639 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

clennon8 wrote...

Ieldra and X lean very, very heavily on the "Bad Writing" and "Stupid Shepard" Theories.

You possess a very dogmatic view of stupidity, and one that I don't share. As for bad writing... I'd love to see you justify the prologue's writing.

[jtav]

Yeah, when you think everything but Grissom, Tuchanka, and Rannoch is average to bad and see the writers reversing themselves on character and lore throughout the game, the idea that the ending is poorly written is not a stretch, given that it has all the hallmarks of being slapped together.

[Ieldra]

There is quite a bit of bad writing in ME3. The endings aren't alone in that by far and I see no reason to assume intent where mere carelessness will suffice (Hanlon's Razor). The main difference is that in the ending the details of the writing are very important while in a random conversation with a person on the Citadel they're not.

Also, I can qualify: the endings were written with thematic and symbolic aspects in mind, and with the intent to be divisive. They did that reasonably well (in the case of being divisive I'd say too well) but writing like that facilitates neither roleplaying nor analysis in the terms of the fictional world. Since the ME trilogy is a story set in an SF world where analysis in term of the world is important, and since we're supposed to roleplay our Shepards, the writing was bad because it did not facilitate those elements.

And I didn't even start on the inconsistencies.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 novembre 2012 - 03:08 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
All right, in that case the only reason why I would not choose Control or Synthesis over Destroy is that I want to live as a human and neither die nor ascend to become an AI god. Roleplaying aspects would likely draw me towards Control.

My main trouble with Control are the previous argument with the Illusive Man, my concern with what would happen to my concious mind if it was actively merged with the Reaper conciousness, and the dubious nature of the idea of still managing to control something despite being physically dead.

It raises too many questions, and relies on you taking the Catalysts one-word answer as assurance that also it would have never worked for the Illusive Man, it will work for Shepard.

No, your scenario does not lead me towards one specific decision. I can still see the rationale for each one. The only thing I can say with conviction is that I would never, ever choose Refuse.

Well on that at least, we can agree!

[Xilizhra]

My main trouble with Control are the previous argument with the Illusive Man, my concern with what would happen to my concious mind if it was actively merged with the Reaper conciousness, and the dubious nature of the idea of still managing to control something despite being physically dead.

It raises too many questions, and relies on you taking the Catalysts one-word answer as assurance that also it would have never worked for the Illusive Man, it will work for Shepard.

It would have worked for TIM had he not been indoctrinated. I suspect the neural degeneration of indoctrination would make for a poor upload.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Sion1138 wrote...

Your character is dead.

But a copy of him lives on as an AI. Since that was always my character's plan, it works out perfectly.

[spotlessvoid]

Assuming the leader of the Reapers is being completely honest for just a moment:
I'd still have my qualms about one individual controlling the Reaper armada (especially renegade Shepard) but if it were possible with no corruption of who Shepard is, I think it would be at least acceptable. But synthesis is just the most misguided and monstrous atrocity I could ever imagine. It's retarded transhumanist nonsense that fails to comprehend anything about the human condition. It's also a heinous violation of freedom of choice. It's just pure awful

[ElSuperGecko]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...
Your character is dead.

But a copy of him lives on as an AI. Since that was always my character's plan, it works out perfectly.

AI's are illegal in council space.  Did you always want your Shepard to be a criminal, then?

[CosmicGnosis]

I really don't think Destroy works for me. As I've replayed the series, I've seen many examples of how the galaxy fears and hates synthetics. Destroy is an acceptable choice for the majority of galactic citizens. It's not acceptable to me. It doesn't challenge people to rethink their beliefs in any way. They will be glad that the geth are dead. They will not "learn their lesson".

Unless... Destroy is supposed to be an ironic tragedy for synthetics. The beings who worked so hard to attain freedom are sacrificed for the freedom of a galaxy that hates them.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 12 novembre 2012 - 06:04 .

[spotlessvoid]

My Shepard saved the geth knowing if the Quarians didn't back off they'd be annihilated. So I don't think he chose destroy lightly. But it's the only option that definitively rids the galaxy of the Reaper threat

[Xilizhra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I really don't think Destroy works for me. As I've replayed the series, I've seen many examples of how the galaxy fears and hates synthetics. Destroy is an acceptable choice for the majority of galactic citizens. It's not acceptable to me. It doesn't challenge people to rethink their beliefs in any way. They will be glad that the geth are dead. They will not "learn their lesson".

Unless... Destroy is supposed to be an ironic tragedy for synthetics. The beings who worked so hard to attain freedom are sacrificed for the freedom of a galaxy that hates them.

That fits, including the fact that I detest tragedy. If you fear Synthesis' possibilities, I believe that Control is the best way to hopefully get the rest of the galaxy to eventually learn their lesson.

[Pottumuusi]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...
Your character is dead.

But a copy of him lives on as an AI. Since that was always my character's plan, it works out perfectly.

AI's are illegal in council space.  Did you always want your Shepard to be a criminal, then?

You forget that in control Shepard AI is the Eternal God-Emperor of the Galaxy and thus answers to no one.
Yeah... that's bound to turn out well.

[SeptimusMagistos]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...
Your character is dead.

But a copy of him lives on as an AI. Since that was always my character's plan, it works out perfectly.

AI's are illegal in council space.  Did you always want your Shepard to be a criminal, then?

Obviously he hoped that the reactionary anti-AI laws would be overturned within his lifetime. That would still give the races of the galaxy an extremely limited timeframe to figure out how to digitally upload a brain and provide enough computing space that the procedure would be affordable to someone of his pay grade, but he hoped to squeak by.

When presented with the opportunity to upload himself to the most powerful computer in existence he wasn't going to say no.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 12 novembre 2012 - 06:36 .

[Bill Casey]

The ending is brilliantly written, and quite frankly it's lost on a lot of people...
Literalists openly admit their interpretation doesn't make sense...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 novembre 2012 - 07:55 .

[Yesmar]

Am I the only who thinks of a little girl getting in huff when I read the title of this thread.

[Nerevar-as]

Pottumuusi wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...
Your character is dead.

But a copy of him lives on as an AI. Since that was always my character's plan, it works out perfectly.

AI's are illegal in council space.  Did you always want your Shepard to be a criminal, then?

You forget that in control Shepard AI is the Eternal God-Emperor of the Galaxy and thus answers to no one.
Yeah... that's bound to turn out well.

Big Brother/Sister is watching.

Let´s face it, it won´t be long before the galaxy starts plotting to get rid of SephAI and the Reapers. It´s just too big of a Damocles sword to live under.

[T-Raks]

You can do whatever you want.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Bill Casey wrote...

The ending is brilliantly written, and quite frankly it's lost on a lot of people...
Literalists openly admit their interpretation doesn't make sense...

> Implying IT makes sense.

ROFL, ya'll are too dern funny!

[KingZayd]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

The ending is brilliantly written, and quite frankly it's lost on a lot of people...
Literalists openly admit their interpretation doesn't make sense...

> Implying IT makes sense.

ROFL, ya'll are too dern funny!

in game, it makes much more sense than the literal interpretation. Outside of the game, though... :/

[teh DRUMPf!!]

KingZayd wrote...

in game, it makes much more sense than the literal interpretation.

No, IT's interpretation is equally flawed, if not more. I'm going with more.

[KingZayd]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

in game, it makes much more sense than the literal interpretation.

No, IT's interpretation is equally flawed, if not more. I'm going with more.

Equally flawed? Nowhere near. The literal endings are the worst I've ever seen, and it would be difficult to come up with worse without trying to do so.

[drayfish]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I really don't think Destroy works for me. As I've replayed the series, I've seen many examples of how the galaxy fears and hates synthetics. Destroy is an acceptable choice for the majority of galactic citizens. It's not acceptable to me. It doesn't challenge people to rethink their beliefs in any way. They will be glad that the geth are dead. They will not "learn their lesson".

Unless... Destroy is supposed to be an ironic tragedy for synthetics. The beings who worked so hard to attain freedom are sacrificed for the freedom of a galaxy that hates them.

I agree completely that Destroy seems a total betrayal of the galaxy's ideological growth - we spend three games coming to legitimise the validity of synthetic life, treasuring their right to live, only to lay them on a sacrificial altar to some sick, intolerant god.  

'Sure, sure, fellas - you've got the right to live...  Just not as much as our guys.'

It's a pitiful message that forces us to reject everything we learned along the way.

And sadly I think all of the endings operate just like that.  No one seems to learn anything in any of them.

We spend three games watching the horrors of what happens when people are dominated and controlled (even with the best of intentions), only to have finally Shepard decide that, nah... things will be different if it's him who is in charge.  And that's even before mentioning the flashing red warning signs about being arrogant enough to think he can trust/control the Reapers when no one else ever has...

And if embraced naturally, I'm sure synthesis could be a bold new evolution for all life - an inevitable and revolutionary integration of synthetic and organic in which the better parts of each are welcomed...  But all of that growth gets entirely undone by having it forced on everyone against their will.  Want to learn to celebrate diversity?  Well too bad, there is none anymore.  You don't need to bother respecting other forms of life, because there are no more differences; we cured racism by getting rid of race.  An entire galaxy of life learns nothing, merely compelled to accept a change they have no context for whether they want to or not.

For a series that purported to be about decisions that matter, I am surprised that they made the very last choices undo the majority of what the texts have been advancing, and to force the player to show absolutely no growth at all.

[ElSuperGecko]

Nerevar-as wrote...
Let´s face it, it won´t be long before the galaxy starts plotting to get rid of SephAI and the Reapers. It´s just too big of a Damocles sword to live under.

Interesting question.  I wonder what ShepAI's response would be if the various independent races of the galaxy decided to take arms against their new AI overlord and the Reaper army it controls?

What would ShepAI do if it became apparent that NO-ONE wanted to live under the shadow of an immortal, AI-God?

Would ShepAI shut itself down?

Or would ShepAI defend itself?  Against the very beings it apparently swore to protect?

Would it massacre thousands, simply to continue it's goal of "preserving future life from threats"?

Controllers.... your thoughts please.