275 réponses à ce sujet

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. I don't mean BW. Infact, based on ther past plan you would of had a morally conflicting ending any way.

Think of it this way. If any character that has a sad end in a tragedy found out it's so because some guy planned it for a story, would they not be upset?

2. On that, we have a topic on this borad that goes for 238 page aslking for that easy ending. We have a survey stating most people rather have happy ending for their Shepard.
It's clear people want an easy way out of the choices.

3. But it does make sense how Shep deid. You not getting you fighting a race that does not care for combat or winning. The reaper have a strange perspective that ignorse the concepts of black and white. We have been told over and over agein what to expect form them. Even Saren stated that they think like machines. The ending is base on that.
The catalyst is letting you win because he does not care to win. He only care to do what he is programed to do.
Control is a mass rewrite,Destory is a blast that effects all tech and makes all AI's brain dead.

The only thing that has no clear explination is synthesis but it's done so to bring the issue of advancement and ends vs means, an issue stated form the sart of the series.
The synthesis is just a question if it matter how we advance and get our tech.

1) The moral conflict argument again. I've heard what you had to say about 500 times already. Find a new argument please. But either way both ending plans were so terrible and either road they took BW would still be the reason why we would have an ending that is stupid and hardly makes any sense.

2) yes I know what topic you are speaking of. The one where you spent 100 pages voicing the same argument every other post. But even between that thread and a survey you still have no proof that most people want that. Most means majority and there is no way to know exactly what the majority wants.

And it isn't specifically about wanting an easy way out. A lot of people want a choice where Shepard lives, that is true. But if Shepard already lives in high EMS destroy then why shouldn't they want to see what happens after. A lot of people who say they want a Shep survives ending mean somethin added onto high EMS destroy where Shep already possibly lives. Sure there are people who do want  a way not to kill the Geth and EDI and it would be easy to do so. Through dlc let us get a complete crucible unlike the one we currently have.

3) When I say the endings don't make sense I am not taking about the Repaers motives or programming I am talking about the choices. The choices go against what ME stands for. We fought to destroy the Reapers from day 1. Not to merge with them or control them. Hell, we argued against TIM at the ending about how control is not the answer but yet 1 minute later EAware tries to tell us that Control is possible and that it is a good choice. Including control was just a stupid thing to do since it contradicts what we have fought against Cerberus for all of ME3. And Synthesis goes against all of ME because we are fighting for freedom and the right to choose our fate. Re-writing everybodies DNA is not letting them choose their own fate making synthesis a stupid thing to include. Destroy is the ONLY choice that does not contradict everything about ME and that is why the endings make no sense.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

you have to love seeing the Morality/Moral Conflict argument on every single post from Dreman.

It's not like the game itself does not bring up these issues.

Legion of all characters does this in spades.

But my point is that in every post of your's you say the same exact thing. Your argument never varies. It's like you have your responses saved in a document on your desktop and just copy and paste the same posts and change a couple words.

I already know how arguing about the morality will play out because I could just go look in the other 100 threads I've seen your exact argument, so I'll save you the time of copying and pasting your posts.

I say the same arguement bacause it's never countered. And no I don't copy and paste it. I'm only say it over agein because  most people who complain don't condider that angle.

People do counter your morality argument but you never listen to what they say.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

Massa FX wrote...

The machines stop working. Period.

The Catalyst says it gives the Reapers purpose. Remove the instruction to harvest, kill, and shoot, the machines stop and wait for orders. The husks stop because the Reapers are no longer giving them orders.

So then what? They don't fall over and quiver. The just freeze. Asleep if you will.

If that's too extreme, I think removing the heart or brain of a Reaper would definitely make a conventional victory assured. There would have to be some downtime as they adjusted. Time enough to blow them up, or get EDI to step in and control them, or EDI hacks in and tells them to run themselves into the nearest star.

Note: I don't mind rebuttals to my theory/ideas. As long as you're nice and ...articulate. Helps me think my cannon through.

The catalyst is not a puppet master. Yes, he makes the reapers but he write it's programing, not remote control them. Nothis show that stopping him would stop the reapers.
Think that is as bad as think the empire in Starswars end when they lost there empire at the battle of endor.

Added, we well know that rapers are not easy to hack. But we have a way to do that anyway...It's called picking the Control option.

"I need to stop the Reapers. Do you know how I can do that?"
"Perhaps I control the Reapers"
And if Shep becomes the new Catalyst s/he does control them directly <_<
Also "rapers are not easy to hack" hilarious typo

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. I don't mean BW. Infact, based on ther past plan you would of had a morally conflicting ending any way.

Think of it this way. If any character that has a sad end in a tragedy found out it's so because some guy planned it for a story, would they not be upset?

2. On that, we have a topic on this borad that goes for 238 page aslking for that easy ending. We have a survey stating most people rather have happy ending for their Shepard.
It's clear people want an easy way out of the choices.

3. But it does make sense how Shep deid. You not getting you fighting a race that does not care for combat or winning. The reaper have a strange perspective that ignorse the concepts of black and white. We have been told over and over agein what to expect form them. Even Saren stated that they think like machines. The ending is base on that.
The catalyst is letting you win because he does not care to win. He only care to do what he is programed to do.
Control is a mass rewrite,Destory is a blast that effects all tech and makes all AI's brain dead.

The only thing that has no clear explination is synthesis but it's done so to bring the issue of advancement and ends vs means, an issue stated form the sart of the series.
The synthesis is just a question if it matter how we advance and get our tech.

1) The moral conflict argument again. I've heard what you had to say about 500 times already. Find a new argument please. But either way both ending plans were so terrible and either road they took BW would still be the reason why we would have an ending that is stupid and hardly makes any sense.

2) yes I know what topic you are speaking of. The one where you spent 100 pages voicing the same argument every other post. But even between that thread and a survey you still have no proof that most people want that. Most means majority and there is no way to know exactly what the majority wants.

And it isn't specifically about wanting an easy way out. A lot of people want a choice where Shepard lives, that is true. But if Shepard already lives in high EMS destroy then why shouldn't they want to see what happens after. A lot of people who say they want a Shep survives ending mean somethin added onto high EMS destroy where Shep already possibly lives. Sure there are people who do want  a way not to kill the Geth and EDI and it would be easy to do so. Through dlc let us get a complete crucible unlike the one we currently have.

3) When I say the endings don't make sense I am not taking about the Repaers motives or programming I am talking about the choices. The choices go against what ME stands for. We fought to destroy the Reapers from day 1. Not to merge with them or control them. Hell, we argued against TIM at the ending about how control is not the answer but yet 1 minute later EAware tries to tell us that Control is possible and that it is a good choice. Including control was just a stupid thing to do since it contradicts what we have fought against Cerberus for all of ME3. And Synthesis goes against all of ME because we are fighting for freedom and the right to choose our fate. Re-writing everybodies DNA is not letting them choose their own fate making synthesis a stupid thing to include. Destroy is the ONLY choice that does not contradict everything about ME and that is why the endings make no sense.

1.I won't change the arguement because they very point of the game was to bring the player to moral conflict. This is what they advertized. Sorry but that a concept you have to live with.

2.The prime issue is that they don't want to kill the geth to get him it live. It an issue of wanting a moral high ground to take and have him live. That's an easy way out. The ending ask a question of sacrific of person or morality to stop the reapers. War inheritly forces that issue on every personfighting in it.

Sure the people who just mant more detail to it but we already know the awnser to that. BW want you to imagine it.

3.ME is a game that never tells you an abo****e right or wrong. There is nothing that counters TIM's arguement on control other than moral reason. There is no hard logic reason why you should not. If the issue here is that you found out TIM was right, you missed the point that the game states there is no true right or wrong. Your morality does. The game only care about the results, only you care for how. Remeber, this is a game were you can betray and manipulate your allies to gain assits to defeat the reapers.

As for synthesis, your still missing the fact that is a question of advancement and ends vs means. The ending is not bad because it's offered. If you don't like it don't pick it. Synthesis is a question including the pros and con of advancement. You only have a right to complain about it if your forced to only pick that choice. If your issues is about how it works, you missing the fact that a being does not need to know the detail of how ia device functions to use it. I'll give you an example....How does the prothean becon but images in Sheps head?

Also, ask any kid how a tv remote works and you'll get my point.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Massa FX wrote...

The machines stop working. Period.

The Catalyst says it gives the Reapers purpose. Remove the instruction to harvest, kill, and shoot, the machines stop and wait for orders. The husks stop because the Reapers are no longer giving them orders.

So then what? They don't fall over and quiver. The just freeze. Asleep if you will.

If that's too extreme, I think removing the heart or brain of a Reaper would definitely make a conventional victory assured. There would have to be some downtime as they adjusted. Time enough to blow them up, or get EDI to step in and control them, or EDI hacks in and tells them to run themselves into the nearest star.

Note: I don't mind rebuttals to my theory/ideas. As long as you're nice and ...articulate. Helps me think my cannon through.

The catalyst is not a puppet master. Yes, he makes the reapers but he write it's programing, not remote control them. Nothis show that stopping him would stop the reapers.
Think that is as bad as think the empire in Starswars end when they lost there empire at the battle of endor.

Added, we well know that rapers are not easy to hack. But we have a way to do that anyway...It's called picking the Control option.

"I need to stop the Reapers. Do you know how I can do that?"
"Perhaps I control the Reapers"
And if Shep becomes the new Catalyst s/he does control them directly <_<
Also "rapers are not easy to hack" hilarious typo

Shep would control them by rewriting their programing, not remote control.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 05:25 .

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

you have to love seeing the Morality/Moral Conflict argument on every single post from Dreman.

It's not like the game itself does not bring up these issues.

Legion of all characters does this in spades.

But my point is that in every post of your's you say the same exact thing. Your argument never varies. It's like you have your responses saved in a document on your desktop and just copy and paste the same posts and change a couple words.

I already know how arguing about the morality will play out because I could just go look in the other 100 threads I've seen your exact argument, so I'll save you the time of copying and pasting your posts.

I say the same arguement bacause it's never countered. And no I don't copy and paste it. I'm only say it over agein because  most people who complain don't condider that angle.

People do counter your morality argument but you never listen to what they say.

No they don't. The closes they come is to say they don't feel moral conflict in certian moments in the game.(Virmire, etc...)
I always counter that  with the fact that morality is subjective and not every one will feel the same way over every case.

The Argument has yet to be countered.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

No they don't. The closes they come is to say they don't feel moral conflict in certian moments in the game.(Virmire, etc...)
I always counter that  with the fact that morality is subjective and not every one will feel the same way over every case.

The Argument has yet to be countered.

The fact that it is subjective and not everyone has a moral conflict makes the argument a weak base. Even Bioware knows this

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No they don't. The closes they come is to say they don't feel moral conflict in certian moments in the game.(Virmire, etc...)
I always counter that  with the fact that morality is subjective and not every one will feel the same way over every case.

The Argument has yet to be countered.

The fact that it is subjective and not everyone has a moral conflict makes the argument a weak base. Even Bioware knows this

Do you not understand that when that is so does not mean they are not are trying to do moral conflict..If a boat is flooding with what, does that mean people trying to shovel it out of the boat arn't doing that?

They still are attempting, it may not always succed with everyone but they are still attempting. Some times they will succed, other times they won't. That does nto mean they did not trying and should stop trying.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 05:43 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...
Shep would control them by rewriting their programing, not remote control.

The way this scene transitions seems to imply otherwise


Shepalyst is literally inside the Reaper, not hanging out on the Citadel.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 02 octobre 2012 - 05:41 .

[Reorte]

KENNY4753 wrote...

Sure there are people who do want  a way not to kill the Geth and EDI and it would be easy to do so. Through dlc let us get a complete crucible unlike the one we currently have.

Because we'd like it to be possible to do the best possible, just as we would in real life. The perfect game covers every possible consequence of every possible action - obviously technically impossible though. However I'd settle for the way they die seeming less contrived.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Shep would control them by rewriting their programing, not remote control.

The way this scene trainsitions seems to imply otherwise


Shepalyst is literally inside the Reaper, not hanging out on the Citadel.

That just a scene trainstion. That does not mean Shep has direct control

[GreyLycanTrope]

It certainly can. Symbolism! The ending is full of it.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...
1.I won't change the arguement because they very point of the game was to bring the player to moral conflict. This is what they advertized. Sorry but that a concept you have to live with.

2.The prime issue is that they don't want to kill the geth to get him it live. It an issue of wanting a moral high ground to take and have him live. That's an easy way out. The ending ask a question of sacrific of person or morality to stop the reapers. War inheritly forces that issue on every personfighting in it.

Sure the people who just mant more detail to it but we already know the awnser to that. BW want you to imagine it.

3.ME is a game that never tells you an abo****e right or wrong. There is nothing that counters TIM's arguement on control other than moral reason. There is no hard logic reason why you should not. If the issue here is that you found out TIM was right, you missed the point that the game states there is no true right or wrong. Your morality does. The game only care about the results, only you care for how. Remeber, this is a game were you can betray and manipulate your allies to gain assits to defeat the reapers.

As for synthesis, your still missing the fact that is a question of advancement and ends vs means. The ending is not bad because it's offered. If you don't like it don't pick it. Synthesis is a question including the pros and con of advancement. You only have a right to complain about it if your forced to only pick that choice. If your issues is about how it works, you missing the fact that a being does not need to know the detail of how ia device functions to use it. I'll give you an example....How does the prothean becon but images in Sheps head?

Also, ask any kid how a tv remote works and you'll get my point.

1) They advertized a lot that didn't turn out to be true and that is a concept that you have to live with....just saying.

2) Your missing my point. It would be very easy to make the Reapers only die in destroy. Just give us a way to get a complete crucible through the dlc. Make buying all the dlc and even getting a high enough EMS actually matter by giving us a complete crucible. The Starbrat even says that it isn't complete but only largely intact. And why should there be an "easy way out" since Shepard does the impossible over and over again. BW made Shepard to be like a god through ME1, ME2, and some of ME3. Plus the Catalyst lies anyway because if it did tell you the truth then Shep would be dead in destroy regardless of EMS.

3) Like I stated multiple times before I have heard your moralitly bs but you are not listening to what I am saying. The whole point of ME going back tio ME1 was to destroy the Reapers. All throughout ME3 you argue with TIM that Control is wrong. So the fact that they include it in the ending is stupid. IF they would have given us a chance to sidfe with TIM throughout ME3 and tell him that Control would work then it would make a little more sense for Control being an ending choice. But we don't get that choice to agree with him. It would have made more sense for us to choose between the Alliance and Cerberus. 

and I am not talking about how synthesis works. I know how it works. A green laser shoots across the galaxy. That is the way it works in the endings. Seriously though i am not talking about how it works I am saying that it goes against what ME stood for. Morality aside throught ME we have fought for freedom and the right to choose our own fate by defeating the Reapers. Choosing our fate by defeating the Reapers is not what synthesis does.

[Iakus]

Greylycantrope wrote...

It certainly can. Symbolism! The ending is full of it.

Oh, it's full of it, all right 

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The Catalyst is a threat to the illusion of self-determination. It is a clouded enemy presenting choices to us on a platter, and it asks us to accept that these choices are real, necessary, and the only ones available to us. This creates the feeling that the only right action is to upend the platter and shoot the one holding it, because my instinct is not to let a possible enemy lead me by the bridle or feed my choices to me. 

If there were no platter, and no Catalyst, there would be only me and my choices.

Thanks for putting "illusion" in there.

Unfortunately I have no idea if you're being sarcastic or not.

So I'll just say that all games are illusions and my ability to enjoy them depends upon the quality of the illusion. The Catalyst isn't a problem because it takes away my player agency but because it destroys the illusion of player agency.

A being that tells you you have not time, and suppendly forces you to quickly pick something destroys the illusion of agency?

Actually, yes.  It does.  Especially when it kills you and all your allies if you don't pick.,

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The Catalyst is a threat to the illusion of self-determination. It is a clouded enemy presenting choices to us on a platter, and it asks us to accept that these choices are real, necessary, and the only ones available to us. This creates the feeling that the only right action is to upend the platter and shoot the one holding it, because my instinct is not to let a possible enemy lead me by the bridle or feed my choices to me. 

If there were no platter, and no Catalyst, there would be only me and my choices.

Thanks for putting "illusion" in there.

Unfortunately I have no idea if you're being sarcastic or not.

So I'll just say that all games are illusions and my ability to enjoy them depends upon the quality of the illusion. The Catalyst isn't a problem because it takes away my player agency but because it destroys the illusion of player agency.

A being that tells you you have not time, and suppendly forces you to quickly pick something destroys the illusion of agency?

Actually, yes.  It does.  Especially when it kills you and all your allies if you don't pick.,

 Killing you and you allies does not detour agency.

Added, if a machine programed with action to do that result in you death you tells you the only way to stop it is to do a certin thing and you refuse to do it. What do you think is going to happen?

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 06:08 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

iakus wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It certainly can. Symbolism! The ending is full of it.

Oh, it's full of it, all right 

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Actually, yes.  It does.  Especially when it kills you and all your allies if you don't pick.,

It killing you and you allies does not detour agency.

Added, if a machine programed with action to do that result in you death you tells you the only way to stop it is to do a certin thing and you refuse to do it. What do you think is going to happen?

I'm going to be robbed of agency, because I am being compelled into action under physical duress.

Modifié par iakus, 02 octobre 2012 - 06:03 .

[AlanC9]

KENNY4753 wrote...

1) The moral conflict argument again. I've heard what you had to say about 500 times already. Find a new argument please.

If you're looking for a place where people don't stick with the same arguments.... you better find another board.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.I won't change the arguement because they very point of the game was to bring the player to moral conflict. This is what they advertized. Sorry but that a concept you have to live with.

2.The prime issue is that they don't want to kill the geth to get him it live. It an issue of wanting a moral high ground to take and have him live. That's an easy way out. The ending ask a question of sacrific of person or morality to stop the reapers. War inheritly forces that issue on every personfighting in it.

Sure the people who just mant more detail to it but we already know the awnser to that. BW want you to imagine it.

3.ME is a game that never tells you an abo****e right or wrong. There is nothing that counters TIM's arguement on control other than moral reason. There is no hard logic reason why you should not. If the issue here is that you found out TIM was right, you missed the point that the game states there is no true right or wrong. Your morality does. The game only care about the results, only you care for how. Remeber, this is a game were you can betray and manipulate your allies to gain assits to defeat the reapers.

As for synthesis, your still missing the fact that is a question of advancement and ends vs means. The ending is not bad because it's offered. If you don't like it don't pick it. Synthesis is a question including the pros and con of advancement. You only have a right to complain about it if your forced to only pick that choice. If your issues is about how it works, you missing the fact that a being does not need to know the detail of how ia device functions to use it. I'll give you an example....How does the prothean becon but images in Sheps head?

Also, ask any kid how a tv remote works and you'll get my point.

1) They advertized a lot that didn't turn out to be true and that is a concept that you have to live with....just saying.

2) Your missing my point. It would be very easy to make the Reapers only die in destroy. Just give us a way to get a complete crucible through the dlc. Make buying all the dlc and even getting a high enough EMS actually matter by giving us a complete crucible. The Starbrat even says that it isn't complete but only largely intact. And why should there be an "easy way out" since Shepard does the impossible over and over again. BW made Shepard to be like a god through ME1, ME2, and some of ME3. Plus the Catalyst lies anyway because if it did tell you the truth then Shep would be dead in destroy regardless of EMS.

3) Like I stated multiple times before I have heard your moralitly bs but you are not listening to what I am saying. The whole point of ME going back tio ME1 was to destroy the Reapers. All throughout ME3 you argue with TIM that Control is wrong. So the fact that they include it in the ending is stupid. IF they would have given us a chance to sidfe with TIM throughout ME3 and tell him that Control would work then it would make a little more sense for Control being an ending choice. But we don't get that choice to agree with him. It would have made more sense for us to choose between the Alliance and Cerberus. 

and I am not talking about how synthesis works. I know how it works. A green laser shoots across the galaxy. That is the way it works in the endings. Seriously though i am not talking about how it works I am saying that it goes against what ME stood for. Morality aside throught ME we have fought for freedom and the right to choose our own fate by defeating the Reapers. Choosing our fate by defeating the Reapers is not what synthesis does.

1. But moral conflict turn out to be true...Just saying.

2.That still is asking for an easy way out. You want a moral high ground to take to stop the reapers. War is not like that. Added, it's not the case the the crucible is incomplete. It's a case that what it did effect more than we planned.

3.The point was to stop the reaper. Destroying them is one way. Nothing in concet was ever stated you had to destroy them. Even Andersons speech in the end of ME1 stated"DRIVE THEM BACK INTO DARK SPACE."
It's not that the game told you you have to kill the reapers...It's just that you want to kill the reapers. That does not mean killing them should be the only way to stop them.

4.Synthesis is a question of advancement and end vs means. That question has been there form the start. It does not go ageints ME themes for being an option. It would only go ageints ME themes if it was the only choice on hand. It's not. If you don't like it, don't pick it.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Actually, yes.  It does.  Especially when it kills you and all your allies if you don't pick.,

It killing you and you allies does not detour agency.

Added, if a machine programed with action to do that result in you death you tells you the only way to stop it is to do a certin thing and you refuse to do it. What do you think is going to happen?

I'm going to be robbed of agency, because I am being compelled into action under physical duress.

You have free will, the catalyst does not.

Saying the catalyst need to be punished for what it did,is like saying an out of control car needs to be punished for hitting someone.

[Nightwriter]

dreman9999 wrote...

A being that tells you you have not time, and suppendly forces you to quickly pick something destroys the illusion of agency?

All right, look man. I don't find your opinions about the Catalyst terribly coherent in general, so I'm not sure how successful an exchange this is going to be.

First you say that because the Catalyst does not understand morality, there is no such thing as good or evil, and furthermore that this is the entire point of the series.

By this logic, if someone programs a machine to perform a task, and sending innocents to be raped is the most effective means of achieving that task, then that means there is nothing at all morally wrong with rape, and the moral/lesson of the entire rape cycle is that there is no such thing as good or evil because the machine doesn't recognize it.

And that is completely pants-on-head messed up.

Because in a situation like that, there is, quite frankly, no moral to the story whatsoever. No "point." No message. All we have learned is that there was no malicious intent on behalf of the perpetrator. It doesn't change the fact that the "rape" was wrong. It doesn't make it any less a crime. It just means that it was committed by an entity that doesn't know what crime is, and the moral tug-of-war is ruined as we learn that there was never actually anyone pulling on the other end, it had just gotten caught in a circular saw. The series spends 2.9 games blowing dramatic buildup into a giant balloon, and at the end, it pops the balloon with a pencil and says, "Go home, folks."

And before you start saying rape is too extreme an analogy, I should probably point out that huskification, indoctrination, and Reaperfication are actually pretty violative and rape-y.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand that it is the Catalyst's amorality which makes it such a disappointing and fictionally undesirable invention. The Mass Effect series -- from start to finish -- has had an enormous amount of focus on morality. It's the primary source of all Mass Effect debate, after whose love interest is best. The moral objectionableness of the Reapers is so strong that organics and synthetics are allying for the first time in history to fight an ethical threat that even fleshless robots can recognize. They spend quite a long time building up the dramatic power of the cause. By defending the Catalyst's amorality, all I actually hear is, "Yeah well it was intentionally disappointing and fictionally undesirable, that was the whole point!" Trust me when I say that I already knew that what I dislike about the endings was intentional.

Now you seem to be saying that the illusion of self-determination can be broken by a time crunch. I have now lost all grasp of your position. All I am saying is that when the protagonist's victory choices are fed to him by the antagonist, it kills the sense of triumph. You counter with "what, the choice is bad just because you're told you gotta be quick about it?"

I just don't understand what you're trying to say at all.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 02 octobre 2012 - 06:12 .

[AresKeith]

@Nightwriter nobody will

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. But moral conflict turn out to be true...Just saying.

2.That still is asking for an easy way out. You want a moral high ground to take to stop the reapers. War is not like that. Added, it's not the case the the crucible is incomplete. It's a case that what it did effect more than we planned.

3.The point was to stop the reaper. Destroying them is one way. Nothing in concet was ever stated you had to destroy them. Even Andersons speech in the end of ME1 stated"DRIVE THEM BACK INTO DARK SPACE."
It's not that the game told you you have to kill the reapers...It's just that you want to kill the reapers. That does not mean killing them should be the only way to stop them.

4.Synthesis is a question of advancement and end vs means. That question has been there form the start. It does not go ageints ME themes for being an option. It would only go ageints ME themes if it was the only choice on hand. It's not. If you don't like it, don't pick it.

1. Depends on the player. Some people also believe that the Crucible isn't an off-switch.

2. So let me ask you this. Was doing all the loyalty missions in ME2 and getting all the upgrades for the suicide mission so everybody survives an easy way out. No, because you put the time in to do all of that. So doing all the dlc and getting a super high EMS to complete the crucible and only destroy the Reapers would not be an easy way out. It would reward you for completing the dlc missions and building up a really high EMS. 

3. Yes the point was to stop the Reapers and in ME1 or ME2 they never specifcally stated that destroy was the only option back then but in ME3 when we learned of control being a possible way through TIM but no matter what your morality is the game makes you fight against him and the rest of Cerberus. That is my whole point. If they let us choose between Cerberus and the Alliance maybe our morality would have made played a real part.

4. I hear what you are saying but it does go against the theme of fighting to let people choose their own fate. Me choosing to rewrite everybody's DNA is not fighting for everybody to choose their own fate it is fighting for me to choose everybody's fate.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Only message I got was that the end justifies the means, not a mindset I had to or did accept before.