1258 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

Greylycantrope wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

You know what else doesn't have happy endings? Law and Order SVU episodes.

Not trying to be rude, but what does that have to do with anything?

It was just a sneaky way to bump the thread.

That's why you never trust a volus, specially a Reaper volus.

I can indoctrinate you into doing business with me!

[GreyLycanTrope]

No! I'm in...contro-
A sale on used ships? How can I say no?!

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Destroy is a good ending if you sided with tali on rannoch, if you didnt its still MOSTLY a good ending. oh no you killed some mainframes to make sure big computers got emp blasted. boo hoo


synthesis is a good ending. everyone becomes technogods THATS REALLY COOL


control is also a good ending. everyone stays the way they are and shepard gets to be god of the entire galaxy. oh no you dont get to have sex anymore i guess thats BAD.

[chidingewe8036]

does not matter anymore really, just come to terms and move on, stay close of course, but move on.

[vialynn]

The only reason to exclude a 'happy ending' is if it simply doesn't fit the narrative. There's no point in writing an awesome story if you end it in a way that isn't faithful to the rest of your writing. IMO, ME3's available endings are completely valid options on how to end it, but a 'happy ending' would've also completely fit the story up to that point. The only reason I can see to exclude it has nothing to do with the story.

I'm frustrated that it wasn't an option. A happy ending is no more valid a way to conclude the game than any of the other three we were presented with, and would've avoided a lot of upset players (though I concede would likely have still stirred the pot some from people who feel that anything less than Shepard's death is a cop out).

Variety just doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Its half the draw of Bioware games for me at this point. I play their games knowing that I can be nice, I can be a dick, or I can be both in a game and it will affect nearly everything that happens. I also love replaying the game several times to see all the different endings. But when a specific style of ending is excluded without any specific reason (or at least I haven't heard one other than "we are happy with the game") that makes me upset. Especially when its a fairly popular style that has heretofore been a staple of Bioware games AND because the narrative didn't relay to the player that Shepard's death was going to be inevitable. In fact, it did everything BUT; at least, IMO.

[Kyazain]

I would rather have Shepard die from being killed by Harbinger while activating the Crucible rather than dying from shooting a pipe, getting electrocuted, or jumping into a beam.

[shodiswe]

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).

If Shepard didn't know all Synthetics would be destroyed in the "Destroy option" then it wouldn't be the same. Shepard might feel bad about it afterwards but still wouldn't know what sideeffects the other options would have had if it became apparent that Destroy had a sideeffect that he or she hadn't been told about.
It's less of a crime if you had no idea it would happen, then it's more of an accident or unknown sideeffect, as bad as that would be it still.. Isn't the same as doing something knowingly.
There is deffinately a huge difference in causing something that you didn´t know would happen and doing it knowingly.

Edit:
In essence the Catalyst is holding EDI and the Geth hostage, saying that, to kill us you have to kill the hostage aswell. We can however offer you peace and we will surrender.
Destroy Shepard says: Screw the hostage, kill them all.

http://www.theglobea...article7509383/

But instead of a rescue attempt, Destroy is more like a "Nuke the compound", don't let anyone crawl out alive! Shoot to kill! If it moves, you shoot. And it's not just a few hundred or thousand victims. It's billion and at least one race and one or more AI victims around the galaxy. There are after all other options, their meening is up for debate.
But to "control" the Reapers could be seen asa way of arresting the Reapers, it also seems to destroy the Catalyst that was the "Leader" of the Reapers who were doing as the Catalyst had directed them.
Synthesis, is in a way the acceptance of the terrorists goals, while it allows people to live on, it gave the Catalyst support for all it's monsterous mass murderous genocidal streak that had been going on for maybe a billion years.
Synthesis, it self might not be evil, but it is similar to saving Maelons research data on the genophage cure. That cure would save Eve/Bakara. So while that research gives the Krogans hope for a future and perhaps the chance to evolve socialy, it was created in a similar way a synthesis, synthesis is just the same thing times a few billion or trillions.
Synthesis itself, might not be bad, imo, but the way it was created and given to the galaxy is questionable.
It´s likely the Galaxy could achive it on their own terms, by their own free will.

Modifié par shodiswe, 02 février 2013 - 10:55 .

[Dr_Extrem]

@ shodiswe

a very interesting pov.

the hostage situation is clear ... the catalyst uses extortion to force one of its "solutions" on shepard and the galaxy. basicly its "choose and die" (shep has no clue, that he/she can survive shooting the tube).

but none of the endings is a victory on our behalf. its a surrender to the enemies conditions. shepard does not bargain - he/she accepts the conditions of the enemy to its full extent. its only seams to be a victory, because some of the conditions could look convenient under certain circumstances (i.e. if you dont like edi and the geth are already dead). a convenient surrender, is still a surrender.


the problem with the solutions at the end is, that it rules out the possibility of coexistance on principle. in destroy, we get rid of on faction, in control, shep-ai parents them forever and in synthesis, it uniforms all life. tha catalyst basicly tells us: "you are not able to coexists, because ... reasons - accept my workaround or die."

[shodiswe]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

@ shodiswe

a very interesting pov.

the hostage situation is clear ... the catalyst uses extortion to force one of its "solutions" on shepard and the galaxy. basicly its "choose and die" (shep has no clue, that he/she can survive shooting the tube).

but none of the endings is a victory on our behalf. its a surrender to the enemies conditions. shepard does not bargain - he/she accepts the conditions of the enemy to its full extent. its only seams to be a victory, because some of the conditions could look convenient under certain circumstances (i.e. if you dont like edi and the geth are already dead). a convenient surrender, is still a surrender.


the problem with the solutions at the end is, that it rules out the possibility of coexistance on principle. in destroy, we get rid of on faction, in control, shep-ai parents them forever and in synthesis, it uniforms all life. tha catalyst basicly tells us: "you are not able to coexists, because ... reasons - accept my workaround or die."

All options are determined by the Catalyst, that's  a slight problem. Destroy is the same as ending a hostage situation by killing both the terrorists/criminals and the hostage.
Control, gives the catalyst right, admitting that a controlling hand is needed, in some way.
Synthesis validates the Catalysts researh.
Refuse and the next cycle will have to make a pick.

But ending the Reaper threat is what matter so that makes all three original options better than refuse that not only kills the hostages but kills the hostages and everyone else out there but the terrorists/criminals.
I usualy prefer Control sicne it allows the galaxy to come to terms with things at their own pace. I really think the galaxy has potential to solve the problem on their own. Destroy might foul that chance indeffinately however. Synthesis..  While probably not bad in itself, has it's moral complications, being the result of the Catalysts mass genocides and immoral research.

But im I woudln't claim there is a perfect ending. Secondly I really dislike how the endigns were delivered and all of them come from the catalyst, I wouldn't mind if the catalyst was "allowed" to reflect on them and share it's views, but mroe views woudl have been welcome.
And the journey through London coudl have had a more itneresting and engaging story that adapted at least a little dependign on what you brought and what the player did once there, maybe a few choices.

But, I get the distinct feelign that the Catalyst is trying to hold the Geth and EDI hostage for it's own gain. Maybe it an atempt to make the different options more interestingand open to debate, and BW did succed at that, still think it could have been presented with more Drama.
But in the end noone will know that there were more choices no matter what Shepard chooses.

[AB Souldier]

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).

First off, I want to thank you for taking time to respond to my thread. It actually means a lot to me that you did. I respect your opinion on the Geth and EDI, but i don't think it is fair that so much work was put in to making peace between the Geth and Quarians for the Geth to be wiped out at the end, as well as making EDI finally understand what it is like to feel organic just for her to die ( i also am a Seth Green/Joker fan so i would hate to see him down)

I think the destroy ending should end in a way that destroys the reapers without punishing the people who want to stick to the original idea from the start, which was to destroy the reapers.
 
The only major downside to synthesis and Control overall is that Shepard dies (which is understandable. As much as i would love to see my Shep alive, since it is his last story i can see him dying a hero.)

My problem is that for people who still want to destroy the reapers because they don't believe the catalyst or they are sticking to the original plan to destroy the reapers are being pushed too hard. I think that is the reason mostly people who picked/want to pick destroy are complaining.

As much as i love this game, I just don't feel as satisfied as i hoped when beating it, I actually feel punished. Yeah i destroyed the reapers, but at what cost? What i did to the geth was what i was trying to avoid by creating peace.

I think the destroy option should not destroy the geth and EDI. I think this balances the consequences with Synthesis and Control because if you pick synthesis or control, you advance into the future with the reapers by your side for good(an example of advancing at a higher rate is seeing the unmasked Quarian scene). Just like TIM says the first time you see him on ME3 about how controlling thre reapers would advance humanity, except it advances everyone.
Or the Geth/EDI an be badly damaged, but still be repaired ( i would love to see a scene were the beam hits a geth, he falls on his knees, and a Quarian helps him up.)

I should add that the destroy ending seems dark because of the sacrifice you are making to destroying the reapers. It is like bioware is pushing us into picking synthesis or control. In my eyes ( and in most of the peoples eyes) people are commiting genocide for wanting to do what we wanted to do from the start.

I feel like i am repeating stuff, sorry about that, i just came back from work and i am extremely tired.

I hope to hear more, maybe an idea you have or something.

EDIT: Wow it took me a long time to realize someone from bioware responded to my thread. I am so slow -.-

Modifié par ajsrise, 02 février 2013 - 11:13 .

[Dr_Extrem]

shodiswe wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

@ shodiswe

a very interesting pov.

the hostage situation is clear ... the catalyst uses extortion to force one of its "solutions" on shepard and the galaxy. basicly its "choose and die" (shep has no clue, that he/she can survive shooting the tube).

but none of the endings is a victory on our behalf. its a surrender to the enemies conditions. shepard does not bargain - he/she accepts the conditions of the enemy to its full extent. its only seams to be a victory, because some of the conditions could look convenient under certain circumstances (i.e. if you dont like edi and the geth are already dead). a convenient surrender, is still a surrender.


the problem with the solutions at the end is, that it rules out the possibility of coexistance on principle. in destroy, we get rid of on faction, in control, shep-ai parents them forever and in synthesis, it uniforms all life. tha catalyst basicly tells us: "you are not able to coexists, because ... reasons - accept my workaround or die."

All options are determined by the Catalyst, that's  a slight problem. Destroy is the same as ending a hostage situation by killing both the terrorists/criminals and the hostage.
Control, gives the catalyst right, admitting that a controlling hand is needed, in some way.
Synthesis validates the Catalysts researh.
Refuse and the next cycle will have to make a pick.

But ending the Reaper threat is what matter so that makes all three original options better than refuse that not only kills the hostages but kills the hostages and everyone else out there but the terrorists/criminals.
I usualy prefer Control sicne it allows the galaxy to come to terms with things at their own pace. I really think the galaxy has potential to solve the problem on their own. Destroy might foul that chance indeffinately however. Synthesis..  While probably not bad in itself, has it's moral complications, being the result of the Catalysts mass genocides and immoral research.

But im I woudln't claim there is a perfect ending. Secondly I really dislike how the endigns were delivered and all of them come from the catalyst, I wouldn't mind if the catalyst was "allowed" to reflect on them and share it's views, but mroe views woudl have been welcome.
And the journey through London coudl have had a more itneresting and engaging story that adapted at least a little dependign on what you brought and what the player did once there, maybe a few choices.

But, I get the distinct feelign that the Catalyst is trying to hold the Geth and EDI hostage for it's own gain. Maybe it an atempt to make the different options more interestingand open to debate, and BW did succed at that, still think it could have been presented with more Drama.
But in the end noone will know that there were more choices no matter what Shepard chooses.

all endings are a defeat - especially for shepard.


controling the reapers only works out, if shepard stays absolutely passive - sadly, that is dismissed by the epilogue. either shepard is a strong leader or an omnipresent vanguard. both options are ... questionable.


at the end, you (the player) has the choice, how you want to betray your shepard. and poor shepard is forced to swallow it.

my impression is, that you choose control, because there is no "better" way to end the thread (correct me if i am wrong). i feel the same about destroy (ignoring mods).

what do i sacrifice?
- in destroy, i have to decide, that "our" form of life is more valuable, than synthetic - destroy one, to bring peace.
- in control, i decide, that life itself is not able to exist without guidance - install a watchdog, who looks over the kids.
- in synthesis, i decide, that overcoming differences is not possible - the differences are eliminated.

all choices violate a basic right. and all those rights are equally inportant in our life.


and yes .. in destroy, the geth and edi only have to die, to make control and synthesis an option.



none of these endings are nice or good ... they are equally disturbing.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
His name is primarily associated with nihilism because he was really the first one to talk about it like he did. Whether or not others equate exactly  the disbelief in the objective truth of morals with nihilism, Nieztsche does not. Nieztsche confines nihilism exclusively to the realm of those minds that reject objective truth in morals and use it as an excuse to do nothing, to aspire to no higher goals. 

Oddly enough, I stumbled onto one of my old textbooks yesterday that's really on point. War and Moral Responsibility, which is apparently still being used these days, is a collection of essays concerned with issues like how we should think about situations where violating (supposedly) fundamental rights is the only way to prevent an unacceptable outcome.

One interesting thing is that no one involved bothers to pretend that there are any sort of foundational moral truths. Even the people who are defending deontological, absolutist morality are either defending it on utilitarian grounds or defending it because certain types of moral intuition need to be respected.  I suppose thefallen2far would say that this proves all philosophers are now nihilists.

The other thing is that they all end up in the same place about what you should actually do. In ME3 terms, you've got to use the Crucible. The question is how guilty you're supposed to feel afterward.

[AlanC9]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

what do i sacrifice?
- in destroy, i have to decide, that "our" form of life is more valuable, than synthetic - destroy one, to bring peace.

.

You can't just decide that it's better to lose one species rather than all of them?

[ME859]

There is only ONE THING I want to know about a potential modification to the ending.

Is Bioware going to or not give us a credits scroll with clips of the Bioware staff lip sinking Call Me Maybe whilst giving us the finger? I mean it's been done by prisoners, a baseball team, a swim team,  a rowing team, marines, Katy Perry,  a bus of JuCo students, another baseball team, and NFL cheerleaders amongst others. Your turn now Bioware.  For God's sake it's Canada's National Anthem.

This is vital. If I don't get this I will.....well I can't say I'll never buy an EA product again. Actually on the contrary I'm going to buy 51% of EA's shares and fire all of you. Then rehire you so I can fire you again.  I'M DEAD SERIAL!

Modifié par ME859, 03 février 2013 - 12:22 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

what do i sacrifice?
- in destroy, i have to decide, that "our" form of life is more valuable, than synthetic - destroy one, to bring peace.

.

You can't just decide that it's better to lose one species rather than all of them?

Why would I want to think like the Reapers?

[3DandBeyond]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Destroy is a good ending if you sided with tali on rannoch, if you didnt its still MOSTLY a good ending. oh no you killed some mainframes to make sure big computers got emp blasted. boo hoo


synthesis is a good ending. everyone becomes technogods THATS REALLY COOL


control is also a good ending. everyone stays the way they are and shepard gets to be god of the entire galaxy. oh no you dont get to have sex anymore i guess thats BAD.

But see here you are implying that everyone should have seen them that way and yet the game allows you to actually care about those mainframes and EDI.  If you role played it and they mattered to you, it's rather poopy to make the only semi-happy more realistic type of choice force you to squish their heads.  In many ways, they are to me the ones who best exemplified life-they didn't take it for granted, they believed Shepard, they wanted to fight the reapers even when they really had nothing to lose, and when faced with their own almost annihilation they determined that those who wanted to kill them deserved to live.  They looked at the quarians and saw something better in them, something that many of the quarians didn't even display towards the geth.  The geth acted with "humanity".  And EDI, who didn't have to care at all, decided that she wanted to. 

See the thing is we take that stuff for granted.  We care about things often for selfish reasons.  But why did EDI and why did the geth?  In fact, the geth (Legion as their rep) could have just decided that helping the reapers would totally work for them.  But with Legion's help and with Shepard's they had decided they wanted something else.

Synthesis - please.  Magic and all the rest.  Synthesis already does exist.  It's just not the specific form of it that the kid wants.  And whatever he wants has always been a mistake, so no I don't want it.  It's also a rather juvenile thing and naive.  You have people that think it'd just be wonderful to be immortal-yes with breeding Krogan and Rachni that also never die.  Can you say conflict?

Control - skyscraper sized Jeffrey Dahmer's are galactic cops, controlled by the new boss who joined the old boss and no longer is connected to the people of the galaxy.  The galaxy would not know why the reapers stopped killing and started fixing things.  And Shepard no longer exists-Shepard has been uploaded into the same flawed infrastructure that housed the kid.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

what do i sacrifice?
- in destroy, i have to decide, that "our" form of life is more valuable, than synthetic - destroy one, to bring peace.

.

You can't just decide that it's better to lose one species rather than all of them?

Great concept. 

One race of people is expendable-put to death to appease our enemy.  Exactly what makes life lack any kind of value.  You do that and you set up a reality that no life matters.  Not to mention, these are people that actually showed far more sense and "humanity" that most of the rest of the galaxy combined.


So, the situation is that Shepard poses a threat and the kid says, "please kill yourself, it would help us a lot, k?"  The geth have continually been used by the reapers and have rejected them, so they pose a threat and the kid says, "please kill them and oh, maybe sort of yourself too, or maybe not".  And then EDI was also partly reaper tech and she's been helping Shepard, so the kid says, "and while you're at it, could you please kill her too.  That would help us a lot also.  You cool with that?"

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 03 février 2013 - 12:45 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
what do i sacrifice?
- in destroy, i have to decide, that "our" form of life is more valuable, than synthetic - destroy one, to bring peace.
.

You can't just decide that it's better to lose one species rather than all of them?

Why would I want to think like the Reapers?

I'm just pointing out that what Dr_Extrem said we have to decide to pick Destroy is not, in fact, required in order to pick Destroy. I'm not a good choice to defend the ethics of Destroy since I don't think it's a very good option. Well, unless you don't have enough EMS for anything else, since Destroy is still a lot better than Refuse. If that's the only case I have to make I'll just defer to Buck Turgidson.

[Laforgus]

I got my happy ending, I destroyed the Reapers... TAKE THAT Bruce Willis!

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

One race of people is expendable-put to death to appease our enemy.  Exactly what makes life lack any kind of value.  You do that and you set up a reality that no life matters.  Not to mention, these are people that actually showed far more sense and "humanity" that most of the rest of the galaxy combined.

If I could sacrifice, say, the salarians instead, I'd give it some thought. But if the choices are getting all the races killed or just one, I don't see how choosing just one means that no life matters. I really don't understand how you get to "no life matters."

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 février 2013 - 02:29 .

[ohaithere]

Alan it's the fact that destroy in essence makes you a hypocrite. You save every other race by completely exterminating another, which is not something my personal Shepard would've done. Especially considering I made peace - why does that not factor into starchild's reasoning?

[AlanC9]

If your personal Shepard would rather lose all the races than just one, you've got Refuse.

Do you maybe mean only that your Shepard doesn't like Destroy?

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 février 2013 - 02:35 .

[ohaithere]

It's a sort of necessary evil, in that you accomplish what you've sought after all along but go against one of humanity's most important values in this universe of "trying to save everyone" as Garrus puts it.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

One race of people is expendable-put to death to appease our enemy.  Exactly what makes life lack any kind of value.  You do that and you set up a reality that no life matters.  Not to mention, these are people that actually showed far more sense and "humanity" that most of the rest of the galaxy combined.

If I could sacrifice, say, the salarians instead, I'd give it some thought. But if the choices are getting all the races killed or just one, I don't see how choosing just one means that no life matters. I really don't understand how you get to "no life matters."

And that's very close to the Catalyst's "cleansing fire" logic.  Kill off some life to make room for others.  Destroy is prtty much the same thing, just on a somewhat smaller scale.