543 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

An excellent moral question, OP. Why does a renegade Shepard get the same ending as a paragon Shepard? Is it implying there are NO moral decisions to make in the game? But then, why are the moral decisions (well written, mostly) used at all for 2.9 games in the Mass Effect series?

Shouldn't the renegade receive a dictators crown while the Paragon rides off into the sunset with LI and a white hat?

That not how the world works. Some of themost ruthless people are called heros.

Only on opposite day.


Or on black hole day which this apparently is. 

No, this is true. You don't know how many black op the usa has used over the years that are called heros.

Yeah ok, not interested in this discussion.  You've already said you think all heroes are villains and firefighters go home and beat their kids.  You've shown that your idea of gray is that everyone who does good also does a lot of bad just to balance that good stuff they did.  And then you say that all people are doing is living their lives, but to make that work you have to insist that there are not some truly good and truly bad individuals that exist. 

You seem to think that the kid can be excused because he's programmed that way-even though I've said that his actions are evil, so I don't care what he thinks he's doing.  That still stands.

[Xilizhra]

You seem to think that the kid can be excused because he's programmed that way-even though I've said that his actions are evil, so I don't care what he thinks he's doing. That still stands.

The Catalyst is completely irrelevant. All that matters is saving the galaxy. In a few ways, you have the option to do so. None of them are perfect, and all of them are badly implemented, but all of them work. You win in the end, unless you refuse.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

All it takes to chang the crucible from a giant vibrating ****** into a mega mass cannon is a flux capacitor.  Mere hardware.  It's not some big whoop.  And you cannot move out of the way when it is fired at you.  You cannot move out of the way of a laser either.  You don't SEE the laser until it is already ON you.  You cannot see a laser beam traversing from point a to point b.  You don't SEE at faster than light.  You don't even see AT the speed of light.  You only see after the light hits.  In this case we are talking about an asteroid traveling FASTER than light.  You don't see anything.  One moment you're there, the next you are not.  You saw nothing as it happened.

That's not as easy as you thingk, we don't even fully klnow how it works. Added a big gun isan easy target for reaper to destroy. A one shot weapon that kills the reaper all at once is better then a big gun the can easily be over whilmed and destoryed.

Well, maybe you don't, but somehow those people figured out how to make it from blueprints.  And they certainly know how to make biotic devices that manipulate mass on a small scale.  This is just bigger.

It already is a big gun and an easy target, supposedly.  And if you believe that at least 2/3 what it is meant for is to defeat the reapers, then why aren't they really attacking the thing?  Since the fleets don't pose a real threat, there would be no way for them to defend it-that's also part of what's crazy at the end.

But, still back to the OP-there is no paragon choice at the end.

[Xilizhra]

But, still back to the OP-there is no paragon choice at the end.

There's no choice that gives Paragon points, maybe, but there are decisions that can be made in a Paragon manner.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

An excellent moral question, OP. Why does a renegade Shepard get the same ending as a paragon Shepard? Is it implying there are NO moral decisions to make in the game? But then, why are the moral decisions (well written, mostly) used at all for 2.9 games in the Mass Effect series?

Shouldn't the renegade receive a dictators crown while the Paragon rides off into the sunset with LI and a white hat?

That not how the world works. Some of themost ruthless people are called heros.

Only on opposite day.


Or on black hole day which this apparently is. 

No, this is true. You don't know how many black op the usa has used over the years that are called heros.

Yeah ok, not interested in this discussion.  You've already said you think all heroes are villains and firefighters go home and beat their kids.  You've shown that your idea of gray is that everyone who does good also does a lot of bad just to balance that good stuff they did.  And then you say that all people are doing is living their lives, but to make that work you have to insist that there are not some truly good and truly bad individuals that exist. 

You seem to think that the kid can be excused because he's programmed that way-even though I've said that his actions are evil, so I don't care what he thinks he's doing.  That still stands.

1.That is an issue of the natural group metality we have. Good is normally seen in colaberation. Bad is  ormally seen in acts of conflict and disturst. These are some of the natural things we developed over time to servive as groups.
2. I don't think we should full blame the catalyst for what it did because it has no will of it's own...That does nont mean we Should not stop it.

[3DandBeyond]

Xilizhra wrote...

You seem to think that the kid can be excused because he's programmed that way-even though I've said that his actions are evil, so I don't care what he thinks he's doing. That still stands.

The Catalyst is completely irrelevant. All that matters is saving the galaxy. In a few ways, you have the option to do so. None of them are perfect, and all of them are badly implemented, but all of them work. You win in the end, unless you refuse.

You have no idea that you've won anything.  You have no idea that the crucible does what the kid says it does (acts as a big power source) and you have the probability since the choices are part of the citadel, that it merely will set off an event that serves the kid's purpose and not yours.  They certainly aren't perfect choices and may well do things far worse than death.  The slide shows are a real joke and are there as I've said merely to show people that the relays didn't destroy the galaxy.

You have to define what saving the galaxy means.  If it meant turning everyone eventually into mindless drones, would that be worth it?  If it caused everyone to give up trying or meant that the Shepard AI sent the reapers to destroy Tuchanka, would that be worth it?  If it meant that any synthetic created in the future would know that organics didn't care that a whole race of synthetics were killed to save organics, do you think that would turn out well?

The ending choices turn the story into one of fixing the kid's problem of organics vs. synthetics utilizing methods rejected by a paragon throughout the game-a paragon that already found a way to solve the issue.  It's not just the choices themselves that are wrong, it's the creators of this story that thought that made sense.  There is no paragon option in that.  It would be one thing if you were choosing to solve and knew fully that you were solving your own problem-it then becomes a real question of what's worth it.  But, it's like an afterthought that these choices might in some way partly sorta maybe kind of help you too, but not totally or even really, and you don't need to know enough about them to understand them-you'll only be confused.  So, pick one.

The game was about destroying the creatures that are turning people into goo.  It wasn't about letting them live and putting them on a leash or changing all of the galaxy's people so that the reapers won't need to kill them anymore.  It was about destroying them, but the explanation for what destroy does is so weak that there's no telling what it will do except destroy synthetics-life, implants, tissue, who knows?

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

All it takes to chang the crucible from a giant vibrating ****** into a mega mass cannon is a flux capacitor.  Mere hardware.  It's not some big whoop.  And you cannot move out of the way when it is fired at you.  You cannot move out of the way of a laser either.  You don't SEE the laser until it is already ON you.  You cannot see a laser beam traversing from point a to point b.  You don't SEE at faster than light.  You don't even see AT the speed of light.  You only see after the light hits.  In this case we are talking about an asteroid traveling FASTER than light.  You don't see anything.  One moment you're there, the next you are not.  You saw nothing as it happened.

That's not as easy as you thingk, we don't even fully klnow how it works. Added a big gun isan easy target for reaper to destroy. A one shot weapon that kills the reaper all at once is better then a big gun the can easily be over whilmed and destoryed.

Well, maybe you don't, but somehow those people figured out how to make it from blueprints.  And they certainly know how to make biotic devices that manipulate mass on a small scale.  This is just bigger.

It already is a big gun and an easy target, supposedly.  And if you believe that at least 2/3 what it is meant for is to defeat the reapers, then why aren't they really attacking the thing?  Since the fleets don't pose a real threat, there would be no way for them to defend it-that's also part of what's crazy at the end.

But, still back to the OP-there is no paragon choice at the end.

Any one can build any thing from directions if the have the base knowlgede for it. That does not mean yu can make it into something else.

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:35 .

[3DandBeyond]

Xilizhra wrote...

But, still back to the OP-there is no paragon choice at the end.

There's no choice that gives Paragon points, maybe, but there are decisions that can be made in a Paragon manner.

No, there's no paragon choice.  As I've said there is not enough exposition or enough of a reason to believe the authenticity of the choices for a paragon to say that choosing one would unequivocally do some good.  They are all unknowns because they reside where the kid does and as I've said you have the likelihood that still exists that the kid created the crucible plans along with the choice pylons on the citadel that is a part of him.

You have no assurance that you are not doing something far worse by making a choice since he has stated the need for a new solution.  He says the current one won't work.  He also provides a basis that is flawed in so many ways as I've stated and as has been stated over and over again.  A paragon would at least say that the only problems of the sort he mentions that have ever existed within this cycle have been handled because people used the sum of all they are to think them through.  They used their brains, but they also used some intangibles such as the heart and their minds.  They appealed to others emotionally.  A paragon would tell the kid that his problem is not a real problem.  And that all kinds of conflicts break out, but that people can learn to solve problems without some contrived choice.

[Xilizhra]

You have no assurance that you are not doing something far worse by making a choice since he has stated the need for a new solution.

Something worse than the Reapers killing everyone? What, would it make the Reapers kill everyone... faster? I'm pretty much in a worst-case scenario right at this moment, and have a possible way out; any possibility that can be reasonably foreseen is better than the alternative.

[Getorex]

By the way...in extension of my previous post here on why the ending, no matter what you choose, absolutely ENDS galactic civilization and renders it IMPOSSIBLE: Even if FTL lets you travel at 100 times the speed of light, it is STILL impossible to maintain a galactic civilization as broad as was before with the Relays. It would STILL take you 250 years just to get to the galactic core at 100x lightspeed and all the interesting places of the Relay-based civilization are farther than the core. So you are looking at >250 years one way to get ANYWHERE you want to go in the old civilization. Without the relays, which ALL your allowed choices destroy, you DO utterly destroy the overall civilization and it cannot come back without Relays again.

So the original distress over the endings and what happens to everyone cut off around the galaxy due to loss of Relays NO MATTER WHAT still holds. They are royally screwed.

[dsl08002]

its unfair to either renegade or paragon because the decisions are neither of those things

[Maxster_]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Paragon Shep gets refusal ending/not mentioned that there is one of the best speech since first ME/, as a fu to your ideals dude .!..

Refusal is exactly what you can call as idealistic, despite the odds are not in our favour - Shepard stands facing the inevitable failure and yet refusing some wicked solution created by mad creature. 

 In most of the endings is Shepard dead meat, leap of faith for such a big decision is hilarious - without meta gamming is the only logic choice refusal because you have no idea if the Catalyst saying truth 

Well, endings screws almost everyone.
Now, you are picking choice not because you forced your
enemy to give them to you, but because your enemy forces you to choose. That means, that the enemy have won, and you have lost, and forced to surrender to his will.
ME3 is a tale about crushing defeat, and unconditionally surrender to an enemy whim.
And that "surrender" part is completely screws the renegade.

"You could have resisted. You could have fought! Instead, you surrendered. You quit." - Shepard
Also, better with femshep.

If the Destroy ending would be a result of Shepard's actions, not because he surrendered to a whim of a genocidal entity, and compelled to use tools provided be that entity - only then it would be possible for a renegade.

[Maxster_]

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Firstly I don't want him to 'win' because my Shepard would never mutate, massacre, or dominate the rest of the galaxy against their will. Secondly, I don't want him to 'win' because everything that he advocates is sick and intollerant and ignorant. I do not want him to 'win' by being proven right.

Brad Pitt guns that serial killer down. It is not a victory. He has sacrificed his morality, and proved a lunatic correct about the darkness in the human soul.

Maybe it's not an optimal victory, but the serial killer is no longer a threat, and who cares about what he thinks anyway? The important thing was stopping him, and that was accomplished. Ditto for the Catalyst. What the Catalyst thinks is irrelevant to me, whether it approves of my solution or not. The important thing is stopping the Reapers in the best manner possible.

And if we have sarcificed all of our morality and our ideals then what were we fighting for all along?  Just survival?  Just the right to keep breathing?

Wow, that's bleak.

If that were true than none of the moral choices we've made up to that point would be relevant at all.  We would be living in an existential vacuum in which life would be utterly devalued.  If we aren't living for anything, then what does any of it matter?  We may as well let the Reapers win, because all that would ultimately separates us is self-interest.

I prefer to believe that there was a point to all that inclusivity and hope - beyond just climbing over their corpses to save ourselves.

That's how life is...There are no heros or villians, Just people getting by in the world. If you set your set up with your own grand Idealism,  that idealism is going to shatter before you. All we can hope for is our actions, not matter how horrorid it may be can make a better tomorrow.

That is the truth of war. What ME3 ending shows you the truth of all acts in war. It's a bunch of horrible acts that is hoped to some how make things better.

Comrade, you know nothing about war, about idealism, and human history. And of course, heroes.

There is many examples of heroism, even on ordinary level.
Like helping to prevent rape. Or stop robbery. Or save someone from buring building.
Such things are done by choice. And they are dangerous, sometimes on fatal level.

Or some less ordinary.
Like Krymsk flood in that summer, there were people who tried to help others, to get them out of stream. They knew that they could ignore others, and knew they could die easily helping others. And some of them really died.
Like Chenobyl, or 9/11 or many other catastrophes.

And like in war. WW2.

Kislyak Maria Timofeena, 1925 year of birth, Kharkov, Ukraine. Nurse, specialised medical school. Underground resistance movement, under german occupation. Soviet news leaflets distribution. Helping wounded soldiers to return to a front(43 saved). Killing german officers. Executed by gestapo in 18 may 1943 year. Post awarded with a rank of Hero of Soviet Union(it is a very high rank) in 1965(obviously when all that information was found).

You know, being in underground resistance organization is very dangerous. She could never join that, but that was her choice. And she knew exactly how could that end.

Oktyabrskaya Marya Vasiljevna. 1905 year of birth, Krym, Ukraine. Peasant. 6 classes education.  Built a tank(named "Battle girlfriend") from her own personal savings(T-34, produced on assembly plant, of course), studied in tank school for a few months, on october 1943 joined 2nd Guard Tank Coprs of Western Front, a driver-mechanic(on her tank). 17 january 1944 year, in Belarus, tried to repair damaged track under enemy fire, and got badly wounded. Died in hospital 15 march 1944 year. Post awarded "Hero of Soviet Union", in 2 august 1944 year.

She could easily just live in her home village. Instead she choose to spent all her life savings on tank, and join the war. And she knew exactly how could that end for her.

25th Chapayevsk Division sniper Hero of the Soviet Union Lyudmila
Mikhailovna Pavlyuchenko (1916-1974). She killed more than 300 enemy
soldiers and officers

photo, photos

photo
Sniper Roza Shanina (1924—1945) with her rifle.

Roza Shanina joined acting forces on April 2, 1944. Her account includes
54 confirmed kills of soldiers and officers, including 12 snipers.
Awarded with the Orders of Glory 2nd and 3rd class. Killed in action on
January 28, 1945 3km South East off the village of Ilmsdorf, Richau
district, East Prussia

Famous female snipers

Why i listed only women? Obviously, because in Russia women were never drafted. So you won't have some lousy excuse.

And don't tell me, that there is no heroes.
That's just insulting.

Modifié par Maxster_, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:41 .

[Hudathan]

My Paragon Shepard has taken many lives in his duty as a soldier protecting the innocent, so the Destroy option makes perfect sense within the same context.

[Maxster_]

Getorex wrote...

By the way...in extension of my previous post here on why the ending, no matter what you choose, absolutely ENDS galactic civilization and renders it IMPOSSIBLE: Even if FTL lets you travel at 100 times the speed of light, it is STILL impossible to maintain a galactic civilization as broad as was before with the Relays. It would STILL take you 250 years just to get to the galactic core at 100x lightspeed and all the interesting places of the Relay-based civilization are farther than the core. So you are looking at >250 years one way to get ANYWHERE you want to go in the old civilization. Without the relays, which ALL your allowed choices destroy, you DO utterly destroy the overall civilization and it cannot come back without Relays again.

So the original distress over the endings and what happens to everyone cut off around the galaxy due to loss of Relays NO MATTER WHAT still holds. They are royally screwed.

It is possible to create stellar civilization, just impossible to create galaxy-wide stellar civilization.
And as we know all economics and logistics tied to the galaxy-wide spanned planets, end of relay network means end of galaxy civilizations and very serious problems for colonies and homeworld. Especially for Earth Alliance.

[N7Gold]

Paragons usually face the grim reality that outcomes in a conflict or war do not always favor their morals, hence the title of the upcoming Mass Effect anime "Paragon Lost", Vega had to make decisions that clashed with his paragon style personality.

[BrookerT]

Maxster_ wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

The endings are neither Paragon or Renegade, they are morally ambiguous. Each has it's advantages or disadvantages
*Destroy - Reapers are gone for good, possible genocide of Geth, murder of EDI
*Control - Reapers are no longer a threat, Shepard becomes a leader, Shepard has a chance of going Catalyst
*Synthesis - Everyone is changed for the better, Reapers are given the chance to make amends, however is genetic violation on a macro scale
*Refuse - The reapers are defeated without the need for the crucible or starchilds inteference, Shepard's galactic era is harvested.

Mass Effect has never really had difficult choices, most of them have been black or white with some being grey. It is an actual Moral dilemma, your concept of Renegade is different from my concept of Renegade, your concept of a good ending is different from my concept of a good ending. The Paragon or Renegade is irrelevant, its down to how you, your Shepard wants to proceed, not some arbitrary notion of duplicit morality.

Real choice of ME3 is to surrendering unconditionally to an enemy's whim, or not.
And both well.. fails.

He dies in three of the endings, and most likely dies in third.

Destory - You blow him to smitherines, he does not want it.
Control - You replace him, he is replaced, a choice he does not like
Refuse - The next cycle blows him to smitherines

and in synthesis, we see the central chamber blowing up, so its very likely he perishes there. 
So yeah, his wims<_<

[silentassassin264]

drayfish wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Let me educate you since you seem to have failed any civics or government class you have taken.  In a Democratic Republic like the United States, all of the electorate vote on someone to lead, like the President, or in ME3 case, Shepard.  Everyone willingly joined under your command and was willing to live with your plans and decisions.  That is democracy in action.  If you don't agree with President Obama, it doesn't matter because the majority voted him in the lead so he is the leader.  It is not totalitarianism because you do not like what he did.  

Point 2.  In North Carolina they had a Constitution Amendment vote defining Marriage as between a man and a woman to ban gays from being able to get married.  The majority passed that amendment which cut off rights for a minority.  It was completely democratic and it completely effed over the minority but you still have to live with the decision as a minority.  

This is the reality of how government works not your insane idealism that means everyone must agree for it to be right.  You also a flagrantly ignoring that everyone joined under Shepard to use the Crucible when the game explicitly says it so you can make a completely erroneous argument.  Please take some classes on Government or just simply look at the news because your ignorance is staggering.

I'm assuming that you are being flippant or contrarian here (your 'Let me educate you...' tone suggests as much), because otherwise this post sounds a little crazy...

But just in case you're serious (and it seems odd to have to say this): a President is not a King from the Middle Ages.

They still answer to a rule of law, and do not have permission to violate to will of the populace.  They must uphold the Constitution of their nation and its Bill of Rights, and obey the laws voted by their constituents.  They are but one part of one branch of government - not some Orwellian nightmare figurehead decreeing from on high how life is to be led.

A President must answer to his fellow elected officials, to the people, to the press.  He does not ever get to flip a switch that says 'Everyone has gills now', watch his synthesise ray shoot across the land, and demand that we swim in the sea.

You seem to be mixing up your definition of 'President' with 'Dictator' - and we do not like our Presidents to get ahead of themselves and overstep their power.

...I believe Nixon said something to that effect, no?

Shepard is a soldier thrust into a horrifying situation.  You may want to embrace that scenario and say he/she was 'doing what needed to be done', but equating Shepard's actions in their farcical moral conundrum with anything that a President does or has power over is nonsensical.

I was going to leave this alone but I just can't.  First of all, I used the example of President because it is the fairly modern of a democratic-republic leader but apparently you all cannot extrapolate from that.  Case in point, Maxster asking when Shepard was elected.  ME3 take place during war and military leadership was the most important leadership.  Shepard (and Hackett) became the leaders by popular choice much like Cincinnatus became dictator (not the same as what it means now.  Look it up) of Rome and Pericles leading Athens.  Over the course of the game the Citadel Council and thus Citadel races (and clients) throw support behind your leadership and Crucible plan, the Krogan, the Geth/Quarians, and the Terminus systems.  That covers all the spacefarinig races and factions throwing in there support for Shepard and the Crucible.  The Council explicitly says they do not know what it does but it is the best plan they had so they were going with it.  You therefore are given leadership by popular sovereignty with the explicit goal to use the crucible to save them from the Reapers.  That is why everyone joined up in the final fight.  That is not totalitarism no matter how you try to say it.  Shepard does not conquer all of the galaxy and force them to obey the Crucible plan.  Everyone had an option and everyone votes yay for it (with the exception of backstabbed Wrex).  Either you do not know the meaning of totalitarianism or you are just being contary to defy logic.

[Getorex]

Maxster_ wrote...

Getorex wrote...

By the way...in extension of my previous post here on why the ending, no matter what you choose, absolutely ENDS galactic civilization and renders it IMPOSSIBLE: Even if FTL lets you travel at 100 times the speed of light, it is STILL impossible to maintain a galactic civilization as broad as was before with the Relays. It would STILL take you 250 years just to get to the galactic core at 100x lightspeed and all the interesting places of the Relay-based civilization are farther than the core. So you are looking at >250 years one way to get ANYWHERE you want to go in the old civilization. Without the relays, which ALL your allowed choices destroy, you DO utterly destroy the overall civilization and it cannot come back without Relays again.

So the original distress over the endings and what happens to everyone cut off around the galaxy due to loss of Relays NO MATTER WHAT still holds. They are royally screwed.

It is possible to create stellar civilization, just impossible to create galaxy-wide stellar civilization.
And as we know all economics and logistics tied to the galaxy-wide spanned planets, end of relay network means end of galaxy civilizations and very serious problems for colonies and homeworld. Especially for Earth Alliance.

Exactly my original point.  With FTL at 1000x lightspeed then it is STILL impossible to run a true galaxy-spanning civilization.  Time from Earth to Tuchanka or Thessia or...you're looking at decades, one way.  Still means there's no FedEx for anything.  As I recall the galaxy map, there's pretty much nothing of particular interest in Earth's neck of the woods.  A few habitable planets in the reachable local area (just a year or 3 to reach)  but as for all the other alien races?  Too far away for regular commerce, be it social or economic.  In all cases, economic depression, mass starvation, violence and social chaos with unpredictable outcomes and that is because the economy, and with it EVERYTHING people were taking for granted is gone, POOF!   Not a great way to "win" the game.  But at least you killed yourself!  Totally worth it.  Yup, totally worth it (sarcasm).

Modifié par Getorex, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:15 .

[AlanC9]

Getorex wrote...
By the way...in extension of my previous post here on why the ending, no matter what you choose, absolutely ENDS galactic civilization and renders it IMPOSSIBLE: Even if FTL lets you travel at 100 times the speed of light, it is STILL impossible to maintain a galactic civilization as broad as was before with the Relays. It would STILL take you 250 years just to get to the galactic core at 100x lightspeed and all the interesting places of the Relay-based civilization are farther than the core. So you are looking at >250 years one way to get ANYWHERE you want to go in the old civilization. Without the relays, which ALL your allowed choices destroy, you DO utterly destroy the overall civilization and it cannot come back without Relays again. 

Where'd that 100x lightspeed figure come from? FTL speed is more like 4000x lightspeed. Reapers travel at approximately 10,000x lightspeed.
 
As for the rest, why is Earth dependent on trade with the other races? You're not actually making a case for "economic depression, mass starvation, violence and social chaos." Give the USA a source of oil and we'd be OK if the other continents vanished. We'd have to make our own iPads, but we could figure that out in a bit.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:16 .

[Maxster_]

BrookerT wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

The endings are neither Paragon or Renegade, they are morally ambiguous. Each has it's advantages or disadvantages
*Destroy - Reapers are gone for good, possible genocide of Geth, murder of EDI
*Control - Reapers are no longer a threat, Shepard becomes a leader, Shepard has a chance of going Catalyst
*Synthesis - Everyone is changed for the better, Reapers are given the chance to make amends, however is genetic violation on a macro scale
*Refuse - The reapers are defeated without the need for the crucible or starchilds inteference, Shepard's galactic era is harvested.

Mass Effect has never really had difficult choices, most of them have been black or white with some being grey. It is an actual Moral dilemma, your concept of Renegade is different from my concept of Renegade, your concept of a good ending is different from my concept of a good ending. The Paragon or Renegade is irrelevant, its down to how you, your Shepard wants to proceed, not some arbitrary notion of duplicit morality.

Real choice of ME3 is to surrendering unconditionally to an enemy's whim, or not.
And both well.. fails.

He dies in three of the endings, and most likely dies in third.

Destory - You blow him to smitherines, he does not want it.
Control - You replace him, he is replaced, a choice he does not like
Refuse - The next cycle blows him to smitherines

and in synthesis, we see the central chamber blowing up, so its very likely he perishes there. 
So yeah, his wims<_<

Nah, you just don't get it.
It is irrelevant, that obviously victorious Catalyst forced Shepard for a choice which could led to death of said Catalyst.
It is still a defeat. Not victory.
And Catalyst is completely crazy and retarded. So he could offer such "choices" to any one at any cycle.
He just SUDDENLY decides to "offer" "victory" to Shepard. It is completely his, Catalyst's, decision.

[AlanC9]

Maxster_ wrote...

He just SUDDENLY decides to "offer" "victory" to Shepard. It is completely his, Catalyst's, decision.

He suddenly decides that after Shepard forcibly changes him by ramming the Crucible down his throat, of course.

[Dr_Extrem]

there is another problem i just had to think about.

the mass effect series suggests, that we have the power to save and change the galaxy. a paragon shepard who tried to live up to this high goal, is deeply betrayed.
also the player who controlls shepard, is shown, that no matter how hard he/she tries, in the end all the blood sweat and tears are worth nothing. you have to eat the solutions or face extinction.
it is a bad massage to all the people, who may think they could change something to be good or at least better than the status quo.

just as a side note.

[Maxster_]

silentassassin264 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Let me educate you since you seem to have failed any civics or government class you have taken.  In a Democratic Republic like the United States, all of the electorate vote on someone to lead, like the President, or in ME3 case, Shepard.  Everyone willingly joined under your command and was willing to live with your plans and decisions.  That is democracy in action.  If you don't agree with President Obama, it doesn't matter because the majority voted him in the lead so he is the leader.  It is not totalitarianism because you do not like what he did.  

Point 2.  In North Carolina they had a Constitution Amendment vote defining Marriage as between a man and a woman to ban gays from being able to get married.  The majority passed that amendment which cut off rights for a minority.  It was completely democratic and it completely effed over the minority but you still have to live with the decision as a minority.  

This is the reality of how government works not your insane idealism that means everyone must agree for it to be right.  You also a flagrantly ignoring that everyone joined under Shepard to use the Crucible when the game explicitly says it so you can make a completely erroneous argument.  Please take some classes on Government or just simply look at the news because your ignorance is staggering.

I'm assuming that you are being flippant or contrarian here (your 'Let me educate you...' tone suggests as much), because otherwise this post sounds a little crazy...

But just in case you're serious (and it seems odd to have to say this): a President is not a King from the Middle Ages.

They still answer to a rule of law, and do not have permission to violate to will of the populace.  They must uphold the Constitution of their nation and its Bill of Rights, and obey the laws voted by their constituents.  They are but one part of one branch of government - not some Orwellian nightmare figurehead decreeing from on high how life is to be led.

A President must answer to his fellow elected officials, to the people, to the press.  He does not ever get to flip a switch that says 'Everyone has gills now', watch his synthesise ray shoot across the land, and demand that we swim in the sea.

You seem to be mixing up your definition of 'President' with 'Dictator' - and we do not like our Presidents to get ahead of themselves and overstep their power.

...I believe Nixon said something to that effect, no?

Shepard is a soldier thrust into a horrifying situation.  You may want to embrace that scenario and say he/she was 'doing what needed to be done', but equating Shepard's actions in their farcical moral conundrum with anything that a President does or has power over is nonsensical.

I was going to leave this alone but I just can't.  First of all, I used the example of President because it is the fairly modern of a democratic-republic leader but apparently you all cannot extrapolate from that.  Case in point, Maxster asking when Shepard was elected.  ME3 take place during war and military leadership was the most important leadership.  Shepard (and Hackett) became the leaders by popular choice much like Cincinnatus became dictator (not the same as what it means now.  Look it up) of Rome and Pericles leading Athens.  Over the course of the game the Citadel Council and thus Citadel races (and clients) throw support behind your leadership and Crucible plan, the Krogan, the Geth/Quarians, and the Terminus systems.  That covers all the spacefarinig races and factions throwing in there support for Shepard and the Crucible.  The Council explicitly says they do not know what it does but it is the best plan they had so they were going with it.  You therefore are given leadership by popular sovereignty with the explicit goal to use the crucible to save them from the Reapers.  That is why everyone joined up in the final fight.  That is not totalitarism no matter how you try to say it.  Shepard does not conquer all of the galaxy and force them to obey the Crucible plan.  Everyone had an option and everyone votes yay for it (with the exception of backstabbed Wrex).  Either you do not know the meaning of totalitarianism or you are just being contary to defy logic.

Yeah, sure, "everyone" . Especially those who even't aware of existance of some "Council".
Next time you tell me, that Councilors in ME have elections

And most funny thing is that, civilization in a state of war,or not - it is completely irrelevant to population approval.
If in a former republic with elected representatives, basic human rights(including political) are completely disregarded by an excuse of "war time", or some other lame excuse -- it is directly means, that this is not democracy anymore, but a dictatorship.

As for Ancient Greece, at that time slavery was completely normal thing, for everyone(slaves of course not asked, they are property). So you could vote on politics of your city state, have s discussions on forums - and then your slaves take you home, fed, and entertain you.
So much for an "example".

Yeah, sure, joining the alliance means that you give that alliance leadership rights to torment you, to rape, to use a lab rat, and just to kill you for fun. Yeah, sure, there is so many alliances throughout the history that were made this way

So no, crap like synthesis was never approved by anyone. It is massive and horrendous violation, that disregards everything that humanity fought for in context of human rights and freedom.
It is authoritarian decision by Shepard, which he forced on everyone using catalyst help.
And completely ignoring minorities rights is totalitarian.