6432 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

N7 Assass1n wrote...


Yes, that is part of quantum mechanics, but only with synthetic intervention will we actually be able to prolong our life spans. Frankly, I would love that. Life is far too short. But to the extent of ME3's synthesis no.. However, things like the Cybernetic implants in the series that allow the N7 operatives to be more mobile for example, I see that being possible sooner than later in reality.

I agree there's a lot that could improve things for a lot of people, but I think there does always have to be a reminder or consideration for the rights and desires of the individual.  Even ME did at some point understand this since there were some people who didn't want implants at all.  It's like they tried way too hard in ME3 to show that tech solves everything.  They want to show destroy as being the total refutation or abolishment of tech, control as tech in charge, and synthesis as the happy happy joy joy where tech and people at last live in peace and harmony and roast cybernetic marshmallows together. 

When the hell did ME become all about tech?  All that tech was in the game up until ME3 was just something that was used to do stuff.  By the time ME3 rolls around it's a question of how much tech do we want in our lives.  And it's a repeat of some stuff.  Save the geth and let them live in peace-ok, man I thought we'd already decided to do that, but ok let's do it some more because at every turn we must decide whether to embrace the tech or not.  The creation of the crucible is a total denial of the ability of people to even try to rely on themselves.  Hell, tech will do it all-hail the crucible.

You take a look at ME and tech was not even a real big part of the story.  Control as well as synthesis played a part, but were rejected.  One of the main enemies faced was extremely organic and an old organic-a plant.  The tech that became a big part of the story was Sovereign and the geth, but even one main part of that was about the use of organics on Virmire.  The whole game was basically about the rejection of control, if anything.  You had a biotic cult leader controlling biotics and killing people-arrested or killed.  A plant enthralling people-killed.  Cerberus attempting to learn the Thorian's secrets-thwarted.  The Rachni controlled by Saren and Sovereign-killed and queen killed or saved.  Benezia-killed.  The whole darn game is a who's who of the controlled and dead or arrested.  Even Helena Blake who wanted to control the 3 factions and wanted her rivals dead.  And the arguing couple who were fighting about who controlled the decision for the unborn baby.

Then, look at ME2.  It seems more like a reinforcement of the idea that total control and synthesis (reaperization) are bad.  Miranda wanted a control chip inserted in Shepard-TIM didn't.  The effects of indoctrination play out again.  The collectors are the indoctrinated Protheans who have been morphed into pseudo-synthesized beings.  The heretic geth are an example of both control and synthesis gone awry.  The type of synthesis that in the end ME3's choices would impart to synthetics is exactly the kind the true geth rejected and why the heretics left.

I mean this all comes down to an ending game/story that embraces all the things the previous 2 games shed light on and rejected.  It also inserts something that was not really so overwhelming before and it makes it the main thing.  Tech.  It's this taken for granted thing in 2 games, that suddenly becomes the main characters-the hero and the villain-in ME3.  It's like tech is fighting itself because on the one hand you have tech that is a tool to be used and on the other hand you have tech that is people.  In the middle you have the most abhorrent, horrid brand of tech ever created-the reapers and the kid.  Why can't they find a way to use both good forms of tech (tools and people) to really defeat (as in destroy, abolish, smash) the nasty tech to bits?  Because, the game says, "no".  In order to destroy the bad synthetics, you must destroy and damage all tech.  As if this makes any sense at all.

[Snypy]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Snypy wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

i think that BW needs to do something with refusal because it is the only ending that stays true to the story and stays true to shepard that was established in the story and if they keep relesing DLCs and giving war assets it is the only ending that can reflect this
well destroy that targets only reapers but refuse is the best

My Shep didn't have any trouble choosing Destroy. I'm in the middle of my fourth playthrough, and I've always chosen this particular ending. Well, I went for Synthesis once (my first and only pre-EC playthrough), but I had some good reasons to do it. Anyway, I think that Refusal, as it stands now, is even worse than Synthesis.

The big problem I have with destroy is in the description of it-it's ambiguous, as well as everything seeming to be all happy at the end after Shepard has just killed a friend and a whole race of people.  It made Legion's story meaningless.  Understand, that I'd have to pick it because it does achieve the goal, but I can't see any good reason for bringing the torso out of the rubble then-Shepard would feel hollow and would not be happy with the outcome.  And I really do dislike the fact that Hackett gets to talk about how they all won because they worked together-this incompetent who knew what was coming and did nothing, kept telling Shepard from ME1 on that things were impossible (and Shepard did the opposite) and locks Shepard up in detention rather than using his brain to provide cover for events of the Arrival.  That final narrative annoyed the hell out of me.  As if Hackett brought everyone together.

I think it greatly depends on how you perceive the Geth and EDI. I suppose EDI would be willing to sacrifice herself to save the Normandy's crew and all organics. She made it clear in one conversation when she said she would give preference to things like altruism, love, duty, etc. And as for the Geth, they chose to fight the Reapers so that they could build their own future. It's a pity they had to die. But they knew that stopping the Reapers was the goal, at any costs. I wouldn't say that Shep killed them, because there was no viable option to save them. For me, personally, sacrificing one friend and one race is preferable to the death of all my friends and all races in the galaxy. Perhaps it sounds cold to you, but that's how I feel it. (Yeah, ruthless calculus of war...)

Perhaps you play as ultra-Paragon and consequently you don't see much point in your Shepard surviving Destroy, given the final decision. But I don't see it as you do. 

By the way, we could only see torso. There has to be more to it than that, though. (Because one can't take a breath without a head.)

[3DandBeyond]

Snypy wrote...

I think it greatly depends on how you perceive the Geth and EDI. I suppose EDI would be willing to sacrifice herself to save the Normandy's crew and all organics. She made it clear in one conversation when she said she would give preference to things like altruism, love, duty, etc. And as for the Geth, they chose to fight the Reapers so that they could build their own future. It's a pity they had to die. But they knew that stopping the Reapers was the goal, at any costs. I wouldn't say that Shep killed them, because there was no viable option to save them. For me, personally, sacrificing one friend and one race is preferable to the death of all my friends and all races in the galaxy. Perhaps it sounds cold to you, but that's how I feel it. (Yeah, ruthless calculus of war...)

Perhaps you play as ultra-Paragon and consequently you don't see much point in your Shepard surviving Destroy, given the final decision. But I don't see it as you do. 

By the way, we could only see torso. There has to be more to it than that, though. (Because one can't take a breath without a head.)

The problem here is that Shepard knows they are willing to die, but in this Shepard chooses to kill them.  I understand how this can be perceived as the only choice, but it sets things up for a bleak future just as is true for control and synthesis as I see it.

I won't envoke other real world comparables, but they exist.  Destroy creates a future where the conflict between synthetics and organics will be inevitable.  It creates a culture of understanding among all people that they were saved because synthetics died.  There's a lot of feelings that come along with that.  Guilt, but also relief.  Both of these can be played out as having hostile backlash.  Guilt is often expressed with hostility.  And relief at having lived creates a mindset of justification.  We do it here-you did it and I've done it too.  It had to be done because that was the only way.  It was us or them.  I'm not going to apologize for surviving.  Look at the backlash of the geth/quarian conflict.  The quarians perceived a threat, acted upon that threat, were almost destroyed fully because of that and still contain factions that would rather think of the geth as property, no matter what.  New synthetics will be born into a galaxy that feels ok that billions of their people died so that organics could live.   Guilty and not grateful.  And it also sets up a scenario where even more people will be reluctant to see synthetics as people.  To do otherwise, would require the galaxy face what was lost so that organics could live.  As I've said there are real world corollaries to be made here.

And, the problem I have with it being used as an idea of the willing sacrifice of EDI and the geth is that it's not.  It's one thing for you to step in front of me so I won't be shot.  It's another thing for someone else to push you in front of me so that I won't be.  And it's yet another thing for me to grab you and pull you in front of me to take the bullet for me.  And yet you may have been quite willing to die for me.  As a Commander it's one thing for Shepard to deploy the Garrus and Tali to attack reapers and die.  It's another thing for Shepard to shoot Garrus and Tali so s/he and others won't die.  There's a big difference.

The other thing is there were so many times when Shepard spoke out against this idea of the cold, ruthless, calculation of war.  Generals may think of numerical absolutes.  Soldiers on the ground rarely do.  They don't even think quite often of bigger pictures and the greater war.  They think of the guy or girl standing next to them.  EDI and the geth stood next to Shepard.  The freaking galaxy didn't even want to.

But all this is just why I want there to be a way to save them-they deserve to be saved.  They were loyal and were the most willing to lay down their lives.  They showed more heart than the damn galaxy did-they displayed the best attributes that the rest of the galaxy (other than those close to Shep) seemed to really lack.  So, it really irks me that they should pay for the idiocy of the galaxy.

I really don't get your next to last statement at all.  If you read my OP you know how much it matters to me for Shepard to survive, but it's just as important what Shepard does in order to achieve that.  Given all that Shepard said in these games, there's no way that Shepard would ever be the same if s/he made the decision to kill a friend and one loved by a very good friend who is also someone that Shepard in a very real way gave life to (encouraging and allowing self-determination), as well as a whole race of people given autonomy in such a noble way with the death of Legion.  That whole bit about self-determination and autonomy is thrown out the window by Shepard in choosing destroy.  That's how I see it.  It does not fit with my paragon's character at all-because of everything she said and did.  Those lives are irreplaceable.  And I know they'd easily make that choice because of their own character-but Shepard never even asks them.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 septembre 2012 - 02:38 .

[3DandBeyond]

Here's something I posted in another thread-one about the catalyst, but I think it might be something to consider here.

You know what would have been fun? Having a lot of this explored in the game. It would actually be helpful to have information when deciding the fate of trillions of people, plants, and things. But, the catalyst who says his solution no longer works seems to love to blabber about stuff except he's more like a politician with media training. Never answer the question asked-answer the question you want to answer.

As I see it there's still a chance some way somehow that the crucible would be made intact (it is not) and would function as it should. We see the effects of a damaged or incomplete crucible with low EMS, but it's still not intact at high EMS. And if it was, it could change all choices. The kid does sorta kinda maybe explain destroy first, but the very first thing he says is "the crucible is largely intact". So, maybe it only needed dead Shepard material to augment something it was lacking. And maybe it had problems targeting because it was missing some component.

Perhaps it's all a question of targeting. Maybe synthesis will only affect the reapers and will make them be responsive to the minds that exist within them. And maybe control would be more about self-control with the reapers being given autonomy based upon the real intelligence that lies within them. Not some external force. Maybe after that they'll fly away and go impart their newfound wisdom elsewhere. It might well be that the shells that they exist in were a part of the original conflict-as in the beings of light reference. These machines were created and became stronger than their creators (Leviathan) and it was really about trying to fix this conflict. The kid tried synthesis but because he tried to force it, it didn't work. He may well have been given the 3 choices as a way to fix this and fix him. And he may have helped to create them. Perhaps his creators really do want to achieve synthesis but only between them and the reapers they live inside. And if that cannot be, perhaps control would work-they'd have control over the reaper bodies, which they do not have now. But then destroy may be the final objective if the others are not to be-a final solution if all else fails.

I'm just wondering if it might be possible that synthesis as an outcome is the desired goal, not because it changes the whole galaxy, but because with an intact crucible it would change the reapers.

[wymm666]

double post

Modifié par wymm666, 24 septembre 2012 - 03:21 .

[wymm666]

Snypy wrote...

wymm666 wrote...

You must be naive to believe they still listen to you and not your wallet. Ok, that's a bit cynical, they do, but only when it's backed up by your wallet. Ultimately, what comes out of that studio depends entirely on how much money they're going to make, which depends on EA, which depends on their investors/shareholders, which... have nothing to do with you as a thinking feeling individual.

Best way to leverage them? torrent.

Torrents are the best way to ensure that there won't be any new games.

Which makes it a great tool of leverage. In any case, reality begs to differ.

Modifié par wymm666, 24 septembre 2012 - 03:22 .

[Xandurpein]

3DandBeyond wrote...

N7 Assass1n wrote...


Yes, that is part of quantum mechanics, but only with synthetic intervention will we actually be able to prolong our life spans. Frankly, I would love that. Life is far too short. But to the extent of ME3's synthesis no.. However, things like the Cybernetic implants in the series that allow the N7 operatives to be more mobile for example, I see that being possible sooner than later in reality.

I agree there's a lot that could improve things for a lot of people, but I think there does always have to be a reminder or consideration for the rights and desires of the individual.  Even ME did at some point understand this since there were some people who didn't want implants at all.  It's like they tried way too hard in ME3 to show that tech solves everything.  They want to show destroy as being the total refutation or abolishment of tech, control as tech in charge, and synthesis as the happy happy joy joy where tech and people at last live in peace and harmony and roast cybernetic marshmallows together. 

When the hell did ME become all about tech?  All that tech was in the game up until ME3 was just something that was used to do stuff.  By the time ME3 rolls around it's a question of how much tech do we want in our lives.  And it's a repeat of some stuff.  Save the geth and let them live in peace-ok, man I thought we'd already decided to do that, but ok let's do it some more because at every turn we must decide whether to embrace the tech or not.  The creation of the crucible is a total denial of the ability of people to even try to rely on themselves.  Hell, tech will do it all-hail the crucible.

You take a look at ME and tech was not even a real big part of the story.  Control as well as synthesis played a part, but were rejected.  One of the main enemies faced was extremely organic and an old organic-a plant.  The tech that became a big part of the story was Sovereign and the geth, but even one main part of that was about the use of organics on Virmire.  The whole game was basically about the rejection of control, if anything.  You had a biotic cult leader controlling biotics and killing people-arrested or killed.  A plant enthralling people-killed.  Cerberus attempting to learn the Thorian's secrets-thwarted.  The Rachni controlled by Saren and Sovereign-killed and queen killed or saved.  Benezia-killed.  The whole darn game is a who's who of the controlled and dead or arrested.  Even Helena Blake who wanted to control the 3 factions and wanted her rivals dead.  And the arguing couple who were fighting about who controlled the decision for the unborn baby.

Then, look at ME2.  It seems more like a reinforcement of the idea that total control and synthesis (reaperization) are bad.  Miranda wanted a control chip inserted in Shepard-TIM didn't.  The effects of indoctrination play out again.  The collectors are the indoctrinated Protheans who have been morphed into pseudo-synthesized beings.  The heretic geth are an example of both control and synthesis gone awry.  The type of synthesis that in the end ME3's choices would impart to synthetics is exactly the kind the true geth rejected and why the heretics left.

I mean this all comes down to an ending game/story that embraces all the things the previous 2 games shed light on and rejected.  It also inserts something that was not really so overwhelming before and it makes it the main thing.  Tech.  It's this taken for granted thing in 2 games, that suddenly becomes the main characters-the hero and the villain-in ME3.  It's like tech is fighting itself because on the one hand you have tech that is a tool to be used and on the other hand you have tech that is people.  In the middle you have the most abhorrent, horrid brand of tech ever created-the reapers and the kid.  Why can't they find a way to use both good forms of tech (tools and people) to really defeat (as in destroy, abolish, smash) the nasty tech to bits?  Because, the game says, "no".  In order to destroy the bad synthetics, you must destroy and damage all tech.  As if this makes any sense at all.

+1.

Very good summary!

[xcomcmdr]

That was an epic read !

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

But that's why synthesis offers no hope.  Shepard dies for nothing that is unequivocally good-in other words, for no good GD reason.  It's the very core of why 2 of the 3 choices are not about embracing hope, but doing what seems to be the easy thing for the here and now.

Which is why I'm suggesting an alternate path to synthesis that ends the war and provides the possibility for synthesis on an individual basis in the future. Such an ending would allow the possibility that synthetics and organics can still reconcile without Synthesis while still providing the means to go that route if they wish. I fail to see how such an ending provides "no hope" especially if your main reason for disregarding its merits  is that Shepard dies to achieve it.

[Snypy]

wymm666 wrote...

Snypy wrote...

wymm666 wrote...

You must be naive to believe they still listen to you and not your wallet. Ok, that's a bit cynical, they do, but only when it's backed up by your wallet. Ultimately, what comes out of that studio depends entirely on how much money they're going to make, which depends on EA, which depends on their investors/shareholders, which... have nothing to do with you as a thinking feeling individual.

Best way to leverage them? torrent.

Torrents are the best way to ensure that there won't be any new games.

Which makes it a great tool of leverage. In any case, reality begs to differ.

I don't think I understand you. If I like a game and want to play it, I'll buy it and support its developers. However, if I'm unsatisfied with a game, I don't want to play it at all. And as torrents don't make games better, I don't see why I should use them.

Anyway, piracy will eventually lead to all games requiring constant broadband connection even for single player games. Diablo 3 has already tried to follow this formula (with mixed results, as far as I know).

Modifié par Snypy, 24 septembre 2012 - 04:20 .

[3DandBeyond]

Yeah, I really don't want piracy discussed here please. I know I did discuss it as well, but it has no place here and is definitely not appropriate. Not pointing at you Snypy since I do think you make relevant points-I do think that was one reason for the MP/SP tie in when ME3 was released.

I don't want people advocating this stuff here is all. Please.

[xcomcmdr]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I really don't get your next to last statement at all. If you read my OP you know how much it matters to me for Shepard to survive, but it's just as important what Shepard does in order to achieve that. Given all that Shepard said in these games, there's no way that Shepard would ever be the same if s/he made the decision to kill a friend and one loved by a very good friend who is also someone that Shepard in a very real way gave life to (encouraging and allowing self-determination), as well as a whole race of people given autonomy in such a noble way with the death of Legion. That whole bit about self-determination and autonomy is thrown out the window by Shepard in choosing destroy. That's how I see it. It does not fit with my paragon's character at all-because of everything she said and did. Those lives are irreplaceable. And I know they'd easily make that choice because of their own character-but Shepard never even asks them.

That's exactly why I choose 'Paragon' Control. But it still isn't right (the Reapers *deserve* to die. And what kind of anti-clmatic, lame end is this ?! Just look at ME 2 on how to do it !), and it still hasn't anything to do with Mass Effect's core themes.

Modifié par xcomcmdr, 24 septembre 2012 - 05:57 .

[Snypy]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Snypy wrote...

I think it greatly depends on how you perceive the Geth and EDI. I suppose EDI would be willing to sacrifice herself to save the Normandy's crew and all organics. She made it clear in one conversation when she said she would give preference to things like altruism, love, duty, etc. And as for the Geth, they chose to fight the Reapers so that they could build their own future. It's a pity they had to die. But they knew that stopping the Reapers was the goal, at any costs. I wouldn't say that Shep killed them, because there was no viable option to save them. For me, personally, sacrificing one friend and one race is preferable to the death of all my friends and all races in the galaxy. Perhaps it sounds cold to you, but that's how I feel it. (Yeah, ruthless calculus of war...)

Perhaps you play as ultra-Paragon and consequently you don't see much point in your Shepard surviving Destroy, given the final decision. But I don't see it as you do. 

By the way, we could only see torso. There has to be more to it than that, though. (Because one can't take a breath without a head.)

The problem here is that Shepard knows they are willing to die, but in this Shepard chooses to kill them.  I understand how this can be perceived as the only choice, but it sets things up for a bleak future just as is true for control and synthesis as I see it.

I won't envoke other real world comparables, but they exist.  Destroy creates a future where the conflict between synthetics and organics will be inevitable.  It creates a culture of understanding among all people that they were saved because synthetics died.  There's a lot of feelings that come along with that.  Guilt, but also relief.  Both of these can be played out as having hostile backlash.  Guilt is often expressed with hostility.  And relief at having lived creates a mindset of justification.  We do it here-you did it and I've done it too.  It had to be done because that was the only way.  It was us or them.  I'm not going to apologize for surviving.  Look at the backlash of the geth/quarian conflict.  The quarians perceived a threat, acted upon that threat, were almost destroyed fully because of that and still contain factions that would rather think of the geth as property, no matter what.  New synthetics will be born into a galaxy that feels ok that billions of their people died so that organics could live.   Guilty and not grateful.  And it also sets up a scenario where even more people will be reluctant to see synthetics as people.  To do otherwise, would require the galaxy face what was lost so that organics could live.  As I've said there are real world corollaries to be made here.

And, the problem I have with it being used as an idea of the willing sacrifice of EDI and the geth is that it's not.  It's one thing for you to step in front of me so I won't be shot.  It's another thing for someone else to push you in front of me so that I won't be.  And it's yet another thing for me to grab you and pull you in front of me to take the bullet for me.  And yet you may have been quite willing to die for me.  As a Commander it's one thing for Shepard to deploy the Garrus and Tali to attack reapers and die.  It's another thing for Shepard to shoot Garrus and Tali so s/he and others won't die.  There's a big difference.

The other thing is there were so many times when Shepard spoke out against this idea of the cold, ruthless, calculation of war.  Generals may think of numerical absolutes.  Soldiers on the ground rarely do.  They don't even think quite often of bigger pictures and the greater war.  They think of the guy or girl standing next to them.  EDI and the geth stood next to Shepard.  The freaking galaxy didn't even want to.

But all this is just why I want there to be a way to save them-they deserve to be saved.  They were loyal and were the most willing to lay down their lives.  They showed more heart than the damn galaxy did-they displayed the best attributes that the rest of the galaxy (other than those close to Shep) seemed to really lack.  So, it really irks me that they should pay for the idiocy of the galaxy.

I really don't get your next to last statement at all.  If you read my OP you know how much it matters to me for Shepard to survive, but it's just as important what Shepard does in order to achieve that.  Given all that Shepard said in these games, there's no way that Shepard would ever be the same if s/he made the decision to kill a friend and one loved by a very good friend who is also someone that Shepard in a very real way gave life to (encouraging and allowing self-determination), as well as a whole race of people given autonomy in such a noble way with the death of Legion.  That whole bit about self-determination and autonomy is thrown out the window by Shepard in choosing destroy.  That's how I see it.  It does not fit with my paragon's character at all-because of everything she said and did.  Those lives are irreplaceable.  And I know they'd easily make that choice because of their own character-but Shepard never even asks them.

To clarify my second paragraph: I was talking about the way the endings are now (not about what we want them to be). You said: "I can't see any good reason for bringing the torso out of the rubble then-Shepard would feel hollow and would not be happy with the outcome.[...]." Therefore, I inferred that you don't really want your Shep to live because he/she is responsible for the death of EDI and the Geth. Perhaps I just misunderstood you.

Anyway, maybe you're right that Shepard kills EDI and the Geth in Destroy. But there comes a time when one must do evil for a greater good. It's somewhat similar to letting Mordin cure the genophage. We know the krogans would probably rebel again if the genophage was cured. The rebellion would result in the deaths of millions of innocents. Is it therefore justifiable to betray the krogans and kill Mordin to prevent the war from ever taking place?

Modifié par Snypy, 24 septembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[CronoDragoon]

Snypy wrote...

Anyway, maybe you're right that Shepard kills EDI and the Geth in Destroy. But there comes a time when one must do evil for a greater good. It's somewhat similar to letting Mordin cure the genophage. We know the krogans would probably rebel again if the genophage was cured. The rebellion would result in the deaths of millions of innocents. Is it therefore justifiable to betray the krogans and kill Mordin to prevent the war from ever taking place?

That isn't doing evil, though. That is risking the potential for future harm in order to perform good now. Curing the genophage is an inherently good act that can only be considered bad when one thinks of the consequences. Killing the geth/EDI are inherently evil acts that can only be considered good when one thinks of the consequences (weighing their deaths vs. the universe) So they are actually quite opposite morally.

[3DandBeyond]

Snypy wrote...


To clarify my second paragraph: I was talking about the way the endings are now (not about what we want them to be). You said: "I can't see any good reason for bringing the torso out of the rubble then-Shepard would feel hollow and would not be happy with the outcome.[...]." Therefore, I inferred that you don't really want your Shep to live because he/she is responsible for the death of EDI and the Geth. Perhaps I just misunderstood you.

Anyway, maybe you're right that Shepard kills EDI and the Geth in Destroy. But there comes a time when one must do evil for a greater good. It's somewhat similar to letting Mordin cure the genophage. We know the krogans would probably rebel again if the genophage was cured. The rebellion would result in the deaths of millions of innocents. Is it therefore justifiable to betray the krogans and kill Mordin to prevent the war from ever taking place?

Hey, I'm no more right than anyone else, it just all irks me because it never had to be about all this.

And I've never killed Mordin or betrayed the Krogan.  I see those as renegade things I'd never do.  And if the Krogan rebel that's some big IF and a future situation.  If Wrex is there (he is for me) and Bakara is there (she is for me) then they might likely advance themselves and find a place as more beneficial members of galactic society.  I don't feel that any one person should be given the authority over all to decide such fates and say the Krogan have no right  to function normally without artificial intervention.  I disagree with synthesis for this same reason.  The Krogan have been abused and misused, to keep repeating this is a huge mistake.

[Snypy]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Hey, I'm no more right than anyone else, it just all irks me because it never had to be about all this.

And I've never killed Mordin or betrayed the Krogan.  I see those as renegade things I'd never do.  And if the Krogan rebel that's some big IF and a future situation.  If Wrex is there (he is for me) and Bakara is there (she is for me) then they might likely advance themselves and find a place as more beneficial members of galactic society.  I don't feel that any one person should be given the authority over all to decide such fates and say the Krogan have no right  to function normally without artificial intervention.  I disagree with synthesis for this same reason.  The Krogan have been abused and misused, to keep repeating this is a huge mistake.

I agree that there shouldn't have been so many hard decisions in ME3. That is also why I'd welcome a prequel. Our decisions would be limited to the fate of our crew and few other people.

Hm, Wrex and Bakara are only two krogans. You do know that there are over a billion females on Tuchanka. Each can produce over a thousand children in a year. If even one percent become fully fertile, they can birth ten billion infants. Given krogan reproduction rate, I personally don't think that they can peacefully coexist with the other species for a very long time.

[3DandBeyond]

Snypy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Hey, I'm no more right than anyone else, it just all irks me because it never had to be about all this.

And I've never killed Mordin or betrayed the Krogan.  I see those as renegade things I'd never do.  And if the Krogan rebel that's some big IF and a future situation.  If Wrex is there (he is for me) and Bakara is there (she is for me) then they might likely advance themselves and find a place as more beneficial members of galactic society.  I don't feel that any one person should be given the authority over all to decide such fates and say the Krogan have no right  to function normally without artificial intervention.  I disagree with synthesis for this same reason.  The Krogan have been abused and misused, to keep repeating this is a huge mistake.

I agree that there shouldn't have been so many hard decisions in ME3. That is also why I'd welcome a prequel. Our decisions would be limited to the fate of our crew and few other people.

Hm, Wrex and Bakara are only two krogans. You do know that there are over a billion females on Tuchanka. Each can produce over a thousand children in a year. If even one percent become fully fertile, they can birth ten billion infants. Given krogan reproduction rate, I personally don't think that they can peacefully coexist with the other species for a very long time.

Sure thing, lots of Krogan.  11 billion humans too and lots of Rachni and so on.  But you can decide that the Krogan can't peacefully coexist just as the quarians doubted that the geth could or would.  And, people don't all just love humans or salarians or batarians, either.  Who has the ultimate right to decide what should be done to their bodies and where does it all stop?  Today, it's the Krogan, then the Rachni, oooh let's stop the geth, how about the Batarians, the Humans, and so on and on.  If that's all the galaxy becomes is a question of numbers (how many of one race is allowed to existed and the value they have on some scale of worthiness) then set off the relays, destroy the reapers, and the whole damn thing.  The minute you assign someone a value like that, you lose what we now describe as humanity.  It's completely opposite to how many people view the world.  It's opposite to why rescuers will risk 10 lives to save one.  Or why people do anything for another person-it's the uniqueness of each life.  There is no other person like you and that's not about numbers.

It again is very much like a Star Trek episode where people fighting a war decided things by computer-how many casualties.  And those whose names were picked to be on the list of the dead, had to go to an extermination chamber. 

[Hudathan]

Snypy wrote...

I agree that there shouldn't have been so many hard decisions in ME3.

Modifié par Hudathan, 24 septembre 2012 - 06:05 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

N7 Assass1n wrote...


Yes, that is part of quantum mechanics, but only with synthetic intervention will we actually be able to prolong our life spans. Frankly, I would love that. Life is far too short. But to the extent of ME3's synthesis no.. However, things like the Cybernetic implants in the series that allow the N7 operatives to be more mobile for example, I see that being possible sooner than later in reality.

I agree there's a lot that could improve things for a lot of people, but I think there does always have to be a reminder or consideration for the rights and desires of the individual.  Even ME did at some point understand this since there were some people who didn't want implants at all.  It's like they tried way too hard in ME3 to show that tech solves everything.  They want to show destroy as being the total refutation or abolishment of tech, control as tech in charge, and synthesis as the happy happy joy joy where tech and people at last live in peace and harmony and roast cybernetic marshmallows together. 

When the hell did ME become all about tech?  All that tech was in the game up until ME3 was just something that was used to do stuff.  By the time ME3 rolls around it's a question of how much tech do we want in our lives.  And it's a repeat of some stuff.  Save the geth and let them live in peace-ok, man I thought we'd already decided to do that, but ok let's do it some more because at every turn we must decide whether to embrace the tech or not.  The creation of the crucible is a total denial of the ability of people to even try to rely on themselves.  Hell, tech will do it all-hail the crucible.

You take a look at ME and tech was not even a real big part of the story.  Control as well as synthesis played a part, but were rejected.  One of the main enemies faced was extremely organic and an old organic-a plant.  The tech that became a big part of the story was Sovereign and the geth, but even one main part of that was about the use of organics on Virmire.  The whole game was basically about the rejection of control, if anything.  You had a biotic cult leader controlling biotics and killing people-arrested or killed.  A plant enthralling people-killed.  Cerberus attempting to learn the Thorian's secrets-thwarted.  The Rachni controlled by Saren and Sovereign-killed and queen killed or saved.  Benezia-killed.  The whole darn game is a who's who of the controlled and dead or arrested.  Even Helena Blake who wanted to control the 3 factions and wanted her rivals dead.  And the arguing couple who were fighting about who controlled the decision for the unborn baby.

Then, look at ME2.  It seems more like a reinforcement of the idea that total control and synthesis (reaperization) are bad.  Miranda wanted a control chip inserted in Shepard-TIM didn't.  The effects of indoctrination play out again.  The collectors are the indoctrinated Protheans who have been morphed into pseudo-synthesized beings.  The heretic geth are an example of both control and synthesis gone awry.  The type of synthesis that in the end ME3's choices would impart to synthetics is exactly the kind the true geth rejected and why the heretics left.

I mean this all comes down to an ending game/story that embraces all the things the previous 2 games shed light on and rejected.  It also inserts something that was not really so overwhelming before and it makes it the main thing.  Tech.  It's this taken for granted thing in 2 games, that suddenly becomes the main characters-the hero and the villain-in ME3.  It's like tech is fighting itself because on the one hand you have tech that is a tool to be used and on the other hand you have tech that is people.  In the middle you have the most abhorrent, horrid brand of tech ever created-the reapers and the kid.  Why can't they find a way to use both good forms of tech (tools and people) to really defeat (as in destroy, abolish, smash) the nasty tech to bits?  Because, the game says, "no".  In order to destroy the bad synthetics, you must destroy and damage all tech.  As if this makes any sense at all.

ME has always been about techand advancement. ME has always ask the player on the issue of advancement and the morality. What do you think cerberus meaningwasapplied to the story or the issues of free thinking Legion brought up.

Me aske the player the major quetion of advancement, if any or no matter how it's gotten matters. This is shown with the collecter base choice and the citadel choice. Even the geth choice in ME2 applies this. Miranda herself as a person and how she was made and how cerberusatificaly created biotics applies this as well.
It's basicly"Yes, this is an imporvement, but the way we got it or having it is it morally right?"
The fact that Shepard in part synthetic applies this quetion as well.

[Snypy]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Snypy wrote...

I agree that there shouldn't have been so many hard decisions in ME3. That is also why I'd welcome a prequel. Our decisions would be limited to the fate of our crew and few other people.

Hm, Wrex and Bakara are only two krogans. You do know that there are over a billion females on Tuchanka. Each can produce over a thousand children in a year. If even one percent become fully fertile, they can birth ten billion infants. Given krogan reproduction rate, I personally don't think that they can peacefully coexist with the other species for a very long time.

Sure thing, lots of Krogan.  11 billion humans too and lots of Rachni and so on.  But you can decide that the Krogan can't peacefully coexist just as the quarians doubted that the geth could or would.  And, people don't all just love humans or salarians or batarians, either.  Who has the ultimate right to decide what should be done to their bodies and where does it all stop?  Today, it's the Krogan, then the Rachni, oooh let's stop the geth, how about the Batarians, the Humans, and so on and on.  If that's all the galaxy becomes is a question of numbers (how many of one race is allowed to existed and the value they have on some scale of worthiness) then set off the relays, destroy the reapers, and the whole damn thing.  The minute you assign someone a value like that, you lose what we now describe as humanity.  It's completely opposite to how many people view the world.  It's opposite to why rescuers will risk 10 lives to save one.  Or why people do anything for another person-it's the uniqueness of each life.  There is no other person like you and that's not about numbers.

It again is very much like a Star Trek episode where people fighting a war decided things by computer-how many casualties.  And those whose names were picked to be on the list of the dead, had to go to an extermination chamber. 

The quarians started the Morning War. The geth hadn't done anything to them before. Therefore, it's something completely different, because the krogans have already proven that they can't be trusted to keep their numbers in check. That's why the genophage was originally developed. Even Wrex dreams of his empire. And once he dies and some crazy male takes his place, it will end up badly. Additionally, this has little to do with humanity. In my opinion, curing the genophage is similar to allowing rogue states to develop nuclear weapons.

Modifié par Snypy, 24 septembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

N7 Assass1n wrote...


Yes, that is part of quantum mechanics, but only with synthetic intervention will we actually be able to prolong our life spans. Frankly, I would love that. Life is far too short. But to the extent of ME3's synthesis no.. However, things like the Cybernetic implants in the series that allow the N7 operatives to be more mobile for example, I see that being possible sooner than later in reality.

I agree there's a lot that could improve things for a lot of people, but I think there does always have to be a reminder or consideration for the rights and desires of the individual.  Even ME did at some point understand this since there were some people who didn't want implants at all.  It's like they tried way too hard in ME3 to show that tech solves everything.  They want to show destroy as being the total refutation or abolishment of tech, control as tech in charge, and synthesis as the happy happy joy joy where tech and people at last live in peace and harmony and roast cybernetic marshmallows together. 

When the hell did ME become all about tech?  All that tech was in the game up until ME3 was just something that was used to do stuff.  By the time ME3 rolls around it's a question of how much tech do we want in our lives.  And it's a repeat of some stuff.  Save the geth and let them live in peace-ok, man I thought we'd already decided to do that, but ok let's do it some more because at every turn we must decide whether to embrace the tech or not.  The creation of the crucible is a total denial of the ability of people to even try to rely on themselves.  Hell, tech will do it all-hail the crucible.

You take a look at ME and tech was not even a real big part of the story.  Control as well as synthesis played a part, but were rejected.  One of the main enemies faced was extremely organic and an old organic-a plant.  The tech that became a big part of the story was Sovereign and the geth, but even one main part of that was about the use of organics on Virmire.  The whole game was basically about the rejection of control, if anything.  You had a biotic cult leader controlling biotics and killing people-arrested or killed.  A plant enthralling people-killed.  Cerberus attempting to learn the Thorian's secrets-thwarted.  The Rachni controlled by Saren and Sovereign-killed and queen killed or saved.  Benezia-killed.  The whole darn game is a who's who of the controlled and dead or arrested.  Even Helena Blake who wanted to control the 3 factions and wanted her rivals dead.  And the arguing couple who were fighting about who controlled the decision for the unborn baby.

Then, look at ME2.  It seems more like a reinforcement of the idea that total control and synthesis (reaperization) are bad.  Miranda wanted a control chip inserted in Shepard-TIM didn't.  The effects of indoctrination play out again.  The collectors are the indoctrinated Protheans who have been morphed into pseudo-synthesized beings.  The heretic geth are an example of both control and synthesis gone awry.  The type of synthesis that in the end ME3's choices would impart to synthetics is exactly the kind the true geth rejected and why the heretics left.

I mean this all comes down to an ending game/story that embraces all the things the previous 2 games shed light on and rejected.  It also inserts something that was not really so overwhelming before and it makes it the main thing.  Tech.  It's this taken for granted thing in 2 games, that suddenly becomes the main characters-the hero and the villain-in ME3.  It's like tech is fighting itself because on the one hand you have tech that is a tool to be used and on the other hand you have tech that is people.  In the middle you have the most abhorrent, horrid brand of tech ever created-the reapers and the kid.  Why can't they find a way to use both good forms of tech (tools and people) to really defeat (as in destroy, abolish, smash) the nasty tech to bits?  Because, the game says, "no".  In order to destroy the bad synthetics, you must destroy and damage all tech.  As if this makes any sense at all.

Right. Not only was there a new character introduced in the final 10 minutes of the game, but the entire theme of the story changed as well. It became all about tech. It became Deus Ex. Tech under control: Control. Tech Free For All: Synthesis (Helios). And finally All Tech Bad Return To Middle Ages: Destroy. And now: I don't like any of these so I'll just die.

And now you have the remaining Leviathans just for fun.

Star Control 2 for the bulk then Mac Walters + Casey Hudson w/ no Artistic Direction.

Save Mass Effect --- >>> retcon the entirety of ME3.

[dreman9999]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

N7 Assass1n wrote...


Yes, that is part of quantum mechanics, but only with synthetic intervention will we actually be able to prolong our life spans. Frankly, I would love that. Life is far too short. But to the extent of ME3's synthesis no.. However, things like the Cybernetic implants in the series that allow the N7 operatives to be more mobile for example, I see that being possible sooner than later in reality.

I agree there's a lot that could improve things for a lot of people, but I think there does always have to be a reminder or consideration for the rights and desires of the individual.  Even ME did at some point understand this since there were some people who didn't want implants at all.  It's like they tried way too hard in ME3 to show that tech solves everything.  They want to show destroy as being the total refutation or abolishment of tech, control as tech in charge, and synthesis as the happy happy joy joy where tech and people at last live in peace and harmony and roast cybernetic marshmallows together. 

When the hell did ME become all about tech?  All that tech was in the game up until ME3 was just something that was used to do stuff.  By the time ME3 rolls around it's a question of how much tech do we want in our lives.  And it's a repeat of some stuff.  Save the geth and let them live in peace-ok, man I thought we'd already decided to do that, but ok let's do it some more because at every turn we must decide whether to embrace the tech or not.  The creation of the crucible is a total denial of the ability of people to even try to rely on themselves.  Hell, tech will do it all-hail the crucible.

You take a look at ME and tech was not even a real big part of the story.  Control as well as synthesis played a part, but were rejected.  One of the main enemies faced was extremely organic and an old organic-a plant.  The tech that became a big part of the story was Sovereign and the geth, but even one main part of that was about the use of organics on Virmire.  The whole game was basically about the rejection of control, if anything.  You had a biotic cult leader controlling biotics and killing people-arrested or killed.  A plant enthralling people-killed.  Cerberus attempting to learn the Thorian's secrets-thwarted.  The Rachni controlled by Saren and Sovereign-killed and queen killed or saved.  Benezia-killed.  The whole darn game is a who's who of the controlled and dead or arrested.  Even Helena Blake who wanted to control the 3 factions and wanted her rivals dead.  And the arguing couple who were fighting about who controlled the decision for the unborn baby.

Then, look at ME2.  It seems more like a reinforcement of the idea that total control and synthesis (reaperization) are bad.  Miranda wanted a control chip inserted in Shepard-TIM didn't.  The effects of indoctrination play out again.  The collectors are the indoctrinated Protheans who have been morphed into pseudo-synthesized beings.  The heretic geth are an example of both control and synthesis gone awry.  The type of synthesis that in the end ME3's choices would impart to synthetics is exactly the kind the true geth rejected and why the heretics left.

I mean this all comes down to an ending game/story that embraces all the things the previous 2 games shed light on and rejected.  It also inserts something that was not really so overwhelming before and it makes it the main thing.  Tech.  It's this taken for granted thing in 2 games, that suddenly becomes the main characters-the hero and the villain-in ME3.  It's like tech is fighting itself because on the one hand you have tech that is a tool to be used and on the other hand you have tech that is people.  In the middle you have the most abhorrent, horrid brand of tech ever created-the reapers and the kid.  Why can't they find a way to use both good forms of tech (tools and people) to really defeat (as in destroy, abolish, smash) the nasty tech to bits?  Because, the game says, "no".  In order to destroy the bad synthetics, you must destroy and damage all tech.  As if this makes any sense at all.

Right. Not only was there a new character introduced in the final 10 minutes of the game, but the entire theme of the story changed as well. It became all about tech. It became Deus Ex. Tech under control: Control. Tech Free For All: Synthesis (Helios). And finally All Tech Bad Return To Middle Ages: Destroy. And now: I don't like any of these so I'll just die.

And now you have the remaining Leviathans just for fun.

Star Control 2 for the bulk then Mac Walters + Casey Hudson w/ no Artistic Direction.

Save Mass Effect --- >>> retcon the entirety of ME3.

Part of ME theme is about advancement from day one. It's not something that popped out in the last second.

[SpamBot2000]

And a part of ME from day one is interspecies romance. Might as well have that as the big finale.

[N7 Lisbeth]

dreman9999 wrote...

Part of ME theme is about advancement from day one. It's not something that popped out in the last second.

Go ahead, name such an instance. (Hint: It doesn't exist.)

There's nothing wrong with the idea, but it was never an Mass Effect theme. Artificial intelligence being "alive" was, but not advancement.

Because it's been very clear from other threads you lack an understanding of what you're talking about, this may help.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Part of ME theme is about advancement from day one. It's not something that popped out in the last second.

Go ahead, name such an instance. (Hint: It doesn't exist.)

There's nothing wrong with the idea, but it was never an Mass Effect theme. Artificial intelligence being "alive" was, but not advancement.

Because it's been very clear from other threads you lack an understanding of what you're talking about, this may help.

While we're talking about big finales I should bring up THIS AGAIN just to remind us how far the mighty have fallen. And I laugh to keep from crying.