889 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravellion]

Computer games and novels are different art forms. ME3 tapped into the wrong well with its ending.

[mupchu777]

kinda like that last ME book... oh wait...

[inko1nsiderate]

Ironhandjustice wrote...

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

A lion lying down with a lamb is logical.
Oh dear, it's a good thing time kills us.

I have a theory...

...Ask some person, who disliked ME3 ending, to read some good old sci-fi book and describe what did he understand afterwards, and that person will call the book "nonsence" or "nice adventure".

I have another theory...

...Ask some person, who liked ME3 ending, to explain the same thing.

He will have the same idea that the one who disliked.

To make a generalization about intelligence based on an opinion is so nonsensical that deserves no answer.

"All the generalizations are false. Even this one".

/thread.

Now I'm going to be very pedantic, but the people who liked ME3's ending are a smaller sample size (if not in general this is obviously true on the BSN) compared to those who disliked the ending, so there is actually a pretty sizeable chance that the distribution of intelligence among the people who liked the ending is severely skewed compared to those who liked the ending (it could have its average skewed lower or higher, or even just have a really funky distribution compared to the wider population).  This is not due to any actual relationship between how you felt about the ending and your intelligence, just pure statistical fluctuation.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 05 novembre 2012 - 09:13 .

[in it for the lolz]

We not fall for Seival's tricks! we leave!

[Peranor]

The ending is good because it's a classic sci-fi ending and not cliché. OK got it.

[Morty Smith]

Making the assumption that a sci-fi writer would love the ending, just because it has similarities in tone to his own work seems rather unbelievable. The endings you brought up as an example were earned and build up over the book (Yes, I read Deathworld. The first book, still stuck in the second).

As such I will just assume that he would scratch his head and ask, "Wait, wasn´t this about unification of different cultures and overcoming impossible odds? What now, man, I was having such a good time."

[paul165]

Seival wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Ironhandjustice wrote...

Obviously he did not remember that is "very similar" to Asimov's foundation cuatrilogy... right?

-Support the first foundation and kill second foundation and the IA's
-Support the second foundationd and control first foundation and destroy Ia's
-Support the IA's and make a synthesis with first and second foundations.

Very... "similar".

the ending of Foundations Edge (the options you just listed) is the direct inspiration for the ME3 ending.


And OP: I agree. ME3 was given a classic ending of the sci fi genre. Inspired by such writers as you listed. Seems people that say they know sci fi, really just mean Star Wars and Star Trek. Otherwise they wouldn't be surprised by the ending we got. As it makes perfect sense. I'll take the classic sci fi ending over Ewoks any day of the week.

Indeed. The ending makes perfect sense. And I'll also take classic sci-fi ending over Ewoks any day of the week.

I really hope BioWare will continue to create truly sci-fi stories. And my best hope is the next ME Universe game.

And if the rest of the game series was written like a Foundation book or an Iain M Banks they would have got away with the ending (well maybe). But they didn't they wrote it deliberately as an homage to 60s cheesy SF which yes means original Trek - green skinned alien space babes, klingons and lantern jawed heroes getting the girl de jour.

Trying to shove the end of "2001" or "Use of Weapons" onto the end of some of the 50s/60s schlock SF won't work in text it's unreasonable to expect it to work at the end of a game.

This is of course accepting the basic premise that the ending was "classic SF" which I don't but that's subjective opinion not required to dispute the premise.

And quoting Deathworld like it's some seminal work of literature - no just no they're entertaining but hardly anything more - of course unlike the ending of ME3 they don't pretend to be.

[lmxar]

I highly doubt that an accomplished writer would give ME3's ending a stellar review. In the off chance that Mr. Harrison would, I am glad that I have never read his works. Orson Scott Card is probably who you should gauge off of for sci-fi pieces.

[Peranor]

Reorte wrote...

Are you seriously suggesting that it's good simply because it's different for the sake of being different? Originality (not that there's all that much here anyway) without quality is still rubbish. Originality and quality is best but I'll take unoriginal and good before original and nonsense.

Agree!

Seival wrote...
I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Only problem is that the turn of events in the end of ME3 was far far from brilliant.

Modifié par anorling, 05 novembre 2012 - 11:53 .

[Loreshield]

You know what, I might disagree with you, but at least you make an interesting point or two.

As much as I loathed the endings pre-EC and am still kind of disappointed in them post-EC, only seeing two very single-minded different sides to the issue (pro-enders & retakers) gets a little bit stale. At least this is food for thought and reinforces what we liked about this franchise in the first place.

[Seival]

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

...Ah, no.  No, not at all.  (And you were the one who argued in the OP that this book should be looked at for its equivalency with Mass Effect!)

Jason establishes peace through cooperation and understanding.

He raises the issues that you quote, only to realise through the course of his experience that they are completely incapable or resolving the problems that these societies face.  He rejects them as fatuous and embraces collaboration.

No genocides; no brainwashing; no mutating anyone.  He outgrows such vulgarities and establishes true peace.

The complete opposite of what you are mistakenly trying to argue.

You think so only because the scale of the conflict in Deathworld was too small compared to Mass Effect.

In Deathworld many inflexible people will eventually die, the rest will have to be integrated into the world in correct manner (aka "Synthesized"), and/or remain under control to avoid some unpleasent "accidents" in the future.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is a patent misreading of the text.  (And again: you are the one who said that Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared.)

...So to summarise, this entire thread has just been perpetrated on your own head canon?  Is this just about synthesis camps again?

Just to be clear: the fiction that you sighted argues the complete opposite of what you says it does; the author you referenced was being satirical, and in all of his fiction utterly contradicts the notion that people should be forced by authority to change against their will; and you have totally rewritten the plot in your mind to fit your very specific vision of the Mass Effect narrative.

And yet somehow it is other people who need to stop being so ignorant and think about the science fiction they read before spouting off a load of hypocritical, ill-informed nonsense?

Got it.  Although do be sure to take your own advice.

For you ME3 ending also makes no sense, while for me (and not only for me) it makes perfect sense. Like I said, Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared, because they raise similar philosophical questions. Mass Effect is not a copy of Deathworld, but BioWare writers were clearly inspired by books like Deathworld. And this is what makes the entire Mass Effect Trilogy (and especially its ending) great.

The OP is not about my "head canon". You've already seen another Harry Harrison fan here, who thinks that OP quotes support Destroy rather than Control or Synthesis. I disagree of course, but still we have two different opinions on the book's meaning. And BSN has nice examples of the same moral argument about Mass Effect Trilogy (and especially about its ending). Which only proves that the entire ME Story is brilliant, like any good sci-fi book.

Modifié par Seival, 05 novembre 2012 - 12:25 .

[C9316]

Are you saying they're indoctrinated?

[DrGunjah]

Cthulhu42 wrote...
Why do people still argue with Seival (or people like dreman or blueprotoss for that matter)? You know they'll never listen to anything you say.

maybe fun. Just get yourself some popcorn and wait for the next time he embarrasses himself.

[Ieldra]

As another pro-ender, I think I can criticize Seival's points without being accused of writing for an agenda (namely, that the endings are crap and those who assume the anti-enders simply don't understand them should go f*ck themselves).

I disagree on several points:

(1) The ideas presented in the ME3 endings are hardly original. While that's not itself a sign of bad quality - the pool of SF ideas is limited after all - any "genius SF writer" would make an effort to give them an interesting twist, if only to make them different from other classics like the Foundation cycle. ME3 did attempt that, but for such a twist to be successful, it has to be much better grounded in the story that came before. A competent SF writer would manage that without much effort.

(2) The handling of those ideas in ME3 is simplistic, contradictory and full of narrative inconsistencies. In fact, regardless of whether you like those ideas, any self-respecting "genius SF writer" would be insulted if people expected his works to be of the same quality. Partly, that's a fault of the medium, since games can't be expected to go into the same kind of depth a written work can, but at the very least I would expect the ideas underlying the endings to be expressed without contradictions and lore-compliant, and to be adequately foreshadowed in earlier parts of the work. Thematic inconsistencies like "give your work a sublime moment (make peace on Rannoch) and make it utterly meaningless later" are to be avoided, unless they are the point, and I don't see that in ME3.

(3) You appear to misinterpret Harrison. His point is exactly that there is no solution for the problem at hand, unless it takes mental and cultural inertia into account. ME3's endings don't address this point, and in fact it's one of the major criticisms of Control and Synthesis that they don't, while it's one main point of criticism of Destroy that it appears to reinforce the inertia. So you can read your own quotes much more easily as a criticism of ME3's ending.

We who like the EC endings for various reasons - especially we - should not be blind for their flaws. Any book with these kinds of inconsistencies would deserve a scorching review. Not because the ideas presented are bad - I don't think they are, and anyway part of SF exists to present controversial ideas - but because of the way they were presented.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:11 .

[dorktainian]

Seival wrote...

(1) "I'll give you my conclusions," Jason said, twisting in the chair, trying to find a comfortable position for his aching bones. "I've been doing a lot of thinking the last day or two, searching for the answer. The very first thing I realized, was that the perfect and logical solution wouldn't do at all. I'm afraid the old ideal of the lion lying down with the lamb doesn't work out in practice. About all it does is make a fast lunch for the lion. Ideally, now that you all know the real causes of your trouble, you should tear down the perimeter and have the city and forest people mingle in brotherly love. Makes just as pretty a picture as the one of lion and lamb. And would undoubtedly have the same result. Someone would remember how really filthy the grubbers are, or how stupid junkmen can be, and there would be a fresh corpse cooling. The fight would spread and the victors would be eaten by the wildlife that swarmed over the undefended perimeter. No, the answer isn't that easy."

(2) "If we're going to find a decent plan for the future, we'll have to take inertia into consideration. Mental inertia for one. Just because you know a thing is true in theory, doesn't make it true in fact. The barbaric religions of primitive worlds hold not a germ of scientific fact, though they claim to explain all. Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground
for his beliefs taken away—he doesn't stop believing. He then calls his mistaken beliefs 'faith' because he knows they are right. And he knows they are right because he has faith. This is an unbreakable circle of false logic that can't be touched. In reality, it is plain mental inertia. A case of thinking 'what always was' will also 'always be.' And not wanting to blast the thinking patterns out of the old rut.

(3) "Mental inertia alone is not going to cause trouble—there is cultural inertia, too. Some of you in this room believe my conclusions and would like to change. But will all your people change? The unthinking ones, the habit-ridden, reflex-formed people who know what is now, will always be. They'll act like a drag on whatever plans you make, whatever attempts you undertake to progress with the new knowledge you have." "Then it's useless—there's no hope for our world?" Rhes asked.

...Harry Harrison, "Deathworld", 1960.



(1) Completely destroying one of two conflicting entities, or attempting to create an artificial empathy between them will never do anything good. Nature will always find the way, and the history will always repeat itself. Destroying or maintaining forever the "Perimeter" (Reapers) between those two entities is also bad idea.

(2) A nice analogy to IT: "Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground for his beliefs taken away—he doesn't stop believing."... And to ME3 endings' misunderstanding in general: "And not wanting to blast the thinking patterns out of the old rut.".

(3) Will organics ever stop to make the same mistakes again if the Reapers will be destroyed? No. Will creating synthetics and AIs in case of Destroy will become a taboo? No. Is Destroy at least any different from Refusal? The only difference is the number of casualties. Other than that Destroy and Refusal are the same.



Thoughts?

[BSpud]

Lol Seival threads.

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is a patent misreading of the text.  (And again: you are the one who said that Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared.)

...So to summarise, this entire thread has just been perpetrated on your own head canon?  Is this just about synthesis camps again?

Just to be clear: the fiction that you sighted argues the complete opposite of what you says it does; the author you referenced was being satirical, and in all of his fiction utterly contradicts the notion that people should be forced by authority to change against their will; and you have totally rewritten the plot in your mind to fit your very specific vision of the Mass Effect narrative.

And yet somehow it is other people who need to stop being so ignorant and think about the science fiction they read before spouting off a load of hypocritical, ill-informed nonsense?

Got it.  Although do be sure to take your own advice.

For you ME3 ending also makes no sense, while for me (and not only for me) it makes perfect sense. Like I said, Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared, because they raise similar philosophical questions. Mass Effect is not a copy of Deathworld, but BioWare writers were clearly inspired by books like Deathworld. And this is what makes the entire Mass Effect Trilogy (and especially its ending) great.

The OP is not about my "head canon". You've already seen another Harry Harrison fan here, who thinks that OP quotes support Destroy rather than Control or Synthesis. I disagree of course, but still we have two different opinions on the book's meaning. And BSN has nice examples of the same moral argument about Mass Effect Trilogy (and especially about its ending). Which only proves that the entire ME Story is brilliant, like any good sci-fi book.

The other Harry Harrison fan that you cited, jeweledleah, explicitly did not state that your argument proved Destroy...  Is that meant to be a joke?  Did you not actually read what was written (which I suspect may be a pattern of yours, frankly), or are you being intentionally deceitful?

Here - because it was an exceptional post in itself, I will take the liberty of quoting it again.  This time please actually read what is being said because jeweledleah makes some very telling points:

jeweledleah wrote...

god I didn't think I would ever post on these forums again, but through series of events, I saw this thread (someone on my friendslist replied to it) and as Harry Harrison is one of my absolute favorite sci-fi writers EVER, of course I had to see this one.

Deathworld is also one of my favorite books of his to the point where in pretty much every game I play that allows you to name the characters - I have one named Meta (or Metta - depending on availability. random amusing fact - in SWTOR its the name of my Trooper, who just happens to be voice by Jennifer Hale)

now that this is out of the way, IMO, OP? you are completely misunderstanding the point of these books. in fact, passages you quoted? support those who do not like synthesis or control as solution. you can almost directly use the first quote to disprove the idylia of synthesis as presented to us by bioware, and yet we are supposed to accept that that's the way things would be.

moreover. if you had read Deathworld, then I'm assuming, you've read The Ethical engineer? a lot of defenders of Synthesis remind me of Micah. strongly. their reasoning seems to be very similar.

the fact that you compared Harry Harrison's writing to the writing in Mass Effect, puting them on equal standing, especialy ME3? saddens me. sure there's surface resemblance. the entire alien planet rising up to destroy the junkers, constantly improving against them, doign their best to destroy them and the twist is - we find out that the flora and fauna by themselves are not these evil beings, that junkers themselves are to blame.

but this is where resemblance ends. at that twist of "bad guys are actualy good guys and understanding them and accepting them - ends the sycle of ever escalating fighting"

the Narrative in Deathworld is cohesive. it adds up. it makes sence. its coherent. the characters never go out of character. they are never forced into doing something that doesn't fit the rest of their respresentation for the sake of railroading the plot. Harrison is a freaking MASTER of twist/reveal endings. I cannot say the same about twist in ME3. ME1 and nature of Sovereign? comes close. ME2 and nature of collectors? also comes close. ME3 and nature of reapers and the catalyst? eh.... YMMV origin of Asari however, does come close to being a great twist/revelation.

either way. the whole argument "you dislike it becasue you are too lazy/stupid/insert insult here" to understand it is one of the reasons why I stopped posting here or generaly discussing ME3.

I just coudln't resist, because a writer whose writing I grew up on, learned english with (oh yeah - reading him and Bradbury was how I studied the language) is being used in this absolutely awful context.

incidentaly - before I leave again? I would strongly suggest that people who might wonder into this thread? read some Harry Harrison. good, smart sci-fi that is also well written.

Your reading was so off-base that it saddened him/her.  Destroy was not supported (unless, for you, refraining from specifically condemning something by name is a glowing recommendation.  And - again - you were implored to re-examine the primary text because you have fundamentally misinterpreted what the whole thing was about.

How you have turned this into an endorsement of your reading is borderline delusional.

Indeed, the fact that you are persisting with this entire argument at this point is extraordinary!

You demanded in your OP that people should examine the likenesses between the two texts.  They have.  There are none.

You have been told repeatedly that you are wrong; that the text at no point posits what you think it does; that the character you quoted ultimately rejects such a premise; that Harry Harrison himself was a satirist, that he believed the complete opposite of what you suggest, and that his entire canon of work disproves you; and that thematically, ideologically, and logistically these texts have nothing in common.

...And yet you still want people to just blindly accept some imaginary evidence, thinking that just by typing a writer's name - completely out of all context - you have unearthed some profound truth from this onslaught of fatuous misinformation? 

This is not analysis, Seival.  This is not reason or critique.  It is not even rational.

You may as well say that The Road and The Wizard of Oz are the same because at one point the characters in both books decide to go for a walk...

Modifié par drayfish, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:25 .

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As another pro-ender, I think I can criticize Seival's points without being accused of writing for an agenda (namely, that the endings are crap and those who assume the anti-enders simply don't understand them should go f*ck themselves).

I disagree on several points:

(1) The ideas presented in the ME3 endings are hardly original. While that's not itself a sign of bad quality - the pool of SF ideas is limited after all - any "genius SF writer" would make an effort to give them an interesting twist, if only to make them different from other classics like the Foundation cycle. ME3 did attempt that, but for such a twist to be successful, it has to be much better grounded in the story that came before. A competent SF writer would manage that without much effort.

(2) The handling of those ideas in ME3 is simplistic, contradictory and full of narrative inconsistencies. In fact, regardless of whether you like those ideas, any self-respecting "genius SF writer" would be insulted if people expected his works to be of the same quality. Partly, that's a fault of the medium, since games can't be expected to go into the same kind of depth a written work can, but at the very least I would expect the ideas underlying the endings to be expressed without contradictions and lore-compliant, and to be adequately foreshadowed in earlier parts of the work. Thematic inconsistencies like "give your work a sublime moment (make peace on Rannoch) and make it utterly meaningless later" are to be avoided, unless they are the point, and I don't see that in ME3.

(3) You appear to misinterpret Harrison. His point is exactly that there is no solution for the problem at hand, unless it takes mental and cultural inertia into account. ME3's endings don't address this point, and in fact it's one of the major criticisms of Control and Synthesis that they don't, while it's one main point of criticism of Destroy that it appears to reinforce the inertia. So you can read your own quotes much more easily as a criticism of ME3's ending.

We who like the EC endings for various reasons - especially we - should not be blind for their flaws. Any book with these kinds of inconsistencies would deserve a scorching review. Not because the ideas presented are bad - I don't think they are, and anyway part of SF exists to present controversial ideas - but because of the way they were presented.

Story doesn't have to be original to be good. And it's impossible to write something completely original nowadays, because all possible story concepts were already invented. I never said ME story is original, but I said that it's unique among games.

Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

Game doesn't tell you about mental and cultural inertia directly. But this is something you should think about yourself, while choosing the ending you like. There was no "misinterpret". I've just applied what I've learned from Deathworld to my Mass Effect understanding, and decisions I made in the game.

[Seival]

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

drayfish wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is a patent misreading of the text.  (And again: you are the one who said that Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared.)

...So to summarise, this entire thread has just been perpetrated on your own head canon?  Is this just about synthesis camps again?

Just to be clear: the fiction that you sighted argues the complete opposite of what you says it does; the author you referenced was being satirical, and in all of his fiction utterly contradicts the notion that people should be forced by authority to change against their will; and you have totally rewritten the plot in your mind to fit your very specific vision of the Mass Effect narrative.

And yet somehow it is other people who need to stop being so ignorant and think about the science fiction they read before spouting off a load of hypocritical, ill-informed nonsense?

Got it.  Although do be sure to take your own advice.

For you ME3 ending also makes no sense, while for me (and not only for me) it makes perfect sense. Like I said, Deathworld and Mass Effect should be compared, because they raise similar philosophical questions. Mass Effect is not a copy of Deathworld, but BioWare writers were clearly inspired by books like Deathworld. And this is what makes the entire Mass Effect Trilogy (and especially its ending) great.

The OP is not about my "head canon". You've already seen another Harry Harrison fan here, who thinks that OP quotes support Destroy rather than Control or Synthesis. I disagree of course, but still we have two different opinions on the book's meaning. And BSN has nice examples of the same moral argument about Mass Effect Trilogy (and especially about its ending). Which only proves that the entire ME Story is brilliant, like any good sci-fi book.

The other Harry Harrison fan that you cited, jeweledleah, explicitly did not state that your argument proved Destroy...  Is that meant to be a joke?  Did you not actually read what was written (which I suspect may be a pattern of yours, frankly), or are you being intentionally deceitful?

Here - because it was an exceptional post in itself, I will take the liberty of quoting it again.  This time please actually read what is being said because jeweledleah makes some very telling points:

jeweledleah wrote...

god I didn't think I would ever post on these forums again, but through series of events, I saw this thread (someone on my friendslist replied to it) and as Harry Harrison is one of my absolute favorite sci-fi writers EVER, of course I had to see this one.

Deathworld is also one of my favorite books of his to the point where in pretty much every game I play that allows you to name the characters - I have one named Meta (or Metta - depending on availability. random amusing fact - in SWTOR its the name of my Trooper, who just happens to be voice by Jennifer Hale)

now that this is out of the way, IMO, OP? you are completely misunderstanding the point of these books. in fact, passages you quoted? support those who do not like synthesis or control as solution. you can almost directly use the first quote to disprove the idylia of synthesis as presented to us by bioware, and yet we are supposed to accept that that's the way things would be.

moreover. if you had read Deathworld, then I'm assuming, you've read The Ethical engineer? a lot of defenders of Synthesis remind me of Micah. strongly. their reasoning seems to be very similar.

the fact that you compared Harry Harrison's writing to the writing in Mass Effect, puting them on equal standing, especialy ME3? saddens me. sure there's surface resemblance. the entire alien planet rising up to destroy the junkers, constantly improving against them, doign their best to destroy them and the twist is - we find out that the flora and fauna by themselves are not these evil beings, that junkers themselves are to blame.

but this is where resemblance ends. at that twist of "bad guys are actualy good guys and understanding them and accepting them - ends the sycle of ever escalating fighting"

the Narrative in Deathworld is cohesive. it adds up. it makes sence. its coherent. the characters never go out of character. they are never forced into doing something that doesn't fit the rest of their respresentation for the sake of railroading the plot. Harrison is a freaking MASTER of twist/reveal endings. I cannot say the same about twist in ME3. ME1 and nature of Sovereign? comes close. ME2 and nature of collectors? also comes close. ME3 and nature of reapers and the catalyst? eh.... YMMV origin of Asari however, does come close to being a great twist/revelation.

either way. the whole argument "you dislike it becasue you are too lazy/stupid/insert insult here" to understand it is one of the reasons why I stopped posting here or generaly discussing ME3.

I just coudln't resist, because a writer whose writing I grew up on, learned english with (oh yeah - reading him and Bradbury was how I studied the language) is being used in this absolutely awful context.

incidentaly - before I leave again? I would strongly suggest that people who might wonder into this thread? read some Harry Harrison. good, smart sci-fi that is also well written.

Your reading was so off-base that it saddened him/her.  Destroy was not supported (unless, for you, refraining from specifically condemning something by name is a glowing recommendation.  And - again - you were implored to re-examine the primary text because you have fundamentally misinterpreted what the whole thing was about.

How you have turned this into an endorsement of your reading is borderline delusional.

Indeed, the fact that you are persisting with this entire argument at this point is extraordinary!

You demanded in your OP that people should examine the likenesses between the two texts.  They have.  There are none.

You have been told repeatedly that you are wrong; that the text at no point posits what you think it does; that the character you quoted ultimately rejects such a premise; that Harry Harrison himself was a satirist, that he believed the complete opposite of what you suggest, and that his entire canon of work disproves you; and that thematically, ideologically, and logistically these texts have nothing in common.

...And yet you still want people to just blindly accept some imaginary evidence, thinking that just by typing a writer's name - completely out of all context - you have unearthed some profound truth from this onslaught of fatuous misinformation? 

This is not analysis, Seival.  This is not reason or critique.  It is not even rational.

You may as well say that The Road and The Wizard of Oz are the same because at one point the characters in both books decide to go for a walk...

I read his post before and I don't need to re-read it again. The fan has different conclusions about the book, and doesn't like ME3 ending. When someone tells that two of three possible ways to stop the Reapers were disproved by some quotes, he automatically admits that those quotes are approving the only remaining way to stop the Reapers, so what he said was a direct support of Destroy.

The OP is not out of context. ME3 ending is not out of context. But you see them both out of context. You, some other people, but not everyone around.

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...

Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

"I'm going to win this war. And I'll do it without sacrificing the soul of our species..."

Mass Effect 3 endings -

Synthesis - stop the Reapers, but violate organic evolution and commit crime which were Reapers doing repeatly for a eons

Control - stop the Reapers, and leave galaxy on the mercy of some AI which already stated that tried several solutions but always failed

Destroy - stop the Reapers, but also commit genocide of other synthetics

------------

Pretty much a definition for sacrificing of own soul

------------


Refusal - yet it´s the only choice which stands with ideals and look how it went out - blue screen of death ?

[Ieldra]

Seival wrote...
Personally, I see no "contradictory or full of narrative inconsistencies" in the game. Ending doesn't conflict with the game's lore, and gives complete and logical view of everything what (and why) happened in ME Universe before. Outcomes were too blurry in original ending, but EC fixed that.

So the fact that you made peace on Rannoch - which was a sublime moment, in fact, one of the most narratively and thematically significant ones in the game - only to be presented with the fact (!!) that this was utterly meaningless in defining the themes of the ending, that didn't bother you?

I find this strange. While I can make of sense of it with interpretation (as JShepppp's thread shows) and it's not a logical inconsistency, the narrative and thematic inconsistency between peace on Rannoch and the premise of the ending is nothing less than mind-boggling.

@Applepie:
Not every Shepard says those words in ME2. I make it a point to make sure none of my Shepards says them. You are making a point on a flawed premise.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:59 .