Ce sujet est fermé
Let's take that in context with the topic title, shall we? In my opinion, nothing humble about it, the game should end at the beam in London when Harbinger nukes you. There is no possible way to get a happy ending there, and it is logical to assume that the blast, or the affects of the blast on the area immediately around you, and on your armor would kill you. So is doing the right thing cutting the rest of the ending out? In my view, yes. See my sig for clarification. I have had this opinion since I first completed ME 3, and carry it still, despite people telling me that I'm in denial about how bad the ending sequence is. You see, for me, it's not that endings are bad, they are, but the whole contrivance of getting to them is far worse. Funny that people that view it that way are routinely shouted down with "but Shepard 'dodged' it"... Yep, dodged the beam, all the shrapnel created by the laser ripping scars into the ground, dodged the electrical shorts in the armor/omni tool, not to mention the heat flash from it if it's that close to you.IamDanThaMan wrote...
Zan51 wrote...
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)
Wow, I don't even know where to begin on how bad your entire post is.
"Hard" science fiction is hardly an exact term, and your definition for it is not one that most people use. I am sure you would consider Star Trek to be an example of this, but they break several of our current "laws" of the universe. More often, it means that the fiction sets up its own internal laws and follows them. In the case of Mass Effect, the only thing they change is the introduction of Element Zero, and everything is based on its ability to manipulate gravity.
You seem to think that this means that we can throw all causality out the window and just assume that if someone is bad, bad things should happen to them, and if you work hard enough, you should be able to save everyone.
Also, for a supposed writer, you seem to have a very poor grasp of the english language. My saying that I felt that one choice was better than the others does not make that choice inherently better than the others. If I prefer Chocolate Ice cream, does that mean that is the best for everyone? If you really believe that, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you.
Also, your analogy is stupid. Why is it that nobody has brought up the two boat thing from the dark knight yet? That would be a much better analogy than any of the garbage you geniuses keep coming up with. Except that the joker would also have explosives strapped to his body, and the inmates would have killed in self defense and they don't have a detonater, except some of them were the Joker's cronies, and the Joker is going to set off a nuke that will destroy all of Gotham if you don't make a choice,then come back after the city is re-built and do it again, and Batman Doesn't exist.
Edit: Actually, the inmates all used to work for the Joker, but only because another gang was coming to get them.
Sorry, you are supporting a far worse contrivance than the endings by even getting to the ending sequence. I'll take the typical BSN stance; if you don't agree, you're wrong. Ok, not really, I'm not half as egotistical as some on BSN, although there are some that will take this stance, and defend it as if their lives depended on it. However, adding a legend save at this point in the game would be "the right choice" as far as I'm concerned, is this what you are supporting by supporting this thread? If not, how do you figure you're asking BioWare to do "the right thing"? "The right thing" is going to vary wildly, and there is no way to code every possible sequence, and if somebody didn't get their "right thing", then they are going to be every bit as unhappy as they are right now. Except for me. I can easily accept that my game ends after getting nuked by Harbinger. Marauder Shields kicks my ass, and I quit. It sucks to be me, since I can't start a new game with that character, but hey, that's life in a video game.
Asking for an ending that doesn't get one's hands dirty in a war is asking for a happy ending. The point to asking for it is that one feels they can make that choice with a clear conscience. The oversimplified versions of the endings listed in the OP, and other places, makes this perfectly clear. Not to mention discussion which, sorry, I spent quite a few hours prepping a new Shepard for ME 3 yesterday, so I missed a lot of it, and can't be arsed to hit it all. Yes, I'm old and lazy and not going back to read 20 full pages. Which brings me back to "the right thing" once again; leave Shepard dead in all possible endings.
Why, you may ask? Go look at the DA forums: Where's my Warden, am I going to get to play my Warden again? Where's Hawke, am I going to get to play Hawke again? This is the problem with a protagonist that isn't going to be central to the story any more being alive and well. There have been threads in this forum that were started on the premise of "no Shepard means no ME universe". So, "the right thing" would be to have Shepard dead in all possible endings, to alleviate this problem in any future games set in the ME universe. Are you asking BioWare for this? No? Why not, in so far as I can see, this would be "the right thing". After all, ME 3 is supposed to be the end of Shepard's story.
Retour en haut
