CosmicGnosis wrote...
PainCakesx wrote...
So after spending the last 2 games fighting TIM and his ideology of controlling the Reapers, it's preferrable for us at the last minute to ignore that and do exactly what we were fighting against?
That doesn't make any sense.
Paradigm Shift.
http://social.biowar.../index/15148476
vallore wrote...
However, I would argue that any balance existent in the game endings was constructed around the need of balancing the central dilemma.
If, for a given player, the dilemma fails, or takes a secondary role, then the end result is, again, unbalanced, making the extra costs associated with destroy pointless as a balance mechanism.
Without the central dilemma of the endings we have:
Control and Synthesis allowing everyone but Shepard to live; while Destroy causes EDI, possibly the Geth and likely Shepard to die, (minus a few seconds of ambiguity).
AlanC9 wrote...
Nevermind
CronoDragoon wrote...
[
The only situation where the balancing mechanism for Destroy is pointless is for people who would choose Control or Synthesis no matter what. Which is, I imagine, a very very small number. Pointless is not the right word for people who would choose Destroy no matter what: it achieved its point which was to eliminate the possibility of victory achieved without moral complexity or compromise. In this sense it still only affects Paragon Shepards who seek an ending where idealism trumps the reality of the situation. In short, we've come full circle to whether or not sacrificing a happy ending was worth it for this type of ending dilemma.
3DandBeyond wrote...
Xenite wrote...
The real fun will come when they tell everyone that synth is cannon and that's what the next game will contain. They simply have no way to continue the universe with three separate worlds, they would have to make 3 different games.
We all know which one is Hudson's favorite, so it has to be ours as well.
Actually, there's no way to know any of this for sure-he's said a lot of things. It's not like they are consistent in saying something and meaning it.
And, at some point it's hoped that someone will say to them that synthesis as they've shown it, makes no sense. As well as some organic evolution to synthesis (it just happens) is a contradiction in terms and therefore, it makes no sense.
Then, I want them to take a look at (at least in the US) tv commercials. Look at the wonderful side effects and the failure rates of synthetic products within organic bodies and then tell me it would be a great idea to have it glued into our DNA. Pacemakers, knee joints, hip replacements, meshes, and so on. Everything fails. Organics die. Tech falls apart or degrades or decays. Computer coding decays. So, yes, let's just insert it in all of us and have fun. What mechanic is going to fix that-your DNA breaks, so the solution is more tech.
And within their own story they created the one about the Zha'til. In that, people had tech forcibly integrated into them and the tech took over. So, I see no problem with unknown tech being fully integrated with organic DNA. No idea what tech. Nor is there any problem with synthetics getting full understanding of organics (a now extinct race)-who cares to know where that understanding comes from?
thefallen2far wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Nevermind
I don't care anymore. I don't believe you. You don't believe me. Once you start insulting me, I'm done. I'm just going to continue to think it's nihilistic, you're going to continue to think it's not. Neither one of us will respect each other's position.... so nothing is changed.
if they go with an alternate timeline, they don't have to canonize an ending.Xenite wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
Xenite wrote...
The real fun will come when they tell everyone that synth is cannon and that's what the next game will contain. They simply have no way to continue the universe with three separate worlds, they would have to make 3 different games.
We all know which one is Hudson's favorite, so it has to be ours as well.
Actually, there's no way to know any of this for sure-he's said a lot of things. It's not like they are consistent in saying something and meaning it.
And, at some point it's hoped that someone will say to them that synthesis as they've shown it, makes no sense. As well as some organic evolution to synthesis (it just happens) is a contradiction in terms and therefore, it makes no sense.
Then, I want them to take a look at (at least in the US) tv commercials. Look at the wonderful side effects and the failure rates of synthetic products within organic bodies and then tell me it would be a great idea to have it glued into our DNA. Pacemakers, knee joints, hip replacements, meshes, and so on. Everything fails. Organics die. Tech falls apart or degrades or decays. Computer coding decays. So, yes, let's just insert it in all of us and have fun. What mechanic is going to fix that-your DNA breaks, so the solution is more tech.
And within their own story they created the one about the Zha'til. In that, people had tech forcibly integrated into them and the tech took over. So, I see no problem with unknown tech being fully integrated with organic DNA. No idea what tech. Nor is there any problem with synthetics getting full understanding of organics (a now extinct race)-who cares to know where that understanding comes from?
I guess time will tell, but I hope you can agree that they will have to decided on something being cannon unless they make a prequel.
They painted themselves into a terrible corner with this ughhh "ending". If nothing else they should have siezed upon the IT just to get the lore into a place where the franchise could continue.
Xenite wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
Xenite wrote...
The real fun will come when they tell everyone that synth is cannon and that's what the next game will contain. They simply have no way to continue the universe with three separate worlds, they would have to make 3 different games.
We all know which one is Hudson's favorite, so it has to be ours as well.
Actually, there's no way to know any of this for sure-he's said a lot of things. It's not like they are consistent in saying something and meaning it.
And, at some point it's hoped that someone will say to them that synthesis as they've shown it, makes no sense. As well as some organic evolution to synthesis (it just happens) is a contradiction in terms and therefore, it makes no sense.
Then, I want them to take a look at (at least in the US) tv commercials. Look at the wonderful side effects and the failure rates of synthetic products within organic bodies and then tell me it would be a great idea to have it glued into our DNA. Pacemakers, knee joints, hip replacements, meshes, and so on. Everything fails. Organics die. Tech falls apart or degrades or decays. Computer coding decays. So, yes, let's just insert it in all of us and have fun. What mechanic is going to fix that-your DNA breaks, so the solution is more tech.
And within their own story they created the one about the Zha'til. In that, people had tech forcibly integrated into them and the tech took over. So, I see no problem with unknown tech being fully integrated with organic DNA. No idea what tech. Nor is there any problem with synthetics getting full understanding of organics (a now extinct race)-who cares to know where that understanding comes from?
I would argue that their is enough subtle hints that synth was the prefered direction they wanted players to take. But it's like Liara, theirs a pretty good case to be made that she was the pet favorite LI in the series. I guess time will tell, but I hope you can agree that they will have to decided on something being cannon unless they make a prequel.
They painted themselves into a terrible corner with this ughhh "ending". If nothing else they should have siezed upon the IT just to get the lore into a place where the franchise could continue.
Modifié par PainCakesx, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:24 .
Allan Schumacher wrote...
Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.
What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.
I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.
I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.
I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).
Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 30 janvier 2013 - 07:04 .
vallore wrote...
Imo, the balancing mechanism purpose should be not just to balance the difficulty to choose between the three endings, but to do so in a way that balances the three choices in relation to the core dilemma. While I can see how the costs imposed achieve the former, I believe they fail the later.
Assuming a player clearly inclined towards Destroy: The extra costs may indeed cause this player to pause, and may even cause him to choose differently from his original intention. But the extra costs being extraneous to the core dilemma, this happens only because the central dilemma is no longer the main question(s) he is trying to answer, (instead, he is trying to figure how to deal with the extra costs attached to Destroy, regardless of his beliefs about the dilemma).
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 30 janvier 2013 - 04:44 .
CronoDragoon wrote...
What are you defining as the core dilemma? I don't see the core dilemma as "what to do with the Reapers" but rather "how to stop the Reaper war." In that sense I don't think you can separate certain aspects of the ending as "not a part of the core dilemma." What you actually do with the Reapers is in fact a means to one of two ends, either 1. stopping the Reaper war or 2. solving the organic/synthetic conflict. In this sense the geth/EDI sacrifice actually does function as a legitimate part of #2, since some may choose an ending other than Destroy believing that Destroy will spark future conflict.
AlanC9 wrote...
It isn't a question of belief. Words have meanings, and it looks like you really don't know what " nihilistic" means.
Modifié par thefallen2far, 31 janvier 2013 - 12:48 .
vallore wrote...
Destroy, being the obvious choice for those that refuse to give any credibility to the catalyst suffer from this. And this why the extra costs may cause a serious problem in Destroy: you are cornered between two extra solutions you don’t believe will work/should work, and a solution that should, but his burdened with extra costs that make it unpalatable. No amount of extra costs change this.
thefallen2far wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
It isn't a question of belief. Words have meanings, and it looks like you really don't know what " nihilistic" means.
Okay, now I think you're an insulting troll making crap up in order to get a rise out of people and and I feel like an idiot for believing you were in any way a reasonable conversationalist, and will take care to avoid your meandering drivel. If there is anything of value in you comments, I may respond but outside that unlikly event, I'll hae to settle for "good day, sir".
thefallen2far wrote...
You can do what's moralistic [paragon] or do something that's consequentialist [renegade].
CronoDragoon wrote...
vallore wrote...
Destroy, being the obvious choice for those that refuse to give any credibility to the catalyst suffer from this. And this why the extra costs may cause a serious problem in Destroy: you are cornered between two extra solutions you don’t believe will work/should work, and a solution that should, but his burdened with extra costs that make it unpalatable. No amount of extra costs change this.
That would only be true if the only value of the Control and Synthesis endings were contained within their viability as a solution to the Catalyst's proposed organic/synthetic problem. But the Destroy costs still balance the endings even when not considering the organic/synthetic problem and just addressing the Reaper war, because Control and Synthesis have ramifications and benefits aside from their relation to the O/S conflict.
That is why I indeed separated the Reaper war and the O/S conflict as the two "central" dilemmas brought up at the end, contrasted with the actual fate of the Reapers which always functions as only a factor in the decision ultimately determined by those two questions.
As I see it, the ending decision process functions like this:
You decide whether or not to believe the Catalyst about O/S conflict being inevitable. If you believe him, you essentially look at Control and Synthesis. If you feel strongly about how each can solve or prevent conflict, then you have your choice. If you don't believe him, then you move on to the question of how to best end the Reaper war. When it comes to this question, I believe the endings are rather balanced. All three endings can be viable ways to end the Reaper war regardless of how you feel about the O/S question; even Synthesis can be seen as a preferable alternative if you feel strongly enough about the geth/EDI and about not ruling the galaxy as the Sheaper. Without some consequence in Destroy, however, there is little reason to look at Synthesis or Control when purely considering how to end the Reaper war, unless you are a Renegade wanting to pick Control.
CronoDragoon wrote...
Modifié par thefallen2far, 31 janvier 2013 - 01:55 .
vallore wrote...
What about the question of the credibility posed by his solutions? That is, imo, part of the dilemma posed. Like the O/S question, there is no in game proof that supports that these will work as he states/implies, other than Destroy.
If our player distrusts their viability, what other option but destroy does he have?
For instance, a problem of accepting control is that you have no guarantee it will work as the catalyst implies (without restrictions). It can fail over time in a number of ways. If you don't trust him in that, control is likely not a valid option.
Synthesis is even more problematic, as we don’t even know how it is supposed to work, what is supposed to actually do, much less if and how it could fail. Would someone that completely distrusts the catalyst choose it? Perhaps, but then, what problem would he be trying to solve? The Reaper problem, or his distaste for the consequences of the two other choices?
thefallen2far wrote...
CronoDragoon wrote...
Pronunciation: ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-Function: nounEtymology: GermanNihilismus, from Latin nihilnothing — more at nil
Date: circa 1817
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
So, stating there is no objective ground of truth in genocide of artificial intelligence, utilitarian command of the biggest death camp machines ind the universe or the rewriting of all universal law without any other consent.to apease the crazy machines and acknowledging the denial of the these acts as immoral resulting in the wiping out of civilization as truth in the narrative.
Maybe my problem is I'm listening to Merriam Webster's and Friedrich Nietzsche's definition of nihilism instead of random internet poster 1 and 2.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 31 janvier 2013 - 02:23 .
CronoDragoon wrote...
The endings do not show that "existence is senseless and useless" as it says right there in your MW definition; they show that absolute idealism will not always prevail. Idealism does not encompass the totality of morality, and you still have not addressed that point. Do you believe Renegades to be amoral? They aren't. I'm also confused by your usage of "utilitarian": did you mean totalitarian?
Friedrich Nietzsche, incidentally, would not agree with that second definition of nihilism which you seem to be using while ignoring the first. Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is only one path that can be taken once the realization comes that there is no objective truth to morals. The other? The "overman" or "post-man" or however you'd like to translate the German. Nietzsche believes that there is great power in "embracing the lie." In fact, he sees art as the only true opposition to the pursuit of truth or the "ascetic ideal" because art joyously celebrates that which does not pretend to absolute truth. Nihilism is not merely rejecting truth; it's rejecting truth and using it as a disincentive to action. Again, this is why he uses his vision of the Last Man to exemplify the dangers of nihilism. It reduces man to animal.
Modifié par vialynn, 31 janvier 2013 - 05:07 .
vialynn wrote...
For my part, none of the 3 possible endings were at all entertaining. At least not in regards for my desire to play as a Shepard who saves the galaxy and everyone its reasonably possible to save (i.e. everyone Bioware lets me save) and who goes on to live, to borrow a cliche, happily ever after.
In that regard, ME3 had nothing for me.
Whats disappointing about this is simply that the possibility of ME3 ending on less than a happy note never entered my mind. The endings for ME1 and 2 were nothing like the 'options' presented in ME3. I didn't spend hundreds of hours in this universe to get caught up in what feels like Bioware inter-office politics, or someone forcing their particular Artistic Vision upon the ending to the exclusion of other possibilities.* I can simply fathom no good reason why a relatively 'happy' ending couldn't have been included among all the other endings. The other endings wouldt've appealed to me on subsequent play-throughs, when I'm usually eager to see how else the game might've ended if I had chosen differently, but they would never have been my first choice.
The tone of ME1, 2, and 3 never prepared me for what happened on the Citadel after dealing with TIM. In contrast, I fully expected my character to die hard and fast at the end of Dragon's Age. The whole tone of that game really set the stage for a heroic death to save everyone; except, when it came down to it, I had 3 different options to handle how the game ended; suck it up and die, order someone else to die in my stead, or the scary third option, which may or may not really backfire badly later.
It will, I think, forever bother me that I can survive a story as gritty and dark as Dragon's Age, but be forcibly killed off in ME3 in what I felt to be an incredibly positive and heroic narrative.
Its just that much more disappointing when taken with the rest of the ME series, which, if not for the completely unsatisfying ending, I would easily term my favorite games ever; which I do not say lightly.
* - To elaborate further on this, it really feels to me like either someone at the top, or perhaps just someone with enough pull, somehow forced the ending options into the '3 morally grey choices' rather than there being one 'clear best' choice. Perhaps it was just an experiment meant to see if they could do this sort of thing in a video game and be praised for it. I realize that there are still quite a few people who are happy with how the game ended, but I am incredibly unhappy and disappointed with how the game ended.
This, in fact, is the first time I have ever logged on to the forums of a game I've played to complain about some aspect of it. Its somehow worse to me that it happens to be a Bioware game; a company that heretofore has never managed to disappoint me.
Lesson learned I guess.
iakus wrote...
vialynn wrote...
Whats disappointing about this is simply that the possibility of ME3 ending on less than a happy note never entered my mind.
+1
Right up through the "best seats in the house" dialogue, there was nothing saying that death and compromise was inevitable. Yeah death was possible. But if you were tough enough, smart enough, glib enough, or just plain crazy-prepared, Shepard could overcome whatever obstacles were put in his/her way.
Retour en haut