431 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I'm a big fan of going OT, but this Odyssey stuff is getting silly.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 octobre 2012 - 04:07 .

[MB957]

and what of ashley/kaidens sacrifice on virmire....to stop saren from synthisizin the galaxy?

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But is many versions he is called Ulysses. The link says that.

Are you referring to the Literature and Film list, which plains lists as the first thing:

Odysseus, the legendary Greek king of Ithaca and hero of the Odyssey

The Joyce novel isn't the Odyssey. Neither are any works of art listed there. He's called Odysseus in the Odyssey, and if you took a Homer class and called him Ulysses, you would be immediately corrected.

From your link....The poem mainly centers on the Greek hero Odysseus (or Ulysses, as he was known in Roman myths) ...

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
That is sacrificing them. He was told he would lose 6 men and did it any way. That him sacrificing so the ship can go on.

He would lose everyone doing otherwise.
Reading comprehension, you don't have it.

[zambot]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That is sacrificing them. He was told he would lose 6 men and did it any way. That him sacrificing so the ship can go on.

He would lose everyone doing otherwise.

That doesn't disqualify it from being a sacrifice. 

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...
From your link....The poem mainly centers on the Greek hero Odysseus (or Ulysses, as he was known in Roman myths) ...

Yes, the Roman myths, which are NOT the Odyssey. I will repeat: Odyssey MEANS the story of Odysseus. I cannot believe you are seriously arguing this. Alan is right, this is freaking silly. I was just trying to correct you on a point, but now it's obvious you have not read an actual book with Odyssey stamped on the cover. You guys can continue your debate on sacrifice because it's relevant, but if I haven't convinced you how wrong you are by now it's not gonna happen. 

[4stringwizard]

No, and if the whole point of the game series was to get a lecture from Bioware, then that's even worse.

[dreman9999]

[quote]Ratimir wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Ratimir wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Ratimir wrote...

No
[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.[/quote]

No

[/quote]So Shepard did not sacrific his/her life or the geth in the ending?
[/quote]

Sacrifice is spelt with an E. Please take five seconds to check for obvious typos before posting.

We were asked if we agreed with the statement quoted in the original post. I do not.

Specifically:

"The point of the ending is not to make you feel like you won everything, but to make you understand the meaning of sacrifice."
- Shepard is given no choice for survival. If the sacrifice is forced on us, then it is meaningless.

"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."
- Decisions in ME1, or ME2, or the vast majority of ME3 seem to have no impact in the end. It makes me remember everything I did only to wonder why it was thrown out the window.

"In the end, you save the galaxy and let all beings be as they have always been."
- In the end you commit your choice of three war crimes and irrevocably change entire species.

"You pick how you want to live and be remembered by."
- You pick how you want to die and nobody will ever know.

Please, enlighten me: how does disagreeing with this in any way imply that I "just wants a rainbows happy ending"?
[/quote]Let's look up the meaning of Sacrifice.

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/sacrifice
1.a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.
b. A victim offered in this way.
2.a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.Something so forfeited.
3.a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. 
b.Something so relinquished.
c. A loss so sustained.

Choice is not required.[/quote]
I never said there was no sacrifice, I said that without choice the sacrifice is meaningless.
[quote]
Also, your Shepard has a choice....He can refuse or let someone else get Sacrificed or come with him.[/quote]
Refusal also kills Shepard. And who is this 'someone else'?

[/quote]The sacrific is not less if you have no choice. The fact that you have not choice but to do itor else everyone dies make the choice of how to do it difficult.
It does not make it meaning less...It just make it so you don't like doing it...That's what makes it a hard choice.
[/quote]

Sacrifice is spelt with an E. We just covered this. "...you have not choice...". "Itor" is not a word. 
"...makeS the choice...". Meaningless does not have a space in it. "...makeS it so...".

No, what makes it difficult is that the only choices we are given are war crimes or surrender. What makes it meaningless is that every choice is a loss for Shepard and at least a partial victory for the enemy.
[/quote]

"No, what makes it difficult is that the only choices we are given are war crimes or surrender. What makes it meaningless is that every choice is a loss for Shepard and at least a partial victory for the enemy."

But that is war. You not a hero in war just a soldier doing what you have to do. War has desison like this. You may not like it but some times they have to be done in the extremes of war.
It is a sacrifice , one of morals. This is something you may have to doto stopthe reapers...If you don't just pick control.

[sUiCiDeKiNgS13]

I understand the theme of sacrifice. I sacrificed my warden in DA:O and collapsed the building in Deus EX: HR. What I don't like is when an RPG just ENDS.

I was expecting a finale like "The Tudors", what I got was "The Sopranos".

If you don't give an RPG closure, you are asking for people to get pissed off.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

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?

No. I fought for freedom, mine and everyone's. Freedom from being under the heel of the reapers for all sapients whether they were organic or synthetic. Freedom to choose their own path. The ending did not give me that.

The only choice that did had a big middle finger in it.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 12 octobre 2012 - 04:17 .

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That is sacrificing them. He was told he would lose 6 men and did it any way. That him sacrificing so the ship can go on.

He would lose everyone doing otherwise.
Reading comprehension, you don't have it.

That still makes it a sacrifice. Givin gup something so you don't lose everything makes it a sacrific.

[inko1nsiderate]

Come on people, we're seven months in. The chances of convincing someone to even listen to your viewpoint on the BSN are strictly zero.

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
From your link....The poem mainly centers on the Greek hero Odysseus (or Ulysses, as he was known in Roman myths) ...

Yes, the Roman myths, which are NOT the Odyssey. I will repeat: Odyssey MEANS the story of Odysseus. I cannot believe you are seriously arguing this. Alan is right, this is freaking silly. I was just trying to correct you on a point, but now it's obvious you have not read an actual book with Odyssey stamped on the cover. You guys can continue your debate on sacrifice because it's relevant, but if I haven't convinced you how wrong you are by now it's not gonna happen. 

But I have. The roman myths are just the Odyssey in Latin. He call different by the roman.

[Ratimir]

AlanC9 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

I guess that's the difference. I always figured Bio would explain, would have to explain, what the deal was with these guys. In fantasy you can get away with mysterious bad guys with incomprehensible motivations. In sci-fi, not so much.

Really? Where did the Xenomorphs of the Alien series come from? What's their motivation?

[dreman9999]

sUiCiDeKiNgS13 wrote...

I understand the theme of sacrifice. I sacrificed my warden in DA:O and collapsed the building in Deus EX: HR. What I don't like is when an RPG just ENDS.

I was expecting a finale like "The Tudors", what I got was "The Sopranos".

If you don't give an RPG closure, you are asking for people to get pissed off.

That's a problem with pre -ec...Not post -ec.

[dreman9999]

Ratimir wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

I guess that's the difference. I always figured Bio would explain, would have to explain, what the deal was with these guys. In fantasy you can get away with mysterious bad guys with incomprehensible motivations. In sci-fi, not so much.

Really? Where did the Xenomorphs of the Alien series come from? What's their motivation?

Watch prometheous. Also, they are not sentiant nor mysterious.

[zambot]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

I guess that's the difference. I always figured Bio would explain, would have to explain, what the deal was with these guys. In fantasy you can get away with mysterious bad guys with incomprehensible motivations. In sci-fi, not so much.

Really? Where did the Xenomorphs of the Alien series come from? What's their motivation?

Watch prometheous. Also, they are not sentiant nor mysterious.

Prometheous is completely unnecessary to the Alien franchise.  Arguably detrimental.

What was the Emporer's motivation in Star Wars?  
Or that big black blob thing in Fifth Element?

[CronoDragoon]

zambot wrote...

What was the Emporer's motivation in Star Wars?  

Power for power's sake, right?

[Ratimir]

Sorry, dreman9999, I seem to have misread your earlier post. When you said:

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

I thought you meant:

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

But clearly what you actually intended to say was:

TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

[dreman9999]

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

I guess that's the difference. I always figured Bio would explain, would have to explain, what the deal was with these guys. In fantasy you can get away with mysterious bad guys with incomprehensible motivations. In sci-fi, not so much.

Really? Where did the Xenomorphs of the Alien series come from? What's their motivation?

Watch prometheous. Also, they are not sentiant nor mysterious.

Prometheous is completely unnecessary to the Alien franchise.  Arguably detrimental.

What was the Emporer's motivation in Star Wars?  
Or that big black blob thing in Fifth Element?

The Emporer did it  for power and the blob was for destruction just because of it's nature.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 octobre 2012 - 04:35 .

[sharkboy421]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Way late but I have always considered Lovecraft's writings to be part of sci-fi.  Or rather, his weird fiction writings were some of the foundations for sci-fi.  Kind of how blues is the ancestor of punk rock.  The style of music that was blues lead to rock and roll which spawned the massive genre of music that is "rock"; everything from bubble gum pop to hair metal to hardcore punk. 

Just as blues and punk are related but are very distinct from each other, Lovecraft's weird fiction is related to sci-fi but is still rather distinct.  However, the same way certain guitar riffs fit in both punk and blues, the idea of cosmicism and a Cthuhlu-like being can fit in both Lovecraft's work and sci-fi. 

[wymm666]

dreman9999 wrote...

wymm666 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

wymm666 wrote...

AlexPorto111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

I completely agree.

Sure, why not, convince youselves all that a stupendously bad ending was actually actually done with those exact intentions. Why not. But on the flip side, why not a good ending for the sake of you know, CHOICE?

The orgianl ending have it problem but the new ending make this clear as day. The issue peoplehave with the ending is that they don't want to comrimise...In the end no mater what you choose at Hihg ems, outside of refuse, the races of the galexy sevive and rebuild...Which was your goal. The issue here is what you gave up for their servival. That makes it a bitter sweet ending. It has sad parts, it has happier parts. 

And you choice does matter on the issue of the fate of the galexy, you issue here is the fate of Shepard.

No, when something like this happens, the "people" arent the ones with the problems. I was fully expecting that Shep would die in the end, but the lack of a alternative is mind boggling. Considering the numbers of plot holes, the complete lack of a possiblity that would ensure shep lives on, albeit a rainbow ending, is mind boggling.

But you do have an alternative. Shepard lives in high ems destroy. You can't discount that.

Oh wow you're relentless, 9 pages all for you. Anyway, of course I can discount that. It's like chosing between, hamburger, hotdog and chicking wings, you buy the hotdog but getting a handful of charred bread crumps instead. Not the same. I'm pretty sure we were promised "endless possibilities for an ending, since it's the last game, there's no restriction blah blah blah" by bioware back in the day. This is just not good enough for all the hype they put us through.

Back to the topic at hand, it's an badly done rush job of an ending. No amount of excuse or imagination on our part will fix the sad reality.

[dreman9999]

wymm666 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

wymm666 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

wymm666 wrote...

AlexPorto111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

I completely agree.

Sure, why not, convince youselves all that a stupendously bad ending was actually actually done with those exact intentions. Why not. But on the flip side, why not a good ending for the sake of you know, CHOICE?

The orgianl ending have it problem but the new ending make this clear as day. The issue peoplehave with the ending is that they don't want to comrimise...In the end no mater what you choose at Hihg ems, outside of refuse, the races of the galexy sevive and rebuild...Which was your goal. The issue here is what you gave up for their servival. That makes it a bitter sweet ending. It has sad parts, it has happier parts. 

And you choice does matter on the issue of the fate of the galexy, you issue here is the fate of Shepard.

No, when something like this happens, the "people" arent the ones with the problems. I was fully expecting that Shep would die in the end, but the lack of a alternative is mind boggling. Considering the numbers of plot holes, the complete lack of a possiblity that would ensure shep lives on, albeit a rainbow ending, is mind boggling.

But you do have an alternative. Shepard lives in high ems destroy. You can't discount that.

Oh wow you're relentless, 9 pages all for you. Anyway, of course I can discount that. It's like chosing between, hamburger, hotdog and chicking wings, you buy the hotdog but getting a handful of charred bread crumps instead. Not the same. I'm pretty sure we were promised "endless possibilities for an ending, since it's the last game, there's no restriction blah blah blah" by bioware back in the day. This is just not good enough for all the hype they put us through.

Back to the topic at hand, it's an badly done rush job of an ending. No amount of excuse or imagination on our part will fix the sad reality.

1. They neer said endless possible endings.
2. They never said your Shepard would live or do so with out sacrific.


The issue here is they you don't like what was given, not that what it given did not mean sacrifice.

It was badly done and rushed PRE- EC.

[dreman9999]

Ratimir wrote...

Sorry, dreman9999, I seem to have misread your earlier post. When you said:

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

I thought you meant:

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

But clearly what you actually intended to say was:

TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

You haven countered my point.

[3DandBeyond]

Mike1220 wrote...

well i guess not everyone can see the big picture. this ending has to be one of, if not the best ending in a any video game. I'm just disappointed that others can't see it like that. Everyone i talk to in real life says they loved it only on the internet do i find the haters but it's my opinion.

Perhaps you might want to investigate more thoroughly what sacrifice is.  First fully explain what happens in each of the endings (to yourself, you don't need to do it here).  Consider carefully what happens in each of the endings.  Control-Shepard takes over control of monsters with people goo inside of them and then forces people who have watched these aberrations kill billions of people.  Synthesis-somehow every organic thing in the galaxy is going to have tech inserted into their bodies to integrate fully with their DNA, advancing them before they are ready to be advanced (go back and listen to what Mordin says about such things), and it gives synthetics full understanding of organics (that no longer exist) somehow.  This was exactly what Legion's loyalty mission was about-the rift between the true geth and the heretics.  And please do explain to me where exactly that understanding comes from?  Destroy-dissect each statement within that and decide who exactly lives or dies in choosing that.  Really think about what the kid means by what he says.  It's nonsense and contradictory.  And it may require you to murder allies.

True sacrifice is based on knowing you are doing something good, knowing you can live, and deciding to die for a good reason, anyway.  You have to know that you are doing something good.  Just because the kid says that maybe you are doesn't mean you actually are.  Shepard never asks enough questions, but even so the kid is not the most reliable source for information.  He's the stupidest AI ever created and he was created by the most idiotic creators ever.  So, no the endings are not good, they aren't even passable.  They began with the original endings as one person's way to destroy the whole galaxy and end Shepard and every other person you liked.  They were retconned with the EC to show things we didn't understand (as if everything in the EC stuff was ever actually implied in the original endings), and then to make sure people were no longer upset at the galaxy's impending destruction, we go laughable slide shows.

However, OP, you are entitled to your opinion.  I don't view any of this as what sacrifice is all about-in dying or in turning into a gasping torso, Shepard is required (based on the type you play) to renounce everything s/he believed in.  You don't sacrifice in doing that-you give up, surrender.