIM kept setting Shepard up within it, in dealing with the Collectors?  And it was all for his ambition of feeling that humans had some right to be above all the other races in the galaxy?  Did you notice that he was using Shepard throughout and not being truthful about why or what was actually going on?  Or how about how they parted-was there some love between the two that I missed? 

And then the Cerberus husks on Mars.  Somehow you must have missed that.  Or does that seem like someone you think Shepard should view as rational?  Then, sending Eva Core who slaughters the scientists on Mars to get the plans so TIM can basically rule the galaxy.  You must have missed that.  Or Sanctuary-that was a fun time.  The obvious thing that has happened is what we are shown in that "forced antagonism" at the end-he's indoctrinated and believes he can control the reapers.  That's not rational.  Did trying to discuss irrational things with Saren or Benezia help you form a conclusion that they were right and you wanted to be like them or you appreciated what they had done and were doing?

The idea that Cerberus became so powerful so quickly was a problem, but they'd always been trying to explore mutating things and enthralling others, so that he was their boss makes control a natural choice for him, but not for Shepard and understanding his motives (I already did understand them) or how he could do it (he just knew he could, he had no way to explain how he could), was not necessary to explore.

I don't care what renegade shows, I haven't played as renegade so it doesn't matter.  What matters is that a renegade character has more of a home at the end whereas a paragon does not.  The game which is a game and not real war with fantasy is not fun and does not allow for an ending that people like me can live with.  It's not fun and not cool and it is in my opinion somewhat sadistic.

[dreman9999]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Mostly agree with Ieldra2 on the hard choices. Bioware games in general need more of them. Even the one time you could get the ideal ending with the Quarian./Geth solution, that ending required balancing Paragon and Renegade choices throughout ME2 and 3. Sticking with just one option meant that the odds were good one of the two races was going to die.

But I have to ask this question of the people who say they couldn't stick to their principles or that their morality was horribly compromised. Isn't the true test of one's morality and beliefs when they are put into a difficult choice? There are moral reasons to choose each ending, and moral reasons why each of the endings are horrible. That's the test. The endings are forcing you to value what is most important to you (or to your Shepard, if you want to role play a specific type of character). No, they aren't comfortable questions, but true tests of morality aren't supposed to be comfortable. Otherwise, they wouldn't be true tests.

As I've said in other threads, there isn't anything wrong with not wanting to face a difficult choice. But that doesn't make Mass Effect 3 a bad game for having it. Nor does it make Bioware a bad game company because they want to keep that choice in there and feel adding another option would cheapen it.

My question to everyone 
who say they couldn't stick to their principles or that their morality was horribly compromised if they remeber these Ads form ME1 telling them they were facing an unstopable force in which the had to make sacrifices to stop and that they had many hard choices ahead which none were going to be easy...