378 réponses à ce sujet

[Abraham_uk]

At dreman9999

I found the ending choices Control/Destroy/Synthesis to be quite tough.
There was no morally upright choice, except refusal (which was plain suicide).
So absolute agreement there.


Now about the quote pyrimids. As Lankist once fameously illustrated.

[Bill Casey]

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

Albert Fish?

[KENNY4753]

Bill Casey wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

Albert Fish?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kin Jong Il, etc

those guys didn't seem to have any moral conflict in their choices

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Morality is not the same as moral conflict. I'm saying that if you played ME with out ever thinking about morality and just logic, you would easilly get the highest possible score. I mean the it matter not if you play as a renagade or paragon to get the best ending. But no person truely exsist with out morality. The ending makes you face you own morality with an extremely hard choice to make. The ending is morality vs logic of the even on hand.
If you moraliy is more important to you then choosing , you refuse and allow everyone you care for die for your morality.
I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

But what I am saying is that if EAware wanted to make it so your morallity (paragon/renegade) didn't cause you to recieve different ending choices, then they obviously didn't intend for the player to go through moral conflict in the end.

No, you still thinkingin a way that one way of playing equals best ending. That not what bw wants to do. They want the player to have more then on path to get the best ending. I'm say morality does not matter to what choices you get at the end of the game because the player can have any morality they want to get the best ending of the games.  Having morality effect the results would mean one veiw is  right. That is not what BW intends. 
Any morality can get the best ending, but what your morality is hinders what you choice, but that is with in you, not the game.
They way I saw this is by play 6 different Shepards with different moralities and developing personas.

[dreman9999]

Abraham_uk wrote...

At dreman9999

I found the ending choices Control/Destroy/Synthesis to be quite tough.
There was no morally upright choice, except refusal (which was plain suicide).
So absolute agreement there.


Now about the quote pyrimids. As Lankist once fameously illustrated.

Sorry. I'll stop with the pyrimds.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

Albert Fish?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kin Jong Il, etc

those guys didn't seem to have any moral conflict in their choices

They do have morality. They just don't have moralitys that  coexist with others. This is like saying muslum terrorists have no morality.

Modifié par dreman9999, 15 septembre 2012 - 08:48 .

[christrek1982]

jtav wrote...

The arguments don't really conflict.

1. An ending where nothing the player cares about is sacrificed contradicts the darker tone of the game. It's a writing failure.
2. An ending with no sacrifice is automatically the best ending, meaning the other endings represent greater or lesser degrees of failure.

I already thought we had failure I don't remember beating the reapers in battle I just remember a kid handing me the win on a silver platter.

[dreman9999]

christrek1982 wrote...

jtav wrote...

The arguments don't really conflict.

1. An ending where nothing the player cares about is sacrificed contradicts the darker tone of the game. It's a writing failure.
2. An ending with no sacrifice is automatically the best ending, meaning the other endings represent greater or lesser degrees of failure.

I already thought we had failure I don't remember beating the reapers in battle I just remember a kid handing me the win on a silver platter.

The catalsyt does not control what the crucible does out side of synthesis.
He allows you to use the crucible because of his programing.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Morality is not the same as moral conflict. I'm saying that if you played ME with out ever thinking about morality and just logic, you would easilly get the highest possible score. I mean the it matter not if you play as a renagade or paragon to get the best ending. But no person truely exsist with out morality. The ending makes you face you own morality with an extremely hard choice to make. The ending is morality vs logic of the even on hand.
If you moraliy is more important to you then choosing , you refuse and allow everyone you care for die for your morality.
I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

But what I am saying is that if EAware wanted to make it so your morallity (paragon/renegade) didn't cause you to recieve different ending choices, then they obviously didn't intend for the player to go through moral conflict in the end.

No, you still thinkingin a way that one way of playing equals best ending. That not what bw wants to do. They want the player to have more then on path to get the best ending. I'm say morality does not matter to what choices you get at the end of the game because the player can have any morality they want to get the best ending of the games.  Having morality effect the results would mean one veiw is  right. That is not what BW intends. 
Any morality can get the best ending, but what your morality is hinders what you choice, but that is with in you, not the game.
They way I saw this is by play 6 different Shepards with different moralities and developing personas.

I have never in any post said that there is only one path to the "best ending'. I know that you can take multiple paths to get to the ending with different paragon/renegade scores. Maybe you misunderstood one of my posts but I have never said one path to the "best" ending. Maybe you misunderstood my thoughts on EMS points not truely affecting the ending but I have never said that there is only one path.

Also you have no idea what EAware truely wants to do. Do they invite you to their confrences and tell you their plans? You can interpret anything they say into what you want to believe they meant but neither of us truely know what they wanted in ME3.

[TheCrazyHobo]

dreman9999 wrote...

he catalsyt does not control what the crucible does out side of synthesis.
He allows you to use the crucible because of his programing.

He shuts off the Crucible'sBeam in the refuse ending which means he does have some form of control of the Crucible. 

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

Albert Fish?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kin Jong Il, etc

those guys didn't seem to have any moral conflict in their choices

They do have morality. They just don't have moralitys that  coexist with others. This is like saying muslum terrorists have no morality.

I didn't say morality. Everybody has their own morals but those people did not seem morally conflicted about what they did.

Modifié par KENNY4753, 15 septembre 2012 - 08:58 .

[dreman9999]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

he catalsyt does not control what the crucible does out side of synthesis.
He allows you to use the crucible because of his programing.

He shuts off the Crucible'sBeam in the refuse ending which means he does have some form of control of the Crucible. 

True, but that doesn't mean he controls what it does.  Reaber, he ask you to choose for a reason. Becasue he can't.

The only choice he want is synthesis and he needs you to jump in th beam to do it.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

Albert Fish?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kin Jong Il, etc

those guys didn't seem to have any moral conflict in their choices

They do have morality. They just don't have moralitys that  coexist with others. This is like saying muslum terrorists have no morality.

I didn't say morality. Everybody has their own morals but those people were not morally conflicted about what they did. 

They not in moral conflict with waht they did because of there morality. Nor everyone morality is the same.
That's like say muslum terrorist should feel bad for 911.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

Albert Fish?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kin Jong Il, etc

those guys didn't seem to have any moral conflict in their choices

They do have morality. They just don't have moralitys that  coexist with others. This is like saying muslum terrorists have no morality.

I didn't say morality. Everybody has their own morals but those people were not morally conflicted about what they did. 

They not in moral conflict with waht they did because of there morality. Nor everyone morality is the same.
That's like say muslum terrorist should feel bad for 911.

Yes not everybody feels morl conflict about choices that they make. Therefore my point is that EAware didn't intended for moral conflict to be involved in the endings as you believe they wanted.

[GreyReaver]

dreman9999 wrote...

GreyReaver wrote...

Henioo wrote...

I wouldn't mind a "disney ending" if my choices led to it.

I would very much mind it if a hapopy ending was just one of three choices, and a guy who just started the series with ME3 could get as good an ending as I did.

Oh, wait, that's exactly what happened.

Agreed and well said. 

The choices/decisions you made throughout the entire series should have determend your ending in ME3 NOT the 3 canned endings.  This would have ensured a much more replayable game. As it is you have seen the three canned endings and if you don't like them then there is a huge disencentive to replay the 120 hours for an ending you already know and dislike and/or hate.

Personally I alway enjoy a happy ending much better than a grim, sad or bleak one. I really wanted those blue babies, a medal ceremony like in Star Wars, drinks with Jacob, picking up a seashell on the beach for Mordin, retiring and signing autographs with Garrus and dying of old age on some long forgotten planet surrounded by my children, friends and my LI.

BW forgt that ME3 is a sci-fi rpg.  Games are entertainment.  And most entertainment provides escapism through suspension of belief via a viable alternate reality (realism). BTW, Escapism in appropriate amounts in healthy, constructive and fun.

In an alternate reality sci-fi fantasy for suspension of belief to work there must be a consistent balance of reality  and non-realty. Games, (including videoe games) stories, even fantasies, daydreams, etc. are just different types of escapism. 

Let me clarify what I mean.  To me, suspension of belief is based on an alternate reality being coherant and real i.e., it has it's own rules, laws and physics and those are principles adhered to throughout the story.  When they are broken you are pulled out of that reality and set back down in the real world, because your suspension of belief has been broken. The magic spell of the story has been broken becasue of a violation or violations were to egregious for your mind to rationally bend the established rules of that reality and the illusion fades to smoke.

My problem is that BW writers go off on a bat-s#it crazy tangent in the last 10 minutes of the game and get al uber meta on us and take the, "Shepard has to make tough decisions along the way," to the Nth degree and become all
republican-style control freak preachy parents and putting Shepard into a dream state with a magic gun and a magic space child with magic endings that are totally inconsistent with the entire rest of the series. 

The explanation I like for the Theory of Narrative Causality is the reason something happens is that the story is better if that something happens.  Did the magic gun, magic star-child and 3 choice endings make ME3 better? I think gamers have spoken loud, clear and resoundingly, "NO!"

So, yeah, basicallly thank-you BW for breaking my suspension of beleif in the last 10 minutes an otherwise outstanding 120 hour or so series.

But the entire point of the last  choice was to bring the player to moral conflict with the choices at hand. Having an easy way out would destroy that concept.

The OP's Thread is about "what's wrong with a Disney ending."  And my answer is, "Nothing."  Bottom line, the ending we got should have been based on all of the choices/decisions we had made throughout the game.  Instead, we the the same 3 endings with the only differences being based on the extent of the damage which was based on your EMS.  I don't give to cents about the ending needing a difficult moral choice particularly, if it doesn't make the story better.  In this case it made the ending empty and went against Shepards moral principles.  I"m re-copying the sections that deal the the moral conflict but more importantly READ the section on "Theory of Narravtive Causality."

My problem is that BW writers go off on a bat-s#it crazy tangent in the last 10 minutes of the game and get al uber meta on us and take the, "Shepard has to make tough decisions along the way," to the Nth degree and become all
republican-style control freak preachy parents and putting Shepard into a dream state with a magic gun and a magic space child with magic endings that are totally inconsistent with the entire rest of the series. 

The explanation I like for the Theory of Narrative Causality is the reason something happens is that the story is
better if that something happens.  Did the magic gun, magic star-child and 3 choice endings make ME3 better? I think gamers have spoken loud, clear and resoundingly, "NO!"

Modifié par GreyReaver, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:02 .

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Morality is not the same as moral conflict. I'm saying that if you played ME with out ever thinking about morality and just logic, you would easilly get the highest possible score. I mean the it matter not if you play as a renagade or paragon to get the best ending. But no person truely exsist with out morality. The ending makes you face you own morality with an extremely hard choice to make. The ending is morality vs logic of the even on hand.
If you moraliy is more important to you then choosing , you refuse and allow everyone you care for die for your morality.
I'm saying moraliy is not requaired to defeat the reapers but no one does not have a morality.

But what I am saying is that if EAware wanted to make it so your morallity (paragon/renegade) didn't cause you to recieve different ending choices, then they obviously didn't intend for the player to go through moral conflict in the end.

No, you still thinkingin a way that one way of playing equals best ending. That not what bw wants to do. They want the player to have more then on path to get the best ending. I'm say morality does not matter to what choices you get at the end of the game because the player can have any morality they want to get the best ending of the games.  Having morality effect the results would mean one veiw is  right. That is not what BW intends. 
Any morality can get the best ending, but what your morality is hinders what you choice, but that is with in you, not the game.
They way I saw this is by play 6 different Shepards with different moralities and developing personas.

I have never in any post said that there is only one path to the "best ending'. I know that you can take multiple paths to get to the ending with different paragon/renegade scores. Maybe you misunderstood one of my posts but I have never said one path to the "best" ending. Maybe you misunderstood my thoughts on EMS points not truely affecting the ending but I have never said that there is only one path.

Also you have no idea what EAware truely wants to do. Do they invite you to their confrences and tell you their plans? You can interpret anything they say into what you want to believe they meant but neither of us truely know what they wanted in ME3.

The fact that we have more than one way to get the best ending tothe game and the fact that the origianl head writer stated that the origianl ending was to allow the reapers to harvest humanity so they can save the galexy or kill the reapers and doom the galexy in the dark energy plot pretty much point to a plan for moral conflict for the player.

[TheCrazyHobo]

dreman9999 wrote...

True, but that doesn't mean he controls what it does.  Reaber, he ask you to choose for a reason. Becasue he can't.

The only choice he want is synthesis and he needs you to jump in th beam to do it.

This is what makes the whole scen awkward if you think about it.  For Synthesis, he could have used any old Husk once he had the Crucible seeing as they are both machine and man.

[christrek1982]

Funkdrspot wrote...

There's nothing wrong with it but there is something wrong with your inability to comprehend that one isn't going to be provided. There is something wrong with the rustled jimmies from not having one

Conversely, I ask you what's wrong with NOT having a disney ending?

Ask yourself, would the act of saving private ryan have the same 'weight' if none of ryans brothers died and no one in the platoon sent to save him died?

no but if SPR was on the same track as ME3 the private ryan should get shot and killed by an unknown sniper in the last 10 mins of the film and then the director should stand up and shout ART. SPR had some sweet in with the bitter ME3 just has frustrasion and bitter. 

[dreman9999]

GreyReaver wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

GreyReaver wrote...

Henioo wrote...

I wouldn't mind a "disney ending" if my choices led to it.

I would very much mind it if a hapopy ending was just one of three choices, and a guy who just started the series with ME3 could get as good an ending as I did.

Oh, wait, that's exactly what happened.

Agreed and well said. 

The choices/decisions you made throughout the entire series should have determend your ending in ME3 NOT the 3 canned endings.  This would have ensured a much more replayable game. As it is you have seen the three canned endings and if you don't like them then there is a huge disencentive to replay the 120 hours for an ending you already know and dislike and/or hate.

Personally I alway enjoy a happy ending much better than a grim, sad or bleak one. I really wanted those blue babies, a medal ceremony like in Star Wars, drinks with Jacob, picking up a seashell on the beach for Mordin, retiring and signing autographs with Garrus and dying of old age on some long forgotten planet surrounded by my children, friends and my LI.

BW forgt that ME3 is a sci-fi rpg.  Games are entertainment.  And most entertainment provides escapism through suspension of belief via a viable alternate reality (realism). BTW, Escapism in appropriate amounts in healthy, constructive and fun.

In an alternate reality sci-fi fantasy for suspension of belief to work there must be a consistent balance of reality  and non-realty. Games, (including videoe games) stories, even fantasies, daydreams, etc. are just different types of escapism. 

Let me clarify what I mean.  To me, suspension of belief is based on an alternate reality being coherant and real i.e., it has it's own rules, laws and physics and those are principles adhered to throughout the story.  When they are broken you are pulled out of that reality and set back down in the real world, because your suspension of belief has been broken. The magic spell of the story has been broken becasue of a violation or violations were to egregious for your mind to rationally bend the established rules of that reality and the illusion fades to smoke.

My problem is that BW writers go off on a bat-s#it crazy tangent in the last 10 minutes of the game and get al uber meta on us and take the, "Shepard has to make tough decisions along the way," to the Nth degree and become all
republican-style control freak preachy parents and putting Shepard into a dream state with a magic gun and a magic space child with magic endings that are totally inconsistent with the entire rest of the series. 

The explanation I like for the Theory of Narrative Causality is the reason something happens is that the story is better if that something happens.  Did the magic gun, magic star-child and 3 choice endings make ME3 better? I think gamers have spoken loud, clear and resoundingly, "NO!"

So, yeah, basicallly thank-you BW for breaking my suspension of beleif in the last 10 minutes an otherwise outstanding 120 hour or so series.

But the entire point of the last  choice was to bring the player to moral conflict with the choices at hand. Having an easy way out would destroy that concept.

The OP's Thread is about "what's wrong with a Disney ending."  And my answer is, "Nothing."  Bottom line, the ending we got should have been based on all of the choices/decisions we had made throughout the game.  Instead, we the the same 3 endings with the only differences being based on the extent of the damage which was based on your EMS.  I don't give to cents about the ending needing a difficult moral choice particularly, if it doesn't make the story better.  In this case it made the ending empty and went against Shepards moral principles.  I"m re-copying the sections that deal the the moral conflict but more importantly READ the section on "Theory of Narravtive Causality."

My problem is that BW writers go off on a bat-s#it crazy tangent in the last 10 minutes of the game and get al uber meta on us and take the, "Shepard has to make tough decisions along the way," to the Nth degree and become all
republican-style control freak preachy parents and putting Shepard into a dream state with a magic gun and a magic space child with magic endings that are totally inconsistent with the entire rest of the series. 

The explanation I like for the Theory of Narrative Causality is the reason something happens is that the story is
better if that something happens.  Did the magic gun, magic star-child and 3 choice endings make ME3 better? I think gamers have spoken loud, clear and resoundingly, "NO!"

Sorry but post ec, he statement is split on the mority ruling on if the ending is liked or not. You wanting an easy ay out is not a case the the majority wanst an easy way out of the choices.

[dreman9999]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

True, but that doesn't mean he controls what it does.  Reaber, he ask you to choose for a reason. Becasue he can't.

The only choice he want is synthesis and he needs you to jump in th beam to do it.

This is what makes the whole scen awkward if you think about it.  For Synthesis, he could have used any old Husk once he had the Crucible seeing as they are both machine and man.

What point to a husk being able to do it? We don't even know the conditions need for the sample needed to do synthesis.

[Iakus]

I still haven't heard what's moral about Shepard dying in virtually every ending.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
I have never in any post said that there is only one path to the "best ending'. I know that you can take multiple paths to get to the ending with different paragon/renegade scores. Maybe you misunderstood one of my posts but I have never said one path to the "best" ending. Maybe you misunderstood my thoughts on EMS points not truely affecting the ending but I have never said that there is only one path.

Also you have no idea what EAware truely wants to do. Do they invite you to their confrences and tell you their plans? You can interpret anything they say into what you want to believe they meant but neither of us truely know what they wanted in ME3.

The fact that we have more than one way to get the best ending tothe game and the fact that the origianl head writer stated that the origianl ending was to allow the reapers to harvest humanity so they can save the galexy or kill the reapers and doom the galexy in the dark energy plot pretty much point to a plan for moral conflict for the player.

Just because you have more than one meaningless path to the end doesn't mean that they meant for you to have moral conflict no matter how paragon/renagade you are.

and about the dark energy thing, they didn't do that though so therefore it is irrelevant.

[TheCrazyHobo]

dreman9999 wrote...

What point to a husk being able to do it? We don't even know the conditions need for the sample needed to do synthesis.

Yes we do, we need something with "organic energy" and maybe cybernetic implants to jump into the beam.
Shepherd, TIM, a Husk, or an Indoctrinated Quarian could do it.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

I find people who argue against a conventional victory because it would be too much of a "Disney" ending hilarious. It would be much "darker" than either synthesis or control. And, for some, even destroy.

And judging by the people on BSN who loved the endings, they actually got their Disney ending. Control? Their Shepard would make a great dictator. Synthesis? It's for the galaxy's own good. Destroy? The Geth and EDI are just toasters anyway.

[dreman9999]

christrek1982 wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

There's nothing wrong with it but there is something wrong with your inability to comprehend that one isn't going to be provided. There is something wrong with the rustled jimmies from not having one

Conversely, I ask you what's wrong with NOT having a disney ending?

Ask yourself, would the act of saving private ryan have the same 'weight' if none of ryans brothers died and no one in the platoon sent to save him died?

no but if SPR was on the same track as ME3 the private ryan should get shot and killed by an unknown sniper in the last 10 mins of the film and then the director should stand up and shout ART. SPR had some sweet in with the bitter ME3 just has frustrasion and bitter. 

That's not the case at all. Private Ryan was not even the main character. The person the viewer connected to the most was Tom Hnaks character...He was the main character and he died. ME is the same case of that. The goal was achevied but the main character died doing it.

Shepard is the mian chatacter. Tom Hanks character is the main character.

The goal was to save the galexy. The goal was to save private Ryan.
Both goals were met. The main character dies.