6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

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

 

"Many hard choice lie ahead, none of them easy."

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

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

And as I said before...
 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]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
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

 

"Many hard choice lie ahead, none of them easy."

1. That was from ME1, which yes had some tough choices, mainly virmire
2. Just because a there's a tough descion that doesn't mean that you will be morally conflicted
3. Where do they say the ME3 ending will be a morally conflicting choice.

[IamDanThaMan]

The fact that an immoral person does not have an internal conflict does not mean that a moral conflict does not exist. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp, except for the fact that it disproves your already very shaky argument.

You keep saying that all of the choices are immoral, but at the same time that there is no moral conflict. You can't have it both ways.

You can always choose to refuse, but isn't letting all organic life in the galaxy be wiped out when you could have prevented it also immoral.

My point is that it is unrealistic to expect all of your choices to have no negative consequences. I will go back to the WW2 argument again because it fits the situation perfectly. The United States could have taken Japan without dropping the atomic bombs. We had them over matched and were driving them back. However, when they weighed the possible losses of each option, they chose the option that would cause the least overall loss of life.

This is the same choice that is presented to you at the end of ME3, and the complaints that you are giving only serve to prove that the writers got the exact reaction from the endings that they wanted. I get it, you didn't like it, but just because you are too narrow minded to understand the concept, it doesn't make it bad.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
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

 

"Many hard choice lie ahead, none of them easy."

1. That was from ME1, which yes had some tough choices, mainly virmire
2. Just because a there's a tough descion that doesn't mean that you will be morally conflicted
3. Where do they say the ME3 ending will be a morally conflicting choice.

1. Me2 and ME3 still has hard choices to make. The statment form that comercal still stands.
2.I alrealy made a response to this statement...
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.  
3.Why would the last choice of the series not be moralily conflicting if the theme is toward that. Ad the orginal head writer of ME stated taht there aim is to end the game with moral conflict. lOOK UP THE DARK ENERGY ENDINGS.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:29 .

[Dragoonlordz]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
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

 

"Many hard choice lie ahead, none of them easy."

1. That was from ME1, which yes had some tough choices, mainly virmire
2. Just because a there's a tough descion that doesn't mean that you will be morally conflicted
3. Where do they say the ME3 ending will be a morally conflicting choice.

I don't really care for your moral/immoral argument but they did say in interviews ME3 the game will have hard choices to make and be a much darker game compared story wise to the other two. This includes the ending. Morality is merely one form of hard choice but in reality what your asking for is an easier choice which conflicts with what they said wish to do with the game. If you have difficulty picking a choice because you do not like any of them then that is a hard choice whether moral reasons or not and they suceeded if that was the case in what they set out to do. You now want them to go make you an easier choice to make.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:20 .

[AresKeith]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

The fact that an immoral person does not have an internal conflict does not mean that a moral conflict does not exist. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp, except for the fact that it disproves your already very shaky argument.

You keep saying that all of the choices are immoral, but at the same time that there is no moral conflict. You can't have it both ways.

You can always choose to refuse, but isn't letting all organic life in the galaxy be wiped out when you could have prevented it also immoral.

My point is that it is unrealistic to expect all of your choices to have no negative consequences. I will go back to the WW2 argument again because it fits the situation perfectly. The United States could have taken Japan without dropping the atomic bombs. We had them over matched and were driving them back. However, when they weighed the possible losses of each option, they chose the option that would cause the least overall loss of life.

This is the same choice that is presented to you at the end of ME3, and the complaints that you are giving only serve to prove that the writers got the exact reaction from the endings that they wanted. I get it, you didn't like it, but just because you are too narrow minded to understand the concept, it doesn't make it bad.

I'll tell you what I told Dreman, were not saying it doesn't exist, were saying its based on how the they play. Not everyone has a moral conflict with the choices because some of them aren't hard for the player.

You and Dreman keep saying the ending is all about morals, but morals is based on the how that player roleplays there Shepard. Bioware knows this and all you do in most of your comments is trying to throw insult because you have a hard time trying to grasp that not every felt moral conflict because the endings are stupid.

[3DandBeyond]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


I don't really care for your moral/immoral argument but they did say in interviews ME3 the game will have hard choices to make and be a much darker game compared story wise to the other two. This includes the ending. Morality is merely one form of hard choice but in reality what your asking for is an easier choice which conflicts with what they said wish to do with the game. If you have difficulty picking a choice because you do not like any of them then that is a hard choice whether moral reasons or not and they suceeded if that was the case in what they set out to do. You now want them to go make you an easier choice to make.

They said a lot of things about the game not all of it true, but if a person says they should stick to their guns on one thing merely because they said it at one time, then they should be asked to do so for all the other things they said.  And I'm not saying they every promised a happier ending-I'm talking about all the other things they've said.

If however you don't think all those other things matter or should be included in the game, then you cannot say that I have no business asking them to change anything else or add to it and us anything else they said as the basis for doing so.

[3DandBeyond]

Anyway, I wasn't asking them to change the endings you all now have-you're happy with what you've got and that's just ducky.

Others are willing even to pay for something more, additional, extra, optional. Please do not say I am selfish for asking for something else and offering to pay for it if you are saying I should not be allowed to have it.

Bioware can make up their own minds, thank you very much. And they are free to change their minds. They are completely free to ignore me. Or they are free to cater to my every whim (no, I'm not delusional-they won't do this, but I could ask).

If they determine it makes sense, they will do what works for them and I do believe they will consider all of us. You have the status quo. I don't think all of you are even sure that extra content would be bad. You just can't give an inch, because you didn't think of it first. Or, bitterness has pervaded your world.

I'm asking for nicer, kinder things. You want all out war and misery. And you don't even want Bioware to give it a thought, even if it might make them some money. Who's bitter and selfish now?

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

The fact that an immoral person does not have an internal conflict does not mean that a moral conflict does not exist. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp, except for the fact that it disproves your already very shaky argument.

You keep saying that all of the choices are immoral, but at the same time that there is no moral conflict. You can't have it both ways.

You can always choose to refuse, but isn't letting all organic life in the galaxy be wiped out when you could have prevented it also immoral.

My point is that it is unrealistic to expect all of your choices to have no negative consequences. I will go back to the WW2 argument again because it fits the situation perfectly. The United States could have taken Japan without dropping the atomic bombs. We had them over matched and were driving them back. However, when they weighed the possible losses of each option, they chose the option that would cause the least overall loss of life.

This is the same choice that is presented to you at the end of ME3, and the complaints that you are giving only serve to prove that the writers got the exact reaction from the endings that they wanted. I get it, you didn't like it, but just because you are too narrow minded to understand the concept, it doesn't make it bad.

I'll tell you what I told Dreman, were not saying it doesn't exist, were saying its based on how the they play. Not everyone has a moral conflict with the choices because some of them aren't hard for the player.

You and Dreman keep saying the ending is all about morals, but morals is based on the how that player roleplays there Shepard. Bioware knows this and all you do in most of your comments is trying to throw insult because you have a hard time trying to grasp that not every felt moral conflict because the endings are stupid.

And as I said before....
Bw has the right to tryto bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict.  
Key word here...try.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Anyway, I wasn't asking them to change the endings you all now have-you're happy with what you've got and that's just ducky.

Others are willing even to pay for something more, additional, extra, optional. Please do not say I am selfish for asking for something else and offering to pay for it if you are saying I should not be allowed to have it.

Bioware can make up their own minds, thank you very much. And they are free to change their minds. They are completely free to ignore me. Or they are free to cater to my every whim (no, I'm not delusional-they won't do this, but I could ask).

If they determine it makes sense, they will do what works for them and I do believe they will consider all of us. You have the status quo. I don't think all of you are even sure that extra content would be bad. You just can't give an inch, because you didn't think of it first. Or, bitterness has pervaded your world.

I'm asking for nicer, kinder things. You want all out war and misery. And you don't even want Bioware to give it a thought, even if it might make them some money. Who's bitter and selfish now?

But BW do not want put nicer kinder things in the ending. That what your not getting.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

The fact that an immoral person does not have an internal conflict does not mean that a moral conflict does not exist. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp, except for the fact that it disproves your already very shaky argument.

You keep saying that all of the choices are immoral, but at the same time that there is no moral conflict. You can't have it both ways.

You can always choose to refuse, but isn't letting all organic life in the galaxy be wiped out when you could have prevented it also immoral.

My point is that it is unrealistic to expect all of your choices to have no negative consequences. I will go back to the WW2 argument again because it fits the situation perfectly. The United States could have taken Japan without dropping the atomic bombs. We had them over matched and were driving them back. However, when they weighed the possible losses of each option, they chose the option that would cause the least overall loss of life.

This is the same choice that is presented to you at the end of ME3, and the complaints that you are giving only serve to prove that the writers got the exact reaction from the endings that they wanted. I get it, you didn't like it, but just because you are too narrow minded to understand the concept, it doesn't make it bad.

I'll tell you what I told Dreman, were not saying it doesn't exist, were saying its based on how the they play. Not everyone has a moral conflict with the choices because some of them aren't hard for the player.

You and Dreman keep saying the ending is all about morals, but morals is based on the how that player roleplays there Shepard. Bioware knows this and all you do in most of your comments is trying to throw insult because you have a hard time trying to grasp that not every felt moral conflict because the endings are stupid.

And as I said before....
Bw has the right to tryto bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict.  
Key word here...try.

the fact that they tried and failed to do it makes it invalid

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
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

 

"Many hard choice lie ahead, none of them easy."

1. That was from ME1, which yes had some tough choices, mainly virmire
2. Just because a there's a tough descion that doesn't mean that you will be morally conflicted
3. Where do they say the ME3 ending will be a morally conflicting choice.

1. Me2 and ME3 still has hard choices to make. The statment form that comercal still stands.
2.I alrealy made a response to this statement...
[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Bw has the right to ] [/color] 

3.Why would the last choice of the series not be moralily conflicting if the theme is toward that. Ad the orginal head writer of ME stated taht there aim is to end the game with moral conflict. lOOK UP THE DARK ENERGY ENDINGS.

1. All the games had tough choices, yes

2. What was your response to the statement...all i see is 
[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Bw has the right to ] [/color]  what kind of statement is that? Where did they exactly say "morally conflicting", because there is a difference between that and a tough choice.

3. the Dark Energy thing doesn't matter because they didn't do it. Yes the piece of crap we have now that calls itself an ending was a tough choice for some people but not for me. They may have said they wanted moral conflict but they also said a lot of other things about the ending that wasn't true. My point is that if they tried to make moral conflict they did a pretty sh***y job at it.

Modifié par KENNY4753, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:35 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Anyway, I wasn't asking them to change the endings you all now have-you're happy with what you've got and that's just ducky.

Others are willing even to pay for something more, additional, extra, optional. Please do not say I am selfish for asking for something else and offering to pay for it if you are saying I should not be allowed to have it.

Bioware can make up their own minds, thank you very much. And they are free to change their minds. They are completely free to ignore me. Or they are free to cater to my every whim (no, I'm not delusional-they won't do this, but I could ask).

If they determine it makes sense, they will do what works for them and I do believe they will consider all of us. You have the status quo. I don't think all of you are even sure that extra content would be bad. You just can't give an inch, because you didn't think of it first. Or, bitterness has pervaded your world.

I'm asking for nicer, kinder things. You want all out war and misery. And you don't even want Bioware to give it a thought, even if it might make them some money. Who's bitter and selfish now?

But BW do not want put nicer kinder things in the ending. That what your not getting.

You have no idea what Bioware wants-last I checked you did not speak for them.

[3DandBeyond]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


And as I said before....
Bw has the right to tryto bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict.  
Key word here...try.

the fact that they tried and failed to do it makes it invalid

What makes all of this invalid is that dreman makes a statement of certainty, that the endings are supposed to involve moral conflict.  Since many have proved that it doesn't always involve that and that proves dremans assertions are wrong, the whole idea changes.  Now all Bioware wanted to do was try to create a moral conflict.  Ok but they didn't create that for everyone, so that means not all endings involve moral conflict all the time, so that means creating additions to any ending will not hurt what does not exist.  If moral conflict is not certain then adding something that does not involve moral conflict hurts nothing.

Of course this will again cause the shackled one to change his "theory" of what Bioware always meant to happen.

Apparently by this logic dark energy will be the final plot as will IT and a galactic dark ages and a wasteland and aw heck the catalyst will be called the guardian and Shepard really died at the end of ME1 or was it 2, and all that.  Because if any one thing that BW said is now "law" then everything they've ever said is also.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:55 .

[Dragoonlordz]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


And as I said before....
Bw has the right to tryto bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict.  
Key word here...try.

the fact that they tried and failed to do it makes it invalid

What makes all of this invalid is that dreman makes a statement of certainty, that the endings are supposed to involve moral conflict.  Since many have proved that it doesn't always involve that and that proves dremans assertions are wrong, the whole idea changes.  Now all Bioware wanted to do was try to create a moral conflict.  Ok but they didn't create that for everyone, so that means not all endings involve moral conflict all the time, so that means creating additions to any ending will not hurt what does not exist.  If moral conflict is not certain then adding something that does not involve moral conflict hurts nothing.

Of course this will again cause the shackled one to change his "theory" of what Bioware always meant to happen.

Apparently by this logic dark energy will be the final plot as will IT and a galactic dark ages and a wasteland and aw heck the catalyst will be called the guardian and Shepard really died at the end of ME1 or was it 2, and all that.  Because if any one thing that BW said is now "law" then everything they've ever said is also.

The only thing Dre did by mistake was apply morality with the actual term they used that I recall being hard choices and darker atmosphere/theme to ME3. Morality is just one form of making a hard choice but it is not the only one. The fact is they wanted to make the choice hard, it worked and it was a hard choice. They did not fail and it does mean something. It worked, you found the choices hard to make by basic fact you do not like the choices given. You are asking for an easier choice to make. You have no ground to stand on regarding this element as far as the stance of hard choices they wanted vs easier choice you desire. This focusing on morality is not important, morality is just one form as said which plays a part in those hard choices they wished to create.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:05 .

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

The fact that an immoral person does not have an internal conflict does not mean that a moral conflict does not exist. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp, except for the fact that it disproves your already very shaky argument.

You keep saying that all of the choices are immoral, but at the same time that there is no moral conflict. You can't have it both ways.

You can always choose to refuse, but isn't letting all organic life in the galaxy be wiped out when you could have prevented it also immoral.

My point is that it is unrealistic to expect all of your choices to have no negative consequences. I will go back to the WW2 argument again because it fits the situation perfectly. The United States could have taken Japan without dropping the atomic bombs. We had them over matched and were driving them back. However, when they weighed the possible losses of each option, they chose the option that would cause the least overall loss of life.

This is the same choice that is presented to you at the end of ME3, and the complaints that you are giving only serve to prove that the writers got the exact reaction from the endings that they wanted. I get it, you didn't like it, but just because you are too narrow minded to understand the concept, it doesn't make it bad.

I'll tell you what I told Dreman, were not saying it doesn't exist, were saying its based on how the they play. Not everyone has a moral conflict with the choices because some of them aren't hard for the player.

You and Dreman keep saying the ending is all about morals, but morals is based on the how that player roleplays there Shepard. Bioware knows this and all you do in most of your comments is trying to throw insult because you have a hard time trying to grasp that not every felt moral conflict because the endings are stupid.

And as I said before....
Bw has the right to tryto bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict.  
Key word here...try.

the fact that they tried and failed to do it makes it invalid

No it doesn't. It just means it didn't work for you. BW can always try agein. If it did not working for you or other prople does not mean an easy choice needs to be added.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Okay, dreman9999 is a broken clock.

First I don't buy this moral relativism stuff. You can justify anything with moral relativism. So let's break this down. Let's make this more personal and less space magic. We cannot comprehend things like "The Geth", or "Everyone in the galaxy". Those are abstract. Just numbers like Stalin said: "The death of one is a tragedy. The deaths of 10,000 a statistic."

You're on the level of the Citadel with the Catalyst. You arrived with your best friend in the world who has saved your life time and again.

"I know you want to destroy us. To do so you must murder your best friend."

"Here is another of your best friends. She is unconscious and you cannot wake her. I want you to cut open her spine and place this metal implant in it which will cause circuits to grow throughout her body. Everyone in the world will experience this same thing when you do this except they will be awake. You will die afterward. Then there will be peace between machine and humans and the cycle will end." -- this is Synthesis. (oversimplified, but you get the idea)

"Grab these two electrodes and electrocute yourself and transmit your mind into me and you will rule over all my dominion and wield all of my power, but you will die in the process and you will lose all that made you who you are in the process. You will cease to exist. Your mind's programming will become part of me. Then you will control us." -- This is Control. ("Fool. You have changed nothing. Soon, you will begin the cycle again. There is no alternative.")

"Do nothing and I will kill everyone in the world, including you and your best friends. Make your choice."

I find all of these choices vile and unethical. They are essentially the same as the game's.

EDI? In my game, at least she said on her last lines "I would rather become non-functional than be reprogrammed." And given her past statements she made about the reapers, I took that to rule out synthesis. I had done a lot of renegade stuff with her.

The ending was just horrible. The dilemma? There is no dilemma. Which is the least of the evils? I can tell you which it is. You know that big "X" button in the middle of the controller? You press that, and this screen pops up that gives a choice that has at the top "XBox Home". Select that. Then another screen comes up and says "All unsaved progress will be lost." Select OK. Done. That's the least of the evils. That is the only correct moral choice for the ending.

Basically, given what's put in front of us, there is no moral choice.They're all morally bad.

If they wanted to do the right thing they'd write an entirely new ending, or do something entirely different with the one they have in place -- i.e. make it an indoctrination dream and if you picked destroy you wake up in one state, and if you picked another, you wake up in a different state of mind and have to break indoctrination -- both handled in another expansion DLC with a real ending.

[Dragoonlordz]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Okay, dreman9999 is a broken clock.

First I don't buy this moral relativism stuff. You can justify anything with moral relativism. So let's break this down. Let's make this more personal and less space magic. We cannot comprehend things like "The Geth", or "Everyone in the galaxy". Those are abstract. Just numbers like Stalin said: "The death of one is a tragedy. The deaths of 10,000 a statistic."

You're on the level of the Citadel with the Catalyst. You arrived with your best friend in the world who has saved your life time and again.

"I know you want to destroy us. To do so you must murder your best friend."

"Here is another of your best friends. She is unconscious and you cannot wake her. I want you to cut open her spine and place this metal implant in it which will cause circuits to grow throughout her body. Everyone in the world will experience this same thing when you do this except they will be awake. You will die afterward. Then there will be peace between machine and humans and the cycle will end." -- this is Synthesis. (oversimplified, but you get the idea)

"Grab these two electrodes and electrocute yourself and transmit your mind into me and you will rule over all my dominion and wield all of my power, but you will die in the process and you will lose all that made you who you are in the process. You will cease to exist. Your mind's programming will become part of me. Then you will control us." -- This is Control. ("Fool. You have changed nothing. Soon, you will begin the cycle again. There is no alternative.")

"Do nothing and I will kill everyone in the world, including you and your best friends. Make your choice."

I find all of these choices vile and unethical. They are essentially the same as the game's.

EDI? In my game, at least she said on her last lines "I would rather become non-functional than be reprogrammed." And given her past statements she made about the reapers, I took that to rule out synthesis. I had done a lot of renegade stuff with her.

The ending was just horrible. The dilemma? There is no dilemma. Which is the least of the evils? I can tell you which it is. You know that big "X" button in the middle of the controller? You press that, and this screen pops up that gives a choice that has at the top "XBox Home". Select that. Then another screen comes up and says "All unsaved progress will be lost." Select OK. Done. That's the least of the evils. That is the only correct moral choice for the ending.

Basically, given what's put in front of us, there is no moral choice.They're all morally bad.

If they wanted to do the right thing they'd write an entirely new ending, or do something entirely different with the one they have in place -- i.e. make it an indoctrination dream and if you picked destroy you wake up in one state, and if you picked another, you wake up in a different state of mind and have to break indoctrination -- both handled in another expansion DLC with a real ending.

You have the real ending, you do not like that ending and that is all. It is not do the right thing either in order to create something you want that others do not. That is merely do what you want vs do what they want. As I said earlier...

Also that thread title still gets on my nerves. It is not one last plea when 3D admitted she is not going to stop asking even if they tell her directly in response that not doing it. Secondly the right thing is subjective and should be renamed 'do what you want'.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:10 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


And as I said before....
Bw has the right to tryto bring the player to moral conflict. It not invalide if there player who don't go throught the conflict.  
Key word here...try.

the fact that they tried and failed to do it makes it invalid

What makes all of this invalid is that dreman makes a statement of certainty, that the endings are supposed to involve moral conflict.  Since many have proved that it doesn't always involve that and that proves dremans assertions are wrong, the whole idea changes.  Now all Bioware wanted to do was try to create a moral conflict.  Ok but they didn't create that for everyone, so that means not all endings involve moral conflict all the time, so that means creating additions to any ending will not hurt what does not exist.  If moral conflict is not certain then adding something that does not involve moral conflict hurts nothing.

Of course this will again cause the shackled one to change his "theory" of what Bioware always meant to happen.

Apparently by this logic dark energy will be the final plot as will IT and a galactic dark ages and a wasteland and aw heck the catalyst will be called the guardian and Shepard really died at the end of ME1 or was it 2, and all that.  Because if any one thing that BW said is now "law" then everything they've ever said is also.

They are, your proof of that. If the ending choices are so moraly wrong for you to pick them that your asking for an easy way out, that means it is moraly conflicting.

hat's not my point at all. The theme of ME was a question of what lenghts the play is willing to go to stop an unstappable forces. My refeace on the dark energy plot is that bw always planned to try to place the player into moral conflict. How that did it changed from before, but the concept never changed.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

No it doesn't. It just means it didn't work for you. BW can always try agein. If it did not working for you or other prople does not mean an easy choice needs to be added.

by all means they can try again, I welcome it lol

[UnbornLeviathan]

I've thought about this for a while, and while I am disappointed with the endings, I've been disappointed with many endings of many games, mostly the ones where I spend a great deal of time making my character make the choices I would make and not be able to do that at the key moments.

Knights of the Old Republic's use of Revan after the game (The novel brought a lot of rage from people) as well as Fable 2 and 3.

But I do realize that taking the entire ending, re-writing it, re-animating and programming it, getting the voice actors in to do all the work, would cost a lot of money with almost no return on this game. Now some people might say 'Oh, well it'll make the fans loyal for future games' but honestly most of EA's money comes from their sports and sim franchises. Not to mention the fact that in retrospect, when this was going on, I'm sure the company was losing money.

You don't go up for sale and not see the signs. So the fact that they did what they did, gave us the extended ending with extra content and options, as well as all this free MP DLC means they were doing this WHILE they knew they were going under.

It means a lot more in retrospect. I still can't say EA is in my top gaming companies, so I choose to believe a lot of this came from Bioware and I salute them for it.

Don't ask for a company who's owner is up for sale to hemorrhage more money with little return promised. It won't happen because right now it CAN'T happen, and even if it could, I don't expect it would.

[IamDanThaMan]

AresKeith wrote...

I'll tell you what I told Dreman, were not saying it doesn't exist, were saying its based on how the they play. Not everyone has a moral conflict with the choices because some of them aren't hard for the player.

You and Dreman keep saying the ending is all about morals, but morals is based on the how that player roleplays there Shepard. Bioware knows this and all you do in most of your comments is trying to throw insult because you have a hard time trying to grasp that not every felt moral conflict because the endings are stupid.

And you have a hard time grasping that just because you can't grasp the depth of the ending, it does not mean the ending stupid, but it might mean you are. Several commenters have tried to make the argument that if everyone does not experience a moral conflict, one does not exist. I do not care enough to sift through the last 15 pages to find every place where someone did.

Dreman and I have addressed every issue that anyone has brought up in this thread, to the point that you are not even arguing the original point anymore, because you know it it is totally invalid. The point of the ending is not for people who are blindly picking the "bad" or "good" options every time. Of course those people aren't going to experience a moral conflict. They are not even thinking about the choices they are making. The ending choices are there for people who actually are trying to make a judgement based on real-world principles.

If you go to a party, and they have three types of ice cream, say vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. You have the option to choose one of the three flavors, or not have any ice cream, or you can choose to be an ass and whine about it, and demand that they go out and buy your favorite flavor of ice cream. Or you can leave the party and buy your own ice cream and go back yo your parent's basement and eat it by yourself.

What you want is not to have the choice you want available to you, you want to be able to choose the consequences of your choice, which is not how it is in the real world.

Modifié par IamDanThaMan, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:14 .

[o Ventus]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

And you have a hard time grasping that just because you can't grasp the depth of the ending, it does not mean the ending stupid, but it might mean you are.

You might have a point, but only if the endings had depth to begin with.