6432 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


But the devs can still make the senerios to try to anyway. As I  said before just because you don't go through as much moral conflict does not mean it's invalide. I matter not that every one does not go through it. Just because everyone does not go through it does nto mean an easy way out has to be added.

2.We know that the crucible is not control by the catalyst because what it does is effected by you mes score...As in how intact it is. If it's very damaged you get one choice and it's bad.
The more ems you have the more chices you have and the more the results of the choices improve.

3.The concept of lots of hard choices, no e of them esay never changed. The fact that they planned the ending to have one set of hard choice and change it to a differnt set of hard choices means the concept stayed.

So Bioware meant for there to be a moral dilemma, but not for everyone? 
This is now what you are saying.  That's great.  I don't want one, so now they could easily make an ending for me and others like me that doesn't contain one-since it is not meant for everyone to have to face a moral dilemma.

Thanks dreman9999, for agreeing with me.  Bioware never meant for everyone to face a moral dilemma, just some people.  Good news.

The fact that you made this topic means that you are going through a moral delama. You just don't want it to be as extreme.

Nope, no moral dilemma-you can't have one if you don't finish the game.

And others don't have a moral dilemma.  A lot of people choose destroy with no problem at all-that means the moral dilemma is not 100%, so that means it's not necessary for everyone to face such a dilemma to finish the game.

So, a moral dilemma is not a requirement which means there doesn't need to be any at all for all endings.  Ipso facto, BW could easily make additions to what we have (maybe just for you to play them too) where the moral issue isn't so predominant. 

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
before I focus on your comment let me say one thing, please read over your comments before you post them, your spelling and grammer is terrible half the time

now to your comment, they can try but it's not going to happen because of how the players play. Meaning that moral conflict is irrelevant because everybody won't go through it so no matter what they do they will never get moral conflict always involved. They should have focused on making sure the endings made sense rather than to make sure players are conflicted over the choices.

That doesn't mean they have to add an easy way out. They can try as much as they like...It's there game. Just because it doen't work for everyone does not mean they can't try.

Sure they can try but it's wasted effort. Moral conflict is not a general thing as you said a few pages back in this thread, so it's a wasted effort to try to make everybody go through it. People should want a happy ending because if people spent over 100 hours on these games EAware should let them see their previous choices pay off, see their war assets actually do something, and have not have wastes time trying to make everybody conflicted about that final color choice. and yes I already know you will say "it's there game, they can do what they want to" but that doesn't mean they did the right thing.

The  Right things are subjective. The issue here is what you want. You don't want to go throught the moral delama they put in, so you want an easy way out.
My entire arguement is that it's not what bw wants to do.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


But the devs can still make the senerios to try to anyway. As I  said before just because you don't go through as much moral conflict does not mean it's invalide. I matter not that every one does not go through it. Just because everyone does not go through it does nto mean an easy way out has to be added.

2.We know that the crucible is not control by the catalyst because what it does is effected by you mes score...As in how intact it is. If it's very damaged you get one choice and it's bad.
The more ems you have the more chices you have and the more the results of the choices improve.

3.The concept of lots of hard choices, no e of them esay never changed. The fact that they planned the ending to have one set of hard choice and change it to a differnt set of hard choices means the concept stayed.

So Bioware meant for there to be a moral dilemma, but not for everyone? 
This is now what you are saying.  That's great.  I don't want one, so now they could easily make an ending for me and others like me that doesn't contain one-since it is not meant for everyone to have to face a moral dilemma.

Thanks dreman9999, for agreeing with me.  Bioware never meant for everyone to face a moral dilemma, just some people.  Good news.

The fact that you made this topic means that you are going through a moral delama. You just don't want it to be as extreme.

Nope, no moral dilemma-you can't have one if you don't finish the game.

And others don't have a moral dilemma.  A lot of people choose destroy with no problem at all-that means the moral dilemma is not 100%, so that means it's not necessary for everyone to face such a dilemma to finish the game.

So, a moral dilemma is not a requirement which means there doesn't need to be any at all for all endings.  Ipso facto, BW could easily make additions to what we have (maybe just for you to play them too) where the moral issue isn't so predominant. 

If you asking for an easy way out...You having a moral delama. You can only not have a moral delama if you have no problem picking the choices at the end of the game.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

Agian, that was a term refelecting that other peopel felt moral delama over the choices even if you did not.

no it wasn't you kept claiming the ending is about moral conlict, but its not Bioware knows every player doesn't have that because its an RPG type game.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
before I focus on your comment let me say one thing, please read over your comments before you post them, your spelling and grammer is terrible half the time

now to your comment, they can try but it's not going to happen because of how the players play. Meaning that moral conflict is irrelevant because everybody won't go through it so no matter what they do they will never get moral conflict always involved. They should have focused on making sure the endings made sense rather than to make sure players are conflicted over the choices.

That doesn't mean they have to add an easy way out. They can try as much as they like...It's there game. Just because it doen't work for everyone does not mean they can't try.

Sure they can try but it's wasted effort. Moral conflict is not a general thing as you said a few pages back in this thread, so it's a wasted effort to try to make everybody go through it. People should want a happy ending because if people spent over 100 hours on these games EAware should let them see their previous choices pay off, see their war assets actually do something, and have not have wastes time trying to make everybody conflicted about that final color choice. and yes I already know you will say "it's there game, they can do what they want to" but that doesn't mean they did the right thing.

The  Right things are subjective. The issue here is what you want. You don't want to go throught the moral delama they put in, so you want an easy way out.
My entire arguement is that it's not what bw wants to do.

I don't care about an easy way out. I am not morally conflicted with the crappy endings either. When I first played through ME3 at the end I didn't care about what the cons were of destroy (EDI and geth die), although I liked both the geth and EDI, I didn't even care in my Shepard would live or die. I chose destroy without hesitating because ever since ME1 that was Shepard goal, destroy the reapers. It's obvious sacrifices will have to be made along the way, we learned that in ME1 on Virmire. We are going to lose people.Eaware should not have cared whether or not people would be morally conflicted. The should have focused on doing what we wanted to all along, destroy the reapers. I was not conflicted at all, so they failed in that aspect. Wanting an ending where shep lives, geth live, EDI lives, reapers die doesn't mean that I felt conflicted with the choice I chose. "Moral Conflict is irrelevant"

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

If you asking for an easy way out...You having a moral delama. You can only not have a moral delama if you have no problem picking the choices at the end of the game.

But, as you always say, this isn't only about me.  And I have no moral dilemma at all-you have to play to the end to face one.  There can't be one if you aren't conflicted about it-I'm not conflicted.  I don't want to choose any of them, so I don't.  A dilemma only exists if you must and will go beyond something to get something else.  I won't.  And other people have no moral conflict at all.

You stated as fact that BW always intended the endings to be about a moral dilemma.  Well, if someone has no dilemma then that is not true.  Other people have said they have no moral problems with picking destroy, so your assertion is false-BW allows for Shepard and player to dislike the geth and EDI.  That means no moral problem in choosing destroy.  So you're wrong.

And if you are wrong and they never intended the endings to be all about a moral dilemma and they allow players to get endings where there is no moral dilemma for them, there is no reason why they cannot add on and create other endings that also do not have any moral dilemma if one picks them.

The endings do not require everyone have a moral dilemma so if they create alternatives that do not create a moral dilemma, they have not changed anything or gone against their own intent.

[3DandBeyond]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Agian, that was a term refelecting that other peopel felt moral delama over the choices even if you did not.

no it wasn't you kept claiming the ending is about moral conlict, but its not Bioware knows every player doesn't have that because its an RPG type game.

Exactly, if the game isn't forcing everyone to have a moral conflict, Bioware never intended it to.  So, a Shepard lives/reapers die/geth and EDI survive as a difficult to achieve ending does not go against their intent.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

If you asking for an easy way out...You having a moral delama. You can only not have a moral delama if you have no problem picking the choices at the end of the game.

But, as you always say, this isn't only about me.  And I have no moral dilemma at all-you have to play to the end to face one.  There can't be one if you aren't conflicted about it-I'm not conflicted.  I don't want to choose any of them, so I don't.  A dilemma only exists if you must and will go beyond something to get something else.  I won't.  And other people have no moral conflict at all.

You stated as fact that BW always intended the endings to be about a moral dilemma.  Well, if someone has no dilemma then that is not true.  Other people have said they have no moral problems with picking destroy, so your assertion is false-BW allows for Shepard and player to dislike the geth and EDI.  That means no moral problem in choosing destroy.  So you're wrong.

And if you are wrong and they never intended the endings to be all about a moral dilemma and they allow players to get endings where there is no moral dilemma for them, there is no reason why they cannot add on and create other endings that also do not have any moral dilemma if one picks them.

The endings do not require everyone have a moral dilemma so if they create alternatives that do not create a moral dilemma, they have not changed anything or gone against their own intent.

You have no moral delama over the endings? 
Ha. 

Are you saying you'r not upset over the choices at the end of the game?

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:49 .

[Benchpress610]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Agian, that was a term refelecting that other peopel felt moral delama over the choices even if you did not.

no it wasn't you kept claiming the ending is about moral conlict, but its not Bioware knows every player doesn't have that because its an RPG type game.

Exactly, if the game isn't forcing everyone to have a moral conflict, Bioware never intended it to.  So, a Shepard lives/reapers die/geth and EDI survive as a difficult to achieve ending does not go against their intent.

Don’t bother Dee…I think we have a new Bubbles…or do we? Maybe is the same guy with a different name

[Xellith]

dreman9999 wrote...

Your missing the point of the arguement. BW want to have the endings bring the player to moral conflict. Adding a "Shepard live, only reapers die" choice counters that concept.

I already responded to this.  Check back a page or two.

[3DandBeyond]

Benchpress610 wrote...


Don’t bother Dee…I think we have a new Bubbles…or do we? Maybe is the same guy with a different name

This one is Bubbles to the Max.

I like it though that he now agrees with me.

If there is no moral dilemma for all, then BW didn't mean there to be.

If there is a moral dilemma and BW is supposed to do as they say, then I have a list that dreman should submit to them so they will follow through on them as well.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Agian, that was a term refelecting that other peopel felt moral delama over the choices even if you did not.

no it wasn't you kept claiming the ending is about moral conlict, but its not Bioware knows every player doesn't have that because its an RPG type game.

Yes, it was. How many time did I say morality is subjective. Bw has the right to try to bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict.

[KENNY4753]

Xellith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Your missing the point of the arguement. BW want to have the endings bring the player to moral conflict. Adding a "Shepard live, only reapers die" choice counters that concept.

I already responded to this.  Check back a page or two.

by now I think half of BSN responded to that but that is dreman's only arguement so it's going to repeat throughout the same thread

[Moirai]

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The problem not exsist is not up to you. It's up to the catalyst to see and it want a absolute solution.
To the catalyst any solution that is not absolute is not an answer.
You're dealing with a being that thinks in pure logic....Pure logic thinking lead to thinking in absolutes. Think in absolute is dangerous.

A shackled AI with no morality that is locked in logic can't be argued with.

And that is the very in-game reasoning that I am specifically stating that I don't agree with from a story perspective.

It's not so much a case of dealing with a 'shackled' AI here, but with a 'shackled' plot. Hence, my addressing 'Bioware' and not 'Catalyst' in my original post.

I accept that you don't agree with me, and that's fine. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

That concept hs been in th story from day one. Infact everything was build up with you interaction with Legion and EDI. The concept of an AI being shackled to do waht it'sprogramed to do is not new to the plot. It's call indoctriantion.All the ending is say is the reapers are indoctrianted to do their programing. This is not coming out of left feild.

Programming == Indoctrination. That's a whole new subject of debate there, and not one connected with my point. I wish you the best of luck in finding someone to debate it with.

All the best. *tips my hat and bows out*

[dreman9999]

Xellith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Your missing the point of the arguement. BW want to have the endings bring the player to moral conflict. Adding a "Shepard live, only reapers die" choice counters that concept.

I already responded to this.  Check back a page or two.

And I already countered that response. Morality is subject. BW is welcome to try to bring morla conflict into there game. Just because some people don;t go through it does not invalides the attempt.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

If you asking for an easy way out...You having a moral delama. You can only not have a moral delama if you have no problem picking the choices at the end of the game.

But, as you always say, this isn't only about me.  And I have no moral dilemma at all-you have to play to the end to face one.  There can't be one if you aren't conflicted about it-I'm not conflicted.  I don't want to choose any of them, so I don't.  A dilemma only exists if you must and will go beyond something to get something else.  I won't.  And other people have no moral conflict at all.

You stated as fact that BW always intended the endings to be about a moral dilemma.  Well, if someone has no dilemma then that is not true.  Other people have said they have no moral problems with picking destroy, so your assertion is false-BW allows for Shepard and player to dislike the geth and EDI.  That means no moral problem in choosing destroy.  So you're wrong.

And if you are wrong and they never intended the endings to be all about a moral dilemma and they allow players to get endings where there is no moral dilemma for them, there is no reason why they cannot add on and create other endings that also do not have any moral dilemma if one picks them.

The endings do not require everyone have a moral dilemma so if they create alternatives that do not create a moral dilemma, they have not changed anything or gone against their own intent.

You have no moral delama over the endings? 
Ha. 

Areyou saying you'r not upset over the choices at the end of the game?

dreman, this isn't only about me.  I can't have a dilemma if I don't face it.  But again, thank you so much for making my point-just choose which one you now believe is true.  Red or Blue.

Red:  There is no dilemma for all players, so BW didn't intend on there being only a moral dilemma ending.  That leaves open other additions that also do not feature any moral dilemma.

Blue:  Bioware said there would be a moral dilemma and that is their intent for the direction of the game.  They should stick with their intent and should stay with what they said.  If you pick this, there are a lot of other things Bioware said that I hope you will remind them of-the other things they intended for the game.

Thanks for our support, dreman.

[3DandBeyond]

KENNY4753 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Your missing the point of the arguement. BW want to have the endings bring the player to moral conflict. Adding a "Shepard live, only reapers die" choice counters that concept.

I already responded to this.  Check back a page or two.

by now I think half of BSN responded to that but that is dreman's only arguement so it's going to repeat throughout the same thread

dreman is a shackled AI.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
before I focus on your comment let me say one thing, please read over your comments before you post them, your spelling and grammer is terrible half the time

now to your comment, they can try but it's not going to happen because of how the players play. Meaning that moral conflict is irrelevant because everybody won't go through it so no matter what they do they will never get moral conflict always involved. They should have focused on making sure the endings made sense rather than to make sure players are conflicted over the choices.

That doesn't mean they have to add an easy way out. They can try as much as they like...It's there game. Just because it doen't work for everyone does not mean they can't try.

Sure they can try but it's wasted effort. Moral conflict is not a general thing as you said a few pages back in this thread, so it's a wasted effort to try to make everybody go through it. People should want a happy ending because if people spent over 100 hours on these games EAware should let them see their previous choices pay off, see their war assets actually do something, and have not have wastes time trying to make everybody conflicted about that final color choice. and yes I already know you will say "it's there game, they can do what they want to" but that doesn't mean they did the right thing.

The  Right things are subjective. The issue here is what you want. You don't want to go throught the moral delama they put in, so you want an easy way out.
My entire arguement is that it's not what bw wants to do.

I don't care about an easy way out. I am not morally conflicted with the crappy endings either. When I first played through ME3 at the end I didn't care about what the cons were of destroy (EDI and geth die), although I liked both the geth and EDI, I didn't even care in my Shepard would live or die. I chose destroy without hesitating because ever since ME1 that was Shepard goal, destroy the reapers. It's obvious sacrifices will have to be made along the way, we learned that in ME1 on Virmire. We are going to lose people.Eaware should not have cared whether or not people would be morally conflicted. The should have focused on doing what we wanted to all along, destroy the reapers. I was not conflicted at all, so they failed in that aspect. Wanting an ending where shep lives, geth live, EDI lives, reapers die doesn't mean that I felt conflicted with the choice I chose. "Moral Conflict is irrelevant"

Bw has the right to try to bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict. 

If fact the orignal planned ending were going to do that as well. Orignal choices were to let the reaper harvest all of humanity so they can be used to sae the galexy for being destroyed by th elose of dark energy or kill of the reapers and dooming the galexy.

BW plan was alway to try for moral conflict.

[KENNY4753]

3DandBeyond wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Your missing the point of the arguement. BW want to have the endings bring the player to moral conflict. Adding a "Shepard live, only reapers die" choice counters that concept.

I already responded to this.  Check back a page or two.

by now I think half of BSN responded to that but that is dreman's only arguement so it's going to repeat throughout the same thread

dreman is a shackled AI.

no wonder his logic doesn't make much sense.

[Dragoonlordz]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...


Don’t bother Dee…I think we have a new Bubbles…or do we? Maybe is the same guy with a different name

This one is Bubbles to the Max.

I like it though that he now agrees with me.

If there is no moral dilemma for all, then BW didn't mean there to be.

If there is a moral dilemma and BW is supposed to do as they say, then I have a list that dreman should submit to them so they will follow through on them as well.

They said wanted there to be hard choices to make, morality is one way to provide such. It worked for many which made it a hard choice. In fact half the whining about it is people not liking having to make that choice so it worked as intended for that situation. If anything they need to make the choice even harder for you if they did not succeed in making it a hard choice to you in the first place. Your desire and what you want makes it an easier choice which conflicts with what they said right from the beginning the direction they wanted to go with their game.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:58 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

If you asking for an easy way out...You having a moral delama. You can only not have a moral delama if you have no problem picking the choices at the end of the game.

But, as you always say, this isn't only about me.  And I have no moral dilemma at all-you have to play to the end to face one.  There can't be one if you aren't conflicted about it-I'm not conflicted.  I don't want to choose any of them, so I don't.  A dilemma only exists if you must and will go beyond something to get something else.  I won't.  And other people have no moral conflict at all.

You stated as fact that BW always intended the endings to be about a moral dilemma.  Well, if someone has no dilemma then that is not true.  Other people have said they have no moral problems with picking destroy, so your assertion is false-BW allows for Shepard and player to dislike the geth and EDI.  That means no moral problem in choosing destroy.  So you're wrong.

And if you are wrong and they never intended the endings to be all about a moral dilemma and they allow players to get endings where there is no moral dilemma for them, there is no reason why they cannot add on and create other endings that also do not have any moral dilemma if one picks them.

The endings do not require everyone have a moral dilemma so if they create alternatives that do not create a moral dilemma, they have not changed anything or gone against their own intent.

You have no moral delama over the endings? 
Ha. 

Areyou saying you'r not upset over the choices at the end of the game?

dreman, this isn't only about me.  I can't have a dilemma if I don't face it.  But again, thank you so much for making my point-just choose which one you now believe is true.  Red or Blue.

Red:  There is no dilemma for all players, so BW didn't intend on there being only a moral dilemma ending.  That leaves open other additions that also do not feature any moral dilemma.

Blue:  Bioware said there would be a moral dilemma and that is their intent for the direction of the game.  They should stick with their intent and should stay with what they said.  If you pick this, there are a lot of other things Bioware said that I hope you will remind them of-the other things they intended for the game.

Thanks for our support, dreman.

Not my point at a all. People have differnt forms of delama based on the endings. It not just a delama of hating the choices. If you're here  asking for a new choice to the ending, it's a form of delama. You have your form , I have my form.
You can't say your not having a delama if you have a form of delama.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:58 .

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Your missing the point of the arguement. BW want to have the endings bring the player to moral conflict. Adding a "Shepard live, only reapers die" choice counters that concept.

I already responded to this.  Check back a page or two.

by now I think half of BSN responded to that but that is dreman's only arguement so it's going to repeat throughout the same thread

And I already countered that response. Morality is subject. BW is welcome to try to bring morla conflict into there game. Just because some people don't go through it does not invalides the attempt.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Agian, that was a term refelecting that other peopel felt moral delama over the choices even if you did not.

no it wasn't you kept claiming the ending is about moral conlict, but its not Bioware knows every player doesn't have that because its an RPG type game.

Yes, it was. How many time did I say morality is subjective. Bw has the right to try to bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict.

dreman derp, pls read this carefully. Mass Effect is an RPG type game, Bioware knows that not every player has a moral conflict, therefore they didn't intend that for the endings. You can give them a choice but that doesn't mean that choice has moral conflict if the player does feel that way, Moral conflict is by the player not Bioware
 
Btw, were the ones telling you its subjective but you can't get that through your head

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
before I focus on your comment let me say one thing, please read over your comments before you post them, your spelling and grammer is terrible half the time

now to your comment, they can try but it's not going to happen because of how the players play. Meaning that moral conflict is irrelevant because everybody won't go through it so no matter what they do they will never get moral conflict always involved. They should have focused on making sure the endings made sense rather than to make sure players are conflicted over the choices.

That doesn't mean they have to add an easy way out. They can try as much as they like...It's there game. Just because it doen't work for everyone does not mean they can't try.

Sure they can try but it's wasted effort. Moral conflict is not a general thing as you said a few pages back in this thread, so it's a wasted effort to try to make everybody go through it. People should want a happy ending because if people spent over 100 hours on these games EAware should let them see their previous choices pay off, see their war assets actually do something, and have not have wastes time trying to make everybody conflicted about that final color choice. and yes I already know you will say "it's there game, they can do what they want to" but that doesn't mean they did the right thing.

The  Right things are subjective. The issue here is what you want. You don't want to go throught the moral delama they put in, so you want an easy way out.
My entire arguement is that it's not what bw wants to do.

I don't care about an easy way out. I am not morally conflicted with the crappy endings either. When I first played through ME3 at the end I didn't care about what the cons were of destroy (EDI and geth die), although I liked both the geth and EDI, I didn't even care in my Shepard would live or die. I chose destroy without hesitating because ever since ME1 that was Shepard goal, destroy the reapers. It's obvious sacrifices will have to be made along the way, we learned that in ME1 on Virmire. We are going to lose people.Eaware should not have cared whether or not people would be morally conflicted. The should have focused on doing what we wanted to all along, destroy the reapers. I was not conflicted at all, so they failed in that aspect. Wanting an ending where shep lives, geth live, EDI lives, reapers die doesn't mean that I felt conflicted with the choice I chose. "Moral Conflict is irrelevant"

Bw has the right to try to bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict. 

If fact the orignal planned ending were going to do that as well. Orignal choices were to let the reaper harvest all of humanity so they can be used to sae the galexy for being destroyed by th elose of dark energy or kill of the reapers and dooming the galexy.

BW plan was alway to try for moral conflict.

1. once again I will reiterate: 
 please read over your comments before you post them, your spelling and grammar is terrible half the time

2. Please find tme the quote where EAware said they want everybody to go through moral conflict