431 réponses à ce sujet

[christrek1982]

dreman9999 wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

There's only one sacrifice at the end of ME3 - That of Marauder Shields. Honour his sacrifice.....

Oh, and NO.

Shepard dieing in control and synthesis or sacrificing the geth to stp the reapers are not sacrifices?

there is no heroism in Shepards death due to
the outcome being morality questionable on a massive scale as well
as the fact that there is no choice Shepard is dead in all but one
ending. 

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
That means they never stated what it was. That means the player never knew. You can change a motivation of something you don't know what the motivation is.

No, it means it's "beyond our comprehension", not "Oh, yeah the Reapers are just tools for thier boss. They have no free will and blindly take orders."

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, except that they didn't actually have motivation.

They had one, it was just "beyond our comprehension".

Meaning that Bio hadn't thought of one, so they had Sovereign float some pompous b.s. at us.

This is simply true. Bio's confirmed it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 octobre 2012 - 03:23 .

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

If you want to prove me wrong...Tell me what you want the endin gto be like. Just saying yoiu don't want a Shepard lives ending does not counter my arguement.

I literally have no interest in 'proving you wrong'; and I really do not want to derail a thread that was meant to be a positive expression of support for the ending.

If you are genuinely asking, however, and not merely trying to engage in cheap semantic arm-wrestling:

You can read my reasons for hating the original ending here: http://social.biowar...886/13#11470730

and the EC here:
http://social.biowar...36/blog/218742/

And if you want to read the only possible alternate ending I have bothered to offer read here:
http://social.biowar...36/blog/218556/

Otherwise, just cherish your reading of the ending without trying to pointlessly miss-categorise others.  People like it for many reasons; people hate it for many reasons.  It is extremely unhelpful to assume that everyone is the same.

So in short you don't like the ending because you don't want to comprimise your or Shepards morals.....AKA, you don't want to make sacrifices...
You do understand that the op's point is that the point of th eending is that you do have to make a sacrifice of self,morals or both to save the galexy?

[Icinix]

Mike1220 wrote...

A man on Youtube posted this to counter what someone said about the ending being bad.
"Then you completely missed the ending. The point of the
ending is not to make you feel like you won everything, but to make you
understand the meaning of sacrifice. Yeah, decisions in ME1 or ME2 may
not seem like a huge impact in the end, but ME3 makes you remember
everything that you did, your experience, your struggles, your
victories. In the end, you save the galaxy and let all beings be as they
have always been.
You pick how you want to live and be remembered by."

I 100% agree with him. What do you guys think?

I 0% agree with him.

I don't want to feel like I won everything, I understand the meaning of sacrifice, I just want the ending to be affected by my choices in the lead up to it in a non-arbitrary number greater than equals ending (1 2 or 3).

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That means they never stated what it was. That means the player never knew. You can change a motivation of something you don't know what the motivation is.

No, it means it's "beyond our comprehension", not "Oh, yeah the Reapers are just tools for thier boss. They have no free will and blindly take orders."

No it does not. It means "I WON'T BOTHER TO TELL YOU...YET."
If you don't know ther motivation then you can't say how they present it conflict with it.

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...

Meaning that Bio hadn't thought of one, so they had Sovereign float some pompous b.s. at us.

Perhaps, but why attempt to do so after that? It makes them seem forgetful at best, and incompetent at worst.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
No it does not. It means "I WON'T BOTHER TO TELL YOU...YET."
If you don't know ther motivation then you can't say how they present it conflict with it.

What? That's not what that sentence means. At all. Try again.

[dreman9999]

christrek1982 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

There's only one sacrifice at the end of ME3 - That of Marauder Shields. Honour his sacrifice.....

Oh, and NO.

Shepard dieing in control and synthesis or sacrificing the geth to stp the reapers are not sacrifices?

there is no heroism in Shepards death due to
the outcome being morality questionable on a massive scale as well
as the fact that there is no choice Shepard is dead in all but one
ending. 

Please, being moraly questionable does not make it less of a sacrific. Do you think the galexy will question the morals of the sacrifice that had to be done to stop the reapers or be glad to be alive?

Rememder the question of the series is what your willing to do to stop an unstopable force. How is not restricted.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 octobre 2012 - 03:28 .

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
No it does not. It means "I WON'T BOTHER TO TELL YOU...YET."
If you don't know ther motivation then you can't say how they present it conflict with it.

What? That's not what that sentence means. At all. Try again.

Yes it does. It basicly the same thing you say to a child who ask a question with a complex awnser. You say "You woukld not understand" because you feel there is not point in answering because they would not understand. It means you won't bother to tell them.

That, "It's beyond you comprohension " means...I won't bother to tell you.

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Meaning that Bio hadn't thought of one, so they had Sovereign float some pompous b.s. at us.

Perhaps, but why attempt to do so after that? It makes them seem forgetful at best, and incompetent at worst.

Probably because Lovecraftian horror and sci-fi don't really mix well. Sci-fi is about finding out the rules governing your situation, not discovering that there aren't any.

[CronoDragoon]

" In the end, you save the galaxy and let all beings be as they
have always been."

Um, that's like the one thing these endings clearly do not let you do, with the possible exception of Control.

[Shinobu]

Mike1220 wrote...

A man on Youtube posted this to counter what someone said about the ending being bad.
"Then you completely missed the ending. The point of the ending is not to make you feel like you won everything, but to make you understand the meaning of sacrifice. Yeah, decisions in ME1 or ME2 may not seem like a huge impact in the end, but ME3 makes you remember everything that you did, your experience, your struggles, your victories.
In the end, you save the galaxy and let all beings be as they have always been.
You pick how you want to live and be remembered by."

I 100% agree with him. What do you guys think?

I disagree. In the end, I didn't feel as though I had saved the galaxy but destroyed it.

I could not "let all beings be as they have always been" because the only available choices were to change all or some beings (Synthesis and Control, aka Eugenics and Slavery) or kill them (Destroy and Refuse, aka Genocide/Betrayal and Annihilation). 

I could not "pick how I wanted to live" only whether or not Shepard lived, because the only option for living was Destroy.

I could not pick "how I wanted to be remembered" because as far as I was concerned Shepard could only be remembered as a dupe or a war criminal.

ME3 DID make me "remember everything" that I had done, but in the end it made me wonder why I had bothered.

Mordin's Paragon death was the epitome of how bittersweet "sacrifice endings" should be done. He died on his own terms in a way that fit his character's history and morality, and in so doing he redeemed himself. It was beautiful and moving. In my opinion, Shepard was duped by a last-minute introduction who made her choose between 4 different atrocities based on unproven assumptions with no regard for her past accomplishments (or lack thereof). The ending was not a culmination of all that had come before it, but a jarring non sequitur. The EC tried to make it palatable by giving us slides of happy maskless Quarians/green-eyed Krogan babies/whatever, but didn't change the underlying problem that I had with the ending, and frankly, it felt like fanservice.

I'm glad some people found the ending/EC satisfying, but I doubt I ever will.

[Ithurael]

5/10 troll

only because you are up to 7 pages

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...
So in short you don't like the ending because you don't want to comprimise your or Shepards morals.....AKA, you don't want to make sacrifices...
You do understand that the op's point is that the point of th eending is that you do have to make a sacrifice of self,morals or both to save the galexy?

Self-sacrifice and sacrifice of morals are completely different, so don't lump them together. The former is a characteristic of heroes, the latter of villains. It is possible to sacrifice without losing your morality. See Mordin.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 12 octobre 2012 - 03:32 .

[palician]

Storin wrote...

Mike1220 wrote...

@drayfish thanks. I respect the people who don't like it but Im just voicing my opinion and wanted to see if anyone thought like I did and not be bashed for it lol

Empirical evidence suggests you do not. You said that those who disagree with you "can't see the big picture", and you began this thread with a quote by someone utterly dismissing the intelligence of those who dislike the ending. These are not the actions of someone who respects differences of opinion.

This

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
So in short you don't like the ending because you don't want to comprimise your or Shepards morals.....AKA, you don't want to make sacrifices...
You do understand that the op's point is that the point of th eending is that you do have to make a sacrifice of self,morals or both to save the galexy?

Self-sacrifice and sacrifice of morals are completely different, so don't lump them together. The former is a characteristic of heroes, the latter of villains.

Please, both heros and villain can do that and have done so. This is an issue oF ends vs means.


Remeber the point of ME is not to be a hero but to do what you have to do the stop the reapers. That does not means nobility has to be kept to do so..

As Javik said" Stand in the ashes of a million dead souls and ask the ghost  if honor matter....The silence is your answer."

You not a hero...You a soldier doing what need to be done to stop something that can't be stopped by normal means.
If you want that noble death...Pick control.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 octobre 2012 - 03:41 .

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...

Please, both heros and villain can do that and have done so. 

Examples.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes it does. It basicly the same thing you say to a child who ask a question with a complex awnser. You say "You woukld not understand" because you feel there is not point in answering because they would not understand. It means you won't bother to tell them.

That, "It's beyond you comprohension " means...I won't bother to tell you.

You're own example shows how off you are. Trying to explain why the sky is blue to a kid is literally beyond thier comprehension at that point. It's not because you can't or won't bother.

Beyond your comprehension means exactly what it says.

[hukbum]

dreman9999 wrote...

If you want that noble death...Pick control.

What's noble about control?

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...

Probably because Lovecraftian horror and sci-fi don't really mix well. Sci-fi is about finding out the rules governing your situation, not discovering that there aren't any.

I would say that's the one thing SciFi has trouble with. Dealing with aliens? Why should they think like humans? They're aliens! Not saying everyone needs to be like that, but the Reapers were perfect. Truly alien. We don't know why.

We can understand the rules of the universe the setting is in, but we don't need to know motivations exactly.

[FlamingBoy]

wow....

i am sorry but I cannot agree with this

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes it does. It basicly the same thing you say to a child who ask a question with a complex awnser. You say "You woukld not understand" because you feel there is not point in answering because they would not understand. It means you won't bother to tell them.

That, "It's beyond you comprohension " means...I won't bother to tell you.

You're own example shows how off you are. Trying to explain why the sky is blue to a kid is literally beyond thier comprehension at that point. It's not because you can't or won't bother.

Beyond your comprehension means exactly what it says.

But you missing the point. That still just means there motivations is not stated. You can at least try to explain to a kid.

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Please, both heros and villain can do that and have done so. 

Examples.

The odyssey has this.

[CronoDragoon]

The odyssey has this.

The Odyssey has what? Odysseus never sacrifices his morals. And Poseidon never sacrifices himself. I am confused.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 12 octobre 2012 - 03:46 .