6432 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Do the Right Thing

love that movie

[IamDanThaMan]

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?

Ok, first, you clearly have no idea what eugenics is, stop bringing it up, because that is not what synthesis is.

Also, destroy is not targeting your allies, collateral damage does not mean targetting your allies or civilians. Colateral damage is civilian casualties of war that occur when you are targeting your enemy.

You seem to still be hung up on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve", have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to good people?

Also, the Alliance did do a lot to prepare. Once they got into the council, they immediately began to expand their fleets in preparation for the reapers, although they told people it was to defend against the geth. This was in a book, don't remember which, also I think mentioned briefely in ME2.

Once again you want the game to play out like a fantasy world where everybody gets whats coming to them, you do not want to admit that the game as it is is much more like the real world than the ending you propose.

[dreman9999]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

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.

1. How ia it subjective. Every ending we get earth back except refuse....It how whole it is that differnt in the endings.

2.No it did not. It only showed we were fighting them. Not beating them conventionally.
3.Do you even understand what he wants? It's not to be destoryed or to be controled. The only way you help him is to pick synthesis. If your issue is that you want to kill him, shot the pipe.
4.The message from 5 yars ago never changed. ME1 , We had hard choices to make,.ME2, We had hard choices to make. And ME3 , we still have hard choices to make. It stands.

[dreman9999]

elitehunter34 wrote...



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. 

You mised the point of that ending is that it brings the player to moral conflict.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:35 .

[AlanC9]

Vigilant111 wrote...

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?

If the alternative is extinction? Then, yes.

[Conniving_Eagle]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. How ia it subjective. Every ending we get earth back except refuse....It how whole it is that differnt in the endings.

2.No it did not. It only showed we were fighting them. Not beating them conventionally.
3.Do you even understand what he wants? It's not to be destoryed or to be controled. The only way you help him is to pick synthesis. If your issue is that you want to kill him, shot the pipe.
4.The message from 5 yars ago never changed. ME1 , We had hard choices to make,.ME2, We had hard choices to make. And ME3 , we still have hard choices to make. It stands.

1. Getting isn't the same thing as taking, and I have reasons for not viewing the end of ME3 as a victory.
2. It didn't show the Reapers defeating us with everybody losing despair and hoping a super-weapon was our only hope. The trailer wasn't conveying that at all.
3. The Catalyst believe Synthesis is optimal, all of the Crucible options still solve his problem.
4. We had hard choices in ME1: Virmire, dooming an entire race to extinction or granting them amnesty for their past actions, saving the council or sacraficing them to have a better shot at destroying Sovereign. ME2 didn't have tough decisions, It had a lot more decisiosns, but they didn't have the ambiguity of ME1's decisiosns. That's why it wasn't advertised again. And it wasn't advertised in ME3 either because I doubt they wanted to advertise: Tough choices - decide between three very ****ty endings.

[AlanC9]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Do the Right Thing

Hee. I totally spaced on the thread's title.

[elitehunter34]

dreman9999 wrote...
You mised the point of th endin is that it brings the player to moral conflict.

Dremen, I know we've been over this before a million freaken times.  I know that they wanted a moral dilemma.  I get it.  I get it and everyone else here gets it.  That isn't the damn point of my argument.  My point is that it is a contrived moral dilemma.  Contrived.  Do you know what that word means?  Read my argument again.  

I have made many posts like this on the forums before and every time you reply to one, you say almost the exact same thing you just say now.  Just stop.  Stop it Dremen.  I love debating, I like it when people talk about things they disagree about, but your constant ignoring of my actual arguments with this little line about moral conflict is getting extremely frustrating.  There is a reason 3DandBeyond is suggesting that people should ignore you, it's because you consistantly ignore or misconstrue others arguments so the focus of someone's post is changed. So please, either actually bring something relevant to the discussion, or I'm just going to ignore you.  I don't want to do that, but your behavior is making me not want to discuss anything with you.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[Vigilant111]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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?

If the alternative is extinction? Then, yes.

Yes, exactly why the Protheans nearly went extinct

[3DandBeyond]

elitehunter34 wrote...

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. 

Thank you for re-posting that.  I did miss it.  In fact, I have suggested alternate methods and one of those is the High EMS Destroy-a link to what I proposed is in my sig line.  I also have other theories on how they could have removed the kid and made the endings (these endings) more the outcome of choices, actions, and other factors in the game with good, bad, and more neutral versions.

My main issue with the endings was that they should never have been choices in the first place.  The goal should have remained the goal with success or failure leading to a variety of outcomes.  Why it ever came down to some arbitrary "moral" choices is beyond me.  That's not war.  War is deciding who to send in to the battle.  It's deciding where to send air support and maybe going it alone so that something more valuable is protected.  War is not exterminating a whole race just because.  It's not inserting foreign objects into other people's bodies just because.  And it's not handing your enemies the keys to your cities just because.  I really don't think people understand the allegories these choices are so they think it is all about making some moral choice.  Well, making a choice is immoral.  So again there is no moral choice.

[AlanC9]

Vigilant111 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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?

If the alternative is extinction? Then, yes.

Yes, exactly why the Protheans nearly went extinct

Not quite following that.

[dreman9999]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. How ia it subjective. Every ending we get earth back except refuse....It how whole it is that differnt in the endings.

2.No it did not. It only showed we were fighting them. Not beating them conventionally.
3.Do you even understand what he wants? It's not to be destoryed or to be controled. The only way you help him is to pick synthesis. If your issue is that you want to kill him, shot the pipe.
4.The message from 5 yars ago never changed. ME1 , We had hard choices to make,.ME2, We had hard choices to make. And ME3 , we still have hard choices to make. It stands.

1. Getting isn't the same thing as taking, and I have reasons for not viewing the end of ME3 as a victory.
2. It didn't show the Reapers defeating us with everybody losing despair and hoping a super-weapon was our only hope. The trailer wasn't conveying that at all.
3. The Catalyst believe Synthesis is optimal, all of the Crucible options still solve his problem.
4. We had hard choices in ME1: Virmire, dooming an entire race to extinction or granting them amnesty for their past actions, saving the council or sacraficing them to have a better shot at destroying Sovereign. ME2 didn't have tough decisions, It had a lot more decisiosns, but they didn't have the ambiguity of ME1's decisiosns. That's why it wasn't advertised again. And it wasn't advertised in ME3 either because I doubt they wanted to advertise: Tough choices - decide between three very ****ty endings.

1.I contol the reapers...I took back earth. I destroyed them....I took back earth. I only get bak earth in synthesis.
2.Count one reaper at the end of commercial? Going by the combat part, it's only garunteed I can stand up to husks.

3.His goal is sythesis.The leviathen dlc stated this...He and clear says he does not want to be control.
 

Helping him is not controling him or destroying him. Helping him is choosing synthesis.

4." ME2 didn't have tough decisions "..... The geth choice in Legions mission... The collector base choice.
Me2 had hard desisions.

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
I really don't think people understand the allegories these choices are so they think it is all about making some moral choice.  Well, making a choice is immoral.  So again there is no moral choice.

If your system of morality says there's no moral choice, there's a problem with the system. It's failing to give you guidance.

[IamDanThaMan]

3DandBeyond wrote...

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.

But your ending is still rainbows and lolipops relative to the other endings(I don't know how many times I have to say that before it will finally sink in).

THE GETH ARE NOT TARGETED, THEY ARE COLATERAL DAMAGE FROM USING THE ONLY WEAPON WE HAVE THAT WILL KILL THE REAPERS(I have to use all caps because you keep asking questions that I already answered)

I don't like that destroy kills the geth, in fact, I disliked it so much that I didn't choose destroy, I chose synthesis besause I felt it was the best option. Did I like the idea of forcibly merging synthetic and oranic DNA? No, but that is absolutely not the point. The point is that if there was one choice that was inherently better that the rest, there may as well not be a choice. You may as well just make everything after the citadel beam a non-interactive cutscene.

Mass Effect has always been hard science fiction, grounded in reality. It is gritty and dirty, just like the real world. Just like the endings are. Go back to watching StarGate, where any weapon can be "calibrated" to kill only the enemies that you want it to.(not that I dislike StarGate, I'm just using it as an example)

Also, Bioware does not have the money or the resources to dictate to every fan that has their own idea of how the series should end. They are not going to make fiftty DLCs so that everyone can download the ending they want.

Your time would be better spent writing letters to George Lucas telling him to STOP changing Star Wars every five years, then again, maybe you liked the new changes. Darth Vader just can't say NOOO enough right?

[Vigilant111]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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?

If the alternative is extinction? Then, yes.

Yes, exactly why the Protheans nearly went extinct

Not quite following that.

Do you really think that genocide and totalitarianism can help you survive? If so, how long do you think you can survive? How long can you maintain the state of genocide and totalitarianism?

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

4." ME2 didn't have tough decisions "..... The geth choice in Legions mission... The collector base choice.
Me2 had hard desisions.

each ending in its own way benefits the Catalyst, Synthesis is to him is his perminant solution

and no, the geth choice and the Collector base are not hard choices based on how you play

[dreman9999]

elitehunter34 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You mised the point of th endin is that it brings the player to moral conflict.

Dremen, I know we've been over this before a million freaken times.  I know that they wanted a moral dilemma.  I get it.  I get it and everyone else here gets it.  That isn't the damn point of my argument.  My point is that it is a contrived moral dilemma.  Contrived.  Do you know what that word means?  Read my argument again.  

I have made many posts like this on the forums before and every time you reply to one, you say almost the exact same thing you just say now.  Just stop.  Stop it Dremen.  I love debating, I like it when people talk about things they disagree about, but your constant ignoring of my actual arguments with this little line about moral conflict is getting extremely frustrating.  There is a reason 3DandBeyond is suggesting that people should ignore you, it's because you consistantly ignore or misconstrue others arguments so the focus of someone's post is changed. So please, either actually bring something relevant to the discussion, or I'm just going to ignore you.  I don't want to do that, but your behavior is making me not want to discuss anything with you.

So controling the reapers was never stated before nor destroying them?
Added, we never knew how the crucible works, the concept that it could do what it was designed to do in any way was alway brought up and was an issue. What the crucible does is part of that "can stop the reapers in any way."
 What counter the contrives was that how it stoped the reapers was always a mystery. Added waht forces this events to happen is cerberus getting the Prothean VI. It's not contrived. It can only would be that there was no chance to get understand what the crucible does was not possible. If we got the prothean VI, we would eventully no how the crucible works.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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?

If the alternative is extinction? Then, yes.

And thus my choice is Ultimate Refusal.  Don't even play. The Kobyashi Maru may be a fine test for aspiring Star Fleet captains, but it makes for poor entertainment.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

4." ME2 didn't have tough decisions "..... The geth choice in Legions mission... The collector base choice.
Me2 had hard desisions.

each ending in its own way benefits the Catalyst, Synthesis is to him is his perminant solution

and no, the geth choice and the Collector base are not hard choices based on how you play

Controling the reapers and doing evrything how you want it helps the catalyst?
Destroying him helps the catalyst?
Add, morality is relative. Not everyone is going to see hard choices as hard choices. The people who had no conflict with the virmire choice or citadel battle choice.Just because you did not find it moraly conflicting does not mean others did. Many people did see the geth choice in legions mission as moraly confliciting as well as the collector base choice.

[3DandBeyond]

IamDanThaMan wrote...


Ok, first, you clearly have no idea what eugenics is, stop bringing it up, because that is not what synthesis is.

Also, destroy is not targeting your allies, collateral damage does not mean targetting your allies or civilians. Colateral damage is civilian casualties of war that occur when you are targeting your enemy.

You seem to still be hung up on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve", have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to good people?

Also, the Alliance did do a lot to prepare. Once they got into the council, they immediately began to expand their fleets in preparation for the reapers, although they told people it was to defend against the geth. This was in a book, don't remember which, also I think mentioned briefely in ME2.

Once again you want the game to play out like a fantasy world where everybody gets whats coming to them, you do not want to admit that the game as it is is much more like the real world than the ending you propose.

Eugenics was a movement aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human race-correct, it was a movement with that specific name.  But the term of late has been taken to mean those that subscribe to the theory of improving humans genetically.  In ME3, there's a case to be made that were the Krogans human that would have been Eugenics (in practice, but not as a part of the social movement).  So, how about I call it genetic molestation?

If you are given a gun and told if you shoot 5 people that 10 other people will be saved, the 5 you shoot are not collateral damage.  If you decide to shoot them, you have committed murder, no matter what the circumstances.  You could have decided not to shoot.

I'm going to tell you to never assume what you have just assumed.  I know full well what real life is like and I know well enough how unfair it can be.  It is amazingly narrow-minded of you to assume that I do not.  I have not once assumed anything about your character.  My father died in front of me when I was 16-I gave him mouth to mouth resusitation but could not revive him.  My sister killed herself.  My mother died in front of me-don't tell me about moral dilemmas and hard choices-I had to let her die.  I have cared for more people than I care to think about at the end of life.  I have talked people out of committing suicide, saved people bleeding from gunshot wounds, cared for a boy who suffered a head injury and whose brain matter was coming out his nose, cared for a man with a gaping chest wound, oversaw the locations of numerous responders to hostage situations while handling other emergency situations, helped locate people in emergency situations when they were unable to give me their location, helped deliver babies, helped raise 3 children, and watch over scores of other neighborhood kids (latch key children with no one at home), and more.  I bloody well know how difficult choices can be.  Have you ever had to decide between emergency situations that could mean who might live and who might die? 

Explain to me in scientific terms exactly how this synthesis is achieved for both organics and synthetics-prove to me that that's real and not fantasy.

And explain to me just who has the right to decide for you what is put into your body.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[3DandBeyond]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

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.

But your ending is still rainbows and lolipops relative to the other endings(I don't know how many times I have to say that before it will finally sink in).

THE GETH ARE NOT TARGETED, THEY ARE COLATERAL DAMAGE FROM USING THE ONLY WEAPON WE HAVE THAT WILL KILL THE REAPERS(I have to use all caps because you keep asking questions that I already answered)
snipped

I never asked a question.  You're told you will kill all synthetics.  At that point if you choose to shoot, you are targeting reapers, EDI, the geth, and all other synthetics.  Beyond that, you don't even know what else it does. 

[elitehunter34]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

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.

But your ending is still rainbows and lolipops relative to the other endings(I don't know how many times I have to say that before it will finally sink in).

THE GETH ARE NOT TARGETED, THEY ARE COLATERAL DAMAGE FROM USING THE ONLY WEAPON WE HAVE THAT WILL KILL THE REAPERS(I have to use all caps because you keep asking questions that I already answered)

I don't like that destroy kills the geth, in fact, I disliked it so much that I didn't choose destroy, I chose synthesis besause I felt it was the best option. Did I like the idea of forcibly merging synthetic and oranic DNA? No, but that is absolutely not the point. The point is that if there was one choice that was inherently better that the rest, there may as well not be a choice. You may as well just make everything after the citadel beam a non-interactive cutscene.

Mass Effect has always been hard science fiction, grounded in reality. It is gritty and dirty, just like the real world. Just like the endings are. Go back to watching StarGate, where any weapon can be "calibrated" to kill only the enemies that you want it to.(not that I dislike StarGate, I'm just using it as an example)

Also, Bioware does not have the money or the resources to dictate to every fan that has their own idea of how the series should end. They are not going to make fiftty DLCs so that everyone can download the ending they want.

Your time would be better spent writing letters to George Lucas telling him to STOP changing Star Wars every five years, then again, maybe you liked the new changes. Darth Vader just can't say NOOO enough right?

Yes, but why does the ending need a choice?  Mass Effect 1 didn't really have an ending choice about the ending.  The ending was the same whether you chose to save or destroy the fleets.  The circumstances were similar in Mass Effect 2.   There was no actual choice that affected whether you got a particular ending or not.  Mass Effect 2 could either be total victory where no one died or victory with almost everyone dying.  And it had everything inbetween.  Do you have a problem with that?

People constantly, insistantly bring up this point about how the ending is about choice, but I am asking why, why does the ending need choice?  Why?  No one here can answer this simple question.  Somehow contrived choice is better than no choice.  I just don't understand.  If you don't think the ending choices are contrived, just give me a simple reason why, and we can go from there.

[Conniving_Eagle]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.I contol the reapers...I took back earth. I destroyed them....I took back earth. I only get bak earth in synthesis.
2.Count one reaper at the end of commercial? Going by the combat part, it's only garunteed I can stand up to husks.

3.His goal is sythesis.The leviathen dlc stated this...He and clear says he does not want to be control.
 

Helping him is not controling him or destroying him. Helping him is choosing synthesis.

4." ME2 didn't have tough decisions "..... The geth choice in Legions mission... The collector base choice.
Me2 had hard desisions.

1. Yes, you beat the Reapers. You didn't use a DEM superweapon. Nope. Shepard and galaxy reclaimed Earth because Shepard and galaxy > Reapers.

2. What numerological term did they use to describe the amount of choices in ME1? "Many?" 3/4 isn't many, that's several.

3. He needs to fix the problem of synthetics vs. organics and synthetics destroying organics, not to acheive Synthesis. The Catalyst desires Synthesis because it is the best solution to his problem. Destroy, Control and Synthesis each eliminate synthetics as a threat, Refuse doesn't.

4. Deciding to destroy or brainwash the same group that was dooming the galaxy who you spent the whole first game fighting was tough? How on earth do you decide between ketchup and mustard on your hot dogs? The Collector Base choice was the one truly ambiguous choice in ME2. It's a damn shame it didn't count for crap in the end.

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:04 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...


Ok, first, you clearly have no idea what eugenics is, stop bringing it up, because that is not what synthesis is.

Also, destroy is not targeting your allies, collateral damage does not mean targetting your allies or civilians. Colateral damage is civilian casualties of war that occur when you are targeting your enemy.

You seem to still be hung up on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve", have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to good people?

Also, the Alliance did do a lot to prepare. Once they got into the council, they immediately began to expand their fleets in preparation for the reapers, although they told people it was to defend against the geth. This was in a book, don't remember which, also I think mentioned briefely in ME2.

Once again you want the game to play out like a fantasy world where everybody gets whats coming to them, you do not want to admit that the game as it is is much more like the real world than the ending you propose.

  

Explain to me in scientific terms exactly how this synthesis is achieved for both organics and synthetics-prove to me that that's real and not fantasy.

Doesit really matter? One in the ME univers ever really as why they found this amazing tech that uplited there races and  not ask why they were left behind for them to find. No of the race didn't  even try to fully understand he citadel when they found them nor the mass relay.  To most is just came majicly form the past and covered any quetion of it with a "Protheans did it". They never care if it possible may be a trap then.

It just getting tech not just good in it's self.../sarcasm

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

Controling the reapers and doing evrything how you want it helps the catalyst?
Destroying him helps the catalyst?

You keep saying the catalyst is a shackled AI-so he is driven to reach his goal, balance and peace between synthetics and organics.  Anything that achieves that goal does help him.  Control does that.  It replaces him, but does not destroy him.  And destroy also does achieve the goal-it gets rid of all synthetics, peace and balance achieved, goal achieved.  They are all temporary, anyway.