6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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?

Didn't realize you were saying something that silly.

Nobody has to maintain a "state of genocide." Fire the Crucible and bang! After that, no more genocide required.

As for totalitarianism.... I'm guessing you mean control ..... Sheplyst probably won't remain invincible for very long. The galaxy wasn't that far from being able to handle the Reapers.

Perhaps I didn't word it well, I apologize for that

Lets try again: if you open a precedence of genocide and such thing is so easy to do, you will do it again

My point is, you cannot just use "survival" as an excuse to kill off everything or be a control freak, your survival may very well be dependent on the survival of the other, ironic I know since I choose destroy

Yes you can. Morality is relitive.

[elitehunter34]

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

Ok, this is getting somewhere. 

The reason why I call it contrived is because the Crucible choice isn't an event based on circumstances.  The choice on Legion's loyalty mission would be an example of a choice based on circumstances.  The Crucible is a device.  By doing this the writers made the Crucuble essentially a blank slate which they could base the ending on.  They are given free reign to make it do whatever it wants.  Therfore, basing any sort of choice on it automatically makes the consequences of that choice completely up to the writers.  It doesn't have to based on any sort of circumstances.  

By definition that makes the endings contrived.  Theres no real reason why the Crucible has to do anything.  Do you see what I mean?  This is somewhat tricky to put into text, but I hope I'm clear enough.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

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.

If it's temporay, then it's not helping him.

[AlanC9]

plfranke wrote...

his point is that while there are negative consequences to destroy, the game is just vague enough in the right places on synthesis, so that one could argue there are no negative consequences at all. This doesn't fit by the "real world sucks yadi yadi yada" as the destroy ending does.

 Well, except for the whole overriding-everyone's-autonomy thing. That's a negative even if most people think Synthesis is a free upgrade, assuming C and D still exist as options.

In practic, the creepiness factor seems to be plenty of downside.

[plfranke]

elitehunter34 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

Ok, this is getting somewhere. 

The reason why I call it contrived is because the Crucible choice isn't an event based on circumstances.  The choice on Legion's loyalty mission would be an example of a choice based on circumstances.  The Crucible is a device.  By doing this the writers made the Crucuble essentially a blank slate which they could base the ending on.  They are given free reign to make it do whatever it wants.  Therfore, basing any sort of choice on it automatically makes the consequences of that choice completely up to the writers.  It doesn't have to based on any sort of circumstances.  

By definition that makes the endings contrived.  Theres no real reason why the Crucible has to do anything.  Do you see what I mean?  This is somewhat tricky to put into text, but I hope I'm clear enough.

So basically what you're saying is, the crucible should have had a set of rules to play by from the beginning? Like from the get go it should be known that it's going to destroy the reapers and nothing else. Or that from the get go we'll know the 3 choices?

[Warrior Craess]

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.

Again with this argument.  So explain in detail, just how an option DLC would ruin the game for you?  Are you in some manner required to download it?

second dumbdest arguement about any ending DLC. 

[dreman9999]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

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.

1. The crucible isnot a dem and super weapon were used to end wars in real life. So theris no problem with using the crucible toend the war.
2.Samantics. We still get planty of hard choices.
3. Destory does not do that. He says that the problem will comeback addedhis programingis to preserveall life...organic and synthetic.
Control does notend the problem ether.It keeps some one over it to a totalerat state but it does not solve it. There just fire fight stations. 
Only sysnthesis helps him.
4. Of corse that is tough. Many people saw that as tough. You think people are ok with genocide and brian washing? They are both moraly wrong. It matters not if it done to an enemy.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina Hackett: There's no way we can beat them conventionally, Shepard: Liara: Shepard I just found the schematics for a Prothean super weapon that I think can defeat the Reapers! Real life super-weapons are irrelevant when we're talking about a work of fiction.

2. Lack of substantiation. This is being degraded into another subjective argument.

3. He thinks the problem will come back (yet there were already laws against making AIs), but Destroy is still a solution, albeit possibly temporary.

4. So you have debatably two tough choices in Mass Effect 2. That doesn't work well with the ME1 TV spot.

1. It was hinted for Lothsb.
2.Again ...
Samantics.
3.If it's temporay it's not helping the catalyst . He wants permanate.
4. It still in ME2, so it's in line with the advert.

[plfranke]

AlanC9 wrote...

plfranke wrote...

his point is that while there are negative consequences to destroy, the game is just vague enough in the right places on synthesis, so that one could argue there are no negative consequences at all. This doesn't fit by the "real world sucks yadi yadi yada" as the destroy ending does.

 Well, except for the whole overriding-everyone's-autonomy thing. That's a negative even if most people think Synthesis is a free upgrade, assuming C and D still exist as options.

In practic, the creepiness factor seems to be plenty of downside.

Oh yeah, there are certain things in the game I never do just off principle, I try not to even think about them. Synthesis is one of those things. However, I feel that something that disgusting should not be represented to have such a great outcome, especially considering it was never the goal of the game to begin with.

[AlanC9]

Vigilant111 wrote...


I accept your opinion because its subjective

Me: Morally grey + survival = destroy:mellow:

You: Morally acceptable + survival = control:)

Works for me.

And this sort of debate is what I like about the existing endings

[plfranke]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...


I accept your opinion because its subjective

Me: Morally grey + survival = destroy:mellow:

You: Morally acceptable + survival = control:)

Works for me.

And this sort of debate is what I like about the existing endings

The problem is that Bioware created this kind of argument as opposed to plot resolvement. I have no problem with discussing the concept of control, synthesis, and destroy, the way that they're portrayed in the ending. I have a huge problem with the fact that anything other than destroy is the actual ending.

[IamDanThaMan]

Warrior Craess wrote...

yes becuase billions of people, and more worlds in ruins is a "happy ending"  so if it took 70% of the population of the galaxy to defeat the reapers conventionally, you'd still be pissing and moaning becuase we got a "happy ending".

you both are being willing ignornant, which means your doing this just to annoy people. 

So I'm done with you both.  

We dealt with this about 3 pages back. My problem is not that it makes a happy ending. It is that the whole point of the ending is having to make a difficult decision. Add the TCs ending, and the decision is gone.

[dreman9999]

elitehunter34 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

Ok, this is getting somewhere. 

The reason why I call it contrived is because the Crucible choice isn't an event based on circumstances.  The choice on Legion's loyalty mission would be an example of a choice based on circumstances.  The Crucible is a device.  By doing this the writers made the Crucuble essentially a blank slate which they could base the ending on.  They are given free reign to make it do whatever it wants.  Therfore, basing any sort of choice on it automatically makes the consequences of that choice completely up to the writers.  It doesn't have to based on any sort of circumstances.  

By definition that makes the endings contrived.  Theres no real reason why the Crucible has to do anything.  Do you see what I mean?  This is somewhat tricky to put into text, but I hope I'm clear enough.

Yes the crucible choice is base on the circumstances. Everything is based on stopping the reapers not the catalysts view on organics vs synthetic.
The ending choice out ide of syntheis had nothing to do with organic vs synthesis. You don't even need to consider it.
Everything the catalyst stated is just telling you how tha conflict started, but is not something that has to be seen as relivent to your conflict.

The crucilbe had always been stated to be a weapon that can stop the reapers but how was unknown....Because of that question of how, a question of if it effected or harmed us came up. The crucible was seen through out the game as a possible doulble edge sword...And it was, just not in the ay we imagined it. That makes it not 
contrived.

Control and destroy does not have to be seenin the light of organci vs synthetic. Synthesis is theonly choice that apsolutly consisders the conflict.

[IamDanThaMan]

Warrior Craess wrote...

Again with this argument.  So explain in detail, just how an option DLC would ruin the game for you?  Are you in some manner required to download it?

second dumbdest arguement about any ending DLC. 

Because if Bioware makes the DLC, then it exists more than in the head of an angry fan boy. It is an official part of the Mass Effect Universe. It doesn't matter if I buy it or not, or if I played it or not. I didn't have to buy LotSB or Arrival either, but regardless, Liara is still the SB and Shepard still blew up that relay and killed 300,000 batarians. So no matter how much i wanted to, I couldn't pretend it didn't exist.

[Warrior Craess]

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?

So what exactly was difficult about these choices? It's not like you really had any options, depending on what you wanted to do. 

Want to kill the reapers? Destroy is the only option.. not a difficult choice if there is only one option.

Want to control the reapers? Maybe advance human above other?  Again not difficult, as you have a control option. this bears repeating then if there is only one option for this, it's not difficult to choose...

Want to actually stop the reapers and the cycle forever? Sadly there is only one option for this as well... synthesis. 

Exactly how is choosing 3 different outcomes with out having a "bad" outcome vs a good outcome difficult?

Especially when all three some rather horrible moral implications. It's not shades of grey.. it's three bad choices that accomplish 3 differnt ends. 

Even if you meta game those choices, it's not difficult since there is no varying degree of immorality, or price. 

[Moirai]

Okay, I'm going to throw my opinion into the mix on this, coming in from a slightly different angle.

My main issue with the ending was that I was forced to choose any of the StarChild/Intelligence's choices at all. Why? Because the reasons for doing so are based on faulty in-game logic and zero evidence.

StarChild states that the core reason for the 'harvesting' is due to the fact that the created will always turn on their creators. And yet, as the main character/player, you are never once presented with any evidence whatsoever to even hint at this possibility. Not ever.

No ancient records from previous cycles. No evidence in current cycle.

And no, the Geth attacking Eden Prime, etc and so on, is not evidence of this. StarChild clearly implies that this created/creator conflict is a natural evolution of events that cannot be avoided, cycle after cycle. That isn't the same as the Geth. That was a forced 'evolution', caused directly by Reaper involvement. As shown in ME3, the Geth never had any desire or want to rebel against their creators. Completely the opposite of what StarChild states.

And yet, at the end of three games, we are now forced to choose from three unpalatable options (yes, refuse, exists as an 'option' but isn't technically the same in context of the in-game situation), when we have been provided with absolutely no evidence to support the notion that any of those options are valid or necessary. In fact, if you saved the Geth and Quarians, you have substantive evidence to the contrary.

And yet it means nothing.

And, back in March, when finishing the game, I sat there, thinking, 'Why the hell is the game forcing me to pick from these crappy options, when my Shepard and everyone in the ME universe deserves none of them? Why is there no other option that allows me to prove to the StarChild that it is wrong and just get him to stop? Why, after all that these characters have gone through, are they being punished this way?'

More to the point; why did Bioware not allow us, through exploration, mission success and dialogue choice, to attain an ending which was fair to all involved?

And no, these aren't realistically tough decisions that make sense within the context of what you know (like Virmire). These are the cheap contrived versions that come out of left field, at the last moment, just when you expect to be given a shot at victory over the bast*rds you've been fighting all this time, and after all that you've done and all the resources you collected together...and socks you right on the f**king jaw, leaving you thinking, 'WTF...?'.

That is cheap. Real cheap.

StarChild has no evidence to support his standpoint. You, on the other hand, can have evidence to strongly counter it. And yet, you can't argue with him because Bioware wants to enforce a set of unreasonable end game scenarios on you based on completely unsubstantiated events that have never been mentioned before.

So, yes. I think the story deserves another attainable ending, and one that pays tribute to the time and effort that the player (and characters) have gone through to reach that spot in front of StarChild.

I think we've earned the right to be given a chance at that.

And besides, at its core, this is just a game. Is it so bad to leave your customers finishing it and punching the air and wearing a big soppy grin on their faces?

Is that really so bad..?

Bioware..?

[dreman9999]

Warrior Craess 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.

Again with this argument.  So explain in detail, just how an option DLC would ruin the game for you?  Are you in some manner required to download it?

second dumbdest arguement about any ending DLC. 

The problem here is that it ruins the direction bw wants he plot to go.

[dreman9999]

Warrior Craess 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?

So what exactly was difficult about these choices? It's not like you really had any options, depending on what you wanted to do. 

Want to kill the reapers? Destroy is the only option.. not a difficult choice if there is only one option.

Want to control the reapers? Maybe advance human above other?  Again not difficult, as you have a control option. this bears repeating then if there is only one option for this, it's not difficult to choose...

Want to actually stop the reapers and the cycle forever? Sadly there is only one option for this as well... synthesis. 

Exactly how is choosing 3 different outcomes with out having a "bad" outcome vs a good outcome difficult?

Especially when all three some rather horrible moral implications. It's not shades of grey.. it's three bad choices that accomplish 3 differnt ends. 

Even if you meta game those choices, it's not difficult since there is no varying degree of immorality, or price. 

It been said so many time in the topic and forum that it doen't needto be said any more. Stoptrying to grasp straws that have counter points well made clear that you know.

[dreman9999]

Moirai wrote...

Okay, I'm going to throw my opinion into the mix on this, coming in from a slightly different angle.

My main issue with the ending was that I was forced to choose any of the StarChild/Intelligence's choices at all. Why? Because the reasons for doing so are based on faulty in-game logic and zero evidence.

StarChild states that the core reason for the 'harvesting' is due to the fact that the created will always turn on their creators. And yet, as the main character/player, you are never once presented with any evidence whatsoever to even hint at this possibility. Not ever.

No ancient records from previous cycles. No evidence in current cycle.

And no, the Geth attacking Eden Prime, etc and so on, is not evidence of this. StarChild clearly implies that this created/creator conflict is a natural evolution of events that cannot be avoided, cycle after cycle. That isn't the same as the Geth. That was a forced 'evolution', caused directly by Reaper involvement. As shown in ME3, the Geth never had any desire or want to rebel against their creators. Completely the opposite of what StarChild states.

And yet, at the end of three games, we are now forced to choose from three unpalatable options (yes, refuse, exists as an 'option' but isn't technically the same in context of the in-game situation), when we have been provided with absolutely no evidence to support the notion that any of those options are valid or necessary. In fact, if you saved the Geth and Quarians, you have substantive evidence to the contrary.

And yet it means nothing.

And, back in March, when finishing the game, I sat there, thinking, 'Why the hell is the game forcing me to pick from these crappy options, when my Shepard and everyone in the ME universe deserves none of them? Why is there no other option that allows me to prove to the StarChild that it is wrong and just get him to stop? Why, after all that these characters have gone through, are they being punished this way?'

More to the point; why did Bioware not allow us, through exploration, mission success and dialogue choice, to attain an ending which was fair to all involved?

And no, these aren't realistically tough decisions that make sense within the context of what you know (like Virmire). These are the cheap contrived versions that come out of left field, at the last moment, just when you expect to be given a shot at victory over the bast*rds you've been fighting all this time, and after all that you've done and all the resources you collected together...and socks you right on the f**king jaw, leaving you thinking, 'WTF...?'.

That is cheap. Real cheap.

StarChild has no evidence to support his standpoint. You, on the other hand, can have evidence to strongly counter it. And yet, you can't argue with him because Bioware wants to enforce a set of unreasonable end game scenarios on you based on completely unsubstantiated events that have never been mentioned before.

So, yes. I think the story deserves another attainable ending, and one that pays tribute to the time and effort that the player (and characters) have gone through to reach that spot in front of StarChild.

I think we've earned the right to be given a chance at that.

And besides, at its core, this is just a game. Is it so bad to leave your customers finishing it and punching the air and wearing a big soppy grin on their faces?

Is that really so bad..?

Bioware..?

Control and destory is not based on the catalyst logic nor control by him. He just telling you what the crucible does.

[Vigilant111]

Moirai wrote...

I think we've earned the right to be given a chance at that.

And besides, at its core, this is just a game. Is it so bad to leave your customers finishing it and punching the air and wearing a big soppy grin on their faces?

Is that really so bad..?

Bioware..?

I am speculating that giving gamers more choices and a more satisfactory ending mean we are taking credit away from them for creating the story...

Ugh...RPG, hello?! other peoples' stories!!! and no one is stealing the thunder so BW, don't worry

Modifié par Vigilant111, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:30 .

[Doc Magnus]

 I love the multi-player aspect of this game. But I admit that I had to wait months after finishing the SP campaign before I could even consider completing a second playthrough. That was precisely due to the issues raised by the OP.

Great original post, and great comments from nearly everyone. It's certainly made for interesting reading. 

Modifié par Doc Magnus, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:29 .

[Zan51]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

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?

You just gave me the biggest laugh of my day! Thank you so much for that! Hard SF? Grounded in Reality? Sure it is! ME employs EXACTLY what I do as a Science Fiction Writer - the Bull*hit Drive for starters, and races off into Scence Fiction and Fantasy from there on! I'm talking about Mass Effect fields and Eezo for starters, never mind all the biotic powers the Asari have and Humans use implants to enhance. Science Fantasy, NOT based in reality. Let's not go iinto the firearms because my A.Sc. isn't up to it but I am sure someone here is!
Go read here - http://www.hardsf.org/HSFGHsf.htm

The term "hard" science fiction is used for sf that corresponds to our currently understood science models of the universe. Nearly all of ME3 depends on suspension of disbelief in that we are willing to "accept" "future science" as fact.

OK I will give you a hard morally challenging choice. You are one of 6 stuck on a crashed pane in the Andes, 3 are injusred to various degrees, but there is not food. What do you do? Kill off the worst injured and eath them one at a time and hope for rescue eventually, or try to keep them alive and all probably die, the injured hideously with frostbite and gangrene. Real people faced that dilemma in the 70's , and they ate the dead. Several survived but were shunned as cannibals. Who was right, them or the rest of us?  Was itr MORALLY right to eat a dead person, or morally right to die? It was sensible, no doubt about that! Morally?  (http://en.wikipedia....flight_disaster I made the numbers smaller than the real 49)

Collateral damage is when you shell a terrorist camp and a village is too close. The Free Dictionary defines it as Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially
unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation.

Key is UNINTENDED. If you know in advance ti will kill them, it is NOT unintended. Intentionally targetting civilians is a terrorist attack, and to be honest, deciding one whole race or two get wiped out to save the rest is STILL a terrorist attack. And so is infecting them intentionally with nanites to poroduce synthesis.

So hard choices? Sure, you're a Terrorist, mate.

Now read what you wrote again - "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 have just said that if there is one choice that is inherently better than the others, there is no choice. And before it you said " I chose synthesis besause I felt it was the best option." You are admitting there was only one best option.choice, therefore in your OWN words, "there may as well be no choice."

We're saying the "choices" we are given are not valid choices because all but Refuse or Destroy are morally wrong, just like eating dead people is morally wrong. It may be sensible, but good morals prevent us from doing it. (For good, practical reasons, Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease for one)

Modifié par Zan51, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:35 .

[Calamity]

3DandBeyond wrote...

If I were able to speak to the Bioware devs there are many (yes, respectful) things I would ask. One thing would be, "how long has it been since you played the whole series (if ever) back to back?" I think this helps to reveal some of the issues that exist. ME3 didn't end up bringing it all back together. Presumably they could fill in some holes from ME2 if they do Omega, but I fear that will leave you wondering what happened to Aria at the end, anyway. Just as now we have no idea why the Leviathans didn't fly into the picture at the end and try to make thralls of the people of the galaxy.

[Warrior Craess]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

Again with this argument.  So explain in detail, just how an option DLC would ruin the game for you?  Are you in some manner required to download it?

second dumbdest arguement about any ending DLC. 

Because if Bioware makes the DLC, then it exists more than in the head of an angry fan boy. It is an official part of the Mass Effect Universe. It doesn't matter if I buy it or not, or if I played it or not. I didn't have to buy LotSB or Arrival either, but regardless, Liara is still the SB and Shepard still blew up that relay and killed 300,000 batarians. So no matter how much i wanted to, I couldn't pretend it didn't exist.

Really? I was forced to play LotSB? I was forced to play Arrival? The story didn't account for the fact that I might not have played either?

Ohh damn, hang on a second, the story did take into account that I might not have played those DLC.. So you arguement is again fallacous.  Pretty sure that if you didn't play arrival, that it's an alliance team that takes it down.. Lost a serious amount of your 103rd marines (total lost for it was -50 EMS) .. So yeah

And Laira was trying to take down the Shadow broker from the first moment you met her in ME2. Not a stretch that she could have done it with out your help. 

I also didn't choose Udina as the council member. There wasn't a DLC for it either. So it doesn't seem to matter if there is DLC or not, Bioware will make whatever they want canon for the next game. 

Given said facts, again explain how optional DLC will alter your gameplay? 

[elitehunter34]

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes the crucible choice is base on the circumstances. Everything is based on stopping the reapers not the catalysts view on organics vs synthetic.
The ending choice out ide of syntheis had nothing to do with organic vs synthesis. You don't even need to consider it.
Everything the catalyst stated is just telling you how tha conflict started, but is not something that has to be seen as relivent to your conflict.

The crucilbe had always been stated to be a weapon that can stop the reapers but how was unknown....Because of that question of how, a question of if it effected or harmed us came up. The crucible was seen through out the game as a possible doulble edge sword...And it was, just not in the ay we imagined it. That makes it not 
contrived.

Control and destroy does not have to be seenin the light of organci vs synthetic. Synthesis is theonly choice that apsolutly consisders the conflict.

No, what I mean by circumstances is that there is absolutely nothing dictating why the Crucible must kill the Geth/EDI.  The Crucible is a device of untold power, there is absolutely no reason why it has to do x or y.  Any possible outcome of it will be up to the will of the writers.  The Crucible is a blank slate.  So, the writers are forcing a moral choice on us because of the mechanics of a fictional super powerful device.  Doesn't that seem contrived to you?  No other choice in the series works like that.  They were was based on a circumstance, such as in Mass Effect 1's choice to save or sacrifice the Destiny Ascension.  That is a choice based on circumstance.  It is not a choice based on the mechanics of a fictional device.  Do you see what I mean?