6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...



You can keep your tough choices.  They work for you, but this was a game and not everyone is like you and likes what you do.  I don't care what you like.  I really don't.  And that means I don't care to take it from you.  You have what you like.  That should make you happy but you keep thinking you need to make others think exactly like you and just love this ending.  They don't and won't, you can say it unitl yoiu turn 80.

Again. I am not asking you to give up anything, but you keep fighting all this as if I'm personally trying to ruin your game.  Try an experiment.  Go play ME3 and see if I have done anything to ruin it.  And then don't play Leviathan and see what the ending is like without it.  The play Leviathan and see what changes.  That's what I'm asking for-optional content that you would never have to see or play. 

Your arguments are moot and have nothing to do with what I'm asking Bioware to consider.  My request would not affect you, but you keep acting like it would.  Can you for once stop thinking only about yourself?

And the arguement goes back to square one... BW does not want to give the player an easy way out. My arguement is not about what I will lose. It's about what BW wants to do with their story.
My arguement is the BW has been telling you that they're making a game which the player has to make hard sacrifices since day one. And some how it's a surprize they do it to the full extent?

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 septembre 2012 - 06:14 .

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

It's an easy way out because SHepard does not lose anything to stop the reapers. Soing"oh the galexy is badly damaged, that"s a sacrife" is small minded. This war, that is going to happen no mater what.
The quetion is what "YOU" the player is will to do and sacrife to defeat the reapers. Morality is on the table as will in that quetion.

oh really? lets see Control - only Shepard dies, Synthesis - Shepard dies and force the galaxy to change their DNA but nobody else dies, Destroy - cause Genocide of an entire race, Repairs will take even longer. Looks to me that Destroy gets the short end of a stick, but it also looks like there gonna more to it since the Starbrat states the Crucible is largly intact and every new DLC is gonna give new War Assets which adds on to the Crucible

1. None of the wars assistwill change the last 3 choices.

2. What you believe what happens in destory is your perspective. The entire point of the choice is based on what will happen in the long term anyway. It matter not if it take long to repair. Add, Shepard dies as a human in control but is still alive in a new form.

3. It still a quetion of what the play is willing to doto stop an unstoppalble force.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

...So virmire, the citadel choice , the geth choice and the collector base choice don't exsist?

Differences between those and the ME3 ending options:
In Destory you actively paticipate in killing the Geth and other Synthetics besides the reapers. If Virmire was the same you would be the one detonating the bomb that killed either Kaidan or Ashley. It is armed by one of them and detonates on a timer, you're not able to get them both out but you didn't didn't command them to stay next to the bomb to make sure it goes off either, they each tell you to save the other one.

The citadel choice allows you to save the Council, I'd say that's fairly paragon, does it come with a price? Yes. Difference? The enitire fifth fleet doesn't explode if you decide to save the Council. If we had a destroy option that allowed for the survival of a few of our synthetics allies we'd be more willing to accept it. You don't see a difference because you have no concept of scale.

The geth option allows you to rewrite the geth, so you can either kill your enemy or program them to be less hostile or kill them. With an might be considered brainwashing, though legion doesn't veiw it as such, but here's the main difference between you reporgaming the Reapers and the Geth. The Geth still have independent control over their functions after that and they don't institute a galactic police state.

Collector base- I assume you're refering to the collector getting killed? Yeah those guys are husks and Reaper tools, no one's asking to be able to spare the Reapers here, control or synthesis would be our ending if that was the case, the Reapers are hostile and have a habit of manipulated galactic devlopment, they need to go so we can choose our own path.

You know why Arrival DLC wasn't that popular? Beside it being fairly boring we got railroaded into blowing up a solar system.

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

dug up this old this video. It's the TV commercial for the first Mass effect. It really helps to establish how the story is grounded in how making difficult choices has consequences. Enjoy

And yet, you do go to Noveria and help there and none of the choices seemed particularly hard to me.  My only worry was as to how it would affect some future decision and not that the choices I made weren't good ones.

On Virmire, both Ashley and Kaidan were willing to sacrifice themselves.  It wasn't an easy decision, but it wasn't a question of morality either.  It was about who I needed to protect.  Whoever was with the nuke had to be protected.  I wasn't killing the other one.  That person died, but as I saw it the choice was not me deciding that one must die so the other could live.  It was about a task and they willingly were ready for whatever happened at that moment.  It wasn't like I was shooting one to save the rest of us.  Within the game, the one I didn't protect, still had a chance to fight their way out of it.

I made other choices based upon reasoning that something good would be achieved as well as something bad would be averted-they dealt with immediate and future threats.  The geth/quarian issue was a moral one sure, but it was about the idea that to continue making mistakes based upon mistakes was to keep damning everyone.  They'd never rise above the bad decisions they'd already made.  The Krogan was a similar one.  These were not hard choices to make.  The Salarian Dalatross was deceptive and even someone I respected who had seen the damage done to the Krogan was telling me it was the right thing to do.  I had a friend I respected who had worked hard to get the Krogan to embrace the future and move on, but they needed help and a chance.  I gave them all the ability and the right to self-determine.  I gave them a future free from interference.  It was the easiest choice I ever made.  And yes it was painful because Mordin sacrificed himself.  But I didn't force him to do that.

Every choice I made in the game was made with reason and the future in mind.  It was for something better and not just against something bad.  It was as someone here put it, like the hippocratic oath-first do no harm.  It's like the decision with Dr. Heart.  Shepard wanted him arrested.  Garrus wanted him dead.  Dr. Heart wanted neither and so he fought and died.  Garrus wondered why Shepard went to the trouble when Heart ended up dead anyway.  Shepard said (paraphrasing) that you are responsible for your own actions and not for what someone decides to do in response.  And that's how I played the game. 

None of the end choices are like any others made in the game.  The others were very easy for me.  The ending ones are artificial and ignore important points in the game.  They also ignore a certain type of Shepard or choices that Shepard could make.  I won't ever see this differently and I have tried to look at things from a different viewpoint.  It's like telling me I should like to eat dirt.  I don't and won't.  If I have to, one day I may eat it, but for now.  No thanks.

[CronoDragoon]

sdinc009 wrote...

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

The hard choice paradigm is most certainly not what the staple theme of the series has been. For every Virmire, there are 5 Rannochs.

My overall point in my post is that if ME3 is looked at separate from the themes established in ME1 and ME2, then the endings fit tonally. They reflect the general sentiment of the game that hard choices must be made, that they are fighting an impossible war, that not everything will be all right. However, fans coming in from the first 2 games will recognize these themes, but only as obstacles eventually overcome by Shepard. In the first 2 games, Shepard's morality trumps the situation. In ME3, the situation trumps Shepard's morality.

This is connected to how one feels about the endings, and therefore all the parts of my post are quite related to this central point. Ieldra, for example, likes hard choices in general, likes them on principle. Similarly, others may want easy outs regardless of whether or not the situation allows for them. Then there is a middle ground, where people like me have stories that they want to defy logic and end happily, and also have stories that they want to end with a bittersweet touch, where things may not be happy but they are fitting.

Those looking at ME3's story and tone detached from the first two games will indeed see the endings tones as fitting. Those who saw the dark, calculated philosophy of ME3 pre-endings saw these situations as tension that will be ultimately resolved satisfactorily by Shepard.

With the Nietzsche part, someone must have misquoted you when quoting someone else.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

...So virmire, the citadel choice , the geth choice and the collector base choice don't exsist?

Differences between those and the ME3 ending options:
In Destory you actively paticipate in killing the Geth and other Synthetics besides the reapers. If Virmire was the same you would be the one detonating the bomb that killed either Kaidan or Ashley. It is armed by one of them and detonates on a timer, you're not able to get them both out but you didn't didn't command them to stay next to the bomb to make sure it goes off either, they each tell you to save the other one.

The citadel choice allows you to save the Council, I'd say that's fairly paragon, does it come with a price? Yes. Difference? The enitire fifth fleet doesn't explode if you decide to save the Council. If we had a destroy option that allowed for the survival of a few of our synthetics allies we'd be more willing to accept it. You don't see a difference because you have no concept of scale.

The geth option allows you to rewrite the geth, so you can either kill your enemy or program them to be less hostile or kill them. With an might be considered brainwashing, though legion doesn't veiw it as such, but here's the main difference between you reporgaming the Reapers and the Geth. The Geth still have independent control over their functions after that and they don't institute a galactic police state.

Collector base- I assume you're refering to the collector getting killed? Yeah those guys are husks and Reaper tools, no one's asking to be able to spare the Reapers here, control or synthesis would be our ending if that was the case, the Reapers are hostile and have a habit of manipulated galactic devlopment, they need to go so we can choose our own path.

You know why Arrival DLC wasn't that popular? Beside it being fairly boring we got railroaded into blowing up a solar system.

That irrelivent. The entire quetion those events ask is whatyour willing to base on the events you can't change.
The death of all synthetic life is just a byproduct to killing the reapers. The entire point is to push the player into moral conflict.

[Netsfn1427]

3DandBeyond wrote...

You can keep your tough choices.  They work for you, but this was a game and not everyone is like you and likes what you do.  I don't care what you like.  I really don't.  And that means I don't care to take it from you.  You have what you like.  That should make you happy but you keep thinking you need to make others think exactly like you and just love this ending.  They don't and won't, you can say it unitl yoiu turn 80.

Again. I am not asking you to give up anything, but you keep fighting all this as if I'm personally trying to ruin your game.  Try an experiment.  Go play ME3 and see if I have done anything to ruin it.  And then don't play Leviathan and see what the ending is like without it.  The play Leviathan and see what changes.  That's what I'm asking for-optional content that you would never have to see or play. 

Your arguments are moot and have nothing to do with what I'm asking Bioware to consider.  My request would not affect you, but you keep acting like it would.  Can you for once stop thinking only about yourself?

But you are affecting his choice. That would affect everyone's choice. If you added another ending to the game where Shepard lived and personal sacrifice wasn't made, then the ending choice is no longer a moral test. There is absolutely zero reason for you to choose any other option, because unless you're playing a masochist who likes to suffer, who in their right mind would choose an option that hurts them when there's an option that doesn't. While I feel like the DA:O Dark Ritual is a cop-out since we never see the consequences and likely never will, in the game world they still EXIST. There is a reason for a Warden to turn down Morrigan. 

What your asking for is an ending that gives the player no reason to select the other endings, in real life or in the game world. It essentially invalidates the player's choices. You want the hard decision removed. Understandibly, people who like the hard decision defend it. As much as you want to argue that your request doesn't affect the way they play their games, it does. The hard ending choice is part of the ME3 experience. Removing it significantly changes the experience. To say "just ignore it", is impossible. 

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

It's an easy way out because SHepard does not lose anything to stop the reapers. Soing"oh the galexy is badly damaged, that"s a sacrife" is small minded. This war, that is going to happen no mater what.
The quetion is what "YOU" the player is will to do and sacrife to defeat the reapers. Morality is on the table as will in that quetion.

oh really? lets see Control - only Shepard dies, Synthesis - Shepard dies and force the galaxy to change their DNA but nobody else dies, Destroy - cause Genocide of an entire race, Repairs will take even longer. Looks to me that Destroy gets the short end of a stick, but it also looks like there gonna more to it since the Starbrat states the Crucible is largly intact and every new DLC is gonna give new War Assets which adds on to the Crucible

1. None of the wars assistwill change the last 3 choices.

2. What you believe what happens in destory is your perspective. The entire point of the choice is based on what will happen in the long term anyway. It matter not if it take long to repair. Add, Shepard dies as a human in control but is still alive in a new form.

3. It still a quetion of what the play is willing to doto stop an unstoppalble force.

that is the worse counter ever, but anyway

1. You don't work for Bioware, so you don't know just like me

2. this proves that you argue for no real reason, because Geth and EDI are considered a race, the Reaper and probably Geth were the one fully capable of Repairing the Mass Relays as shown in Control and Synthesis, and Everything about SHepard is dead with an AI with his/her memories

[Ieldra]

@CronoDragoon:
Let it be noted that I loved Rannoch and the opportunity to end a 300-year war. It was a sublime moment, and I hate that it was narratively invalidated by the ending. I am not insisting that all choices should be hard choices, that would be equally unrealistic and very depressing. But I think that when facing an enemy like the Reapers, it is very, very appropriate that there isn't an easy way out. Basically, that there is a way out at all is already a miracle.

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

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

The hard choice paradigm is most certainly not what the staple theme of the series has been. For every Virmire, there are 5 Rannochs.

My overall point in my post is that if ME3 is looked at separate from the themes established in ME1 and ME2, then the endings fit tonally. They reflect the general sentiment of the game that hard choices must be made, that they are fighting an impossible war, that not everything will be all right. However, fans coming in from the first 2 games will recognize these themes, but only as obstacles eventually overcome by Shepard. In the first 2 games, Shepard's morality trumps the situation. In ME3, the situation trumps Shepard's morality.

This is connected to how one feels about the endings, and therefore all the parts of my post are quite related to this central point. Ieldra, for example, likes hard choices in general, likes them on principle. Similarly, others may want easy outs regardless of whether or not the situation allows for them. Then there is a middle ground, where people like me have stories that they want to defy logic and end happily, and also have stories that they want to end with a bittersweet touch, where things may not be happy but they are fitting.

Those looking at ME3's story and tone detached from the first two games will indeed see the endings tones as fitting. Those who saw the dark, calculated philosophy of ME3 pre-endings saw these situations as tension that will be ultimately resolved satisfactorily by Shepard.

With the Nietzsche part, someone must have misquoted you when quoting someone else.

Umm...Hard choices are the point of the series...
 
 

Sure we have experiaces were we have a 3rd way out but thatis always with cases with morality ves morality. Those chases is always solved with logic.

The dirving point in ME has always been trying to stop the reapers, The problem here is a case of logic vs logic. reality of the events vs what you need to do. ME alway push us to question morality and in too ways. Morality vs morality and Lgic vs logic.
It's always been about putting the player to moral conflict.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

That irrelivent. The entire quetion those events ask is whatyour willing to base on the events you can't change.
The death of all synthetic life is just a byproduct to killing the reapers. The entire point is to push the player into moral conflict.

I never got that sense of a moral conflict from the other choices, as I explianed in detail in the previous post. Pushing it now seems a disingenuous add on to the games structure.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 19 septembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...



You can keep your tough choices.  They work for you, but this was a game and not everyone is like you and likes what you do.  I don't care what you like.  I really don't.  And that means I don't care to take it from you.  You have what you like.  That should make you happy but you keep thinking you need to make others think exactly like you and just love this ending.  They don't and won't, you can say it unitl yoiu turn 80.

Again. I am not asking you to give up anything, but you keep fighting all this as if I'm personally trying to ruin your game.  Try an experiment.  Go play ME3 and see if I have done anything to ruin it.  And then don't play Leviathan and see what the ending is like without it.  The play Leviathan and see what changes.  That's what I'm asking for-optional content that you would never have to see or play. 

Your arguments are moot and have nothing to do with what I'm asking Bioware to consider.  My request would not affect you, but you keep acting like it would.  Can you for once stop thinking only about yourself?

And the arguement goes back to square one... BW does not want to give the player an easy way out. My arguement is not about what I will lose. It's about what BW wants to do with their story.
My arguement is the BW has been telling you that they're making a game which the player has to make hard sacrifices since day one. And some how it's a surprize they do it to the full extent?

And again, I've asked for no easy way out.  And again, if you like your game you have what you like.  And again, and again and again.  Ever see the movie "Parenthood"?  Steve Martin.  Great movie.  The grandma says a lot of people go to the amusement park to ride the merry go round and they like it because it goes around and around.  But she likes the roller coaster because of the danger and the unpredictable nature of it all.  This discussion is like that.  You ignore what I say and then repeat the same things over and over again-even when I've answered them already.  You are stuck on a merry go round.  And it's getting nowhere.

Last time I checked you were not an authorized spokesman for Bioware.  We've had this discussion.  You seem to know their minds.  You say BW wants things and has said they want you to make tough choices.  Well, BW also said a lot of other things.  No ABC endings-we got ABC endings.  No change to endings for EC-no new endings, BW said.  We got the refusal ending.  So, again.  If BW said these things and they were not true later on, then who's to say there are no additional endings being considered and all they wanted was to have us make tough choices?

Things BW said                            
No new endings in EC

What we got
New ending in EC

So, @dreman9999,
You think Bioware should stick with things they say they mean to do or will do?  Then, please go back and tell them to look at all the other things they've said and ask them to stick with those things, too.  If you want them to stick to what they say the game should be about, then you need to ask them to fix those things they didn't do-and in doing this you will go even further than what I'm suggesting here. 

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...

...So virmire, the citadel choice , the geth choice and the collector base choice don't exsist?

Virmire is the cornerstone counter-example, because it could have been given an out but wasn't.

The others don't hold up because very little that the player cares about is at stake. The Council choice has you putting soldiers at risk to save the Council, but they are soldiers and that is what they are there for. Or, if you hate the Council, you can kill them. Very little weighing involved.

The Collector Base is the farthest thing from a hard choice you will get. Nothing is at stake except the possibility of future consequences which, like Tuchanka, is not really a consequence at all. Mordin dying doesn't make curing the genophage a hard choice, as evidenced by the data collected on the Tuchanka arc where over 90% of the population cured it. Moreoever, Mordin died the way he wanted to, so there's very little regret there.

Even 2-choice situations like Garrus' loyalty mission aren't hard choices because they essentially only have the Paragon/Renegade options. Either way the situation works out.

In summary, there are far, far more easy-out situations in ME than hard choices.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 septembre 2012 - 06:36 .

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...
Umm...Hard choices are the point of the series...
 
 

What they advertise and what is actually in the game differs. See: Suicide Mission with everyone surviving. See: Rachni, where there are no immediate consequences for killing or saving the Rachni Queen.

[Netsfn1427]

3DandBeyond wrote...

And yet, you do go to Noveria and help there and none of the choices seemed particularly hard to me.  My only worry was as to how it would affect some future decision and not that the choices I made weren't good ones.

On Virmire, both Ashley and Kaidan were willing to sacrifice themselves.  It wasn't an easy decision, but it wasn't a question of morality either.  It was about who I needed to protect.  Whoever was with the nuke had to be protected.  I wasn't killing the other one.  That person died, but as I saw it the choice was not me deciding that one must die so the other could live.  It was about a task and they willingly were ready for whatever happened at that moment.  It wasn't like I was shooting one to save the rest of us.  Within the game, the one I didn't protect, still had a chance to fight their way out of it.

I made other choices based upon reasoning that something good would be achieved as well as something bad would be averted-they dealt with immediate and future threats.  The geth/quarian issue was a moral one sure, but it was about the idea that to continue making mistakes based upon mistakes was to keep damning everyone.  They'd never rise above the bad decisions they'd already made.  The Krogan was a similar one.  These were not hard choices to make.  The Salarian Dalatross was deceptive and even someone I respected who had seen the damage done to the Krogan was telling me it was the right thing to do.  I had a friend I respected who had worked hard to get the Krogan to embrace the future and move on, but they needed help and a chance.  I gave them all the ability and the right to self-determine.  I gave them a future free from interference.  It was the easiest choice I ever made.  And yes it was painful because Mordin sacrificed himself.  But I didn't force him to do that.

Every choice I made in the game was made with reason and the future in mind.  It was for something better and not just against something bad.  It was as someone here put it, like the hippocratic oath-first do no harm.  It's like the decision with Dr. Heart.  Shepard wanted him arrested.  Garrus wanted him dead.  Dr. Heart wanted neither and so he fought and died.  Garrus wondered why Shepard went to the trouble when Heart ended up dead anyway.  Shepard said (paraphrasing) that you are responsible for your own actions and not for what someone decides to do in response.  And that's how I played the game. 

None of the end choices are like any others made in the game.  The others were very easy for me.  The ending ones are artificial and ignore important points in the game.  They also ignore a certain type of Shepard or choices that Shepard could make.  I won't ever see this differently and I have tried to look at things from a different viewpoint.  It's like telling me I should like to eat dirt.  I don't and won't.  If I have to, one day I may eat it, but for now.  No thanks.

That's the point of the end choices. They don't ignore any type of Shepard. They're asking you "you're a Paragon. Faced with this decision, what choice would you make?"  They're saying, okay, your Shep made a moral choice with Doctor Heart. In that situation, you didn't have to prioritize one moral belief over another. Now in situation that where sacrificing something is unavoidable, what is most important to you? If it's your principles, then choose refuse and sacrifice the species of the cycle. If it's something else, choose one of the other choices. 

It's not telling you to eat dirt. It's not an insult. It's challenging you to make a tough decision. And it's actually better than Arrival did it, at least with the EC, because you can outright Refuse and suffer the consequences. 

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

...So virmire, the citadel choice , the geth choice and the collector base choice don't exsist?

Virmire is the cornerstone counter-example, because it could have been given an out but wasn't.

The others don't hold up because very little that the player cares about is at stake. The Council choice has you putting soldiers at risk to save the Council, but they are soldiers and that is what they are there for. Or, if you hate the Council, you can kill them. Very little weighing involved.

The Collector Base is the farthest thing from a hard choice you will get. Nothing is at stake except the possibility of future consequences which, like Tuchanka, is not really a consequence at all. Mordin dying doesn't make curing the genophage a hard choice, as evidenced by the data collected on the Tuchanka arc where over 90% of the population cured it. Moreoever, Mordin died the way he wanted to, so there's very little regret there.

Even 2-choice situations like Garrus' loyalty mission aren't hard choices because they essentially only have the Paragon/Renegade options. Either way the situation works out.

In summary, there are far, far more easy-out situations in ME than hard choices.

They do stand up because it a quetion of moral. The problemis moral is subjective. A person can only truely state how they felt about the choice, not other.... And others did find the choice morally conflicting....
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

[CronoDragoon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CronoDragoon:
Let it be noted that I loved Rannoch and the opportunity to end a 300-year war. It was a sublime moment, and I hate that it was narratively invalidated by the ending. I am not insisting that all choices should be hard choices, that would be equally unrealistic and very depressing. But I think that when facing an enemy like the Reapers, it is very, very appropriate that there isn't an easy way out. Basically, that there is a way out at all is already a miracle.

I think your post contains within it my issue with Destroy. That there are consequences is expected and welcomed. That they picked the geth and EDI specifically as consequences for Destroy after a good chunk of the game focuses on solving their character arcs bothers me narratively. As I've said elsewhere, give me an option to sacrifice Shepard instead of the geth/EDI and I pick it immediately.

[AresKeith]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

...So virmire, the citadel choice , the geth choice and the collector base choice don't exsist?

Virmire is the cornerstone counter-example, because it could have been given an out but wasn't.

The others don't hold up because very little that the player cares about is at stake. The Council choice has you putting soldiers at risk to save the Council, but they are soldiers and that is what they are there for. Or, if you hate the Council, you can kill them. Very little weighing involved.

The Collector Base is the farthest thing from a hard choice you will get. Nothing is at stake except the possibility of future consequences which, like Tuchanka, is not really a consequence at all. Mordin dying doesn't make curing the genophage a hard choice, as evidenced by the data collected on the Tuchanka arc where over 90% of the population cured it. Moreoever, Mordin died the way he wanted to, so there's very little regret there.

Even 2-choice situations like Garrus' loyalty mission aren't hard choices because they essentially only have the Paragon/Renegade options. Either way the situation works out.

exactly, those choices he mentioned are not good examples because they all fall into "who do you like more"

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Umm...Hard choices are the point of the series...
 
 

What they advertise and what is actually in the game differs. See: Suicide Mission with everyone surviving. See: Rachni, where there are no immediate consequences for killing or saving the Rachni Queen.

1. It matter not if the choices are immediate. The Quetions of the choice are always based on what many happen now and/or latter.
2. That is want happened in the game, it just that not every choice brings conflict.

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...

They do stand up because it a quetion of moral. The problemis moral is subjective. A person can only truely state how they felt about the choice, not other.... And others did find the choice morally conflicting....
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

It's not a question of morals but a question of consequences. That is not always the same question. You can have all the moral choices in the book, but without hard consequences it simply is not a difficult choice.

Virmire, for example, has nothing to do with morals. The only distinction is which crewmate dies, which is a question of consequences.

[3DandBeyond]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

You can keep your tough choices.  They work for you, but this was a game and not everyone is like you and likes what you do.  I don't care what you like.  I really don't.  And that means I don't care to take it from you.  You have what you like.  That should make you happy but you keep thinking you need to make others think exactly like you and just love this ending.  They don't and won't, you can say it unitl yoiu turn 80.

Again. I am not asking you to give up anything, but you keep fighting all this as if I'm personally trying to ruin your game.  Try an experiment.  Go play ME3 and see if I have done anything to ruin it.  And then don't play Leviathan and see what the ending is like without it.  The play Leviathan and see what changes.  That's what I'm asking for-optional content that you would never have to see or play. 

Your arguments are moot and have nothing to do with what I'm asking Bioware to consider.  My request would not affect you, but you keep acting like it would.  Can you for once stop thinking only about yourself?

But you are affecting his choice. That would affect everyone's choice. If you added another ending to the game where Shepard lived and personal sacrifice wasn't made, then the ending choice is no longer a moral test. There is absolutely zero reason for you to choose any other option, because unless you're playing a masochist who likes to suffer, who in their right mind would choose an option that hurts them when there's an option that doesn't. While I feel like the DA:O Dark Ritual is a cop-out since we never see the consequences and likely never will, in the game world they still EXIST. There is a reason for a Warden to turn down Morrigan. 

What your asking for is an ending that gives the player no reason to select the other endings, in real life or in the game world. It essentially invalidates the player's choices. You want the hard decision removed. Understandibly, people who like the hard decision defend it. As much as you want to argue that your request doesn't affect the way they play their games, it does. The hard ending choice is part of the ME3 experience. Removing it significantly changes the experience. To say "just ignore it", is impossible. 

No, I asked for optional content that you don't have to buy or if you did buy you would only play if you wanted to, just like Leviathan.

Again, you have now inserted another repeated thought into this which makes no sense.  You say that if I get an ending that I'd like people would have no reason to select another.  First of all, I reject this.  Either you like the ending you choose or you don't.  And actually if I had one better ending I could pick, I might look at the other ones and play all of the game, which is really not something I like now.

But also what this says is that if there was an ending like I'm saying I want, it would be wrong because too many people would choose it.  Ok, that means many things then.  It would have to mean that all those people (as you say) now have endings they really don't like.  It would also mean that if BW were to charge for such DLC, they could make a boatload of money because a lot of people want it.

And your whole premise shows you did not read my OP.  You think you know what I've asked for and you don't.  I have repeatedly said I would prefer a more realistic ending that would be hard to achieve and that even so there could be variations that could be even worse than what destroy shows now, where everything is lost and horribly so, there could then be a Shepard must sacrifice for a win ending, but there could be one difficult to get win ending where the reapers only are destroyed and real aftermath scenes are shown-not the unrealistic slides that show up now.

I never said easy, nor did I say without consequences.  The consequences exist already.  How many dead Shepards does it take for it to be enough?  I want what I've always wanted-one possible difficult to get better ending that is uplifting and brings back replayability and enjoyment for many who right now are left out of that enjoyment.  I've been asking for Bioware to consider that and make it so it does not do anything to your game unless you buy it.  I've asked for compromises, where fans could buy it and BW might consider it worth it to bring fans back to the franchise and make more content viable.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

...So virmire, the citadel choice , the geth choice and the collector base choice don't exsist?

Virmire is the cornerstone counter-example, because it could have been given an out but wasn't.

The others don't hold up because very little that the player cares about is at stake. The Council choice has you putting soldiers at risk to save the Council, but they are soldiers and that is what they are there for. Or, if you hate the Council, you can kill them. Very little weighing involved.

The Collector Base is the farthest thing from a hard choice you will get. Nothing is at stake except the possibility of future consequences which, like Tuchanka, is not really a consequence at all. Mordin dying doesn't make curing the genophage a hard choice, as evidenced by the data collected on the Tuchanka arc where over 90% of the population cured it. Moreoever, Mordin died the way he wanted to, so there's very little regret there.

Even 2-choice situations like Garrus' loyalty mission aren't hard choices because they essentially only have the Paragon/Renegade options. Either way the situation works out.

exactly, those choices he mentioned are not good examples because they all fall into "who do you like more"

No it does not. It not a quetion of who you like more it's a quetion of what is your morality at the time of the choice. What control what we choose is our morality and that is subjective.
The very concept they are doing is this...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives 

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

They do stand up because it a quetion of moral. The problemis moral is subjective. A person can only truely state how they felt about the choice, not other.... And others did find the choice morally conflicting....
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

It's not a question of morals but a question of consequences. That is not always the same question. You can have all the moral choices in the book, but without hard consequences it simply is not a difficult choice.

Virmire, for example, has nothing to do with morals. The only distinction is which crewmate dies, which is a question of consequences.

This is exactly it.

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

They do stand up because it a quetion of moral. The problemis moral is subjective. A person can only truely state how they felt about the choice, not other.... And others did find the choice morally conflicting....
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

It's not a question of morals but a question of consequences. That is not always the same question. You can have all the moral choices in the book, but without hard consequences it simply is not a difficult choice.

Virmire, for example, has nothing to do with morals. The only distinction is which crewmate dies, which is a question of consequences.

The quetion of morals is a quetion of consequences. That what casues moral conflict. You stuck between what is moraly right to you and what is logiclly right and the reality that you have to choose.
That the very core of moral conflict.

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. It matter not if the choices are immediate. The Quetions of the choice are always based on what many happen now and/or latter.
2. That is want happened in the game, it just that not every choice brings conflict.

It does matter because if the player does not see consequences then they might as well not exist. Tuchanka, for example, has the possibility of a krogan empire rising again as the major consequence for curing the genophage. But it was always a consequence therefore relegated to headcanon, and therefore it doesn't have to actually exist to begin with.