6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

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.

The question of morals is a question 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.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 septembre 2012 - 06:48 .

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I just gave you an example where morality is irrelevant. You either let Ashley or Kaiden die. Morals and consequences are not the same unless you are a hardcore consequentialist. If you are, then fair enough.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

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 

really?, your letting a video determine how we (the player) feels about choices that aren't actually morality. Thats why we can't take you serious

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

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.

Morality is reletive...Not every time bw tries to being the player to moral conflict with succeed. The attemt is there and if it did not work with every player before they will try agein.

[Redbelle]

Just checking to see if news of a new mass effect development has reached this threads ears.

Repercussions on the ending of ME3?

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

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.

It a trilogy. The very issues the game brings up is what is happening now and later. That how choices work. You choose but you don't fully see what will happen becasue of the choice now. If you did you whould not have conflict over the choice. If you knew what the choice did in it full extente you would just pichthe choice that wouuld have the best out come.

That like saying you should of known back in ME1 Wrex would take krogan support from you in ME3 if you did not cure the genophage and killing him then allows you to trick his brother in ME3.

[ShepnTali]

I want hard choices that make a tangible difference in the game that makes replays that more interesting. You know, a game. I feel bad for the fate of some characters, but nothing on a moral level. It means nothing.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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 

really?, your letting a video determine how we (the player) feels about choices that aren't actually morality. Thats why we can't take you serious

That is not what I said. I sad it's a quetion of what "your" morality is at the time. You decicde what your morality is ...Not the game.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 septembre 2012 - 07:11 .

[Snypy]

GarvakD wrote...

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.

I think that Shep has to be pulled out from the rubble by someone from the Hackett's fleet, or by a ME2 squadmate who stayed on Earth (Miranda?), unless BioWare would radically change the ending. Because it could take several days for Normandy to be spaceworthy again after crash-landing on that planet, and Shep wouldn't be able to survive in the ruble for so long. 

Anyway, the reunion ending could start as Shep wakes up in the hospital and sees his/her LI again for the first time. I personally don't need any fighting in that DLC -- just a short tour around the galaxy. You know, I'd like to see planets like Earth, Palven, Rannoch, and Thessia as they are being rebuilt; dialogues with (former) squadmates and ordinary people on those planets would be very interesting. And then the last decision for Shep: either retire (with/without LI) or lead the galaxy. That's all. There's nothing more I'd like from the reunion DLC.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I just gave you an example where morality is irrelevant. You either let Ashley or Kaiden die. Morals and consequences are not the same unless you are a hardcore consequentialist. If you are, then fair enough.

There is no moral decision there as I see it.  Both state their willingness to die for the other.  I made a choice based on the idea that the other had a chance to survive, but I couldn't protect both.  If I choose destroy for instance.  I know that the geth and EDI have no chance to survive and I'm not listening to someone offering up a life so that others may live.  I'm actively deciding to take the lives of a whole race of people. 

And Shepard never even makes an attempt to try and mitigate that at all-though Shepard tries to warn the Batarians in the Arrival.  That's the closest comparison you can make in the game and it is optional content.  That is a moral decision but optional.  And Shepard still at least does something.  The end of the game is not strictly optional.  You don't play a game to avoid the ending.  The ending is the icing on the cake.  It's the eye candy that you've playe the game to get to.  It's the pay off for all the stuff you did before-the hard work.  It's the culmination of everything you have done before.  Not optional.  The ending is what you worked toward from the moment you opened up the first Mass Effect box.

So, at the end it's just so wonderful that you don't even try to do for trillions of people or billions of synthetic lifeforms and one friend, EDI, what you can do in the Arrival.  They don't even let you try. 

You can bring together the quarians and the geth with Rannoch, but in the end you can't even discuss that.  It's not about moral issues alone.  It's about not even being able to use common sense or any sense.  It's not being given full and rational information about the choices and being able to make decisions based on reasons.  You have to guess a lot of what they mean and then make a choice.  That's not about making a tough choice-it's about making a choice without knowing what you are doing exactly.

[Ieldra]

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. 

Indeed. I've said that since day one of this thread, and no matter how many times 3D and others claim the opposite, adding one ending that's in an objective way better does affect the others. It would make anymore who chose a different ending feel bad about it. The simple knowledge that an easier alternative exists would destroy the balance, just like, for instance, the knowledge of the optional content in LotSB affects Miranda as a character, regardless of whether you have installed it or not.

[ShepnTali]

If I heard Tali in the distance saying 'Shepard!' at the end of the breath, I'd be good.


Logic isn't a new concern at this point.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

Just checking to see if news of a new mass effect development has reached this threads ears.

Repercussions on the ending of ME3?

Well, they've indicated about 6 months more of DLC, so anything is yet possible.  If they choose to do a sequel it seems likely they'd have to make something canon.  In which case some will not be quite so happy with how a beginning takes off.  If they go with prequels, I can't see that being that much fun-you know how those cycles will end, with more reapers.  And you know what happens later on.  And any sequel that evolves from an ending with reapers in existence will have more reapers in it and there'd be no foe that would stand a chance or we'd be put in the ridiculous situation of having reapers saving the galaxy.  Either way, that's just too much reaper content in my mind.

[Snypy]

Redbelle wrote...

Just checking to see if news of a new mass effect development has reached this threads ears.

Repercussions on the ending of ME3?

Well, we don't know if it's is going to be a prequel or a sequel. So, not much has changed. We knew that BioWare had been working on ME4 for some time even before the announcement. But Aaryn Flynn said that BioWare would continue developing ME3 story DLCs for the next six months. There's still plenty of time to address the issue of ending (again).

Modifié par Snypy, 19 septembre 2012 - 07:10 .

[Ieldra]

3DandBeyond wrote...
You can bring together the quarians and the geth with Rannoch, but in the end you can't even discuss that.  It's not about moral issues alone.  It's about not even being able to use common sense or any sense.  It's not being given full and rational information about the choices and being able to make decisions based on reasons.  You have to guess a lot of what they mean and then make a choice.  That's not about making a tough choice-it's about making a choice without knowing what you are doing exactly.

While we'll have to agree to disagree about the moral dimension, I have to agree with this. While I don't see the ending options as exactly incompatible with the story, they certainly don't grow organically out of the story. There is not enough foreshadowing, not enough hints that something like Synthesis might exist, that controlling the Reapers is a viable option regardless of the means TIM uses to achieve it. The ending should feel like "Ah, so *that*  is what it was all about. Now it all makes sense". Instead, it feels like "You can't be serious" and you need a lot of mental wriggling to make it make sense. That I can make it make  (some) sense for me is no credit to the writers, and that I like outcome of the ending options doesn't mean I like the way they come about. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 septembre 2012 - 07:10 .

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I just gave you an example where morality is irrelevant. You either let Ashley or Kaiden die. Morals and consequences are not the same unless you are a hardcore consequentialist. If you are, then fair enough.

Ofcourse morality is an issues in that choice as well as. Let say you in  romance with Ashley but you find Kaiden to be more useful.
Which do you choose?

Whatyou not getting is the question of morality is relitive. Different from one person to another. You didn't find the choice hard because you just pick who you like, you morality did not conflict with that...but others...

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 septembre 2012 - 07:12 .

[Snypy]

ShepnTali wrote...

If I heard Tali in the distance saying 'Shepard!' at the end of the breath, I'd be good.


Logic isn't a new concern at this point.

Pretty much, yeah. I'd replace Tali with my LI, though. 

BioWare should just give the fans what they want; what they're willing to pay for.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I just gave you an example where morality is irrelevant. You either let Ashley or Kaiden die. Morals and consequences are not the same unless you are a hardcore consequentialist. If you are, then fair enough.

Ofcourse morality is an issues in that choice as well as. Let say you in  romance with Ashley but you find Kaiden to be more useful.
Which do you choose?

Whatyou not getting is the question of morality is relitive. Different from one person to another. You didn't find the choice hard because you just pick who you like, you morality did not conflict with that...but others...

thats a terrible example

[Netsfn1427]

3DandBeyond wrote...

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.

I'm approaching this from the point of free DLC (like an update) and where you don't need MP to achieve the optimal ending you require, since you shouldn't need MP to achieve anything in a SP campaign. (And I say that having enjoyed MP) So in this scenario anyone who wants to be relatively completionist, which isn't too hard since ME's side quests are mostly quick fetch quests, can get this ending. And as for the free part, I would find it morally wrong to charge for a new ending. (Bioware did too, otherwise, they'd not have released the free EC.) Plus it sets a bad precedent. 

By the way, what you're describing about consquences for not doing enough, are already in the game. The only difference is that you have to sacrifice EDI and the Geth even in a destroy+ ending. You seem to results in the same thing, just no EDI/Geth death, which is of course, removing a major consequence. 

And it's implied you don't want consequences, when you state you want  the ending to be more uplifiting. Or more to the point, you want consequences that you deem acceptable. So what is an acceptable sacrifice then? Half the galaxy? A third of it? The loss of the relay system entirely? I'm curious, because you talked about your Shepard's moral compass, so I'd love to know the acceptable amount of losses for him/her. 

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
You can bring together the quarians and the geth with Rannoch, but in the end you can't even discuss that.  It's not about moral issues alone.  It's about not even being able to use common sense or any sense.  It's not being given full and rational information about the choices and being able to make decisions based on reasons.  You have to guess a lot of what they mean and then make a choice.  That's not about making a tough choice-it's about making a choice without knowing what you are doing exactly.

While we'll have to agree to disagree about the moral dimension, I have to agree with this. While I don't see the ending options as exactly incompatible with the story, they certainly don't grow organically out of the story. There is not enough foreshadowing, not enough hints that something like Synthesis might exist, that controlling the Reapers is a viable option regardless of the means TIM uses to achieve it. The ending should feel like "Ah, so *that*  is what it was all about. Now it all makes sense". Instead, it feels like "You can't be serious" and you need a lot of mental wriggling to make it make sense. That I can make it make  (some) sense for me is no credit to the writers, and that I like outcome of the ending options doesn't mean I like the way they come about. 

Control has it's hints. We had 2 misson completly about the issue of controling the reapers. Synthesis came out of the blue one perpose. It's there as an analogy to how the races found tech from the past that improved there furture. It a quetion of if it matter how we got a peice of technology and would we allow the reaper to guide us.

[sdinc009]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So your going to lie to me an say you don't want a easy way out of the end choice?

I never once have asked for an easy way out and please don't say I lie.  I don't.  This is precisely what you do, you argue and now insult.  This is why I've asked you to stay on topic.

I've asked Bioware to reassess how they might create optional DLC that might appeal to a lot of fans and all.  I have no interest in this drama, @dreman9999.

You ask for a way to kill the reaper with out dieing or kill synthetic life with Ahepard alive...That's an easy way out. And I 'm not the first or only one to point it out.

Oh for God's sake, No , WRONG, INCORRECT! That's not an easy way out because that's not the choice what you're refering to is the outcome not the choice. A very morally difficult choice can be presented and have the outcome end up with the Reapers dead everything working out. You're defining the wrong thing. Choice is what leads to the outcome and hard choices are good in a story I doubt anyone would claim otherwise.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Indeed. I've said that since day one of this thread, and no matter how many times 3D and others claim the opposite, adding one ending that's in an objective way better does affect the others. It would make anymore who chose a different ending feel bad about it. The simple knowledge that an easier alternative exists would destroy the balance, just like, for instance, the knowledge of the optional content in LotSB affects Miranda as a character, regardless of whether you have installed it or not.

Ok, this again is ridiculous.  You saw the original endings right?  So, does that mean you don't like the EC because the Normandy is still stuck on some jungle planet and all the relays are destroyed?  I doubt it and you saw that.  If BW made optional content that you had to pay for, are you seriously telling me that if you didn't buy it, it would ruin your game?  Really?

If that's what you are saying, that's ridiculous.  I'm sorry.  But, if I had an ending I liked and I knew that Synthesis, the ending you like, existed, it would not bother me.

The LotSB content  affects Miranda how?  It only affects it as in ME3 they continued with that as if it happened for everyone.

However, this always comes back to people that have what they like not wanting to give even an inch.  Talk about selfish.  You're happy so who the hell cares about anyone else.  Well, frankly this is a very sad thing here.  God knows, I wouldn't want to ruin your game because that is all that matters.  This may sound harsh and it is, but I have suggested continually here, optional content that would not be in your game and might bring back a lot of customers that have games they can't play or won't play right now and that might make BW some money and might make more DLC viable, because reviewers did not love Leviathan.  I have repeatedly been called selfish and worse for suggesting content in a way that purposely would do nothing to your game.  But, by all means I would not want to insult your sensitivities by suggesting content that you would never have to see, that would still ruin your game.  Wow.

I'd think at this point you might be willing to think of others beside yourself and what is best for you, especially when it would not affect you.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I just gave you an example where morality is irrelevant. You either let Ashley or Kaiden die. Morals and consequences are not the same unless you are a hardcore consequentialist. If you are, then fair enough.

Ofcourse morality is an issues in that choice as well as. Let say you in  romance with Ashley but you find Kaiden to be more useful.
Which do you choose?

Whatyou not getting is the question of morality is relitive. Different from one person to another. You didn't find the choice hard because you just pick who you like, you morality did not conflict with that...but others...

thats a terrible example

No it's not. Many people had this issue in ME1. Taht is a quetstion many people had to deal with in that choice.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I just gave you an example where morality is irrelevant. You either let Ashley or Kaiden die. Morals and consequences are not the same unless you are a hardcore consequentialist. If you are, then fair enough.

Ofcourse morality is an issues in that choice as well as. Let say you in  romance with Ashley but you find Kaiden to be more useful.
Which do you choose?

Whatyou not getting is the question of morality is relitive. Different from one person to another. You didn't find the choice hard because you just pick who you like, you morality did not conflict with that...but others...

thats a terrible example

No it's not. Many people had this issue in ME1. Taht is a quetstion many people had to deal with in that choice.

if people wanted to romance Ashley, they'll kill Kaidan and if they don't wanna romance her then they go by who they liked more. Also show me where people had this issue, if not then try again

[dreman9999]

sdinc009 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So your going to lie to me an say you don't want a easy way out of the end choice?

I never once have asked for an easy way out and please don't say I lie.  I don't.  This is precisely what you do, you argue and now insult.  This is why I've asked you to stay on topic.

I've asked Bioware to reassess how they might create optional DLC that might appeal to a lot of fans and all.  I have no interest in this drama, @dreman9999.

You ask for a way to kill the reaper with out dieing or kill synthetic life with Ahepard alive...That's an easy way out. And I 'm not the first or only one to point it out.

Oh for God's sake, No , WRONG, INCORRECT! That's not an easy way out because that's not the choice what you're refering to is the outcome not the choice. A very morally difficult choice can be presented and have the outcome end up with the Reapers dead everything working out. You're defining the wrong thing. Choice is what leads to the outcome and hard choices are good in a story I doubt anyone would claim otherwise.

....When has any one not made choices becasue of the out come?

If there is a choice where the player kills only the reapers and does not die and does nothing morally wrong to do it, that is an easy ways out not matter what.