316 réponses à ce sujet

[TJBartlemus]

Lord Aesir wrote...
IT takes that away.

Wrong...sorry. IT doesn't take it away. IT just states that the choice isn't necessarily the right moral choice and also states that choice like all choices have consequences. (Indoctrination. Which is one of the major themes in the game.) For example. In ME2 you had the choice of not doing loyalty missions. This turns out to be a fatal mistake when the squad mates die and in result Shepard dies. All ME3 does is just move that concept into a moral / symbolic way. Much more subtle. 

[Little Princess Peach]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Idid not take a cheap shoot you have to look at this from everyones point of view not just you're own."

So falsely portraying IT constitutes being objective? Lol

can we agree to disagree and shake hands?

[Heimdall]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Because control and synthesis aren't possible. Don't get mad because your delusions of grandeur aren't legit. What, you shouldn't be able to make a bad choice? That's why it's not an ABC ending.

You think its a bad choice, I disagree.  Why can't we both get legitimate endings instead of IT shoehorning everything into a universe where only you do?

Besides, I already told you I'm not opposed to failure.  I just believe it should not be based on ideology.

[Samtheman63]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

let me get this right some people would happyily pay to get an ending where shepard wakes up from a dream and nothing that we expirianced in the whole game happend? what?

How can you people be against IT when you don't even know what it is? It's only an indoctrination attempt starting most likely after Harbingers laser blast that conveniently misses Shep

I understand what it is, I've seen enough videos on the subject justt because I hate the idea dose not mean it can't be true at some point, but until Bioware proves it to be true I rather not belive

clearly you don't

[spotlessvoid]

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Because control and synthesis aren't possible. Don't get mad because your delusions of grandeur aren't legit. What, you shouldn't be able to make a bad choice? That's why it's not an ABC ending.

You think its a bad choice, I disagree.  Why can't we both get legitimate endings instead of IT shoehorning everything into a universe where only you do?

Besides, I already told you I'm not opposed to failure.  I just believe it should not be based on ideology.

3 games that foreshadow everythin starchild says is deceptions and you feel you deserve to.have your wrong choice validated?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lol see post above. Great twist ending plus IP still intact. Right right, terrible business practice

How does it make any business sense for them to make it true? Most people have moved on at this point. The time to reveal a "twist" that it was all indoctrination was a long, long time ago. You know, when people were playing the game, and it was still selling at full-price.

And again, most of the people who want to believe IT already do, without any official confirmation. So why waste the time, energy, and resources when the cult of IT will eat up things like a multiplayer trailer as evidence (just lol).

Of course, there's a very clear answer to that. But if IT'ers knew it, they wouldn't still be here....

[spotlessvoid]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Idid not take a cheap shoot you have to look at this from everyones point of view not just you're own."

So falsely portraying IT constitutes being objective? Lol

can we agree to disagree and shake hands?

yes.

[ATiBotka]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Because control and synthesis aren't possible. Don't get mad because your delusions of grandeur aren't legit. What, you shouldn't be able to make a bad choice? That's why it's not an ABC ending.

Belive me, it's possible.

Just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it impossible.

Modifié par ATiBotka, 07 octobre 2012 - 05:56 .

[Heimdall]

TJBartlemus wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
IT takes that away.

Wrong...sorry. IT doesn't take it away. IT just states that the choice isn't necessarily the right moral choice and also states that choice like all choices have consequences. (Indoctrination. Which is one of the major themes in the game.) For example. In ME2 you had the choice of not doing loyalty missions. This turns out to be a fatal mistake when the squad mates die and in result Shepard dies. All ME3 does is just move that concept into a moral / symbolic way. Much more subtle. 

For the love of...

Read the damn post before you reply.   I want to be able to take a choice consistent with my character's ideology.  Isn't that part of the reason IT was created?  Because people found the choices repelent to their Shepards?  I do not want anyone dictating to morality to me that I personally find flawd and narrow.

Not doing loyalty missions is like not doing extra missions to attain War Assets.  The ending choices determining whether you succeed or fail is like choosing whether to keep or destroy the base determinng whether Shepard makes it out alive.

I'm fine with a character failing because he failed to prepare for the fight.  I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint.

[spotlessvoid]

ATiBotka wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Because control and synthesis aren't possible. Don't get mad because your delusions of grandeur aren't legit. What, you shouldn't be able to make a bad choice? That's why it's not an ABC ending.

Belive me, it's possible.

Just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it impossible.

just because you like it doesnt make it possible

[Eryri]

If it's a good quality product that provides value for money, then I would buy an IT dlc or expansion in a heartbeat.

[TJBartlemus]

Lord Aesir wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
IT takes that away.

Wrong...sorry. IT doesn't take it away. IT just states that the choice isn't necessarily the right moral choice and also states that choice like all choices have consequences. (Indoctrination. Which is one of the major themes in the game.) For example. In ME2 you had the choice of not doing loyalty missions. This turns out to be a fatal mistake when the squad mates die and in result Shepard dies. All ME3 does is just move that concept into a moral / symbolic way. Much more subtle. 

For the love of...

Read the damn post before you reply.   I want to be able to take a choice consistent with my character's ideology.  Isn't that part of the reason IT was created?  Because people found the choices repelent to their Shepards?  I do not want anyone dictating to morality to me that I personally find flawd and narrow.

Not doing loyalty missions is like not doing extra missions to attain War Assets.  The ending choices determining whether you succeed or fail is like choosing whether to keep or destroy the base determinng whether Shepard makes it out alive.

I'm fine with a character failing because he failed to prepare for the fight.  I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint.

Okay...my bad...no need to get hostile though.  

[ATiBotka]

spotlessvoid wrote...

just because you like it doesnt make it possible

But what makes Control and Synthesis different than Destroy? 

[Heimdall]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Because control and synthesis aren't possible. Don't get mad because your delusions of grandeur aren't legit. What, you shouldn't be able to make a bad choice? That's why it's not an ABC ending.

You think its a bad choice, I disagree.  Why can't we both get legitimate endings instead of IT shoehorning everything into a universe where only you do?

Besides, I already told you I'm not opposed to failure.  I just believe it should not be based on ideology.

3 games that foreshadow everythin starchild says is deceptions and you feel you deserve to.have your wrong choice validated?

I'm not wrong, neither do I think someone that chose destroy should be wrong or someone who chose control.

I want them all to be valid choices following different ideologies, read the post on the previous page.  I want more than one way to succeed with variable but roughly equivalent drawbacks.

I've seen those "foreshadowings", and first of all I don't believe for a moment Bioware thought that far ahead in the first two games.  Second, these "foreshadowings" are all narrow and selective interpretations that ignore key differences in my experience.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 07 octobre 2012 - 06:05 .

[Heimdall]

TJBartlemus wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
IT takes that away.

Wrong...sorry. IT doesn't take it away. IT just states that the choice isn't necessarily the right moral choice and also states that choice like all choices have consequences. (Indoctrination. Which is one of the major themes in the game.) For example. In ME2 you had the choice of not doing loyalty missions. This turns out to be a fatal mistake when the squad mates die and in result Shepard dies. All ME3 does is just move that concept into a moral / symbolic way. Much more subtle. 

For the love of...

Read the damn post before you reply.   I want to be able to take a choice consistent with my character's ideology.  Isn't that part of the reason IT was created?  Because people found the choices repelent to their Shepards?  I do not want anyone dictating to morality to me that I personally find flawd and narrow.

Not doing loyalty missions is like not doing extra missions to attain War Assets.  The ending choices determining whether you succeed or fail is like choosing whether to keep or destroy the base determinng whether Shepard makes it out alive.

I'm fine with a character failing because he failed to prepare for the fight.  I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint.

Okay...my bad...no need to get hostile though.  

Sorry, just getting a little frustrated

[LucasShark]

Were this the case, and that's a big if, it would have to be free. If not: BIoware and EA would be guilty of the greatest punking of their consumer base ever undertaken by any company in history.

[BatmanTurian]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

IT should be priced at 60$ and you need to own every single game, DLC as well as novels, merchandise, etc

trololo

troll your heart out, little buddy.

[liggy002]

It shouldn't be free if it were real. They should charge for it. Otherwise, if it is free, its quality will be sub par compared to a paid DLC and I wouldn't want that. It's just simple economics. "Free" means that they have to absorb the cost of making it and so it will not be up to standard in quality.

[Heimdall]

*:bandit:NVM:bandit:*

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 07 octobre 2012 - 06:13 .

[spotlessvoid]

" I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint."

How naive.

[AlanC9]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I'm fine with a character failing because he failed to prepare for the fight.  I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint.

Isn't that sort of like what Refuse fans say? Their morality won't let them use the Crucible, and  they're punished for it by having the whole galaxy destroyed.

Which is as it should be, IMO. Any moral code that gets the whole galaxy killed is worthless.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 octobre 2012 - 06:19 .

[ghost9191]

well they can charge for it, will still buy. or idk that would then make the other 3 choices wrong, and whoever picked them wrong. think it would be better to just do maybe a alt ending or just do a better job with destroy, a little more closure and such, that way the ppl that picked control or synthesis won't feel that they lost

then again if it is completely optional , then who cares, IT believers will have their ending they wanted and if someone doesn't want it , then don't download it.

but also might make the majority happy if they do a little better job with destroy, fill in the holes , at least for me

[spotlessvoid]

" I want them all to be valid choices following different ideologies, read the post on the previous page. Iwant more than one way to succeed with variable but roughly equivalent drawbacks."

That's not how life works. There are consequences to actions. The Reapers played off your desires and subverted you. Just because you want synthesis doesn't mean trusting the starchild was the right call.

[spotlessvoid]

ATiBotka wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

just because you like it doesnt make it possible

But what makes Control and Synthesis different than Destroy? 

Name one person that's not a Reaper or indoctrinated that advocated for those two?

[AlanC9]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I want them all to be valid choices following different ideologies, read the post on the previous page. Iwant more than one way to succeed with variable but roughly equivalent drawbacks."

That's not how life works. There are consequences to actions. The Reapers played off your desires and subverted you. Just because you want synthesis doesn't mean trusting the starchild was the right call.

Or IT is just wrong, and your Shep's done a great deal of unnecessary damage to the galaxy.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 octobre 2012 - 06:21 .