253 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

Yate wrote...

drayfish wrote...

What the hell have I stumbled into here?

Yate wrote...

'Didn't read lol'?

'no, you're a ******'?

'troll another thread'?

'Your stupidity makes me cry'?

'Die in a fire'?

And an entire scornful thread predicated on the notion that your opinion automatically trumps anyone else's?

Yate, I've been surprised by the ugliness of your posts before, but such infantile, hateful theatrics are pitiful. If you are the self-appointed advocate that Bioware needs - god help them.

the real ugliness is the morons who think that if they rant about the fixed endings enough that their fan fiction will be made canon

Oh, yay. The rationale of a 5 year old.
 
'But someone else misbehaved first...'
 
So now no one has to take responsibility for their own actions? Let all discussion dissolve into your farcical, thoughtless hate-screeds? That'll fix everything!
 
Pathetic.
 
Grow up.

[MegaSovereign]

Greylycantrope wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...
Well your ending of choice is Refuse unless I'm mistaken. If your canon ending involves everyone dying then I can understand why you would feel devastated.

For me most of the characters I worked hard to save survived and the galaxy is free of the Reaper threat. 

And the second part really isn't subjective. A galaxy without the Reaper threat is automatically a brighter one. It's clear there will be a reconstruction period but the galaxy will make a comeback.

I actually didn't get the banner because it's my canon ending, it just represents an ideal and trying to make a stand for it. Refuse is largely a symbolic choice for me, the universe I loved was already gone, burning it down in game seemed fitting, sort of a Viking funeral. The closest I got to a canon ending,MrFob's latest mod ,which is still a imperfect, and I can't implement it since I'm on xbox.

Reapers are there in 3 out of 4 endings, and the fourth ain't that bright from my perspective. Both you and the catalyst are trying to preserve life, and both have agreed that you're willing to pay any price to reach that goal, I wonder which aspects of our humanity will be sacraficed to survive the next crisis, whether it's Krogan, Leviathans, Rachni or something else, will we even recognize our own species at the end of it?

Well "preserve life" is such a broad phrase. The Catalyst's problem solving is unemotional and purely calculated...

I didn't lose my humanity in order to save it.

EDIT:

Actually I DID lose my humanity in the beginning of ME2. Cheating death is very inhumane and repulsive from a religious perspective.

That's why I try to stop putting so much critical thought into a plot that's all over the place.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 novembre 2012 - 03:43 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

I under no circumstance take credit for that one, just passing it on

Whose the credit go to then?

DeinonSlayer

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...


Well "preserve life" is such a broad phrase. The Catalyst's problem solving is unemotional and purely calculated...

I didn't lose my humanity in order to save it.

EDIT:

Actually I DID lose my humanity in the beginning of ME2. Cheating death is very inhumane and repulsive from a religious perspective.

That's why I try to stop putting so much critical thought into a plot that's all over the place.

I did. Justice and fairness are part of the humanist ideal. I lose that in Destroy.
Cheating death was never your choice though, you don't bear responsibility for it.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 06 novembre 2012 - 03:57 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

magnetite wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Also he used some pretty epic strawman, using the ass pull assumption that people thought the endings were bad because it wasn't a ride into the sunset blah blah blah....

Don't even. You were doing that last week in another thread I posted in.

Besides, the ending is the way it is. Maybe people should actually try and figure it out before saying that the ending wasn't up to their liking. It actually might be something really mind blowing and people don't realize it.

Quote plz.


Also the second part of your post is BS, I can't think of anyone who posts about the endings and how turrible they were that hasn't "figured out" the endings.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 06 novembre 2012 - 03:58 .

[ghost9191]

that is a bit iffy . control you do sacrifice your humanity . no one can really argue with tht. at least shep does

synthesis your kinda well make everyone not human , simply put

destroy you well destroy the reapers before they destroy you.

but war rarely gives you the choice . there was going to be a sacrifice, just gotta make it minimal . not saying i love the endings or the choices. but go with the one that doesn't really cost me my humanity. hey if destroying a race of monsters that killed countless beings and harvested more , is bad then i will accept that spanking

but do have to agree. it is nice ending something feeling good. not bad lol . any ending makes me feel like a bad person , not the hero of the story

[Dark_Caduceus]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Yate wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Yate wrote...


actually they were

sure he was indoctrinated

but he pretty much just told you everything about synthesis

Not from what I heard. He talks about the combining organic and synthetic, purely physically, as opposed to what Synthesis does, which is the granting of a unique understanding of the other form of life, without changing either.

not really

He had tubes sticking out of him.

[Dark_Caduceus]

drayfish wrote...

Yate wrote...

drayfish wrote...

What the hell have I stumbled into here?

Yate wrote...

'Didn't read lol'?

'no, you're a ******'?

'troll another thread'?

'Your stupidity makes me cry'?

'Die in a fire'?

And an entire scornful thread predicated on the notion that your opinion automatically trumps anyone else's?

Yate, I've been surprised by the ugliness of your posts before, but such infantile, hateful theatrics are pitiful. If you are the self-appointed advocate that Bioware needs - god help them.

the real ugliness is the morons who think that if they rant about the fixed endings enough that their fan fiction will be made canon

Oh, yay. The rationale of a 5 year old.
 
'But someone else misbehaved first...'
 
So now no one has to take responsibility for their own actions? Let all discussion dissolve into your farcical, thoughtless hate-screeds? That'll fix everything!
 
Pathetic.
 
Grow up.

You smell like ****. My friend.

[fiendishchicken]

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

oh wait you were serious.

let me laugh harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

no.

[MegaSovereign]

Greylycantrope wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...


Well "preserve life" is such a broad phrase. The Catalyst's problem solving is unemotional and purely calculated...

I didn't lose my humanity in order to save it.

EDIT:

Actually I DID lose my humanity in the beginning of ME2. Cheating death is very inhumane and repulsive from a religious perspective.

That's why I try to stop putting so much critical thought into a plot that's all over the place.

I did. Justice and fairness are part of the humanist ideal. I lose that in Destroy.
Cheating death was never your choice though, you don't bear responsibility for it.

With that logic, you don't bear responsibility for the Crucible's design or the collateral damage that comes with using it.

[ghost9191]

The Night Mammoth wrote...


Not from what I heard. He talks about the combining organic and synthetic, purely physically, as opposed to what Synthesis does, which is the granting of a unique understanding of the other form of life, without changing either.

"organics will be perfected by fully intergating with synthetic technology, synthetics will in turn have full understanding of organics"

still says it alters , makes new dna , framework. but it does do it physically , i am guessing from that statement. which then somehow gives synthetics full understanding but whatever

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 novembre 2012 - 04:26 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

ghost9191 wrote...

that is a bit iffy . control you do sacrifice your humanity . no one can really argue with tht. at least shep does

synthesis your kinda well make everyone not human , simply put

destroy you well destroy the reapers before they destroy you.

but war rarely gives you the choice . there was going to be a sacrifice, just gotta make it minimal . not saying i love the endings or the choices. but go with the one that doesn't really cost me my humanity. hey if destroying a race of monsters that killed countless beings and harvested more , is bad then i will accept that spanking

but do have to agree. it is nice ending something feeling good. not bad lol . any ending makes me feel like a bad person , not the hero of the story

If someone's trying to kill you, you certainly should try to kill them right back.

I have no issue with soldiers who have already chosen to risk themselves for others making a sacrifice, I draw the line when that price is an entire form of existance however. Let's also not forget that the means of achieving victory in this story has always largely been up to Shepard to decide(arrival notwithstanding). My Shep was unwavering and successful in her convictions about not selling her soul to win, about finding the best way to win not just the most conveniant, up until the end when the writer decided this view point was no longer valid.
So yeah Shep lost herself to the inevitable in the end, and the ends justify means and she is now legend. This the is the legacy left for galaxy thousand years later.

Which actually brings me back to what I was mentioning before Megas

"the EC leaves the galaxy in a good light." Yeah no I disagree, in my view it's a bleak galaxy, hence subjective.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 06 novembre 2012 - 04:34 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...

With that logic, you don't bear responsibility for the Crucible's design or the collateral damage that comes with using it.

You choose to shoot the tube or jump in the beam or assume control or refuse and fail everyone. Someone decided you options for you but you still have options. You don't chose death or life in ME2, you just die and wake up you have no options.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 06 novembre 2012 - 04:33 .

[ghost9191]

well yeah agree. i meant like i can accept it lol. look at it as war requires sacrifice. its not your job to get everyone out alive, they were already dead anyways but still don't like it . liked the feel of ME2 and 1 . don't ask why i did 2 first. I felt like a hero. got everyone out alive. except the colonist . and stopped a threat . but ME3 , you save the galaxy but the cost lol . have often thought about meta gaming the geth out of existence over rannoch though. to make the ending easier .

doing it with remorse and guilt leaves a little humanity i guess lol

but the galaxy would probably see shep as a hero. depending on the ending. but idk

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 novembre 2012 - 04:36 .

[MegaSovereign]

Greylycantrope wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

With that logic, you don't bear responsibility for the Crucible's design or the collateral damage that comes with using it.

You choose to shoot the tube or jump in the beam or assume control or refuse and fail everyone. Someone decided you options for you but you still have options. You don't chose death or life in ME2, you just die and wake up you have no options.

Well you could kill yourself. Instead you work with a terrorist organization...Why? Because the ends justify the means..

That's not the humanist ideal is it? 

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 novembre 2012 - 04:35 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

ghost9191 wrote...

well yeah agree. i meant like i can accept it lol. look at it but don't like it . liked the feel of ME2 and 1 . don't ask why i did 2 first. I felt like a hero. got everyone out alive. except the colonist . and stopped a threat . but ME3 , you save the galaxy but the cost lol . have often thought about meta gaming the geth out of existence over rannoch though. to make the ending easier .

but the galaxy would probably see shep as a hero. depending on the ending. but idk

They certainly would I assume, they just wanted the Reapers stopped. As the player though I tend to take more issue with the overall message the story seems to present, not trying to guilt trip you into embracing any of my conclusions or anything, just trying to illustrate my perspective as best as I can.

[Quackjack]

ME1 Ending: Awesome
ME2: Decent
ME3: Fail

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...
Well you could kill yourself. Instead you work with a terrorist organization...Why? Because the ends justify the means..

That's not the humanist ideal is it? 

That's assuming I have a religous objections to my resurrection. Secular humanism is devoid of that aspect. You were dead, now you're not. Not really an issue for me either way and if you're religious suicide wouldn't really be an option would it? Guess it depends on the religion.
Working with terroists to the point of them funding your mission, you have total control of how you act though, you're not participating in any actual terrorist activites.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 06 novembre 2012 - 04:49 .

[MegaSovereign]

But by using their resources I'm validating their existence.

It's the same argument used to justify the Control ending. "Yes Reapers have unethical origins but I can use them how I want now!"

I'm not disagreeing with you that the endings aren't morally conflicting, I'm saying ME2 subtly does the same thing.

[ghost9191]

Greylycantrope wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

well yeah agree. i meant like i can accept it lol. look at it but don't like it . liked the feel of ME2 and 1 . don't ask why i did 2 first. I felt like a hero. got everyone out alive. except the colonist . and stopped a threat . but ME3 , you save the galaxy but the cost lol . have often thought about meta gaming the geth out of existence over rannoch though. to make the ending easier .

but the galaxy would probably see shep as a hero. depending on the ending. but idk

They certainly would I assume, they just wanted the Reapers stopped. As the player though I tend to take more issue with the overall message the story seems to present, not trying to guilt trip you into embracing any of my conclusions or anything, just trying to illustrate my perspective as best as I can.

no i agree lol. all options are crappy . would love destroy without the geth getting destroyed .

make it easier to stomach. easy enough to head canon it though

but i like the idea of always doing the right thing, but just over the years i have learned that that isn't always possible.  so i get the sacrifices ., still hate them. as said love being the hero , but eh " but humans want to save everyone. in this war that is not gonna happen" or something like that

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 novembre 2012 - 05:01 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...

But by using their resources I'm validating their existence.

It's the same argument used to justify the Control ending. "Yes Reapers have unethical origins but I can use them how I want now!"

I'm not disagreeing with you that the endings aren't morally conflicting, I'm saying ME2 subtly does the same thing.

With one important difference, you can tell TIM to shove off and blow up that base he was after. So basically you take his money, all the toys he's given you, strain their resources while they are trying to rebuild you and afterwards when you are on your mission, shut down a few of their out of control projects, use the opportunity to gain as much insider info on them as possible(unshackling EDI to remove her data blocks/that one side mission where you recover cerberus data and can upload it to the Alliance). Basically you can spend the entire course of the mission fullfiling your own agenda, stopping the collectors, and at the same time work to undermine Cerberus in any way you can. The cherry on top is when you get the entire Normandy crew to defect with you at the end.

The only positive for Cerberus is they can spin a postive outlook om their organization by saying they helped stop the collectors. Something Shepard could and should try to refudiate after turning him/herself over to the Alliance.

I'm actually enjoying this discussion quite a bit, thank you for indulging me.

[FOX216BC]

 

[MegaSovereign]

Greylycantrope wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

But by using their resources I'm validating their existence.

It's the same argument used to justify the Control ending. "Yes Reapers have unethical origins but I can use them how I want now!"

I'm not disagreeing with you that the endings aren't morally conflicting, I'm saying ME2 subtly does the same thing.

With one important difference, you can tell TIM to shove off and blow up that base he was after. So basically you take his money, all the toys he's given you, strain their resources while they are trying to rebuild you and afterwards when you are on your mission, shut down a few of their out of control projects, use the opportunity to gain as much insider info on them as possible(unshackling EDI to remove her data blocks/that one side mission where you recover cerberus data and can upload it to the Alliance). Basically you can spend the entire course of the mission fullfiling your own agenda, stopping the collectors, and at the same time work to undermine Cerberus in any way you can. The cherry on top is when you get the entire Normandy crew to defect with you at the end.

The only positive for Cerberus is they can spin a postive outlook om their organization by saying they helped stop the collectors. Something Shepard could and should try to refudiate after turning him/herself over to the Alliance.

I'm actually enjoying this discussion quite a bit, thank you for indulging me.

Before I read this I was actually thinking about that! Yea that's why working for Cerberus wasn't as morally repulsive as it could have been. Every now and then you had opportunities to spin the dialogue as if you're anti-Cerberus or anti-establishment. The current endings don't really allow Shepard to show much disapproval of the Reapers or the Crucible choices. The only way to do this is through the Refusal dialogue but that results in a game over scenario. A massive step in the right direction would have been to add some refusal-like dialogue to the Destroy ending. But I think this was omitted because they didn't want one ending to look more favorable than the other.

I feel like it's multiple factors of the ME3 endings that make certain players feel uncomfortable making the choice. Remove just one of them and it wouldn't have been as rejected. Replacing the Catalyst with a Prothean VI program but still having the same choices and consequences alone would have resulted in less negative feedback. 

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 novembre 2012 - 06:15 .