6432 réponses à ce sujet

[IamDanThaMan]

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Please, for sanity's sake. I am requesting that others not argue with dreman9999. This person is just interested in arguing. That is not why I created this thread. I'd appreciate it if we all stopped replying to his repeated attempts to start arguments. I don't know what the problem is, it's probably shackled and forced to post these things.

So you ceated this thread so that everyone could just agree with you and tell you how great your idea is?

Your idea is bad and would ruin the game. I'm sorry that you failed to grasp the theme and concept of the ending, but that is not my, nor deman9999, or anybody else's problem.

no she didn't this create for everyone to agree with her, your welcome to state your own opinion. And no we didn't fail to grasp the theme because the ending isn't about the theme of the game

Apparently you did, because from the very first ad for ME1(which has been linked to) we were told that we would have to make difficult decisions.

Why did you not complain that you were not able to save both Ashley and Kaiden on Virmire? Shouldn't Bioware have given you that option? Why did you not complain that Bioware didn't give you the option to hand the collector base over to the alliance instead of destroying it or handing it over to the illusive man? Would that not have been the preferred option?

[AlanC9]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Also, there is a severe misunderstanding of colateral damage. People seem to be confusing it with friendly fire. Colateral damage is inadvertent casualties and destruction in civilian areas in the course of military operations(google it).

So yes, there was a lot of colateral damage when bombing japan and germany.

Not so much with Japan, where we went to just napalming everything fairy quickly. The nukes were the logical endpoint of that strategy. Barbecuing lots of civilians was a feature, not a bug.

Just a nitpick; I'm with you on the substance of the post.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:00 .

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Please, for sanity's sake. I am requesting that others not argue with dreman9999. This person is just interested in arguing. That is not why I created this thread. I'd appreciate it if we all stopped replying to his repeated attempts to start arguments. I don't know what the problem is, it's probably shackled and forced to post these things.

Yes, can't make you point so you just want to ignore the commet.

Stop say that an ending where Shepard lives and kills only the reapers  is not a happy ending. It's bs. 

dude just stop arguing with EVERYBODY who doesn't agree with your opinion. You obviously aren't going to change anybodys mind. Your welcome to your opinion but you don't have to argue with half of BSN to get your point across.

It's clear I'm not going to change any one minds. But I'm open to express my opinion just like the op. And saying shepard living at the end and just only killing the reaper is not a happy end is bs. It is a happy ending. There is no way to explain how it's not.

I'm not going to argue, that would be the one of the happiest ending we could get. Somebody can want that but it's not that likely to happen. Even if Shepard lives and the reapers are destroyed and not the geth or EDI with them doesn't make it a perfect ending. Other stuff would happen and other people would die because that's war. I would not mind there being a "happy ending" to ME3 but a perfect ending would be bs.
And yes you are open to your opinion but there is no need to argue with everybody. discuss yes but arguing no

But I'm not saying it's a perfect ending. Just a happy one.  What I'm say is adding this ending will conflict the direction BW want the story to go. They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...


Somebody missed the sarcasm face.

Also, there is a severe misunderstanding of colateral damage. People seem to be confusing it with friendly fire. Colateral damage is inadvertent casualties and destruction in civilian areas in the course of military operations(google it).

So yes, there was a lot of colateral damage when bombing japan and germany.

The TC wants there to be an ending where your choices have only good consequences and no negative repucussions. That is totally not realistic. You want your video game to remain a total fantasy world and not be at all grounded in reality. The fact of the matter is that Bioware intentionally made all three endings to have good and bad consequences, so you would actually have a hard decision to make at the end.

There is no "best" ending on purpose, so what you are asking for would go totally against the entire theme of the series and would make everything else obsolete because nobody would ever pick any of the other endings if there was a perfect ending that made everything great at the end.

This would remove all the thought from the entire game and make it much, much worse.

Oh for pete's sake.  Of course, there was collateral damage in WWII-I don't need to google it, I had history classes and parents and relatives in the war and I'm not two years old.

The negative repercussions are all over the place.  Except they are not even shown when you make a choice-that is fantasy.  The choices are complete fantasies-did you think they were realistic?  The hard decisions have been made-the hard fighting is being fought.  I said it would not be something easy to attain. 

And this is a real problem:

"nobody would ever pick any of the other endings if there was a perfect ending that made everything great at the end."

I don't agree with you, but if that's the case then nobody has the ending they want right now and everyone got really bad endings.  If that's the case, everyone would be agreeing with me and wanting a "happier" (not happy sappy super sweet) ending.

If you like other endings, why would you ever pick a "happier" one?  If you would always pick a "happier" one then you don't like the endings you now have.

However, I am not asking them to take away your endings.  I am asking them to consider giving me something more authentic that would be what I would like. Something additional that could lead to the reapers being destroyed and Shepard having to sacrifice him/herself for that as well as one hard to get Shepard lives ending with reapers only destroyed.  I am asking to not be asked to make demented choices that are what I consider to be immoral and not at all a part of the character of my Shepard.  I'd prefer endings that had no fantasy in them at all-that would mean getting rid of the endings you like, but I'm not asking that that be considered.

I don't know what's so hard to understand-I don't want to take anything away from you.  I'm not asking them to force you to ever have to have something as super happy as a galaxy in ruins where Shepard's alive and the reapers are dead.  You know where Shepard and his/her LI go skipping through fields of dead bodies. 

The point of the 3 choice in the end of the game is to cause moral conflict. How is adding a "Shepard lives, only reapers die" choice going to continue to cause moral conflict with the player?

[Conniving_Eagle]

"Many decisions lie ahead... none of them matter."

Whatever happened to this commercial?

www.youtube.com/watch

[3DandBeyond]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

It's clear I'm not going to change any one minds. But I'm open to express my opinion just like the op. And saying shepard living at the end and just only killing the reaper is not a happy end is bs. It is a happy ending. There is no way to explain how it's not.

Well, I think the point is not that it is a happy ending for everybody, but, relative to the other endings, it would be a happy ending, So nobody would ever choose any of the other endings, which removes the element of choice.

What they want is the destroy ending, except the geth don't die, EDI doesn't die, Shepard doesn't die, and the relays remain in tact. Tell me TC how that doesn't completely invalidate the other endings and remove all choice from this game.

Where did I say the relays would be intact?  Please do point that out to me-you can't because I never said that. 

Why would a hard to achieve ending invalidate the other endings if that's what you claim to like.  Why would you choose something you don't want.  And since you seem to see a Shepard lives/reapers die as a perfect ending (I don't), then you must want that ending.  It does not remove the element of choice at all.  If you have other choices, you still have choice unless having a good choice that you would choose would make you so happy you couldn't stand it.

[dreman9999]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

"Many decisions lie ahead... none of them matter."

Whatever happened to this commercial?

www.youtube.com/watch

That the comercail saying this is the fanal battle. It never said "happy ending included".

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

But I'm not saying it's a perfect ending. Just a happy one.  What I'm say is adding this ending will conflict the direction BW want the story to go. They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

I may not like the endings but I agree that the moral conflict is an important part. I would like there to be a 'happy ending' to the game as well but I know it's not likely. If somebody wants to hope for it I won't argue with them because I hope for it too.

[AresKeith]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Please, for sanity's sake. I am requesting that others not argue with dreman9999. This person is just interested in arguing. That is not why I created this thread. I'd appreciate it if we all stopped replying to his repeated attempts to start arguments. I don't know what the problem is, it's probably shackled and forced to post these things.

So you ceated this thread so that everyone could just agree with you and tell you how great your idea is?

Your idea is bad and would ruin the game. I'm sorry that you failed to grasp the theme and concept of the ending, but that is not my, nor deman9999, or anybody else's problem.

no she didn't this create for everyone to agree with her, your welcome to state your own opinion. And no we didn't fail to grasp the theme because the ending isn't about the theme of the game

Apparently you did, because from the very first ad for ME1(which has been linked to) we were told that we would have to make difficult decisions.

Why did you not complain that you were not able to save both Ashley and Kaiden on Virmire? Shouldn't Bioware have given you that option? Why did you not complain that Bioware didn't give you the option to hand the collector base over to the alliance instead of destroying it or handing it over to the illusive man? Would that not have been the preferred option?

Using a ME1 ad to defend ME3 is not a good example, especially since Bioware hasn't been true to there word since pre-release of ME3.

1. I didn't complain about Virmire because I didn't really like Kaiden and Bioware original intended to save both, so not problem there

2. I actually did say there should have been a option to give the base to the Alliance and it was stupid to not have one, but the Collector base is one of the choices that became irrelevant

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But I'm not saying it's a perfect ending. Just a happy one.  What I'm say is adding this ending will conflict the direction BW want the story to go. They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

I may not like the endings but I agree that the moral conflict is an important part. I would like there to be a 'happy ending' to the game as well but I know it's not likely. If somebody wants to hope for it I won't argue with them because I hope for it too.

Ok then. It's ok to say you don't like the choices at hand or the endings. But  you have to keep in mind what BW wants to do too.

[Conniving_Eagle]

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

"Many decisions lie ahead... none of them matter."

Whatever happened to this commercial?

www.youtube.com/watch

That the comercail saying this is the fanal battle. It never said "happy ending included".

No, but it said we would take back Earth. There was never any mention of kneeling before the Reaper Overlord and using the Crucible to help solve his problem so we could have Earth back. Hell, unless maybe there was an interview, the Crucible (the thing the plot revolved around) was never even mentioned.

And by the way, don't use a TV spot for another game to support this one.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Please, for sanity's sake. I am requesting that others not argue with dreman9999. This person is just interested in arguing. That is not why I created this thread. I'd appreciate it if we all stopped replying to his repeated attempts to start arguments. I don't know what the problem is, it's probably shackled and forced to post these things.

So you ceated this thread so that everyone could just agree with you and tell you how great your idea is?

Your idea is bad and would ruin the game. I'm sorry that you failed to grasp the theme and concept of the ending, but that is not my, nor deman9999, or anybody else's problem.

no she didn't this create for everyone to agree with her, your welcome to state your own opinion. And no we didn't fail to grasp the theme because the ending isn't about the theme of the game

Apparently you did, because from the very first ad for ME1(which has been linked to) we were told that we would have to make difficult decisions.

Why did you not complain that you were not able to save both Ashley and Kaiden on Virmire? Shouldn't Bioware have given you that option? Why did you not complain that Bioware didn't give you the option to hand the collector base over to the alliance instead of destroying it or handing it over to the illusive man? Would that not have been the preferred option?

Using a ME1 ad to defend ME3 is not a good example, especially since Bioware hasn't been true to there word since pre-release of ME3.

1. I didn't complain about Virmire because I didn't really like Kaiden and Bioware original intended to save both, so not problem there

2. I actually did say there should have been a option to give the base to the Alliance and it was stupid to not have one, but the Collector base is one of the choices that became irrelevant

1. That only how you feel about it. But not to other.It still was a moraly conflicting choice to others. The nding of ME1 as well.
Add the geth choice in Legions mission. THE ENDING OF ME3 has the same concept.

2. Like they can get to it in the teminus systems. Alliance fleets would not be allowed there. And not before cerberus at all.

[IamDanThaMan]

3DandBeyond wrote...

However, I am not asking them to take away your endings.  I am asking them to consider giving me something more authentic that would be what I would like. Something additional that could lead to the reapers being destroyed and Shepard having to sacrifice him/herself for that as well as one hard to get Shepard lives ending with reapers only destroyed.  I am asking to not be asked to make demented choices that are what I consider to be immoral and not at all a part of the character of my Shepard.  I'd prefer endings that had no fantasy in them at all-that would mean getting rid of the endings you like, but I'm not asking that that be considered.

I understand what you are asking and why. I am just trying to explain to why you are totally wrong. You want an ending where only the ****s are killed, all civilians are left alone, and no atomic boms have to be dropped. Do you really think that the people who made the decision to drop the atomic bomb didn't know that they would be killing a lot of innocent civillians? They did, they may not have known exactly what would happen afterward, but they knew the effects of radiation poisoning, they just knew that in the long run, it would save more lives than it took, just like Shepard knows when he chooses the destroy ending.

I never said that you asked to remove the options, only that you would be removing the choice. Because NOBODY WOULD EVER CHOOSE ANY OTHER ENDING. It's not that I liked all the ending options, only that I appreciate that they give you a difficult decision to make at the end of a series that was built on making hard descisions.

ME2 was actually my least favorite game of the series because there was a severe lack of these types of morally grey decisions that actually make you think before making them.

[dreman9999]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

"Many decisions lie ahead... none of them matter."

Whatever happened to this commercial?

www.youtube.com/watch

That the comercail saying this is the fanal battle. It never said "happy ending included".

No, but it said we would take back Earth. There was never any mention of kneeling before the Reaper Overlord and using the Crucible to help solve his problem so we could have Earth back. Hell, unless maybe there was an interview, the Crucible (the thing the plot revolved around) was never even mentioned.

And by the way, don't use a TV spot for another game to support this one.

1. We did take back earth.
2. It never said we would not do your second points.
3.The opinions of the crucible are not in the control of the catalyst out side of synthesis.
4. The game is part of the series and is well able to cover the point of any of the later 2 games.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:16 .

[3DandBeyond]

I also want to know just where Bioware said that ME3 was going to be about Shepard giving in to the supposed lesser fantasy evil to avoid death by that same evil. I want to know where Bioware said that ME3 was going to end with a conversation with a fantasy character (unshackled AI who is crazy) and must decide between genocide, forced eugenics, totalitarianism, and suicide.

Collateral damage is not targeting your allies for destruction to save some others. What's the cost of control and synthesis? Shepard dies, but what other costs are there? Why does Shepard have to pay for the idiots of the galaxy when Shepard kept trying to warn them? Why should the geth pay when they believed and wanted to get rid of the reapers? Why should EDI pay when she rejected TIM in order to help the galaxy? Why shouldn't the galaxy pay instead for their stupidity? There's a real moral dilemma that should happen-shouldn't Hackett have to pay since he knew about the reapers and did nothing to prepare? How about "sacrificing" Earth to save the rest of the galaxy? The Alliance ignored all the info-Bryson had reaper pieces and "shielding" against indoctrination-that's a new one. How about that-why not make the people that sat on their hands pay for their ignorance and not those that tried to get people to listen?

Shepard died once. The geth were used and basically abused. So, why should they be the ones to sacrifice for this galaxy?

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But I'm not saying it's a perfect ending. Just a happy one.  What I'm say is adding this ending will conflict the direction BW want the story to go. They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

I may not like the endings but I agree that the moral conflict is an important part. I would like there to be a 'happy ending' to the game as well but I know it's not likely. If somebody wants to hope for it I won't argue with them because I hope for it too.

Ok then. It's ok to say you don't like the choices at hand or the endings. But  you have to keep in mind what BW wants to do too.

I know that. EAware will do what they want, it's their game. That's why I said there isn't anything wrong with somebody expressing that they want a happy ending to EAware. I would like one, probably half of BSN would like one, and if we had one I bet that even you would be tempted to choose it. Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't.

but to my point, if somebody wants something they are welcome to their opinion and you are welcome to disagree with their opinion, but don't get into a stupid arguement over it because that way nobody wins. You aren't going to change their minds and they aren't going to change yours. Discussing your point and arguing your point are 2 different things. Don't try to be persuasive. If you make a valid point I'm sure somebody will acknowledge it as I did in the bolded text above

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. That only how you feel about it. But not to other.It still was a moraly conflicting choice to others. The nding of ME1 as well.
Add the geth choice in Legions mission. THE ENDING OF ME3 has the same concept.

2. Like they can get to it in the teminus systems. Alliance fleets would not be allowed there. And not before cerberus at all.

1. funny how you should say that line I bolded, since your trying to bash someone for wanting an ending where Shepard is alive and Reapers dead and no the endings aren't like that

2. you missed the point, because that opinion isn't there I destroyed the base because I don't trust Cerberus, which became pointless anyway

so can you pls stop trying to argue with someone

[Vigilant111]

Look, reapers are bad, indoctrination is bad, Cerberus is bad...and we have been dealing with them throughout the entire trilogy. When you finally go up to that podium, it is symbolic that you are there to defeat all "bad" in the current cycle, there should not be another cart load of "bad" waiting for you, enough is enough, if this is truly to be the end of the trilogy

We have been making difficult choices throughout the whole game, so that the ending would not be as difficult to watch as it is, but instead, what we have is the mother of all moral dilemmas that we have encountered, blew up out of proportion. Suicide, genocide, totalitarianism, are these the kind of things that we should be doing? in any universe? did we fight the reapers after all this time just to reach such solutions?

NO!

[AlanC9]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

Spike Lee approves of this thread.

That reference went right by me. I haven't actually any of his recent stuff. What am I missing?

[Conniving_Eagle]

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

"Many decisions lie ahead... none of them matter."

Whatever happened to this commercial?

www.youtube.com/watch

That the comercail saying this is the fanal battle. It never said "happy ending included".

No, but it said we would take back Earth. There was never any mention of kneeling before the Reaper Overlord and using the Crucible to help solve his problem so we could have Earth back. Hell, unless maybe there was an interview, the Crucible (the thing the plot revolved around) was never even mentioned.

And by the way, don't use a TV spot for another game to support this one.

1. We did take back earth.
2. It never said we would not do your second points.
3.The opinions of the crucible are not in the control of the catalyst out side of synthesis.
4. The game is part of the series and is well able to cover the point of any of the later 2 games.

1. I won't argue this because it is subjective.
2. You're right, it didn't instead it implied we were going to kick the Reapers' asses.
3. He's the figure that presents them, and we still end up helping the antagonist.
4. You can't use a message from five years ago and say it still stands, especially if it wasn't advertised again. It's clear the game's focus went away from choices and into action.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I also want to know just where Bioware said that ME3 was going to be about Shepard giving in to the supposed lesser fantasy evil to avoid death by that same evil. I want to know where Bioware said that ME3 was going to end with a conversation with a fantasy character (unshackled AI who is crazy) and must decide between genocide, forced eugenics, totalitarianism, and suicide.

Collateral damage is not targeting your allies for destruction to save some others. What's the cost of control and synthesis? Shepard dies, but what other costs are there? Why does Shepard have to pay for the idiots of the galaxy when Shepard kept trying to warn them? Why should the geth pay when they believed and wanted to get rid of the reapers? Why should EDI pay when she rejected TIM in order to help the galaxy? Why shouldn't the galaxy pay instead for their stupidity? There's a real moral dilemma that should happen-shouldn't Hackett have to pay since he knew about the reapers and did nothing to prepare? How about "sacrificing" Earth to save the rest of the galaxy? The Alliance ignored all the info-Bryson had reaper pieces and "shielding" against indoctrination-that's a new one. How about that-why not make the people that sat on their hands pay for their ignorance and not those that tried to get people to listen?

Shepard died once. The geth were used and basically abused. So, why should they be the ones to sacrifice for this galaxy?

Please, just beause it's not said does not mean it's a violation of advertizement. If it's not said, it's not promised or nagated.

Your saying it you righ tto have Shepard live and kill only the reapers, but there was no promise.

We wer always told we were going to be give hard choices to make, and the ending fallowed that promise.  The chaoce were too hard for you. I understand. But you don't get to pick the echoices in the ame BW does. AND THEY Want the ending to go a direction you don't want to go. You want a added choice at would take the ending a differnt direct to go. Yet you don't see this.

BW is not going to have a change of heart for the direction they want the story to go.

[elitehunter34]

elitehunter34 wrote...

3DandBeyond I have in general agreed with your sentiments many times. I'm mostly in agreement with your OP. However, I'm just wondering, if what you want is simply the option for another choice, (such as high EMS destroy not killing the Geth/EDI) I really don't see how that is fixing much. Sure I would pick it, and I'm sure many many others would, but it wouldn't remove the Catalyst and the contrived choices. Unless Bioware chooses to continue the series, such a new ending would be utterly superfluous.

The endings as they are now simply can't be reconciled in a future release in any meaningful way. They are just way too disparate and would effectively require 3 wholly different settings. That just isn't feasible to implement. So Bioware is either going to have to somehow do that or focus on prequels and sidequels forever.  I don't think they are going to do either of those.  So they are going to have to make one of the endings the only one that the next games are based off of to continue the series. So basically someone is going to be disappointed no matter what Bioware does.

So, if Bioware has any intention of continuing the series, I argue that there needs to be a new ending (preferably based on high EMS destroy with some changes) Yes, it would be inherently superior, but it would only be accessible through making the correct choices and having an extremely high EMS.


To those of you that think a so called "happy" ending shoudn't be made.

Please, please spare me the rhetoric about how there should be no "easy" ending. This wouldn't be an "easy" ending to get. I hate the endings in their current form for many reasons, but one of the biggest is that the consequences of the choices are contrived. Forced sacrifice is not deep or meaningful. It doesn't make the game better. All it does is it shows that the writers thought that the ending needed even more sacrifice for completely arbitrary reasons.

Why would an ending with forced, arbitrary sacrifice better than an ending where you must work to get the best ending.   An ending where your choices really matter?  An ending much like Mass Effect 2?

Would Rannoch been better if the game forced you to choose between the Geth and the Quarians? Even though forging peace requires you to play the game smart and put the effort in? Even though there is no good reason to force us to choose?

Why? If someone here believes that superior options that must be earned are inherently bad please explain why. Please. I've heard this tired old argument that the ending needs sacrifice a million times. It just keeps going and going in circles because people seem to have this notion that if there has to be a sacrifice it automatically makes something better.

I'm not saying games should never have hard choices or never had sacrifice. Mass Effect has had both of those, and it was either avoidable for a good reason (such as Wrex on Virmire or the Rannoch choice) or it was a there for a good reason (such as on Legion's loyalty mission or the fleet sacrifice in ME1). But the ending to me screams forced sacrifice. I could go on about why, but just to wrap up this already long post I feel its because the Crucible is a device with enormous power worked on by the brightest minds in the galaxy. It was essentially a blank slate for the writers to base the choices on. Therefore there is no reason why it has to do x or y. So I feel the destruction of the Geth and EDI were contrived. I feel that the existence of control is contrived. I feel that the effects of Synthesis are contrived.

I'm posting this again (albiet slightly modified) because I don't think 3D noticed it and because others are continuously bringing up this tired argument about how the endings are great because there are no good choices. 

[3DandBeyond]

IamDanThaMan wrote...


I understand what you are asking and why. I am just trying to explain to why you are totally wrong. You want an ending where only the ****s are killed, all civilians are left alone, and no atomic boms have to be dropped. Do you really think that the people who made the decision to drop the atomic bomb didn't know that they would be killing a lot of innocent civillians? They did, they may not have known exactly what would happen afterward, but they knew the effects of radiation poisoning, they just knew that in the long run, it would save more lives than it took, just like Shepard knows when he chooses the destroy ending.

I never said that you asked to remove the options, only that you would be removing the choice. Because NOBODY WOULD EVER CHOOSE ANY OTHER ENDING. It's not that I liked all the ending options, only that I appreciate that they give you a difficult decision to make at the end of a series that was built on making hard descisions.

ME2 was actually my least favorite game of the series because there was a severe lack of these types of morally grey decisions that actually make you think before making them.

No, I don't want that-the galaxy is a mess.  Did you see Palaven and hear what happened to Thessia and Earth?  Did you not see or read about all those colonies that have been destroyed, the Batarians all but obliterated.

The difference in your example is the geth are fighting on OUR side-they are not inadvertant casualties that just happen-they are targeted for extermination.  You might like that.  I don't.  I'm not asking you to give that up.  But you are very wrong if you think everyone would choose that-and I can read, I quoted you, I don't need the caps.  Again, I'm not two.  You used the atom bombs as a comparision-I didn't.  I said that was targeting people and not collateral damage-you said it was collateral damage. 

The endings are a fantasy, but I'm not asking them to change them for you.  I've never asked that.  I've even said I'd pay for content that includes what I'd like-so, don't buy it.  How does any of this hurt you?  You seem so wrapped up in having to be forced to make a difficult choice that I can't help but wonder what this means to you.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:28 .