237 réponses à ce sujet

[Eryri]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Who says there are three identities in the Scion?

It's an assumption, I grant you, but I feel it's a reasonable one. A scion has three heads, presumably with brains inside those heads. How intact those brains are, and how much of the original person remains is anyone's guess. And that's in a sense the point, no one knows either way.

Then they wouldn't be mentally coherent enough to consider their life a misery.

They don't have to be fully mentally coherent to be in horrible physical pain. The Banshees are described in the codex as staggering about as though in agony. Admittedly that's written from an in-universe perspective, and so can't know what the inner "life" of a Banshee is really like, but it does plant the seed in the mind of the player that they are in pain. Likewise collectors are supposed to experience pain when they use their weapons.

 Since the husk in the Synthesis ending doesn't do that...

The husk in the synthesis ending doesn't do much of anything. It has about 3 seconds of screentime. If they wanted it to be clear that husks et al, are fine and dandy with this new state of affairs then they should have gone to the trouble of showing it. Yes I'm assuming the worst with little to base it on, but given the preceeding amount of horror in the game it seems reasonable to continue in that vein unless Bioware actively corrects that perception.

...what if your aunt had testicles? Then she'd be your uncle. But she doesn't.

Unless she was awaiting her operation. Then out of courtesy, I would consider her my aunt. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

It's deliberatly vague, which isn't the same thing. A lot of the mess comes from people putting unfounded assumptions onto what it would be like and then arguing from there.

I don't think they are completely unfounded. The previous 70 odd hours of gameplay through the series had conditioned us to the idea that the Reapers were sadistically cruel, and the existance of their slaves was too horrible to imagine. The synthesis ending, if literally intended, asks us to reverse that perception in about 5 minutes. If Bioware wanted us to think differently about synthesis then they should have worked harder to undo the perception that they themselves had created in us.

[AlanC9]

Xenomorphine wrote...
That's assuming they're capable of self-termination. They might have self-preservation directives they'd still essentially be functioning under and unable to over-ride. They also might not even be capable of mentally comprehending the concept of suicide.

Hey, if you want to keep making stuff up until the ending is horrible, nobody can stop you. I suppose the next "might" here will be that even though the Reaper ex-slaves want to die, they not only can't kill themselves but can't be peacefully euthanized. Right?

How come a Sheplyst can control Reapers but can't control the lesser types? And in synthesis, why would those directives still be there. The husk stops attacking, after all.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 décembre 2012 - 05:23 .

[LucasShark]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@OP:
There's more to being a villain than just doing certain things. You need to have a certain mindset. You can certainly play a villainous Shepard and choose, say, Renegade Control, but you're not forced into a villain's mindset.

In Destroy and Synthesis, you're asked "Can I justify this", and anwering "yes" does not make you a villain. In Control, you're asked "Would I trust myself with this power", and yet again, answering "yes" does not make you a villain. In all three cases, you're proven right by the epilogue. In Refuse, you don't need to be a principles zealot, you can just be a tragically flawed human who can't bring himself to make a choice that would save his civilization.

"Do I trust myself to doll out absolute justice to the entire bloody universe?"  ANYONE, who can seriously ask that question of themselves and answer in the positive is seriously psycologically damaged.

Absolute justice? Control!Shep is not implied to be a ruler. Not the Paragon version anyway. You can start with the mindset that it's best to leave things alone if at all feasible and only directly intervene if galactic civilization is endangered. Otherwise, you'll subtly influence cultural climate to steer civilization into a specific direction.

If you think you'll have to be a psychopath in order to be a good "power", then you lack imagination.

Answer me this: Exactly how is an entity which thinks itself infallable, and acts principally through 2 kilometre long living warships going to "right wrongs" or enforce its will in any way besides "my rules, my way, or the highway which leads directly to accelerated liquid metal death"?

[M Hedonist]

The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

[The Night Mammoth]

LucasShark wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@OP:
There's more to being a villain than just doing certain things. You need to have a certain mindset. You can certainly play a villainous Shepard and choose, say, Renegade Control, but you're not forced into a villain's mindset.

In Destroy and Synthesis, you're asked "Can I justify this", and anwering "yes" does not make you a villain. In Control, you're asked "Would I trust myself with this power", and yet again, answering "yes" does not make you a villain. In all three cases, you're proven right by the epilogue. In Refuse, you don't need to be a principles zealot, you can just be a tragically flawed human who can't bring himself to make a choice that would save his civilization.

"Do I trust myself to doll out absolute justice to the entire bloody universe?"  ANYONE, who can seriously ask that question of themselves and answer in the positive is seriously psycologically damaged.

Absolute justice? Control!Shep is not implied to be a ruler. Not the Paragon version anyway. You can start with the mindset that it's best to leave things alone if at all feasible and only directly intervene if galactic civilization is endangered. Otherwise, you'll subtly influence cultural climate to steer civilization into a specific direction.

If you think you'll have to be a psychopath in order to be a good "power", then you lack imagination.

Answer me this: Exactly how is an entity which thinks itself infallable, and acts principally through 2 kilometre long living warships going to "right wrongs" or enforce its will in any way besides "my rules, my way, or the highway which leads directly to accelerated liquid metal death"?

Mind control. 

Also known as indoctrination. 

That makes the situation so much better, don't you think? 

[AlanC9]

Sauruz wrote...

The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

If by nihilist, you mean that there's no moral order to the universe, and there are only actions and consequences.... then sure, nihilism is true in the ME universe. How does knowing this make Shep a non-hero?

[HiddenInWar]

Sabotaging the genophage, wrex finding out, acting like nothing happened, killing him, denying in front of Bailey that there was any reason for it...yeah, you haven't really achieved hero status with that one.

[M Hedonist]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

If by nihilist, you mean that there's no moral order to the universe, and there are only actions and consequences.... then sure, nihilism is true in the ME universe. How does knowing this make Shep a non-hero?

Well, if your defintion of a hero is a nihilist, I guess you must've been happy with the endings.
I mean, apart from all the other things that were wrong with them.

Modifié par Sauruz, 30 décembre 2012 - 06:51 .

[Rex Fallout]

Hadeedak wrote...

LucasShark wrote...


No: you can say they are all flavors of horendious.

Eh. Me, I kind of like them. But too much Asimov has probably poisoned my brain.

Still a better ending than Twilight?

Of course not!  I have no idea how Twilight ended- but I do know that it is now completely over- I don't have to deal with it so much anymore.  Mass Effect on the other hand...

[Dean_the_Young]

Seboist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

]Uh, there can very well be multiple reasons why the Protheans lost. Javik never denies that the relay blockage was a major one.

ME1 made it quite clear the Prothys were doomed right from the start with the surprise decapication strike and loss of the relays(the latter of which was retconned). ME3 was promoting the notion that they actually stood a chance and could have won(lmfao).

It should be 'imho' rather than 'lmfao', since you're basically projecting an interpretation on it and ignorring other interpretations to the contrary.

Oh and ME3 failed to demonstrate how "diversity is a strength!" with all the Shepard white (wo)man's burdening with the idiot aliens who couldn't get their crap straightened out and didn't contribute anything beyond raw strength to the war effort(contrary to the notion of diversity of ideas that Javik spewed).

Naturally if you don't understand it yourself, you'd see failures everywhere else.

[Dean_the_Young]

Eryri wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Who says there are three identities in the Scion?

It's an assumption, I grant you, but I feel it's a reasonable one. A scion has three heads, presumably with brains inside those heads. How intact those brains are, and how much of the original person remains is anyone's guess. And that's in a sense the point, no one knows either way.

Then they wouldn't be mentally coherent enough to consider their life a misery.

They don't have to be fully mentally coherent to be in horrible physical pain. The Banshees are described in the codex as staggering about as though in agony. Admittedly that's written from an in-universe perspective, and so can't know what the inner "life" of a Banshee is really like, but it does plant the seed in the mind of the player that they are in pain. Likewise collectors are supposed to experience pain when they use their weapons.

 Since the husk in the Synthesis ending doesn't do that...

The husk in the synthesis ending doesn't do much of anything. It has about 3 seconds of screentime. If they wanted it to be clear that husks et al, are fine and dandy with this new state of affairs then they should have gone to the trouble of showing it. Yes I'm assuming the worst with little to base it on, but given the preceeding amount of horror in the game it seems reasonable to continue in that vein unless Bioware actively corrects that perception.

In light of that admission, Alan's words seem fitting enough:

Hey, if you want to keep making stuff up until the ending is
horrible, nobody can stop you. I suppose the next "might" here will be
that even though the Reaper ex-slaves want to die, they not only can't
kill themselves but can't be peacefully euthanized. Right?

It's deliberatly vague, which isn't the same thing. A lot of the mess comes from people putting unfounded assumptions onto what it would be like and then arguing from there.

I don't think they are completely unfounded. The previous 70 odd hours of gameplay through the series had conditioned us to the idea that the Reapers were sadistically cruel, and the existance of their slaves was too horrible to imagine. The synthesis ending, if literally intended, asks us to reverse that perception in about 5 minutes. If Bioware wanted us to think differently about synthesis then they should have worked harder to undo the perception that they themselves had created in us.

...yeah, after that over-exageration and selective memory, Alan seems appropriate again.


If you want to keep making stuff up until the ending is
horrible, nobody can stop you.

[Dean_the_Young]

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

If by nihilist, you mean that there's no moral order to the universe, and there are only actions and consequences.... then sure, nihilism is true in the ME universe. How does knowing this make Shep a non-hero?

Well, if your defintion of a hero is a nihilist, I guess you must've been happy with the endings.
I mean, apart from all the other things that were wrong with them.

Still doesn't follow. Being heroic doesn't mean being above reproach in choices or effects.

[AlanC9]

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

If by nihilist, you mean that there's no moral order to the universe, and there are only actions and consequences.... then sure, nihilism is true in the ME universe. How does knowing this make Shep a non-hero?

Well, if your defintion of a hero is a nihilist, I guess you must've been happy with the endings.
I mean, apart from all the other things that were wrong with them.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "nihilist" or why you think being one is incompatible with being a hero.

[M Hedonist]

Rex Fallout wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

LucasShark wrote...


No: you can say they are all flavors of horendious.

Eh. Me, I kind of like them. But too much Asimov has probably poisoned my brain.

Still a better ending than Twilight?

Of course not!  I have no idea how Twilight ended- but I do know that it is now completely over- I don't have to deal with it so much anymore.  Mass Effect on the other hand...

As far as I know, nothing of any consequence happens anywhere near the end of the final Twilight book/film, meaning they could very easily just keep producing these horrendous things, and something tells me they will.

[M Hedonist]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

If by nihilist, you mean that there's no moral order to the universe, and there are only actions and consequences.... then sure, nihilism is true in the ME universe. How does knowing this make Shep a non-hero?

Well, if your defintion of a hero is a nihilist, I guess you must've been happy with the endings.
I mean, apart from all the other things that were wrong with them.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "nihilist" or why you think being one is incompatible with being a hero.

I think you're putting too much thought into that - and this is starting to go somewhere very ME-unrelated.
I didn't want to say being a nihilist makes you a non-hero. The fact that you chose one of the three Crucible endings is what makes you a non-hero.

[LucasShark]

Sauruz wrote...

Rex Fallout wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

LucasShark wrote...


No: you can say they are all flavors of horendious.

Eh. Me, I kind of like them. But too much Asimov has probably poisoned my brain.

Still a better ending than Twilight?

Of course not!  I have no idea how Twilight ended- but I do know that it is now completely over- I don't have to deal with it so much anymore.  Mass Effect on the other hand...

As far as I know, nothing of any consequence happens anywhere near the end of the final Twilight book/film, meaning they could very easily just keep producing these horrendous things, and something tells me they will.

Ironically enough: from my limited knowledge the ending of Twilight involves a character we've never met before showing up and making the badguys go away with no significant character changes in the core cast in the slightest.

[Volc19]

Renegade Control does make Shepard the bad guy in the end, though none of the other ending really put Shepard in a villainous role. Synthesis has good intentions behind it, even though most people personally think it will end up as a bad choice. Refusal isn't inherently bad, but it comes from a place of stubborn bullheadedness and ends up killing everyone (even though the next cycle wins). Paragon Control really has nothing bad happen in it, and it only comes off as negative to those that deny the evidence of their own eyes, argue that Shepard will 'go nuts' like the Catalyst (even though the Catalyst is still functioning perfectly, and just lacks empathy and critical thinking skills), or see Reapers living, under complete subservience or otherwise, as negative. And Destroy offers a negative consequence, the total annihilation of the virtual aliens, the Geth and EDI, in exchange for an outcome with no room for future doubt (if you don't take the Leviathans into account, that it).

TL;DR, Rene!Control is the only ending where Shepard finds himself acting against the Galaxy, even if the other endings offer the opportunity for circumstances to sour, or have inherent negative consequences.

[LucasShark]

Volc19 wrote...

Renegade Control does make Shepard the bad guy in the end, though none of the other ending really put Shepard in a villainous role. Synthesis has good intentions behind it, even though most people personally think it will end up as a bad choice. Refusal isn't inherently bad, but it comes from a place of stubborn bullheadedness and ends up killing everyone (even though the next cycle wins). Paragon Control really has nothing bad happen in it, and it only comes off as negative to those that deny the evidence of their own eyes, argue that Shepard will 'go nuts' like the Catalyst (even though the Catalyst is still functioning perfectly, and just lacks empathy and critical thinking skills), or see Reapers living, under complete subservience or otherwise, as negative. And Destroy offers a negative consequence, the total annihilation of the virtual aliens, the Geth and EDI, in exchange for an outcome with no room for future doubt (if you don't take the Leviathans into account, that it).

TL;DR, Rene!Control is the only ending where Shepard finds himself acting against the Galaxy, even if the other endings offer the opportunity for circumstances to sour, or have inherent negative consequences.

The problem with paragon control isn't "shepard will go nuts" it's that there is no possible scenario in which an unlimited authority with the power to destroy worlds is a good system to live under.

[txgoldrush]

Sauruz wrote...

The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

The very notion that ME3 is "nihilistic" is completely idiotic and wrong.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

The very notion that ME3 is "nihilistic" is completely idiotic and wrong.

It's okay, you don't have to explain that counterpoint. Just throw it out there and walk. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 30 décembre 2012 - 07:49 .

[txgoldrush]

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

If by nihilist, you mean that there's no moral order to the universe, and there are only actions and consequences.... then sure, nihilism is true in the ME universe. How does knowing this make Shep a non-hero?

Well, if your defintion of a hero is a nihilist, I guess you must've been happy with the endings.
I mean, apart from all the other things that were wrong with them.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "nihilist" or why you think being one is incompatible with being a hero.

I think you're putting too much thought into that - and this is starting to go somewhere very ME-unrelated.
I didn't want to say being a nihilist makes you a non-hero. The fact that you chose one of the three Crucible endings is what makes you a non-hero.

And yet its the same character that let 300,000 Batarians die in ME2 Arrival.

Its called sacrifice, Shepard has to make some.

[M Hedonist]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

If by nihilist, you mean that there's no moral order to the universe, and there are only actions and consequences.... then sure, nihilism is true in the ME universe. How does knowing this make Shep a non-hero?

Well, if your defintion of a hero is a nihilist, I guess you must've been happy with the endings.
I mean, apart from all the other things that were wrong with them.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "nihilist" or why you think being one is incompatible with being a hero.

I think you're putting too much thought into that - and this is starting to go somewhere very ME-unrelated.
I didn't want to say being a nihilist makes you a non-hero. The fact that you chose one of the three Crucible endings is what makes you a non-hero.

And yet its the same character that let 300,000 Batarians die in ME2 Arrival.

Its called sacrifice, Shepard has to make some.

Sacrificing oneself is noble. Sacrificing others is disgusting.

[Eryri]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you want to keep making stuff up until the ending is 
horrible, nobody can stop you.

Are you denying that for 99% of the game - the process by which the Reaper's created their minions was more than mildly unpleasant? Impaling them on spikes, stitching them together with other species etc etc? 

My point, was that if Bioware intended us to view the fate of the husks positively, post-Synthesis (which I'm not convinced they do, but that's a another can of worms) then they failed to adequately demonstrate it. 

The husks were depicted as mindless animals though most of the game. Our only clue that they may ever be anything more than that, is the one husk in the synthesis epilogue, looking around with... bemusement? It's rather hard to tell on the face of a husk.

Can you really blame people for finding such a dramatic, 11th hour shift in tone hard to accept?

In any event, as you may have guessed from my signature, I rather suspect that this debate is academic. The reason Synthesis seems so out of place, is because that's precisely the impression Bioware conciously intended to create.

Modifié par Eryri, 30 décembre 2012 - 08:06 .

[Alex_Dur4and]

In my humble opinion...

Control: If you played the game throughout without skipping all the dialogue options and actually LISTEN to what was being said. If you witnessed the same abominations that the reapers did throughout the galaxy (Collectors, Banshees, Marauders, Cannibals, Husks, etc.) Choosing "control" is the most selfish, evil, stupid and disrespectful choice... PERIOD!

Synthesis: This was my original first choice when I played the game through the first time... It seemed... fair... The fact is: You HAVE to be on the hardest drugs to understand or believe any of this non-sens!!! It makes no sense and this ending alone pushed me to seriously believe in the indoctrination theory.

Destroy: Though choice... Kill a few to save the many! Garrus and many others warned you about this possibility. The Geth said they would no longer comply with the old machines and EDI told you she would risk non-functionality for Jeff's sake. It's tough but you have everyone but the Illusive man's "seal of approval". It's what you wanted to do since the beginning. It's what you promised everyone you were going to do. It's BITTER SWEET!!

Refusal: It's a stupid choice. It's a selfish choice... But it's honest! It has integrity! It's dying for what you believe. However, I personally don't trust the catalyst. I don't even want to talk to it. I want to shoot it where it stands as soon as I start making sense of what it is trying to stuff my ars with. But, the thing that really gets to me... Why am I not able to win conventionally with approx. 25 000 war assets points?!?!

[M Hedonist]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

The very notion that ME3 is "nihilistic" is completely idiotic and wrong.

You have to disregard morals to win. If you refuse to do so, you lose.
Furthermore, I have already seen many on these forums who have started to think nihilism is a good thing because of the endings. To say the endings are not nihlistic is just nonsensical. That may have not been the intention of the devs, but that's what they are.