Aller au contenu

Photo

Is the ending unfair to players who are inclined towards paragon?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
543 réponses à ce sujet

#326
drayfish

drayfish
  • Members
  • 1 211 messages

Xilizhra wrote...

You speak as if this unity would last beyond the Reapers, and I honestly find this doubtful. War may bring people together, but without that, things would fall apart again to something similar to the status quo, if nothing else would change. The krogan uniting with the rest of the galaxy against the rachni, after all, didn't last. The war against the Reapers isn't a war of ideas; there's no way to gain converts, just talk to the Reapers and show them that the cycle is unnecessary. It's a war of mass accelerators, and Thanix cannons, and suicidal warp bombs, and ultimately the Crucible. To hold to ideas is a wonderful thing, certainly, but it's not the sort of thing you can allow to paralyze you. It's best to avoid ruthlessness when possible, but sometimes, it's not. Like, again, in Arrival.

See, the fact that you are talking about 'hope' and the possibility for change as if it were some fantastical, stunting fairytale that only a naive child could cling to is precisely my point.

Up until those final ten minutes hope was cherished in this game.  Belief that people could change, that together, unified, people could do great things, that old wounds could be learned from - those were the driving themes of the narrative.  Shepard's little rag-tag team was a symbol of diversity and fellowship, heading out into the stars to do something greater than any of them could do alone.  Go back and listen to their dialogues, to the stories they tell of their pasts, to the resolutions you can help them achieve: it's all about hope - about being able to embrace the capacity to change, to resolve one's past, and build toward a more inclusive, optimistic future.

...But you're right.  The ending wants us to forget all that childish nonsense, because this story was never about faith - no matter how many characters bleated the word 'hope' at you.

Apparently - as you say - it was about weapons.  Who could build the biggest nightmare device, and who would be willing to use it.

Because that's the only way that people can win wars, right?  You have to be willing to be as bad as your enemy, and to use their methods and embrace their tools.  You have to be williing to throw your allies under the bus to save yourself.

Yeah, being a 'realist' is fun.

As I said, for me, the saddest legacy of this narrative is that it has engineered opinions such as that - that there is no point in believing that your morality has any significance, and that in the end the only way to defeat horror is to use and become horror yourself.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 octobre 2012 - 08:32 .


#327
inversevideo

inversevideo
  • Members
  • 1 775 messages

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You speak as if this unity would last beyond the Reapers, and I honestly find this doubtful. War may bring people together, but without that, things would fall apart again to something similar to the status quo, if nothing else would change. The krogan uniting with the rest of the galaxy against the rachni, after all, didn't last. The war against the Reapers isn't a war of ideas; there's no way to gain converts, just talk to the Reapers and show them that the cycle is unnecessary. It's a war of mass accelerators, and Thanix cannons, and suicidal warp bombs, and ultimately the Crucible. To hold to ideas is a wonderful thing, certainly, but it's not the sort of thing you can allow to paralyze you. It's best to avoid ruthlessness when possible, but sometimes, it's not. Like, again, in Arrival.

See, the fact that you are talking about 'hope' and the possibility for change as if it were some fantastical, stunting fairytale that only a naive child could cling to is precisely my point.

Up until those final ten minutes hope was cherished in this game.  Belief that people could change, that together, unified, people could do great things, that old wounds could be learned from - those were the driving themes of the narrative.  Shepard's little rag-tag team was a symbol of diversity and fellowship, heading out into the stars to do something greater than any of them could do alone.  Go back and listen to their dialogues, to the stories they tell of their pasts, to the resolutions you can help them achieve: it's all about hope - about being able to embrace the capacity to change, to resolve one's past, and build toward a more inclusive, optimistic future.

...But you're right.  The ending wants us to forget all that childish nonsense, because this story was never about faith - no matter how many characters bleated the word 'hope' at you.

Apparently - as you say - it was about weapons.  Who could build the biggest nightmare device, and who would be willing to use it.

Because that's the only way that people can win wars, right?  You have to be willing to be as bad as your enemy, and to use their methods and embrace their tools.  You have to be williing to throw your allies under the bus to save yourself.

Yeah, being a 'realist' is fun.

As I said, for me, the saddest legacy of this narrative is that it has engineered opinions such as that - that there is no point in believing that your morality has any significance, and that in the end the only way to defeat horror is to use and become horror yourself.


+million

#328
T-Raks

T-Raks
  • Members
  • 823 messages

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

#329
drayfish

drayfish
  • Members
  • 1 211 messages

dreman9999 wrote...

The entire put is to bringing you into moral conflict over the choices. If you say it about what the leaders and soldiers were feeling and thinking  when doing these "worst actions" then you spot on.

The world does not bend to your morality and you can't choose what you face in life.The ending is stating at times of extreme, doing the extreme is nessiary for servival or servival for your race. If you don't you die.

It not unfair to paragon because theywere brought to this issue many times before on virmire,the citadel choice, the geth choice and tuchanka.

@ dremen9999...

As I said before, sadly I'm pretty sure that you and I will never come to understand each other's positions, and it seems that V-rcingetorix has eloquently stated everything I would have wanted to say far more effectively anyway.

I would add though that your position seems highly contradictory.  I'm not sure how you can maintain that the ending is both a test of your morals and a representation of how the world is all governed by complete moral relativity.  If that is true then morality is just something that gets in the way of doing what needs to be done, and is not to be tested or explored - it is to be ignored.  Bioware would have designed their game as an exercise in cultivating existential apathy.

You seem to be arguing that it can do two completely opposing things at the same time.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 octobre 2012 - 08:50 .


#330
Maxster_

Maxster_
  • Members
  • 2 489 messages

T-Raks wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

So you are saying that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D

#331
LilLino

LilLino
  • Members
  • 886 messages

Maxster_ wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

So you are saying that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D


Yeah it is because it's war that counts for more than one person's ethics. Especially that Shepard is supposed to be a soldier and a leader.

I play mostly paragon but I think that refusing is being a huge p*ssy and doesn't fit the story at all. I go for heavy casualties huge win ending that is destroy.

Playing pure paragon feels so wrong in a game that's supposed to be about hard choices, but it's BSN for you.

"Bioware we want huge choices with huge consequences! Or preorder cancelled! (BUT ALWAYS POSITIVE PLZ I PLAY PARAGON ONLY LULZ)"

You guys are silly, soz op.

#332
SneakyDuc

SneakyDuc
  • Members
  • 339 messages

Maxster_ wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

So you are saying that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D

Your saying that its ethical to choose death for every member of advanced races, becuase it is that or imposed change. I find it odd seeing how death is also imposed on them. No matter what choice you pick you are imposing the repercussions on every sentient organism in the universe.

#333
drayfish

drayfish
  • Members
  • 1 211 messages

LilLino wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D


Yeah it is because it's war that counts for more than one person's ethics. Especially that Shepard is supposed to be a soldier and a leader.

I play mostly paragon but I think that refusing is being a huge p*ssy and doesn't fit the story at all. I go for heavy casualties huge win ending that is destroy.

Playing pure paragon feels so wrong in a game that's supposed to be about hard choices, but it's BSN for you.

"Bioware we want huge choices with huge consequences! Or preorder cancelled! (BUT ALWAYS POSITIVE PLZ I PLAY PARAGON ONLY LULZ)"

You guys are silly, soz op.

It is worth remembering that at the point of the game in which 'Refuse' is offered, it is the leader of the Reapers themsellves who tells you that it will fail.  The leader of a bunch of creatures who have used deception, death, and brainwashing as their tools, who admits that he still wants to kill you all because of his 'problem', and who wants you to embrace his ideals, tells you that fighting against him and staying faithful to your friends will end in death... 

I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't metagaming - already aware that Refuse will end in devastation - wouldn't at least consider fighting on without choosing to employ one of the Reaper's tactics.

Again, I'm not saying that it's ultimately the right choice, just that I think people who dismiss it out of hand are metagaming their way into collusion.  Were Refuse available in the first version of the game, were you able to hear the Reaper's nutty scheme and tell them to screw off, still believing in the galactic armada that you assembled to fight for freedom, I can't imagine many people who would not have chosen it first.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 octobre 2012 - 09:47 .


#334
Maxster_

Maxster_
  • Members
  • 2 489 messages

LilLino wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

So you are saying that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D


Yeah it is because it's war that counts for more than one person's ethics. Especially that Shepard is supposed to be a soldier and a leader.

I play mostly paragon but I think that refusing is being a huge p*ssy and doesn't fit the story at all. I go for heavy casualties huge win ending that is destroy.

Playing pure paragon feels so wrong in a game that's supposed to be about hard choices, but it's BSN for you.

"Bioware we want huge choices with huge consequences! Or preorder cancelled! (BUT ALWAYS POSITIVE PLZ I PLAY PARAGON ONLY LULZ)"

You guys are silly, soz op.

First, that means that you unconditionally surrendered to an enemy's whim. And then, that enemy, being retarded, decided to offer "victory" to you. Because all terms are of Catalyst, and functionality to use battery was provided by the reapers.
Second, that means that you disregarded human ethics to "win". Because you had no other way to win a game about crushing defeat.

Ethics having nothing to do with being a coward.
In WW2, when we(Soviets) entered germany's territory, we could have easily followed germany's example in genocide of civilian population, levelling cities to the ground with MIRV and massive artillery strikes, and aerial bombardment with fire producing bombs.
But our leadership(and most of population), decided(well, that was obvious decision) not to became monsters like nazy's, and strongly encouraged(to the point of several death sentences) against such war crimes.
So we fought for every city, every street, losing our comrades.

#335
Maxster_

Maxster_
  • Members
  • 2 489 messages

SneakyDuc wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

So you are saying that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D

Your saying that its ethical to choose death for every member of advanced races, becuase it is that or imposed change. I find it odd seeing how death is also imposed on them. No matter what choice you pick you are imposing the repercussions on every sentient organism in the universe.

How your Shepard knew apriory, that Catalyst are not lying about his "solutions"? And how your Shepard knew in advance, that refusting to follow Catalyst orders will lead Catalyst to change his plans and return to his old "solution".

You know, that is actually a defeat and unconditional surrender also.

#336
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 700 messages

V-rcingetorix wrote...
The world has a moral stance, however. Everyone understands right from wrong; this is evident in the Mass Effect series in multiple characters, from amoral Zaeed and Saren to the ignorant Geth (sparing their creators).


Without necessarily agreeing on the specifics of what's right and what's wrong.

Example: Hitler was "hero," for driving out communists from Germany. Is he still a hero?


To some folks, yep, he is.

Right and wrong never really change over time.


Really? Then how do you explain widespread cultural practices in other times and places that our culture considers "wrong"? Say, Aztec human sacrifice, or Iroquois torturing prisoners.

#337
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 700 messages

Maxster_ wrote...

How your Shepard knew apriory, that Catalyst are not lying about his "solutions"? And how your Shepard knew in advance, that refusting to follow Catalyst orders will lead Catalyst to change his plans and return to his old "solution".


So.... Shepard should refuse to use the Crucible and hope that the Catalyst calls the war off anyway? Your way of disobeying the Catalyst is to leave him in a position to do whatever he pleases?

#338
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 700 messages

drayfish wrote...
 Were Refuse available in the first version of the game, were you able to hear the Reaper's nutty scheme and tell them to screw off, still believing in the galactic armada that you assembled to fight for freedom, I can't imagine many people who would not have chosen it first.


Regrettably, we can't run the experiment. But I'm not quite sure what that would prove, since many of us would have been metagaming that choice too. I'm sure you've read as many threads as I have saying that the central theme of the games is "Shepard doing the impossible" or some such; anyone who actually believed that would have surely seen Refuse as his way out.

#339
Maxster_

Maxster_
  • Members
  • 2 489 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

How your Shepard knew apriory, that Catalyst are not lying about his "solutions"? And how your Shepard knew in advance, that refusting to follow Catalyst orders will lead Catalyst to change his plans and return to his old "solution".


So.... Shepard should refuse to use the Crucible and hope that the Catalyst calls the war off anyway? Your way of disobeying the Catalyst is to leave him in a position to do whatever he pleases?

Problem is, that the ME3 is about crushing defeat and unconditional surrender. It could be great story, if it was standalone, in another universe game. Something like Rodion Raskolnikov, and about right to do terrible things for a greater good, and other such questions.

But it is greatly contradicts heroic saga ME1 and ME2. It just doesn't fit with it's prequels. ME3 is different story, with different moral, and actually very bad with motives and believability.

Modifié par Maxster_, 05 octobre 2012 - 10:23 .


#340
clarkusdarkus

clarkusdarkus
  • Members
  • 2 460 messages

V-rcingetorix wrote...

What is interesting here is that the ending (with EC) no longer makes sense, even to itself. Logically, the ending would make sense to at least one individual, the Catalyst, but with the data from Leviathan, that is no longer possible.

As I see it (going from EC, since it is considered a part of the game now), the Leviathans had a wide array of slave/servants/clients who gave tribute/life to them. Synthetics were created by the slave/servants to either improve the slave/servant/clients, or to rebel against the Leviathan. These synthetics apparently either attacked the slave/servant/clients, or prevented the service from reaching the Leviathan.

The Leviathan created a super-computer "construct" to solve the issue of synthetic/organic relations. The "construct" decided that there was too much of a gap between synthetic/organic thought processes (error 1), and calculated that synthetics would always attack their masters (error 2).

Therefore, this construct managed to arrange a coordinated surprise attack on the Leviathan, and sacrificed most of them to make Harbinger (error 3). Ever since then, the construct has been continuing its programming (error 4), and has continued to harvest synthetic/organic life (error 5) throughout the history of the galaxy.

Error 1: This is a universe with evolution. Something from nothing, organics from chemicals; thoughts, from slime. Differentiating between synthetic thoughts and organic thoughts is simply a matter of time discrepancy. Stupid machine!:lol:

Error 2: The construct was a machine. Calculating that synthetics would always attack their creators, then attacking his creators, is a self-fulfilling prophecy...or an excuse. If the construct was truly an unshackled AI, then it could think for itself, and decide to quit.

Error 3: Making Harbinger from the collected essence of a psychic race was a bad move, as it neither solved the synthetic/organic conflict (synthetics won that round) and provided no foundation for a future solution. The only solution was to continue harvesting organics prior to their developing tech that could defeat the construct. It's like lying about a missing quarter, then having to keep lying to stay out of trouble; it just doesn't work.

Error 4: By continuing to harvest organic species, the construct apparently fails to observe alternative situations. Other organic species seem to coexist just fine with the synthetics (Prothean data for one, the Geth/Quarians for another).  For millions of years, the construct has failed to obtain a solution simply by watching how it's done? No. Error. Error. Illogical.

Error 5: Really continuation of error 4, but takes it a step farther; the construct fails to obtain data from the killed/transformed organic species now as Reapers. Failure.

This makes the ending completely mindboggling, to me at least, and completely improper to a paragon ending. A paragon ending would grant the construct peace (death, deactivation, joining of minds, etc).

Synthsis ending makes this partially possible, but the forced integration of organics/synthetics ruins it. This should have been a medium ending, with a partially lazy player.

Renegade should have had Shep kill the construct and all the Reapers without listening, or kill and take all the Reapers power for him/herself. Kill off a few species, sure, but keep the power for selfish reasons, and maybe a few pretentious acts of public service, directing traffic maybe.

Paragon, a true paragon, would have had Shepard understand what was going on, and find a mutually beneficial goal. Unlike the Collectors, the construct can think for itself, and can reason...in flawed circles. ME1 had the Zhus hope colony resolution (really high paragon required, mutually beneficial ending). ME2 had the Quarian slave (mutually beneficial) and the Patriarch (Omega) sidequests. Maybe Shep dies with low Paragon, but the point is a beneficial solution should have been possible.

It wasn't. No Paragon was possible. It was with ME1 and ME2...but not ME3.

EDIT: Error 4 has another point; it decides its programming is insufficient, so it decideds to modify its programming once and only once....


This is perfect for how i feel about it all, i mean you type exactly how i feel man.... you and Drayfish both sum up what is wrong with ME3's ending Choices.........Kudos to you both :D

#341
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 700 messages

Maxster_ wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

How your Shepard knew apriory, that Catalyst are not lying about his "solutions"? And how your Shepard knew in advance, that refusting to follow Catalyst orders will lead Catalyst to change his plans and return to his old "solution".


So.... Shepard should refuse to use the Crucible and hope that the Catalyst calls the war off anyway? Your way of disobeying the Catalyst is to leave him in a position to do whatever he pleases?

Problem is, that the ME3 is about crushing defeat and unconditional surrender. It could be great story, if it was standalone, in another universe game. Something like Rodion Raskolnikov, and about right to do terrible things for a greater good, and other such questions.

But it is greatly contradicts heroic saga ME1 and ME2. It just doesn't fit with it's prequels. ME3 is different story, with different moral, and actually very bad with motives and believability.


Crushing defeat and unconditional surrender? Sure. For the Reapers, who are enslaved in one ending and annihilated in another. Of course, the player can pick Synthesis if he wants to bridge the differences, but most of us don't.

Anyway, you're now making a completely different argument from the one I was responding to.

#342
thearbiter1337

thearbiter1337
  • Members
  • 1 155 messages

LilLino wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

So you are saying that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D


Yeah it is because it's war that counts for more than one person's ethics. Especially that Shepard is supposed to be a soldier and a leader.

I play mostly paragon but I think that refusing is being a huge p*ssy and doesn't fit the story at all. I go for heavy casualties huge win ending that is destroy.

Playing pure paragon feels so wrong in a game that's supposed to be about hard choices, but it's BSN for you.

"Bioware we want huge choices with huge consequences! Or preorder cancelled! (BUT ALWAYS POSITIVE PLZ I PLAY PARAGON ONLY LULZ)"

You guys are silly, soz op.

So your willing to kill off a race, surrender to the enemy, betray what people fought and died and even trust your enemys leader to win 

That's pretty damn desperate and being a huge **** then anything else 

In Refusal he fights to the damn death to stop the Reapers and sticks to his morales 

#343
Maxster_

Maxster_
  • Members
  • 2 489 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

How your Shepard knew apriory, that Catalyst are not lying about his "solutions"? And how your Shepard knew in advance, that refusting to follow Catalyst orders will lead Catalyst to change his plans and return to his old "solution".


So.... Shepard should refuse to use the Crucible and hope that the Catalyst calls the war off anyway? Your way of disobeying the Catalyst is to leave him in a position to do whatever he pleases?

Problem is, that the ME3 is about crushing defeat and unconditional surrender. It could be great story, if it was standalone, in another universe game. Something like Rodion Raskolnikov, and about right to do terrible things for a greater good, and other such questions.

But it is greatly contradicts heroic saga ME1 and ME2. It just doesn't fit with it's prequels. ME3 is different story, with different moral, and actually very bad with motives and believability.


Crushing defeat and unconditional surrender? Sure. For the Reapers, who are enslaved in one ending and annihilated in another. Of course, the player can pick Synthesis if he wants to bridge the differences, but most of us don't.

Anyway, you're now making a completely different argument from the one I was responding to.

Obviously, because you answered not the question i asked.
I asked how Shepard could knew that in advance.
You answered that Shepard could not knew that, and also confirmed that it is a story of defeat and surrender.

#344
M Hedonist

M Hedonist
  • Members
  • 4 299 messages
From Puss in Boots by Ludwig Tieck:

Leutner: We've paid good money to be here, we're the audience, and therefore we demand to have our own good taste and no farces.
[...]
Playwright: What sort of play? What genre?

Müller: Domestic stories.

Leutner: Rescue stories.

Fischer: Ethics and German sentiments.

Schlosser: Religious edification, beneficent secret societies.

Wiesener: Hussites and children.

Wiesener's Neighbor: Right! And cherries too, and quartermasters!

#345
SneakyDuc

SneakyDuc
  • Members
  • 339 messages

Maxster_ wrote...

SneakyDuc wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

So you are saying that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D

Your saying that its ethical to choose death for every member of advanced races, becuase it is that or imposed change. I find it odd seeing how death is also imposed on them. No matter what choice you pick you are imposing the repercussions on every sentient organism in the universe.

How your Shepard knew apriory, that Catalyst are not lying about his "solutions"? And how your Shepard knew in advance, that refusting to follow Catalyst orders will lead Catalyst to change his plans and return to his old "solution".

You know, that is actually a defeat and unconditional surrender also.

The only ending that you can be certain is that you will all die if you
do not use the crucible. Why would the Catalyst bring to this place to
destory you and what if the catalyst lied? Then you would be destoryed
regardless so your choice doesnt matter at all and you are simply
choosing how you would like to die.The catalyst is not a force of evil the catalyst does not hate and doesn't long to kill all life. The catalyst is simply carrying out its programming to ensure that synthetics do not destroy life in the galaxy. The crucible enables the catalyst to alter the method used to ensure this.

#346
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 700 messages

Maxster_ wrote...
Obviously, because you answered not the question i asked.
I asked how Shepard could knew that in advance.
You answered that Shepard could not knew that, and also confirmed that it is a story of defeat and surrender.


Um... no. I was trying to point out that your question doesn't matter. Both your options involve surrendering to the Catalyst, if you conceive of using the Crucible as a surrender. In one you're doing what he proposes, in the other you're refusing to do so but begging for mercy from him.

But I should have answered the question anyway. Shep doesn't know. But if the Catalyst is lying everything's doomed anyway. Might as well act as if he's telling the truth. All Refuse gets you is a big dramatic speech that nobody but the Catalyst will ever hear.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 octobre 2012 - 11:11 .


#347
inversevideo

inversevideo
  • Members
  • 1 775 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Obviously, because you answered not the question i asked.
I asked how Shepard could knew that in advance.
You answered that Shepard could not knew that, and also confirmed that it is a story of defeat and surrender.


Um... no. I was trying to point out that your question doesn't matter. Both your options involve surrendering to the Catalyst, if you conceive of using the Crucible as a surrender. In one you're doing what he proposes, in the other you're refusing to do so but begging for mercy from him.

But I should have answered the question anyway. Shep doesn't know. But if the Catalyst is lying everything's doomed anyway. Might as well act as if he's telling the truth. All Refuse gets you is a big dramatic speech that nobody but the Catalyst will ever hear.


If the Starkid is lying then you are in trouble, correct. 
But Starkid also said the Crucible opened new paths for it, new possibilities.
So, if you take that at face value, there is no reason to assume that it would not be open to hearing another possibility, from you, that it has not considered. After all, if it so values your judegement that it is willing to turn over control to you without hesitation, then why not hear you out? It's willing to turn over control to you, it is williing to allow you to destroy it's minions, why would you not expect that it would not be willing to listen to you? 

#348
Bill Casey

Bill Casey
  • Members
  • 7 609 messages
Paragon Ending would have involved convincing the Reapers to return to Dark Space...
The cycle won't work any more. Organics are too resourceful...

If the Reapers continue to harvest, they will soon lose. 20,000 plus cycles worth of stored life will be wiped out...
If not this cycle, then the next. Their goal is preserving life. The harvest no longer serves this goal...

This ending involves the threat of the Reapers still being out there, and putting faith in EDI and the Geth that they won't destroy all organic life...

Have EDI do the voice over, and end with...

"...at least until we synthetics wipe them all out...

























...That was a joke."

Modifié par Bill Casey, 05 octobre 2012 - 11:40 .


#349
Maxster_

Maxster_
  • Members
  • 2 489 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Obviously, because you answered not the question i asked.
I asked how Shepard could knew that in advance.
You answered that Shepard could not knew that, and also confirmed that it is a story of defeat and surrender.


Um... no. I was trying to point out that your question doesn't matter. Both your options involve surrendering to the Catalyst, if you conceive of using the Crucible as a surrender. In one you're doing what he proposes, in the other you're refusing to do so but begging for mercy from him.


But I should have answered the question anyway. Shep doesn't know. But if the Catalyst is lying everything's doomed anyway. Might as well act as if he's telling the truth. All Refuse gets you is a big dramatic speech that nobody but the Catalyst will ever hear.


Now you are getting it.
Both options is a surrender, after a defeat. And this is why ME3 is a story of crushing defeat and unconditional surrender.
That is exactly why my ending is Alt+F4.

Choice(of complying to catalyst or not) matter to determine, are you ready to disregard human ethics or not.
But in any option you still complying to will of a real victor. Just with a slightly different flavour.

Modifié par Maxster_, 05 octobre 2012 - 11:43 .


#350
Maxster_

Maxster_
  • Members
  • 2 489 messages

SneakyDuc wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

SneakyDuc wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

thearbiter1337 wrote...

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice


Nah, it's an epic fail, because you let everyone down.

So you are saying that following human ethics in this game is a fail? :D

Your saying that its ethical to choose death for every member of advanced races, becuase it is that or imposed change. I find it odd seeing how death is also imposed on them. No matter what choice you pick you are imposing the repercussions on every sentient organism in the universe.

How your Shepard knew apriory, that Catalyst are not lying about his "solutions"? And how your Shepard knew in advance, that refusting to follow Catalyst orders will lead Catalyst to change his plans and return to his old "solution".

You know, that is actually a defeat and unconditional surrender also.

The only ending that you can be certain is that you will all die if you
do not use the crucible.

Of course. That choice is pretty common for individuals in human history. Also that determine who are you - hero or coward.
But in reality of ME3, choice is to comply to a will of victor(Catalyst) or don't. Cost of refusal to surrendering to his whim - very high probability that everyone will be harvested. Cost of surrendering to his whim - you comply "solutions" of genocidal crazy entity.

Why would the Catalyst bring to this place to
destory you and what if the catalyst lied? Then you would be destoryed
regardless so your choice doesnt matter at all and you are simply
choosing how you would like to die.

Exactly this. From ingame, for Shepard it is exactly that. It is only become different after that choice. And Shepard don't know that an advance.

The catalyst is not a force of evil the catalyst does not hate and doesn't long to kill all life. The catalyst is simply carrying out its programming to ensure that synthetics do not destroy life in the galaxy. The crucible enables the catalyst to alter the method used to ensure this.

That excuse never worked and never will.
Catalyst is sentient and thus carries direct responsibility for his actions.

Modifié par Maxster_, 05 octobre 2012 - 11:57 .