543 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

Bill Casey wrote...

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."

I had this idea a while back. I called it the "Persuasion" ending where if you did all the right things and had enough EMS/reputation that you could convince the Catalyst that the galaxy doesn't need Reaper intervention anymore.

[C9316]

The ending is unfair to all parties involved.

[Melra]

The endings are fine! Learn to move oooon!

[V-rcingetorix]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

In order;
1. Zaeed and Saren both acknowledge that beating the Reapers is Right, and working only for themselves is Wrong.

2. Hitler is still a hero to a group of neo-****'s and armchair enthusiasts. Not a great endorsement.

3. Aztec human sacrifices were made from "volunteers" and slaves. Iroquois tortured prisoners...not themselves. If either had believed what they were doing was Ultinate Moral Right...why not to themselves?

Good catch btw

And at clarkusdarkus and Drayfish, thank you for your kind words, flattery will get you anywhere^_^

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 06 octobre 2012 - 01:00 .

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Alan, slavery is more appropriate example. Most of the human history, it considered normal by society.

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

It's amazing you can see agreement when he identifies the huge assumption your argument rests upon, an assumption he does not claim to agree with.

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.

Only if you subscribe to some bizaar philosophy that claims that you can never have a common interest with your enemy without agreeing to your foe's belief system.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 octobre 2012 - 01:49 .

[Maxster_]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

It's amazing you can see agreement when he identifies the huge assumption your argument rests upon, an assumption he does not claim to agree with.

Where did you seen that i stated that as an agreement? I just stated that his assumption are getting closer to my point.

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.

Only if you subscribe to some bizaar philosophy that claims that you can never have a common interest with your enemy without agreeing to your foe's belief system.

Dafuq?
Common interest with enemy? I would like to hear which common iterest Soviets have with Germany in the end of 1942. I remind you, that germans deliberately murdering civilian population, and already got to 8-10 millions of dead soviet civilians.
So, enlighten me. About common interests with the genocidal monsters. I would like to hear that, really.

[Necrotron]

No, it's unfair to everyone equally.

Really, none of the endings are really Shepard's making.  They are all Reaper solutions to a Reaper problem never be mentioned until the final moment of the series.  You can pick one and the Reapers won't kill you, or not and they will.  Whatever cost you find the least worst is the one you pick: genocide, playing God with DNA and self-identity, or becoming the Reaper overlord yourself, all of which require you to actually believe the Reapers (who are known for indoctrinating every other character in the series they have dealt with) are telling the truth. 

The Paragon/Regenade concept really don't apply to that kind of decision, it's three dark, bitter, horrible choices you have to choose because the villain has a gun pointed to your head.  At that point, it's just a matter of which compromise of ethics you want to make.

Modifié par Bathaius, 06 octobre 2012 - 02:41 .

[Urdnot Amenark]

chadesh wrote...

Actually all of the endings are failures. Either way shepard loses or some other race loses,

I would of preferred a rainbow and bunny ending. As long as my shepard would of be able to at the very least see his/her team and LI. It would of been nice, but I know it will never happen.

Shepard dies and becomes a being almost equivalent to a deity in Control. I'd count that as a win.

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

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.

You seem to believe that morality is all-or-nothing; that we must be purly, shiningly innocently good in the way we conduct warfare, or we're just as bad as they are. This is not the case. I mean, how many people has even the most Paragon of Shepards casually mowed down without a thought? While less of an issue in ME3, how many of the dead were just doing their jobs, from ME1 and 2? And again, there's the thing with blowing up a whole star system.

And everything you mentioned about unity and diversity and so forth: that was all still important. The fact that it came down to the use of a superweapon doesn't mean that all the effort to build it, and all the effort to simply position the thing was for naught.  I probably went too far in some of my last lines; ideas are unimportant in terms of being used against the Reapers, but do remain important for keeping the allied side together. Just because much of the war was a delaying action doesn't mean any of it was less vital, or that bringing the galaxy together was any less important.

Then, coming to the Crucible... well, that's the point, where, while hope can achieve great things, it can't achieve everything. Ruthlessness is necessary in war too; some degree of it, at the very least, is necessary to kill, and I haven't seen you objecting to doing that against the enemy side. As for the solutions themselves, I share your distaste for Destroy and don't have my thoughts sorted out on Synthesis, but I contend that Control is still quite a hopeful ending; certainly taking that action requires a fair bit of hope on Shepard's part.

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxster_ wrote...
Dafuq?
Common interest with enemy? I would like to hear which common iterest Soviets have with Germany in the end of 1942. I remind you, that germans deliberately murdering civilian population, and already got to 8-10 millions of dead soviet civilians.

Does your historical awareness not extrend three years earlier, or three years later?

While it's not surprising you'd try to disprove a general principal as if it were some claim of an absolute, it's also rather misguided. Alliance have been fored throughout history as former rivals and enemies found some basis to encourage cooperation. Sometimes those alliance dissolve immediately into rivalry once again as the common cause departs. The Soviets are an excellent example of both: they made common causes, with the Germans when it came to carving up Eastern Europe, which ended with the German betrayal first, which led to an alliance with the liberal-democratic-capitalist West, which turned into the Cold War after the Germans were defeated.

So, enlighten me. About common interests with the genocidal monsters. I would like to hear that, really.

I have an interesting in ending the ongoing genocidal conflict. The Catalyst wants something that, as a consequence, also ends the genocidal conflict.

I don't have to care what the Catalyst's reasons are in order to have a common interest in carrying out that action.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 octobre 2012 - 03:03 .

[Maxster_]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Dafuq?
Common interest with enemy? I would like to hear which common iterest Soviets have with Germany in the end of 1942. I remind you, that germans deliberately murdering civilian population, and already got to 8-10 millions of dead soviet civilians.

Does your historical awareness not extrend three years earlier, or three years later?

While it's not surprising you'd try to disprove a general principal as if it were some claim of an absolute, it's also rather misguided. Alliance have been fored throughout history as former rivals and enemies found some basis to encourage cooperation. Sometimes those alliance dissolve immediately into rivalry once again as the common cause occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

You do know, that for germany WW2 ended with unconditional surrender. Do you know what unconditional means? That means, that you are surrendering to enemy without conditions, on their whim.

There was no negotiations, only order by Soviet's leadership. Which Germans unconditionally complied. Well, they tried to set some terms first, but that was not negotiable, and they surrendered without any conditions.

You do know, how that war ended for those responsible for genocide? Those who not killed themselves were trialed : jailed, most executed.
Do you know, that Germany was divided by result of that war?

Also, i specifically chosen 1942 year, because after start of war, there was no intention of the Soviet leadership, to accept something other, than unconditional surrender. There was no negotiations, no tries to negotiate from Soviet side from start of the war, and especially after reports of mass executions of civilian population.

So, enlighten me. About common interests with the genocidal monsters. I would like to hear that, really.

I have an interesting in ending the ongoing genocidal conflict. The Catalyst wants something that, as a consequence, also ends the genocidal conflict.

I don't have to care what the Catalyst's reasons are in order to have a common interest in carrying out that action.

You have uncodnitionally surrendered to an enemy. All "solutions" made by catalyst, on his terms. There is no conditions set by Shepard. Only will of the Catalyst.

Modifié par Maxster_, 06 octobre 2012 - 03:05 .

[Xilizhra]

You have uncodnitionally surrendered to an enemy. All "solutions" made by catalyst, on his terms. There is no conditions set by Shepard. Only will of the Catalyst.

Those are the only three conditions that are physically possible to achieve. The Catalyst is just spelling them out, and only actually likes one of them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxster_ wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Dafuq?
Common interest with enemy? I would like to hear which common iterest Soviets have with Germany in the end of 1942. I remind you, that germans deliberately murdering civilian population, and already got to 8-10 millions of dead soviet civilians.

Does your historical awareness not extrend three years earlier, or three years later?

While it's not surprising you'd try to disprove a general principal as if it were some claim of an absolute, it's also rather misguided. Alliance have been fored throughout history as former rivals and enemies found some basis to encourage cooperation. Sometimes those alliance dissolve immediately into rivalry once again as the common cause occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

You do know, that for germany WW2 ended with unconditional surrender. Do you know what unconditional means? That means, that you are surrendering to enemy without conditions, on their whim.

Do you know what a surrender is? A case of mutual interest: that an end to fighting was preferable to not ending the fighting.

Any organized surrender is a mutually-interest agreement, as it is impossible if either side refuses to accept it.

Do you know, that Germany was divided by result of that war?

I also know that the Soviets happily allied with the ****s before the war in carving up Eastern Europe, happily allied allied with the  capitalist West in fighting the Hitlerites, and then took part in the Cold War with the West after the common cause left them.

You have uncodnitionally surrendered to an enemy. All "solutions" made by catalyst, on his terms.

Neither of those stand up to scrutiny past the absurd.

There is no conditions set by Shepard. Only will of the Catalyst.

Sure you did: the Crucible, which changed the Catalyst and makes these options possible. The Citadel itself doesn't do Destroy/Control/Synthesis: the Citadel only helps the Crucible do that.

The fact that Shepard chooses which of the available options, if any, is activated is Shepard's will.

[Maxster_]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Dafuq?
Common interest with enemy? I would like to hear which common iterest Soviets have with Germany in the end of 1942. I remind you, that germans deliberately murdering civilian population, and already got to 8-10 millions of dead soviet civilians.

Does your historical awareness not extrend three years earlier, or three years later?

While it's not surprising you'd try to disprove a general principal as if it were some claim of an absolute, it's also rather misguided. Alliance have been fored throughout history as former rivals and enemies found some basis to encourage cooperation. Sometimes those alliance dissolve immediately into rivalry once again as the common cause occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

You do know, that for germany WW2 ended with unconditional surrender. Do you know what unconditional means? That means, that you are surrendering to enemy without conditions, on their whim.

Do you know what a surrender is? A case of mutual interest: that an end to fighting was preferable to not ending the fighting.

Any organized surrender is a mutually-interest agreement, as it is impossible if either side refuses to accept it.

Do you know what forced means? Germans surrendered only because they not wanted to die in fight anymore. That was unconditonal surrender to a whim of the enemy.

As about mutual interests - Shepard surrendered to a Catalyst, because allied military was completely devastated. And then catalyst, for some strange reasons decided to impose his "solutions" through Shepard. Those terms were not negotiable, it was - do this, or i kill everyone. And nothing more.

Do you know, that Germany was divided by result of that war?

I also know that the Soviets happily allied with the ****s before the war in carving up Eastern Europe, happily allied allied with the  capitalist West in fighting the Hitlerites, and then took part in the Cold War with the West after the common cause left them.

Oh, comrade, how you just missed...
First, it is completely irrelevant to a fact, that we ever considered negotiations instead of germany's unconditional surrender. Stalin said that in the first days of war.

So now, we haven't had common interests with genocidal monsters after that.
Unlike some american companies(
The Union Banking Corporation (UBC) was a banking corporation in the US whose assets were seized by the United States government during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Order No. 9095.
Act of seizure Oct. 5, 1942

http://en.wikipedia....ing_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia...._Herbert_Walker
http://en.wikipedia....i/Prescott_Bush
http://rense.com/gen.../bushhitler.htm
).

Second, i like westerners hypocrisy. When they are actively helping Germany, by dividing Czechoslovakia(1938), giving credits, prasing in press, actively trading with germany -
That is considered normal.

And when USSR doing even less, Non-Aggression Pact(which is not an alliance, and certainly not helping), and some trade -
That is immediately considered horrible crime.
Those western hypocrities

You have uncodnitionally surrendered to an enemy. All "solutions" made by catalyst, on his terms.

Neither of those stand up to scrutiny past the absurd.

There is no conditions set by Shepard. Only will of the Catalyst.

Sure you did: the Crucible, which changed the Catalyst and makes these options possible. The Citadel itself doesn't do Destroy/Control/Synthesis: the Citadel only helps the Crucible do that.

The fact that Shepard chooses which of the available options, if any, is activated is Shepard's will.

Yeah, yeah, sure space magic and unicorns.

Please tell me, how exactly conveniently happens, that all functionality and interface to use giant battery, is built-in into Citadel from the beginning. I hope you do know, that Citadel built by the reapers?

Modifié par Maxster_, 06 octobre 2012 - 03:53 .

[WhiteKnyght]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Honestly, full renegade Shepard gets a perfect ending an ending that more closesly aligns with the renegade options presented throughout the series. He removes all synthetics and even survives. Unfortunatey, paragon Shepard can't make an ending decision without making a violation of morals, from genocide, to forced change, to totalitarian order. Isn't this kinda unfair towards most paragon Shepards?

Becoming an immortal guardian is a very Paragon thing to do.

Shepard sacrifices his former life, love, friends, and future for the greater good of all.

That's the definition of selflessness and integrity. That's a paragon.

[Maxster_]

Xilizhra wrote...

You have uncodnitionally surrendered to an enemy. All "solutions" made by catalyst, on his terms. There is no conditions set by Shepard. Only will of the Catalyst.

Those are the only three conditions that are physically possible to achieve. The Catalyst is just spelling them out, and only actually likes one of them.

Yeah, especially green beam magic is "physically possible to achieve".

And this is irrelevant, because all functionality to use giant battery is provided by the reapers. They decided that those exact 3 choices are "only that are phisically possible to achieve".

[Maxster_]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Honestly, full renegade Shepard gets a perfect ending an ending that more closesly aligns with the renegade options presented throughout the series. He removes all synthetics and even survives. Unfortunatey, paragon Shepard can't make an ending decision without making a violation of morals, from genocide, to forced change, to totalitarian order. Isn't this kinda unfair towards most paragon Shepards?

Becoming an immortal guardian is a very Paragon thing to do.

Shepard sacrifices his former life, love, friends, and future for the greater good of all.

That's the definition of selflessness and integrity. That's a paragon.

By surrendering to catalyst and then enslaving a sentient machines.
The ends always justify the means. That is certainly paragonish.

[WhiteKnyght]

Maxster_ wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Honestly, full renegade Shepard gets a perfect ending an ending that more closesly aligns with the renegade options presented throughout the series. He removes all synthetics and even survives. Unfortunatey, paragon Shepard can't make an ending decision without making a violation of morals, from genocide, to forced change, to totalitarian order. Isn't this kinda unfair towards most paragon Shepards?

Becoming an immortal guardian is a very Paragon thing to do.

Shepard sacrifices his former life, love, friends, and future for the greater good of all.

That's the definition of selflessness and integrity. That's a paragon.

By surrendering to catalyst and then enslaving a sentient machines.
The ends always justify the means. That is certainly paragonish.

Sentient machines who, for billions of years, have done nothing but enslave and exterminate so many innocent lives that it is impossible to count.

Turning the tables and making them do good is merely community service. That's justice. That's paragon.

Besides, the Reapers never said they disapprove of Shepard taking control. Only the Catalyst said he didn't like being replaced. They might just be happy for guidance.

[Dean_the_Young]

Maxster_ wrote...

Do you know what forced means? Germans surrendered only because they not wanted to die in fight anymore. That was unconditonal surrender to a whim of the enemy.

Germany's surrender, and survival, were the subject of mutual interest.

As about mutual interests - Shepard surrendered to a Catalyst, because allied military was completely devastated. And then catalyst, for some strange reasons decided to impose his "solutions" through Shepard. Those terms were not negotiable, it was - do this, or i kill everyone. And nothing more.

It probably seems strange to you because that's a very strange interpreation of events.

As someone with a passing experience with the military, that's not how surrender works.

Oh, comrade, how you just missed...
First, it is completely irrelevant to a fact, that we ever considered negotiations instead of germany's unconditional surrender. Stalin said that in the first days of war.

That doesn't counter the point.

So now, we haven't had common interests with genocidal monsters after that.

Except 'you', assuming your are Russia, did: Germany's unconditional surrender.

In order to convince Germany that it was in Germany's own interest, a lot of bombing and demonstration of the actual balance of power needed to be shown, but some people are stubborn.

Unlike some american companies(
The Union Banking Corporation (UBC) was a banking corporation in the US whose assets were seized by the United States government during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Order No. 9095.
Act of seizure Oct. 5, 1942

http://en.wikipedia....ing_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia...._Herbert_Walker
http://en.wikipedia....i/Prescott_Bush
http://rense.com/gen.../bushhitler.htm
).

How does this change whether the Soviet Union made common cause with **** Germany before the war?

Second, i like westerners hypocrisy. When they are actively helping Germany, by dividing Czechoslovakia(1938), giving credits, prasing in press, actively trading with germany -
That is considered normal.

And when USSR doing even less, Non-Aggression Pact(which is not an alliance, and certainly not helping),

You might want to ask who that Pact benefited against who before you make that claim.

and some trade -
That is immediately considered horrible crime.
Those western hypocrities

And?

Surely you have a point that actually contests whether enemies can make common cause? I could point to US-Soviet joint agreements, the US-Japanese alliance following WW2, the Entente, the Greek city states against Persia, the Italian city states against the Turks, or a variety of other historical examples.

Now, you could certainly argue that hypocricy (far from just a Western trait) is a factor in the creation of these switches... but that would only be furthering my point.

Yeah, yeah, sure space magic and unicorns.

Please tell me, how exactly conveniently happens, that all functionality and interface to use giant battery, is built-in into Citadel from the beginning. I hope you do know, that Citadel built by the reapers?

Because It's A Game.

In case you never noticed, everything in the Mass Effect universe is conveniently laid out such that Commander Shepard can make progress and a choice. Very few of these things are given any development or justification other than to be accepted on the face of it. Why does Vigil have a data file compatible with Shepard's omnitool, and why is the Citadel Control conveniently work with it? Where does Shepard get the glowy disc to destroy the Collector Base? Why does the Collector Base even have a glowy disc slot in the first place?

Because It's A Game.

[tg0618]

My mostly paragon Shep picks destroy all the time.

On a sidenote I don't know if it's been posted already, I wasn't going to read through all 15 pages, but I don't see destroy as a renegade, or control as paragon, despite what the pretty colors would have you believe.

[WhiteKnyght]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Because It's A Game.

In case you never noticed, everything in the Mass Effect universe is conveniently laid out such that Commander Shepard can make progress and a choice. Very few of these things are given any development or justification other than to be accepted on the face of it. Why does Vigil have a data file compatible with Shepard's omnitool, and why is the Citadel Control conveniently work with it? Where does Shepard get the glowy disc to destroy the Collector Base? Why does the Collector Base even have a glowy disc slot in the first place?

Because It's A Game.

1. Prothean technology was the basis for the tech people use today. Same with the Protheans and their tech. Everybody took the previous cycle's knowledge for their own, stretching all the way back to the Leviathans themselves. Hence why the Reapers can use it. That's why Shepard's omni-tool can handle it.

2. The data file, IIRC, was something the Protheans used for their sabotage.

3. That glowy disc was probably a bypass shunt that Shepard used to hack their computer and overload the core. Or an explosive charge that Shepard used to trigger a meltdown/radiation pulse. Nobody said it came from the Collector base. It was probably given to them by Cerberus.

[Darth Asriel]

No, OP. it's just unfair to anyone who understands how a story is supposed to be written.

[WhiteKnyght]

Darth Asriel wrote...

No, OP. it's just unfair to anyone who understands how a story is supposed to be written.

A story is to be written as the author decides.

To presume that you are more entitled than he to decide what goes into his story is an insult to the author. Or authors in this case. They ended it the way they wanted. And you'll just have to accept that, rather than trying to bully them into doing things your way.

If you don't like the ending, you're entitled to your opinion. But that's where it should stay. Not what people have been doing -- sending hate messages, protesting, trying to take legal action, etc.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 06 octobre 2012 - 04:24 .

[Dean_the_Young]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Because It's A Game.

In case you never noticed, everything in the Mass Effect universe is conveniently laid out such that Commander Shepard can make progress and a choice. Very few of these things are given any development or justification other than to be accepted on the face of it. Why does Vigil have a data file compatible with Shepard's omnitool, and why is the Citadel Control conveniently work with it? Where does Shepard get the glowy disc to destroy the Collector Base? Why does the Collector Base even have a glowy disc slot in the first place?

Because It's A Game.

1. Prothean technology was the basis for the tech people use today. Same with the Protheans and their tech. Everybody took the previous cycle's knowledge for their own, stretching all the way back to the Leviathans themselves. Hence why the Reapers can use it. That's why Shepard's omni-tool can handle it.

2. The data file, IIRC, was something the Protheans used for their sabotage.

3. That glowy disc was probably a bypass shunt that Shepard used to hack their computer and overload the core. Or an explosive charge that Shepard used to trigger a meltdown/radiation pulse. Nobody said it came from the Collector base. It was probably given to them by Cerberus.

You can rationalize them however you want: it doesn't change that the game freely jumps however it wants when convenient (or inconvenient). Prothean technology is a prime example: pretty much technologically incompatible with everything else in the galaxy at every other point, with the glorious exception of Shepard and the Cypher.

The game gives you things because it's a game. Unlike reality, there doesn't have to be a deeper utility aspect that can be readily explained.