1258 réponses à ce sujet

[AB Souldier]

iakus wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Kinda funny how the topic transformed into another game, but i guess it's about the comparison of endings(?)

Also, i am kinda new to the forums, what are the chances someone from bioware actually sees/replies to this?

Pretty much because DAO is held as an example on how to do bittersweet endings well (at elast well enough to please its audience) while ME3 is, well, an example on what not to do.

Chances that Bioware sees this?  Eh, maybe?

A reply?  Not a snowball's chance.

Well i've never played DAO (but i plan to) so i'll leave it up to you guys....

Is it wishful thinking to hope that Bioware one day goes "Suprise! We got you!! Here is the real ending!"

[Thore2k10]

ajsrise wrote...

iakus wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Kinda funny how the topic transformed into another game, but i guess it's about the comparison of endings(?)

Also, i am kinda new to the forums, what are the chances someone from bioware actually sees/replies to this?

Pretty much because DAO is held as an example on how to do bittersweet endings well (at elast well enough to please its audience) while ME3 is, well, an example on what not to do.

Chances that Bioware sees this?  Eh, maybe?

A reply?  Not a snowball's chance.

Well i've never played DAO (but i plan to) so i'll leave it up to you guys....

Is it wishful thinking to hope that Bioware one day goes "Suprise! We got you!! Here is the real ending!"

yep, that is wishful thinking unfortunately... but maybe this new last dlc will make it right ....

maybe... pls....

[AB Souldier]

Thore2k10 wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

iakus wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Kinda funny how the topic transformed into another game, but i guess it's about the comparison of endings(?)

Also, i am kinda new to the forums, what are the chances someone from bioware actually sees/replies to this?

Pretty much because DAO is held as an example on how to do bittersweet endings well (at elast well enough to please its audience) while ME3 is, well, an example on what not to do.

Chances that Bioware sees this?  Eh, maybe?

A reply?  Not a snowball's chance.

Well i've never played DAO (but i plan to) so i'll leave it up to you guys....

Is it wishful thinking to hope that Bioware one day goes "Suprise! We got you!! Here is the real ending!"

yep, that is wishful thinking unfortunately... but maybe this new last dlc will make it right ....

maybe... pls....

This game is worth paying for a dlc that gives us the ending we want. I wont even think twice about it (after confirming that it is the ending i want ofc.)

[CronoDragoon]

Kabraxal wrote...

Thematically, it was more appalling.  ME had been bulit on choices and different idealogies... and suddenly you are locked into two renegade options or a really stupid "paragon" option (synthesis/destroy then control).  Refuse at least allows for that arbitrary railroading of themes and idealogies to be challenged.  It might end up in death... but it's a lot more satisfying than just doing "eenie meenie minie mo!" for your choice of horrible that makes no narrative sense with the story that came before.

Again, there are Paragon and Renegade ways to look at each of the endings, and they do make narrative sense if we are talking about themes, which is certainly more important than the practicality of Synthesis, for example. The one exception, as I've stated, is Paragon Destroy, in which I unfortunately cannot find a way to reconcile peace on Rannoch with destroying all synthetics and glean deeper meaning.

[PainCakesx]

ajsrise wrote...

Thore2k10 wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

iakus wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Kinda funny how the topic transformed into another game, but i guess it's about the comparison of endings(?)

Also, i am kinda new to the forums, what are the chances someone from bioware actually sees/replies to this?

Pretty much because DAO is held as an example on how to do bittersweet endings well (at elast well enough to please its audience) while ME3 is, well, an example on what not to do.

Chances that Bioware sees this?  Eh, maybe?

A reply?  Not a snowball's chance.

Well i've never played DAO (but i plan to) so i'll leave it up to you guys....

Is it wishful thinking to hope that Bioware one day goes "Suprise! We got you!! Here is the real ending!"

yep, that is wishful thinking unfortunately... but maybe this new last dlc will make it right ....

maybe... pls....

This game is worth paying for a dlc that gives us the ending we want. I wont even think twice about it (after confirming that it is the ending i want ofc.)

Nor would I. If they tweaked the ending in a way that I could respond to, or at the very least expand on the breath scene to add proper closure, I would be more than willing to bury the hatchet and buy all the DLC. 

Ball's in their court now. 

[Kabraxal]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Thematically, it was more appalling.  ME had been bulit on choices and different idealogies... and suddenly you are locked into two renegade options or a really stupid "paragon" option (synthesis/destroy then control).  Refuse at least allows for that arbitrary railroading of themes and idealogies to be challenged.  It might end up in death... but it's a lot more satisfying than just doing "eenie meenie minie mo!" for your choice of horrible that makes no narrative sense with the story that came before.

Again, there are Paragon and Renegade ways to look at each of the endings, and they do make narrative sense if we are talking about themes, which is certainly more important than the practicality of Synthesis, for example. The one exception, as I've stated, is Paragon Destroy, in which I unfortunately cannot find a way to reconcile peace on Rannoch with destroying all synthetics and glean deeper meaning.

Synthesis... renegade is the only way to look at it.  YOu are willingly violating every living and aware being in the galaxy.  There is no consent and there is no discussion. It's a unilateral choice.  There is no paragon view with this.  (just like the "paragon" decision in Legion's Loyalty mission in ME2 is actually not paragon... who ever programmed that needed to be sat down and taught a little lesson on morality).

Destroy... you are unilaterraly condemning an entire race of beings to death.  This is clearly a renegade tactic... sacrifce the fewer for the many. Now, if there was the option to at least contact EDI and the geth to get their say, then maybe it could be paragon.  You would be doing it with their blessing if they gave it.  But that doesn't happen so renegade it stays.

Control... there is really nothing renegade or paragon about this.  it is purely idiotic.  Just two minutes prior we argued, successfully, that control will not work.  Then, with no proof other than the word of an unreliable plot device, we suddenly think it's a grand old idea?  Please....

At least refuse lets you challenge those horrendous assumptions and railroading of Shepard.  It doesn't end well for our cycle, but it's far more true to a paragon choice than anything else.

[AB Souldier]

PainCakesx wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Thore2k10 wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

iakus wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Kinda funny how the topic transformed into another game, but i guess it's about the comparison of endings(?)

Also, i am kinda new to the forums, what are the chances someone from bioware actually sees/replies to this?

Pretty much because DAO is held as an example on how to do bittersweet endings well (at elast well enough to please its audience) while ME3 is, well, an example on what not to do.

Chances that Bioware sees this?  Eh, maybe?

A reply?  Not a snowball's chance.

Well i've never played DAO (but i plan to) so i'll leave it up to you guys....

Is it wishful thinking to hope that Bioware one day goes "Suprise! We got you!! Here is the real ending!"

yep, that is wishful thinking unfortunately... but maybe this new last dlc will make it right ....

maybe... pls....

This game is worth paying for a dlc that gives us the ending we want. I wont even think twice about it (after confirming that it is the ending i want ofc.)

Nor would I. If they tweaked the ending in a way that I could respond to, or at the very least expand on the breath scene to add proper closure, I would be more than willing to bury the hatchet and buy all the DLC. 

Ball's in their court now. 

When it comes down to it, they DO need money to do this, so i will be more then happy to buy a dlc that has a different ending (only if it is the happy and or perfect ending we want.

[Thore2k10]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Again, there are Paragon and
Renegade ways to look at each of the endings, and they do make narrative
sense if we are talking about themes, which is certainly more important
than the practicality of Synthesis, for example. The one exception, as
I've stated, is Paragon Destroy, in which I unfortunately cannot find a
way to reconcile peace on Rannoch with destroying all synthetics and
glean deeper meaning.

I disagree with the
practicality thing. So far everything in Mass Effect followed its own
internal rules given by the available and established level of
technology. Even the reapers had the same stuff as everybody else, just
more advanced.

If you then do something unexplainable or
outright impossible in such an important and central moment, then you
lose the willing participation of the audience. Synthesis for example is
outright impossible.

by the way synthesis is  thematically evil
IMHO... i dont know how people can see something good in this. It
symbolises that diversity has no chance of survival and must be overcome
by creating some sort of uberbeing... at least that what i had in mind seeing this...

Modifié par Thore2k10, 22 janvier 2013 - 08:42 .

[wright1978]

Synthesis is meant to be the paragon choice that replicates the reconciliation of Geth/Quarians by reconciling organics/synthetics/reapers. It is presented by the villain so is untrustworthy, has workability issues(how/what level of synthesis occurs), violates the central theme of the importance of diversity(makes everyone green cyborgs).

[CronoDragoon]

[quote]Kabraxal wrote...
Synthesis... renegade is the only way to look at it.  YOu are willingly violating every living and aware being in the galaxy.  There is no consent and there is no discussion. It's a unilateral choice.  There is no paragon view with this.  (just like the "paragon" decision in Legion's Loyalty mission in ME2 is actually not paragon... who ever programmed that needed to be sat down and taught a little lesson on morality).[/quote]

Violation is a biased word. Everyone is on the brink of death, and Shepard has the opportunity to solve the crisis in a way that not only prevents current harm but - assuming you believe organic/synthetics are going to be a real problem - you do what you can to prevent future harm as well. Abstract notions of autonomy in this ending are subverted to the real needs of the people. Believing this to be "genetic rape" as is the popular phrase, is egotistical assumption. Shepard has every right to alter the DNA of living organisms so that they may survive, because the galaxy willingly placed itself into his hands so that he may lead them out of the war. They would prefer death to Synthesis? I highly doubt it. That you choose to believe that everyone should be miserable about being irrevocably changed in ways that are not obviously bad simply means Synthesis isn't for you, not that it's unobjectionably Renegade.

[quote]Destroy... you are unilaterraly condemning an entire race of beings to death.  This is clearly a renegade tactic... sacrifce the fewer for the many. Now, if there was the option to at least contact EDI and the geth to get their say, then maybe it could be paragon.  You would be doing it with their blessing if they gave it.  But that doesn't happen so renegade it stays.[/quote]

I've already said I have trouble formulating a good Paragon Destroy defense.

[quote]Control... there is really nothing renegade or paragon about this.  it is purely idiotic.  Just two minutes prior we argued, successfully, that control will not work.  Then, with no proof other than the word of an unreliable plot device, we suddenly think it's a grand old idea?  Please....[/quote]

If you aren't going to believe what the Catalyst says, then discussion of the endings is worthless. Not meta-gaming at least a little bit when presented with what is obviously an exposition device is a bit silly.

The objection against Control seems to based around the fact that Shepard turns out to be wrong about the possibility of Controlling the Reapers. In other words, based around a damaged ego.

[/quote]

[AB Souldier]

wright1978 wrote...

Synthesis is meant to be the paragon choice that replicates the reconciliation of Geth/Quarians by reconciling organics/synthetics/reapers. It is presented by the villain so is untrustworthy, has workability issues(how/what level of synthesis occurs), violates the central theme of the importance of diversity(makes everyone green cyborgs).

My issue is that synthesis was never shepards goal. He never said "We are going to end the war by combining synthetics and organics as one!"

Or "We are going to win this war by controlling the Reapers!"  (TIM)

Shepards goal is and always was to destroy the reapers. Maybe it was a good thing to add synthesis or control for people who believe in that, and i am totally fine with that. 

BUT why, for the people who wanted to stick to the original plan to destroy the reapers, are being punished so hard by getting the Geth/EDI destroyed as well? How is that fair?

[wright1978]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The objection against Control seems to based around the fact that Shepard turns out to be wrong about the possibility of Controlling the Reapers. In other words, based around a damaged ego.

Sorry but i'd argue it is bad writing to railroad the player into not being allowed to side with a choice(control), then have a magic space child pop up at the end to go, that option we specifically didn't give you the chance to side with well actually it is just dandy now. If the narrative fools with the player's expectations of what is the good choice(side with harrowmont) and afterwards you find that actually(Bhelen) has better consequences that is fine. In a choice based game to simply stick a glass window between so the player can see the choice but not touch it isn't.

[Faust1979]

ajsrise wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Synthesis is meant to be the paragon choice that replicates the reconciliation of Geth/Quarians by reconciling organics/synthetics/reapers. It is presented by the villain so is untrustworthy, has workability issues(how/what level of synthesis occurs), violates the central theme of the importance of diversity(makes everyone green cyborgs).

My issue is that synthesis was never shepards goal. He never said "We are going to end the war by combining synthetics and organics as one!"

Or "We are going to win this war by controlling the Reapers!"  (TIM)

Shepards goal is and always was to destroy the reapers. Maybe it was a good thing to add synthesis or control for people who believe in that, and i am totally fine with that. 

BUT why, for the people who wanted to stick to the original plan to destroy the reapers, are being punished so hard by getting the Geth/EDI destroyed as well? How is that fair?

goals change though on occasion when other opportunities present themselves

[wright1978]

ajsrise wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Synthesis is meant to be the paragon choice that replicates the reconciliation of Geth/Quarians by reconciling organics/synthetics/reapers. It is presented by the villain so is untrustworthy, has workability issues(how/what level of synthesis occurs), violates the central theme of the importance of diversity(makes everyone green cyborgs).

My issue is that synthesis was never shepards goal. He never said "We are going to end the war by combining synthetics and organics as one!"

Or "We are going to win this war by controlling the Reapers!"  (TIM)

Shepards goal is and always was to destroy the reapers. Maybe it was a good thing to add synthesis or control for people who believe in that, and i am totally fine with that. 

BUT why, for the people who wanted to stick to the original plan to destroy the reapers, are being punished so hard by getting the Geth/EDI destroyed as well? How is that fair?

Oh i agree it is unacceptable to present destroy as the only option and not mentions any potential consequences of it for 99.9% of the game. If synthesis was truly to be shown to be an option it should be presented much earlier and by a different advocate & control's advocate should be TIM.

[CronoDragoon]

wright1978 wrote...

Sorry but i'd argue it is bad writing to railroad the player into not being allowed to side with a choice(control), then have a magic space child pop up at the end to go, that option we specifically didn't give you the chance to side with well actually it is just dandy now. If the narrative fools with the player's expectations of what is the good choice(side with harrowmont) and afterwards you find that actually(Bhelen) has better consequences that is fine. In a choice based game to simply stick a glass window between so the player can see the choice but not touch it isn't.

It's also easy to argue that Shepard is constantly arguing with TIM about the circumstances surrounding Control, and not Control itself. For example, Paragon Shepard for most of the game is pointing out that TIM's desire for Control is splintering the war effort and has them fighting each other. I understand what you are saying, but even if Shepard said that he'd be open to Control, it wouldn't functionally change the game in any way since TIM is indoctrinated and since there are issues between them outside of the morality of Control.

[Seival]

ajsrise wrote...

Why can't Mass Effect 3 have a happy ending?

Because it was intended to be bittersweet.

Sometimes hero dies in the end.

[Steelcan]

Seival wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Why can't Mass Effect 3 have a happy ending?

Because it was intended to be bittersweet.

Sometimes hero dies in the end.

. ME3 failed at bittersweet.  And Shepard isn't dead.  He lived to tell the tale.

[Seival]

Steelcan wrote...

Seival wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Why can't Mass Effect 3 have a happy ending?

Because it was intended to be bittersweet.

Sometimes hero dies in the end.

. ME3 failed at bittersweet.  And Shepard isn't dead.  He lived to tell the tale.

Oh really? Show me...

...Sorry, I know you cannot. But couldn't resist asking the question

[Reorte]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Practically yes, there is little foundation for them. Thematically you are wrong. It is quite easy to see Paragon and Renegade interpretations for Control and Synthesis, and Renegade for Destroy. Paragon Destroy, I have unfortunately not found a way to reconcile the geth/EDI destruction with the desire for autonomy in a way that deepens the playthrough.

Simply because in the long term it'll probably result in less damage overall. It may not but that's a long shot. None of the choices are 100% Paragon. Short term you're right.

[wright1978]

CronoDragoon wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Sorry but i'd argue it is bad writing to railroad the player into not being allowed to side with a choice(control), then have a magic space child pop up at the end to go, that option we specifically didn't give you the chance to side with well actually it is just dandy now. If the narrative fools with the player's expectations of what is the good choice(side with harrowmont) and afterwards you find that actually(Bhelen) has better consequences that is fine. In a choice based game to simply stick a glass window between so the player can see the choice but not touch it isn't.

It's also easy to argue that Shepard is constantly arguing with TIM about the circumstances surrounding Control, and not Control itself. For example, Paragon Shepard for most of the game is pointing out that TIM's desire for Control is splintering the war effort and has them fighting each other. I understand what you are saying, but even if Shepard said that he'd be open to Control, it wouldn't functionally change the game in any way since TIM is indoctrinated and since there are issues between them outside of the morality of Control.

Why not let the player side with him. The game only confirms the indocrination on the Citadel. Even if the plot then means his indocrination tries to make him stop you completing the control solution, so what that's better than no choice. Plus by offering the cheap option of clean control via the catalyst always being available, you bypass the tough circumstances of how the control solution was created(sanctuary) which should really be weighing on the player when they are considering the morality of using research created in such an unethical cicrumctances.

[AB Souldier]

Faust1979 wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Synthesis is meant to be the paragon choice that replicates the reconciliation of Geth/Quarians by reconciling organics/synthetics/reapers. It is presented by the villain so is untrustworthy, has workability issues(how/what level of synthesis occurs), violates the central theme of the importance of diversity(makes everyone green cyborgs).

My issue is that synthesis was never shepards goal. He never said "We are going to end the war by combining synthetics and organics as one!"

Or "We are going to win this war by controlling the Reapers!"  (TIM)

Shepards goal is and always was to destroy the reapers. Maybe it was a good thing to add synthesis or control for people who believe in that, and i am totally fine with that. 

BUT why, for the people who wanted to stick to the original plan to destroy the reapers, are being punished so hard by getting the Geth/EDI destroyed as well? How is that fair?

goals change though on occasion when other opportunities present themselves

" Maybe it was a good thing to add synthesis or control for people who believe in that, and i am totally fine with that. "

Seival wrote...

ajsrise wrote...

Why can't Mass Effect 3 have a happy ending?

Because it was intended to be bittersweet. 

Sometimes hero dies in the end.

I (and many others) already covered that shepard doesn't have to live for the ending to be happy, even though i prefer it.

[CronoDragoon]

wright1978 wrote...
Why not let the player side with him. The game only confirms the indocrination on the Citadel. Even if the plot then means his indocrination tries to make him stop you completing the control solution, so what that's better than no choice. Plus by offering the cheap option of clean control via the catalyst always being available, you bypass the tough circumstances of how the control solution was created(sanctuary) which should really be weighing on the player when they are considering the morality of using research created in such an unethical cicrumctances.

Well if I understand you correctly, then this sounds a notable change in the plot of the game, which would require more time than was available. Given 5 years of development time allotted to ME3, perhaps we would have seen a branch of the story wherein you side with TIM.

[wright1978]

CronoDragoon wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
Why not let the player side with him. The game only confirms the indocrination on the Citadel. Even if the plot then means his indocrination tries to make him stop you completing the control solution, so what that's better than no choice. Plus by offering the cheap option of clean control via the catalyst always being available, you bypass the tough circumstances of how the control solution was created(sanctuary) which should really be weighing on the player when they are considering the morality of using research created in such an unethical cicrumctances.

Well if I understand you correctly, then this sounds a notable change in the plot of the game, which would require more time than was available. Given 5 years of development time allotted to ME3, perhaps we would have seen a branch of the story wherein you side with TIM.

Why? It would hardly take 5 years for Shep to be able to secretly side with TIM in a similar fashion that he/she can secretly side with the dalatrass to sabotage the genophage cure. I find it patently a stupid notion that we can't have endings that flow from the story because of time limits.

[CronoDragoon]

wright1978 wrote...
Why? It would hardly take 5 years for Shep to be able to secretly side with TIM in a similar fashion that he/she can secretly side with the dalatrass to sabotage the genophage cure. I find it patently a stupid notion that we can't have endings that flow from the story because of time limits.

Apparently I did misunderstand you. Are you suggesting the possibility of siding with TIM at the very end on the Citadel?