1258 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

wwinters99 wrote...
I'd say in the brutal calculus of war, the number of casualties in the two endings are within the margin of error.

[*]
[*]IF it's within the margin of error, why is it important to you that you get MEHEM rather than what we got?[*]
[*]And w hy doesn't this site handle quoted lists properly.?

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2013 - 11:32 .

[CommanderVyse]

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinter, that's not the point.

Allan was talking about the consequences of the choices in the domain of the ending itself.

But Bioware has said that the last 5 minutes are not what makes the endings different. It's your choices from the entire play-through.

[CommanderVyse]

AlanC9 wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...
I'd say in the brutal calculus of war, the number of casualties in the two endings are within the margin of error.

IF it's within the margin of error, why is it important to you that you get MEHEM rather than what we got?

Because the smallest difference can change the equation. A plus instead of a negative.

[Bill Casey]

You forgot Jenkins...
He was so excited to go on his first adventure...

[MegaSovereign]

wwinters99 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinter, that's not the point.

Allan was talking about the consequences of the choices in the domain of the ending itself.

But Bioware has said that the last 5 minutes are not what makes the endings different. It's your choices from the entire play-through.

But that specific choice in the end isn't balanced if you add something like the MEHEM.

That list you have zeros itself out in all the ending scenarios because they happen no matter what. What Allan was implying is that if Destroy was a win-win scenario (Reapers destroyed, no collateral damage), the other two choices would naturally be less compelling.

[saintjimmy43]

Please just bring DA3 in for an easy landing, Bioware. Pretty, pretty please.

[AlanC9]

wwinters99 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinter, that's not the point.

Allan was talking about the consequences of the choices in the domain of the ending itself.

But Bioware has said that the last 5 minutes are not what makes the endings different. It's your choices from the entire play-through.

My understanding of that statement was that those choices are still in effect regradless of the last five minutes. That's simply true. I don't see the relevance to a discussion of the last five minutes, though

[CommanderVyse]

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinter, that's not the point.

Allan was talking about the consequences of the choices in the domain of the ending itself.

But Bioware has said that the last 5 minutes are not what makes the endings different. It's your choices from the entire play-through.

But that specific choice in the end isn't balanced if you add something like the MEHEM.

That list you have zeros itself out in all the ending scenarios because they happen no matter what. What Allan was implying is that if Destroy was a win-win scenario (Reapers destroyed, no collateral damage), the other two choices would naturally be less compelling.

They are only less compelling based on your personal preference. If you think controlling the Reapers is better than destroying them, you would not pick MEHEM.

Let's compare the last 5 minutes of ME3:

MEHEM:
Reapers dead
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard Alive

Control:
Reapers controlled
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard controlling

Synthesis:
Reapers Alive
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard dead

Now, let's compare the last 5 minutes of Virmire:

Kaiden Dead
Ashley Alive

or

Kaiden Alive
Ashley Dead

Personal preference and choice, the selling point of the Mass Effect series.

[Bill Casey]

The choices aren't balanced now...
I guess they could make Destroy destroy the whole goddamn universe...
That would be close to as reprehensible as Synthesis...

[MegaSovereign]

wwinters99 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinter, that's not the point.

Allan was talking about the consequences of the choices in the domain of the ending itself.

But Bioware has said that the last 5 minutes are not what makes the endings different. It's your choices from the entire play-through.

But that specific choice in the end isn't balanced if you add something like the MEHEM.

That list you have zeros itself out in all the ending scenarios because they happen no matter what. What Allan was implying is that if Destroy was a win-win scenario (Reapers destroyed, no collateral damage), the other two choices would naturally be less compelling.

They are only less compelling based on your personal preference. If you think controlling the Reapers is better than destroying them, you would not pick MEHEM.

Let's compare the last 5 minutes of ME3:

MEHEM:
Reapers dead
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard Alive

Control:
Reapers controlled
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard controlling

Synthesis:
Reapers Alive
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard dead

Now, let's compare the last 5 minutes of Virmire:

Kaiden Dead
Ashley Alive

or

Kaiden Alive
Ashley Dead

Personal preference and choice, the selling point of the Mass Effect series.

Why Control the Reapers if you can end the war with no collateral damage? That's one of the main selling points of that choice.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 28 janvier 2013 - 11:52 .

[Fawx9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinter, that's not the point.

Allan was talking about the consequences of the choices in the domain of the ending itself.

But Bioware has said that the last 5 minutes are not what makes the endings different. It's your choices from the entire play-through.

But that specific choice in the end isn't balanced if you add something like the MEHEM.

That list you have zeros itself out in all the ending scenarios because they happen no matter what. What Allan was implying is that if Destroy was a win-win scenario (Reapers destroyed, no collateral damage), the other two choices would naturally be less compelling.

They are only less compelling based on your personal preference. If you think controlling the Reapers is better than destroying them, you would not pick MEHEM.

Let's compare the last 5 minutes of ME3:

MEHEM:
Reapers dead
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard Alive

Control:
Reapers controlled
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard controlling

Synthesis:
Reapers Alive
Geth, EDI Alive
Shepard dead

Now, let's compare the last 5 minutes of Virmire:

Kaiden Dead
Ashley Alive

or

Kaiden Alive
Ashley Dead

Personal preference and choice, the selling point of the Mass Effect series.

Why Control the Reapers if you can end the war with no collateral damage? That's one of the main selling points of that choice.

Then you're saying Control has no meaning other than to save the Geth/EDI. A player who chooses that isn't actually choosing to control the Reapers, they are choosing to spare their Allies.

If you were to choose Control in the above case its because you believe that the Reapers are/may be needed but you can do a better job. Whereas Desotry is believeing you don't neede the Reapers and that you'll push on ahead even if there is more uncertainty.

[MegaSovereign]

Then you're saying Control has no meaning other than to save the Geth/EDI. A player who chooses that isn't actually choosing to control the Reapers, they are choosing to spare their Allies.

If you were to choose Control in the above case its because you believe that the Reapers are/may be needed but you can do a better job. Whereas Desotry is believeing you don't neede the Reapers and that you'll push on ahead even if there is more uncertainty.

I said that it was one of the main selling points. It was definitely presented as an alternative to Destroy.

[CronoDragoon]

Fawx9 wrote...
Then you're saying Control has no meaning other than to save the Geth/EDI. A player who chooses that isn't actually choosing to control the Reapers, they are choosing to spare their Allies.

How's that a strike against Control? Seems like a perfectly legit reason.

[Fawx9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Then you're saying Control has no meaning other than to save the Geth/EDI. A player who chooses that isn't actually choosing to control the Reapers, they are choosing to spare their Allies.

If you were to choose Control in the above case its because you believe that the Reapers are/may be needed but you can do a better job. Whereas Desotry is believeing you don't neede the Reapers and that you'll push on ahead even if there is more uncertainty.

I said that it was one of the main selling points. It was definitely presented as an alternative to Destroy.

True enough.

Though I'd argue that it shifts the choice more towards choosing between the presented solutions to the problem* rather than "what doesn't fell like it 's screwing me over more in the present".  In the literal sense Destory becomes an unstable future, but with a certain present. Control becomes more about looking ahead to use the Reapers to hopefully stabalize the future.  Synthesis becomes an uncertain future, but new possibilites (a change in presentation would still help this one).

Which would be good, as I'm getting sick of playing who committs a greater war crime game.

We're stuck with the problem, no matter what you think of it's logic so lets just deal with it. Although if March 5 is the DLC date I'll reconsider. (If they actually make that the date good luck shutting up the IT guys)

How's that a strike against Control? Seems like a perfectly legit reason.

Kinda answered above, but just incase I garbled it.

I'd rather the choices be shifted from what saves me the most now, to what it actually means for the future.

Destroy coming in and taking out the Geth, to only say "Oh they can be rebuilt" doesn't actually do anything long term. They either need to make destory have something last long term. Or shift the presentation away from the **** that the choice causes in the present and more towards what might happen to the galaxy because of this. Then I think the choices become more interesting, without it devloving into war crime talk, like it has the past 10 months.

Modifié par Fawx9, 29 janvier 2013 - 12:19 .

[CommanderVyse]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...
Then you're saying Control has no meaning other than to save the Geth/EDI. A player who chooses that isn't actually choosing to control the Reapers, they are choosing to spare their Allies.

How's that a strike against Control? Seems like a perfectly legit reason.

MEHEM takes the Geth and EDI out of the equation. Now you judge the endings solely based on the Reapers (remember them? I think they were suppose to be important)

MEHEM: Reapers are Destroyed
Control: Reapers are enslaved
Synthesis: Reapers are Allies

You aren't driven to one ending or another based on the fate of other characters.

[CronoDragoon]

wwinters99 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...
Then you're saying Control has no meaning other than to save the Geth/EDI. A player who chooses that isn't actually choosing to control the Reapers, they are choosing to spare their Allies.

How's that a strike against Control? Seems like a perfectly legit reason.

MEHEM takes the Geth and EDI out of the equation. Now you judge the endings solely based on the Reapers (remember them? I think they were suppose to be important)

MEHEM: Reapers are Destroyed
Control: Reapers are enslaved
Synthesis: Reapers are Allies

You aren't driven to one ending or another based on the fate of other characters.

The Reapers are only important insofar as they are threatening the fate of the other characters, Shepard, and the galaxy. Choosing endings based solely on what to do with the Reapers is less compelling. By your logic Virmire shouldn't have happened either.

[CommanderVyse]

CronoDragoon wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...
Then you're saying Control has no meaning other than to save the Geth/EDI. A player who chooses that isn't actually choosing to control the Reapers, they are choosing to spare their Allies.

How's that a strike against Control? Seems like a perfectly legit reason.

MEHEM takes the Geth and EDI out of the equation. Now you judge the endings solely based on the Reapers (remember them? I think they were suppose to be important)

MEHEM: Reapers are Destroyed
Control: Reapers are enslaved
Synthesis: Reapers are Allies

You aren't driven to one ending or another based on the fate of other characters.

The Reapers are only important insofar as they are threatening the fate of the other characters, Shepard, and the galaxy. Choosing endings based solely on what to do with the Reapers is less compelling. By your logic Virmire shouldn't have happened either.

Not at all, Vimire was important. The Collector base was important. All your choices were important. Those choices determine who helped you, who is standing beside you at the end, and who's name is on the wall of the Normandy. Each choice is a single thread in the tapestry.

By reducing the final choice to a simpler, What happens to the Reapers? You are adding one more thread that complements your creation instead of potentially adding 1 complementary thread and 1 "lesser of 2 evils"

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wwinter, that's not the point.

Allan was talking about the consequences of the choices in the domain of the ending itself.

But Bioware has said that the last 5 minutes are not what makes the endings different. It's your choices from the entire play-through.

But that specific choice in the end isn't balanced if you add something like the MEHEM.

That list you have zeros itself out in all the ending scenarios because they happen no matter what. What Allan was implying is that if Destroy was a win-win scenario (Reapers destroyed, no collateral damage), the other two choices would naturally be less compelling.

Does Destroy provide the knowledge and manpower needed to quickly  repair the mass relays?

Does Destroy create "perfect understanding" between organics and synthetics?

Does Destroy create an immortal fleet of sentient dreadnoughts to watch over the galaxy?

[Dr_Extrem]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Then you're saying Control has no meaning other than to save the Geth/EDI. A player who chooses that isn't actually choosing to control the Reapers, they are choosing to spare their Allies.

If you were to choose Control in the above case its because you believe that the Reapers are/may be needed but you can do a better job. Whereas Desotry is believeing you don't neede the Reapers and that you'll push on ahead even if there is more uncertainty.

I said that it was one of the main selling points. It was definitely presented as an alternative to Destroy.

if people choose conrol just to avoid addtional casualties, then its like choosing destroy because shepard could live.


control should be about using the powers of the enemy to shape the galaxy in shepards way - not about sparing the geht & edi. same thing with destroy - destroy shoud not be chosen because shepard could live but to get rid of reaper influence.

in destroy (even with the geth & edi intact), the future is uncertain and there will be no higher force, to protect civilisation - we are on our own. in control on the ther hand, shepard will use the reapers as a stabilising agent.

[CronoDragoon]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if people choose conrol just to avoid addtional casualties, then its like choosing destroy because shepard could live.

Except that it's not really the same at all. One is textbook Paragon reasoning and the other is selfish.

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if people choose conrol just to avoid addtional casualties, then its like choosing destroy because shepard could live.

Except that it's not really the same at all. One is textbook Paragon reasoning and the other is selfish.

not at all. it loosing the bigger scope. choosing something because of the wrong reasons is still wrong - even if your intentions are good.

"textbook paragon reasoning" and "selfish self preservation" are both wrong reasons to make the choice.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 29 janvier 2013 - 12:50 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Does Destroy provide the knowledge and manpower needed to quickly  repair the mass relays?

Apparently yes, if you listen to the Catalyst. Not only did BW take out the line about them being destroyed, but it also says that any technology affected by the blast can be quickly repaired. It's analogous to a giant pat on the back from BW saying, "don't worry, it'll work out."

Does Destroy create "perfect understanding" between organics and synthetics?

Most Destroyers I've seen are perfectly satisfied believing they've either solved the organic/synthetic problem (by claiming Rannoch invalidates the Catalyst) or at the least earns the galaxy the right to decide their own answer to the problem. Destroyers aren't having regrets about the possibilities of Synthesis.

Does Destroy create an immortal fleet of sentient dreadnoughts to watch over the galaxy?

Destroyers don't want that. You've been on these boards and I'm sure made the same argument, to the effect of "that's enslavement" or "that's far too dangerous" or such.

These are really all arguments that would be made by Control or Synthesis people to support their endings. But based on the arguments I've seen made by Destroyers for their own ending, none of these issues really gives them pause in their own minds. You yourself said you wouldn't hesitate to pick a Destroy with a reunion scene and relay destruction instead of geth/EDI. MEHEM is even further unbalanced.

[CommanderVyse]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if people choose conrol just to avoid addtional casualties, then its like choosing destroy because shepard could live.

Except that it's not really the same at all. One is textbook Paragon reasoning and the other is selfish.

The final choice does not grant Paragon or Renegade points. It does not affect in-game events afterwards. No XP is granted. No achievement/trophy is tied to what button you press.

It is entirely a personal decision. Between MEHEM, Control, and Synthesis there is no "selfish" choice. Only what your Shepard would think is right.

[CronoDragoon]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not at all. it loosing the bigger scope. choosing something because of the wrong reasons is still wrong - even if your intentions are good.

"textbook paragon reasoning" and "selfish self preservation" are both wrong reasons to make the choice.

Paragon reasoning, specifically the preservation of lives, is morality, specifically Paragon morality. If morality is the wrong reason to make a choice then I have no idea what claim you are trying to make here.

[CronoDragoon]

wwinters99 wrote...

The final choice does not grant Paragon or Renegade points. It does not affect in-game events afterwards. No XP is granted. No achievement/trophy is tied to what button you press.

Paragon and Renegade decisions are representative of a morality. Thus their gameplay rewards are irrelevant here.

It is entirely a personal decision. Between MEHEM, Control, and Synthesis there is no "selfish" choice. Only what your Shepard would think is right.

If your personal decision is determined by your own survival, then you are selfish. That's just how it is. Now, you can have valid reasons for picking Destroy, as I do, but your own survival should not be one of them unless we are meta-gaming.