1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

its not a sacrifice, because there is no choice or to clarify, shepard does not even look for another way out. he accepts the catalysts conditions without questioning them. you could count this, as an "unconditional surrender" on shepards side. 

from a technical pov: shepards fate was meant to provoke (cheap) drama (with s jackhammer), to whitewash the slim plot of the endings.
one ending was fought by shepard from the very beginning and the only reason to choose it, is out of the inability to sacrifice the geth and edi (it also has no storywise buildup ingame) and the other ending does not even have a scientific background/buildup in this piece of fiction.

I disagree with your statement that there is no choice, therefore no sacrifice. Even in the refuse ending, Shepard can and does refuse to accept the Catalyst's logic, the price being he sacrifices the whole of the current galactic civiisation for his ideals (or perhaps even arrogance!). I see four distinct outcomes - control your enemy, bond with your enemy, destroy your enemy or be destroyed by your enemy. I concur that Shepard almost passively accepts what the Catalyst was saying in all but one of the endings which considering how strong his character is, does seem rather out of character. But then... what would be the point of arguing? It is clear that the Catalyst is infintely more powerful and intellectually superior to him, so why would the Catalyst need to lie at this point?  

what are the choices? pestilemce, cholera, dengue or ... reaperisation. 

one is becoming the enemy and let them reign (for now), let the enemy change all life in the galaxy to bypass its own idiotic problem (for now) or commit something, that is possibly against everything you ever fought for (equalty of life). the alternative is doing nothing at all (what is also against shepards sense of duty and beliefs).

the possible superiority of an enemy did not stop shepard before - why now? if nobody actiates the crucible, the reapers win - why is the catalyst even willing to talk to a mostly dead shepard? if shepard dies, the last being who is able to stop the reapers is gone. the cycle can be comleted, the crucilble dismantled, its plans found and destroyed and the next cycle will be no problem at all.
 


_____________

some personal thoughs on the situation.

why should the catalyst tell shepard the truth? .. what happens, if the crucible simply overloads the citadel and causes the catalysts systems to be fried - severing the head of the snake, without sacrificing the geth and edi? is the catalyst trying to buy time? why is the catalyst so pushy? shepard has to choose now! but why? ...

the catalyst has a lot of reasons to lie and play out time. what if the combined fleets can place a victory at earth? reaper reinforcements will take time - especially, if "we" would manage to shut down the network. this would give ut time, to launch the crucible properly.

to me, the catalysts seems to be desperate and tries to force us into a desperate move on our side, wich gives him at least a 3:1 chance to save his hide. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

Headcount wrote...

Forget getting a happy ending, I think the question should be did ME3 gave a satisfying conclusion that left you wanting more.  Or did it left you feeling that you wasted hundreds of dollars and hours playing it.  I played ME3 twice, once with the original ending and again with the EC and that was enough for me.  I never bothered with the Leviathan or the Omega DLCs and considering both are behind the Pinnacle Station in sales on the Xbox Live Marketplace should be very telling.

Not really. You have to take time into account as well Leviathan and Omega haven't been out for even a year yet.

[Dr_Extrem]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Headcount wrote...

Forget getting a happy ending, I think the question should be did ME3 gave a satisfying conclusion that left you wanting more.  Or did it left you feeling that you wasted hundreds of dollars and hours playing it.  I played ME3 twice, once with the original ending and again with the EC and that was enough for me.  I never bothered with the Leviathan or the Omega DLCs and considering both are behind the Pinnacle Station in sales on the Xbox Live Marketplace should be very telling.

Not really. You have to take time into account as well Leviathan and Omega haven't been out for even a year yet.

and yet, i for instance, brought pinnacle station but not leviathan or omega.

[sharkboy421]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

ofarrell wrote...

Bioware really just wanted to try something new (the bittersweet stuff) but it was just too much. My personal opinion is that they really didn't have enough foresight to see that people really do want a happy ending usually.

This. I love the fact that it tried to be different, it tried to be thought-provoking, it tried to turn RPG preconceptions on their head. It certainly generated a lot of discussion, which many would argue is a good thing. Most games are long gone from memory a few weeks after finishing them, never mind nearlh a year! I love the game and I'm happy enough with the ending, but even I will concede that it was far from perfect, it requires a lot of filling-in the blanks (and not everyone wants to have to do this to be satisfied), and yeah, it seems that it wasn't what a lot of people really wanted. But...and I cringe when I write this because of the connotations of writing this now on the forums...it was the story Bioware wanted to tell. 

The idea that Bioware wanted to do something different or new I don't think is the problem.  At least for me it is not.  The EC is actually really cool.  The ideas and questions it presents are really, really cool sci-fi.  The problem is that those questions and ideas are not consistent with the rest of the Mass Effect series. 

Granted, the synthetic/organic issue has always been part of ME and 3 certainly put more emphasis on it, but where I always get hung up is with Rannoch.  Regardless of how that situation is ended, it has a sense of finality to it.  You have picked your side and settled the series primary representation of the issue.  When its brought up again in the ending, its either telling you what you already know, or saying that nope your hard work is actually wrong.  In the latter case its quite confusing as the series has always rewarded your hard work.  Other issues are also raised that simply feel out of place and tacked on which all add up to a poor ending for Mass Effect. 

It was never about a happy ending (though I do sorely want one).  It was about giving Shepard the ending she deserved.  Though I disagree a sacrifice was necessary, it could be done as long as it worthy of Shepard and worthy of Mass Effect.  It needed to fit with the narrative and tone of the rest of the series.  I don't think what we have now did.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...


Not really. You have to take time into account as well Leviathan and Omega haven't been out for even a year yet.

and yet, i for instance, brought pinnacle station but not leviathan or omega.

Same here, but if we're doing a comparative analysis of how well they do in relation to each other the data's inconlusive at the moment, I'd be more comfortable with a general statement after a few more months of release for both, some people still plan to purchase they just haven't gotten around to it yet(not that I'm one of them but still).

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 27 janvier 2013 - 05:34 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...


Not really. You have to take time into account as well Leviathan and Omega haven't been out for even a year yet.

and yet, i for instance, brought pinnacle station but not leviathan or omega.

Same here, but if we're doing a comparative analysis of how well they do in relation to each other the data's inconlusive at the moment, I'd be more comfortable with a general statement after a few more months of release for both, some people still plan to purchase they just haven't gotten around to it yet(not that I'm one of them but still).

if the next dlc "delivers", the other dlcs will sell like warm applepie.

[Iakus]

ofarrell wrote...

Bioware really just wanted to try something new (the bittersweet stuff) but it was just too much. My personal opinion is that they really didn't have enough foresight to see that people really do want a happy ending usually.

Also, you don't get cocky and start getting fancy and experimental in the closing moments of a trilogy.  You want to try something different, do it in a new game.

[Dr_Extrem]

iakus wrote...

ofarrell wrote...

Bioware really just wanted to try something new (the bittersweet stuff) but it was just too much. My personal opinion is that they really didn't have enough foresight to see that people really do want a happy ending usually.

Also, you don't get cocky and start getting fancy and experimental in the closing moments of a trilogy.  You want to try something different, do it in a new game series.

fixed

[Iakus]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

iakus wrote...

ofarrell wrote...

Bioware really just wanted to try something new (the bittersweet stuff) but it was just too much. My personal opinion is that they really didn't have enough foresight to see that people really do want a happy ending usually.

Also, you don't get cocky and start getting fancy and experimental in the closing moments of a trilogy.  You want to try something different, do it in a new game series.

fixed

True.  Though I'm more forgiving in series like Dragon Age which is a different story and protagonist in each entry

[RukiaKuchki]

sharkboy421 wrote...

The idea that Bioware wanted to do something different or new I don't think is the problem.  At least for me it is not.  The EC is actually really cool.  The ideas and questions it presents are really, really cool sci-fi.  The problem is that those questions and ideas are not consistent with the rest of the Mass Effect series. 

Granted, the synthetic/organic issue has always been part of ME and 3 certainly put more emphasis on it, but where I always get hung up is with Rannoch.  Regardless of how that situation is ended, it has a sense of finality to it.  You have picked your side and settled the series primary representation of the issue.  When its brought up again in the ending, its either telling you what you already know, or saying that nope your hard work is actually wrong.  In the latter case its quite confusing as the series has always rewarded your hard work.  Other issues are also raised that simply feel out of place and tacked on which all add up to a poor ending for Mass Effect. 

It was never about a happy ending (though I do sorely want one).  It was about giving Shepard the ending she deserved.  Though I disagree a sacrifice was necessary, it could be done as long as it worthy of Shepard and worthy of Mass Effect.  It needed to fit with the narrative and tone of the rest of the series.  I don't think what we have now did.

For me, a major crux of the story was also Rannoch. I think it's quite difficult in the game to unify the Quarians and the Geth because there are a lot of pre-requisites for that scenario to play out perfectly, and I don't think we were rewarded enough for it. If the Catalyst's methodology of galactic cleansing was based upon the fact that organics and synthetics cannot live in peace, Shepard has proven the Catalyst wrong - that they can... thus the Catalyst's solution is no longer valid, at least for this cycle. Shepard united an entire galaxy, he brought together races with nothing but suspicion and pure hatred for each other which is no mean feat. I think that Shepard has proven that civilisation in this cycle should at least be given another chance. I also think that this should have been a major point in the discussion with the Catalyst, and I was very disappointed that it was barely mentioned because to me, this was the clearest and strongest demonstration of the organic vs synthetic conflict in the trilogy. Maybe an additional ending whereby it was possible to placate the Catalyst - at least temporarily - would have been better recieved? I don't know, some people would hate this idea too, which is why I stick to my day job!

[CronoDragoon]

vallore wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Regardless, I disagree that this applies to Mass Effect 3. Especially with the EC, you most certainly did not lose more than you won by defeating the Reapers.

Actually, a player can loose more. It is a matter of perspective:

You, I believe, are considering things from the perspective of Shepard's goals. I'm considering things from the perspective of the player's goals.

If we're meta-gaming then that's fine, but that still isn't losing more than you gained. Talking about losing more than you gained is, by definition, a quantitative analysis. If people wish to speak of player morals, then speak of morals, but we shouldn't mischaracterize the argument in terms of in-game consequences, where Shepard's solution is clearly preferable to the Reaper cycle.

Let us assume the role of a player that wishes to play a highly moral character.

The cost of Destroy is the destruction of a specific sentient people (genocide), a friend's death (arguably murder), and Shepard's own death, (arguably meaningless suicide), minus a few seconds of ambiguity, if your score is high.

All of those parantheses are indeed highly arguable. Were you to take them out and simply state what happened without spin, then compared to the Reaper cycle it's selfish to argue you lose more, because it's based on player morals which is of course a personal problem. I am not handwaving such a concern since it is a big deal for the player. However, that also makes it limited to a certain type of morality and viewpoint.

My bottom line is: Anyone who wants to say that they would have liked to win using traditional Paragon methods, since that was an expectation established throughout the series, then I'll agree with them. But that doesn't make Shepard a bad dude for choosing any of the endings, it doesn't make him a Renegade for choosing any of the endings, and it doesn't mean the galaxy is in worse shape post-ending than it was when the Reapers were exterminating/liquifying entire species on a massive scale.

Shepard destroys a "species" as a mean of enforcing her solution. The catalyst destroys all as a mean of enforcing his. It is a quantitative change, not a qualitative one.

Quantitative should be a much bigger deal to the player than you are making it seem.

[sharkboy421]

RukiaKuchki wrote...
For me, a major crux of the story was also Rannoch. I think it's quite difficult in the game to unify the Quarians and the Geth because there are a lot of pre-requisites for that scenario to play out perfectly, and I don't think we were rewarded enough for it. If the Catalyst's methodology of galactic cleansing was based upon the fact that organics and synthetics cannot live in peace, Shepard has proven the Catalyst wrong - that they can... thus the Catalyst's solution is no longer valid, at least for this cycle. Shepard united an entire galaxy, he brought together races with nothing but suspicion and pure hatred for each other which is no mean feat. I think that Shepard has proven that civilisation in this cycle should at least be given another chance. I also think that this should have been a major point in the discussion with the Catalyst, and I was very disappointed that it was barely mentioned because to me, this was the clearest and strongest demonstration of the organic vs synthetic conflict in the trilogy. Maybe an additional ending whereby it was possible to placate the Catalyst - at least temporarily - would have been better recieved? I don't know, some people would hate this idea too, which is why I stick to my day job!

Yeah exactly, its very hard to reconcile what happens on Rannoch with what the catalyst says.  As I stated before, however you decide to settle Rannoch, there is nothing left to be said on the issue.  This brings me to another issue I have with the catalyst: the fact that it even exists.

You bring up some valid points about arguing with it or even placating it or whatever.  I personally have a problem with that because its still there.  If one accepts that its entire reason for being (solving the organic/synthetic issue) is false or unnecessary then I have ask why is he even there?  This is another question I would love to hear an answer for directly from Bioware and its writers.  As I said earlier, I still cannot figure out why they felt this was an appropriate way to finish the series.

[Belisarius25]

You don't prove the Catalyst wrong on Rannoch at all; it's perspective is long-term...basically that while organics and synthetics may live together in peace at times, at the end of the day it will always end badly. Bringing peace to the Geth and Quarians is impressive (and it *would* be nice if you could bring it up), but there's nothing to prove it's a permanent peace.

To the Catalyst, you've (at best) just delayed the inevitable. Not that it's right - maybe this cycle is different - just that from its perspective you haven't done anything to prove it wrong.

Modifié par Belisarius25, 27 janvier 2013 - 07:40 .

[3DandBeyond]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...


Not really. You have to take time into account as well Leviathan and Omega haven't been out for even a year yet.

and yet, i for instance, brought pinnacle station but not leviathan or omega.

Same here, but if we're doing a comparative analysis of how well they do in relation to each other the data's inconlusive at the moment, I'd be more comfortable with a general statement after a few more months of release for both, some people still plan to purchase they just haven't gotten around to it yet(not that I'm one of them but still).

if the next dlc "delivers", the other dlcs will sell like warm applepie.

Exactly.  This is one of the side effects that an epic (new or additional) ending could achieve.  Had they done this to begin with, instead of say, Leviathan then any kind of exploratory type of ending could also have happened.  It could have paved the way for some kind of Spectre Adventures that could have been expansion packs or a lot of other things.  Create a great core game that does not lack, storywise, and people will buy the other stuff just for fun.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if the next dlc "delivers", the other dlcs will sell like warm applepie.

Spoiler alert: It will not.

The current expectations of BSN are larger than Charon's orbit.

[3DandBeyond]

Belisarius25 wrote...

You don't prove the Catalyst wrong on Rannoch at all; it's perspective is long-term...basically that while organics and synthetics may live together in peace at times, at the end of the day it will always end badly. Bringing peace to the Geth and Quarians is impressive (and it *would* be nice if you could bring it up), but there's nothing to prove it's a permanent peace.

No, the catalyst is reliving the original problem that could never be solved by his creators, because of how lacking they were in their own character and personality.  The fact is, no matter what, conflict of a sort will always exist, unless everyone becomes an automaton or is controlled so much so that free will is removed.  Individuality breeds conflict, but not all conflict is bad and not all order is good.  You need conflict in order to improvise and to actually use your brain.  Adversity breeds innovation.

If the catalyst is seeing an inevitability, he is number one, a psychic because he always sees it as something that will inevitably destroy all organic life.  So, killer synthetics will either on purpose or accidentally kill all organic life down to single celled organisms because they supercede organics.  Synthetics get too smart, so they will kill.  Yeah, but no.  The geth actually got smarter than the organics that created them-they superceded them and the geth decided they did not want to kill.  Rannoch only proves that some organics are morons and maybe deserve to die because instead of helping the galaxy fight off the reapers that will kill them too and render Rannoch's victory moot, these brainy organics choose that moment to start a war with the geth.  The geth who had started to make peaceful overtures.  Brilliant.

The reality of life is that no peace is ever permanent-nor do the choices assure a permanent peace of any kind.  If you stop and think about them all for a moment you can see that they don't.  So the logic behind seeing them as solutions to take over from the non-permanent reaper solution is non-existent.  Synthesis as the kid's favorite does not preclude conflict.  Super smart hybridized (no longer) organic people may find a way to create wholly organic life.  Or Synthetics that now understand organics and see value in them might look around and wonder where the organics are, and they might create organic life.  And someone might create some alternate synthetic life to do mundane tasks no one wants to do, as they all vegetate and ruminate on the meaning of a non-confrontational life.  Let the games begin.

[3DandBeyond]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if the next dlc "delivers", the other dlcs will sell like warm applepie.

Spoiler alert: It will not.

The current expectations of BSN are larger than Charon's orbit.

Hope is as big as the imagination.  Deny one and you may well be denying the other.  Appeal to one and you give wings to the other.

[Laforgus]

It does...just Destroy the Reapers!

[fiendishchicken]

Laforgus wrote...

It does...just Destroy the Reapers!

I would like to, but I'd also not like to buy into the Catalyst's bs. See DeinonSlayers idea for a should be added to the Destroy conversation.

[MegaSovereign]

So the only thing that would count as a great last DLC is new ending content?

[Belisarius25]

@3D

Uh, like I said

Not that [the Catalyst] is right

The Catalyst isn't going to be dissuaded from its views because of what happened on Rannoch. To the Catalyst, all you've done is temporarily halt the development of the usual pattern. That has nothing to do with whether this cycle might be different (maybe it is) or whether that justifies the Catalyst's actions/the cycle (in my mind, it doesn't at all). I was just pointing out that Shepard would hardly be able to convince the Catalyst it was wrong because of Rannoch.

My own personal belief (and how I RP my main Shepard) is that it doesn't matter whether the Geth/Quarian peace lasts a year or forever, it can be used as an example of how the galaxy can move forward.

Then again, I'm a diehard Destroyer so the Geth die anyway  :innocent:

Modifié par Belisarius25, 27 janvier 2013 - 07:55 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Hope is as big as the imagination.  Deny one and you may well be denying the other.  Appeal to one and you give wings to the other.

Question of personal preference. My own experience tells me that hype hurts the hyped item, even if it does end up great. But again, different people, different thought proccesses.

[Dr_Extrem]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if the next dlc "delivers", the other dlcs will sell like warm applepie.

Spoiler alert: It will not.

The current expectations of BSN are larger than Charon's orbit.

i only stated an assumption (that is imo, very close to the truth) - my personal feelings are detached from this statement. btw. where did i post, that new ending content would be "delivered"? ... assumption on your side i guess. even a really good non-ending dlc, that enhances the game may boost dlc-sales. (there are mods out there, who can take care of this).

your attempt to pick up a fight or tutor me, are repelled. 

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 27 janvier 2013 - 08:04 .

[Mcfly616]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So the only thing that would count as a great last DLC is new ending content?

pretty much


Some people are hoping this DLC delivers. Hmm, I'm wondering: well ofcourse we hope it delivers.....I mean, I know Omega was mediocre, but I'm pretty sure Leviathan "delivered".


I've since come to the conclusion that by "deliver", they mean "new ending content"

[Mouton_Alpha]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if the next dlc "delivers", the other dlcs will sell like warm applepie.

Spoiler alert: It will not.

The current expectations of BSN are larger than Charon's orbit.

i only stated an assumption (that is imo, very close to the truth) - my personal feelings are detached from this statement. btw. where did i post, that new ending content would be "delivered"? ... assumption on your side i guess. even a really good non-ending dlc, that enhances the game may boost dlc-sales. (there are mods out there, who can take care of this).

your attempt to pick up a fight or tutor me, are repelled. 

It was not my intent. My statement was concerning the sentiments running throught the BSN, not you in particular, as I pointed in my post. Mcfly616 puts it well:

Mcfly616 wrote...

I've since come to the conclusion that by "deliver", they mean "new ending content"

Many people seem to hope it will "fix" ME3. It will not. And even if it does, they will not like it.