286 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

Indy_S wrote...

You can dedicate a playthrough to Face Value? How is that different from just playing the game?

No idea..

[clennon8]

Yes. They all "end the Reaper threat." Supposedly. But Control and Synthesis completely trash the themes and narrative, and require that you ignore pretty much everything that happened in the game. You can only support those choices through a lot of assumptions of writer intent, and contortions of logic and morality. Instead of roleplaying, you're cheating at solitaire and then rationalizing your cheating. Then crying when your cheating and rationalizing are pointed out to you.

[Fuzrum77]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Who cares either way? It's your game and your choice at the end of the day.

While I personally believe ALL the endings suck, and destroy is the least repugnant, EpicBoot2daFace is correct: It's your game. And all other opinions mean nothing. (Yes, mine too )

wait, did I just inadvertently invalidate my entire post? Dammit...

[clennon8]

And Synthesis feels like the religious conversion that it is blatantly represented to be. And what's another word for religious conversion? Here's a hint. Starts with an I and ends with ndoctrination.

Modifié par clennon8, 22 janvier 2013 - 08:03 .

[Applepie_Svk]

each ending suck, better way is to leave BioWare sooner then they trick you to bought of another false advertised game...

[Meltemph]

clennon8 wrote...

And Synthesis feels like the religious conversion that it is blatantly represented to be. And what's another word for religious conversion? Here's a hint. Starts with an I and ends with ndoctrination.

Synthesis is so vauge you can make it mean just about anything you want, the EC slides are pretty inconcequential, same with control, really.

How you emotionally or morally feel about a certain ending is fairly pointless, considering the situation but I digress.

Either way, these last few pages show what I was talking about earlier.  For whatever the hell reason, I cant understand, people have attached their personal real world philosophy/morals/beliefs onto the endings, combined with, what I would call a fairly devout and obsessive attachment to their endings(support threads proof of this).  Apparently compartmentalizing your own personal issues/beleifs/ect enoguh so you can make a somewhat objective choice, so you can simply make a choice based on the info given to us, is near impossible for just about everyone on bsn(I can find no other reason why people are so attached to a specific ending, much less their headcannon resaults or why people get so angry at people choosing a ending).

It appears to me that the people who argue the most about the morality/belief/headcanon/faith of a specific ending(whether unto itself or compared to otehr endings) are quite similar in mentality, the whole time, while yelling at each other telling everyone you are not looking at the "endings right" or you are a sinner.  

Calling any of the endings nonsensical is one thing, trying to cast them in a moral light, given how little we actually know about the endings is just demogoery for the sake of an obsessive devotion.

[Hadeedak]

clennon8 wrote...

And Synthesis feels like the religious conversion that it is blatantly represented to be. And what's another word for religious conversion? Here's a hint. Starts with an I and ends with ndoctrination.

Or it could be a standard ascension of the hero, a common artifact of human mythology that has staying power across cultures with a fair amount of dramatic symbolism. It shows in both how we portray important historical and political figures and in what stories we choose to tell.

Since Shepard's tale is at its heart a hero story, this doesn't surprise me.

But hey. If you want to see it as an blatant reference to religion and a few particular religious hero tales specifically (what with the crucifixion note and all), that's fine. 

[Applepie_Svk]

Meltemph wrote...


Calling any of the endings nonsensical is one thing, trying to cast them in a moral light, given how little we actually know about the endings is just demogoery for the sake of an obsessive devotion.

While I agree at most of what you said, I blame creators for ****y china wok ending where they´ve tried balance one practical and one moral of each ending to made them moraly grey. By this stupid logic, we could say that Stalin just tried to made world better - because he wanted to made world socialism if not even comunism by creating his union, but it doesn´t matter about all those dead people which he sent do death sentence because of what he tried to achieve.

You can´t simply say "The end justify the means" because that´s not working with the ending of ME3, when whole belief is based on 25 minutes long pain in the azz crazy finale scenes where in the last minutes you ends chating or better said just a listening with main antagonist like the child with the old man. 

[clennon8]

I don't think "standard ascension of the hero" covers what happens to Shepard in the Synthesis ending.

[Hadeedak]

clennon8 wrote...

I don't think "standard ascension of the hero" covers what happens to Shepard in the Synthesis ending.

Why not? It certainly has the structural trappings.

[Nightwriter]

One of you is saying it was artistic and the other is saying it was religious. Neither feels right and both make me wrinkle my nose.

[Meltemph]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Meltemph wrote...


Calling any of the endings nonsensical is one thing, trying to cast them in a moral light, given how little we actually know about the endings is just demogoery for the sake of an obsessive devotion.

While I agree at most of what you said, I blame creators for ****y china wok ending where they´ve tried balance one practical and one moral of each ending to made them moraly grey. By this stupid logic, we could say that Stalin just tried to made world better - because he wanted to made world socialism if not even comunism by creating his union, but it doesn´t matter about all those dead people which he sent do death sentence because of what he tried to achieve.

You can´t simply say "The end justify the means" because that´s not working with the ending of ME3, when whole belief is based on 25 minutes long pain in the azz crazy finale scenes where in the last minutes you ends chating or better said just a listening with main antagonist like the child with the old man. 

They offered irrational choices, with room to headcannon for a reason, I'm assuming for the prupsoe of being able to be vague.  I'm guessing they wanted people to be able to envision the ME setting heading in any direction they wanted.  The reason, I think, there are some people who are are really angry, at these choices(perhaps not realizing it) is becuase if these endings stand, as is, the setting is essetnially done(Post ME3 events), which means the setting is stuck in prequels, without a handwave/retcon/picking a canon.

Either way, there is no point in attacking the moral validity to an ending, becuase they are so open ended and vague nothing of any significance can be attached to the endings.  Hell, destroy is the only ending where we actually understand the full implications, and refuse is the only ending we SEE the full implciations of our choice.  

With that in mind, I'm not sure they originally planned on having any ME's after 3, and jsut wanted the story open ended enough so people could land mentaly where they wanted, with their own gymnastics(which is unfortunate for those of us who dont have a particular attachment to any of the "themes" in any of the endings).  

Modifié par Meltemph, 22 janvier 2013 - 08:56 .

[Hadeedak]

Nightwriter wrote...

One of you is saying it was artistic and the other is saying it was religious. Neither feels right and both make me wrinkle my nose.

Well, I'm not sure I'd ascribe it a positive value judgement. It's presented a bit weakly. What I am saying is that the motifs are there, and are hardly exclusive to religious icons.

And I do think synthesis is as viable as any other ending.

[XXIceColdXX]

Sorry but prior to EC it really was the only choice, especially if you'd followed the story since ME1. After EC refuse was also a viable option.

[Hadeedak]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Sorry but prior to EC it really was the only choice, especially if you'd followed the story since ME1. After EC refuse was also a viable option.

Well, damn. I could have sworn that, having followed the story since ME1, I picked control on my first round, destroy on my second, synthesis on my third, and refuse on my fourth.

It really wasn't the only choice. 

[clennon8]

Well, first of all, "ascension of the hero" is kind of a nebulous term. It is commonly used to refer to an ascension to a position of earthly prominence, such as "the throne." Let's just say that in the case of Shepard in the Synthesis ending, it is carried to an extreme that can only be construed as religious. Shepard takes a leap of faith into a beam of light, assuming the exact position of Christ on the cross. His essence is dispersed to every living creature in the galaxy, literally making him omnipresent. He dies for our syn(thesi)s. It's blatant, clear-cut religious allegory. What's more, it's a last moment conversion and affirmation of religion in a story that had largely been anti-religious up to that point. You should be suspicious of it.

[Nightwriter]

Hadeedak wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

One of you is saying it was artistic and the other is saying it was religious. Neither feels right and both make me wrinkle my nose.

Well, I'm not sure I'd ascribe it a positive value judgement. It's presented a bit weakly. What I am saying is that the motifs are there, and are hardly exclusive to religious icons.

And I do think synthesis is as viable as any other ending.

I guess this:

"Or it could be a standard ascension of the hero, a common artifact of human mythology that has staying power across cultures with a fair amount of dramatic symbolism. It shows in both how we portray important historical and political figures and in what stories we choose to tell."

-- sounds like a positive value judgment to me. Seemed like you were comparing it to traditional and historical examples of the trope. The importance being that most traditional and historical examples did it well.

[Hadeedak]

Eh. The problem is you're discussing fairly universal, well-used symbols that are subject to interpretation.

Also, unlike the one you're going for, Shepard is incapable of return or continuance, which is a rather important difference if it's an allegory.

[XXIceColdXX]

Hadeedak wrote...

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Sorry but prior to EC it really was the only choice, especially if you'd followed the story since ME1. After EC refuse was also a viable option.

Well, damn. I could have sworn that, having followed the story since ME1, I picked control on my first round, destroy on my second, synthesis on my third, and refuse on my fourth.

It really wasn't the only choice. 

Control and Synthesis just seem so, so un-mass effect to me. But if your happy with those choices that's great. 

[Hadeedak]

Nightwriter wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

One of you is saying it was artistic and the other is saying it was religious. Neither feels right and both make me wrinkle my nose.

Well, I'm not sure I'd ascribe it a positive value judgement. It's presented a bit weakly. What I am saying is that the motifs are there, and are hardly exclusive to religious icons.

And I do think synthesis is as viable as any other ending.

I guess this:

"Or it could be a standard ascension of the hero, a common artifact of human mythology that has staying power across cultures with a fair amount of dramatic symbolism. It shows in both how we portray important historical and political figures and in what stories we choose to tell."

-- sounds like a positive value judgment to me. Seemed like you were comparing it to traditional and historical examples of the trope. The importance being that most traditional and historical examples did it well.

Well, I could compare it to the 'death' of Silver Age Superman, if that'd make you feel better. Not all ascensions are well written or moving. I'm going to stay out of whether this one is one of them, and just say that it has its pros and cons. I just felt comparing it to the Passion was oddly and unnecessarily specific. It's not like "Hero dies through self destruction to bring about change/save others" is unusual.

[Nightwriter]

clennon8 wrote...

Well, first of all, "ascension of the hero" is kind of a nebulous term. It is commonly used to refer to an ascension to a position of earthly prominence, such as "the throne." Let's just say that in the case of Shepard in the Synthesis ending, it is carried to an extreme that can only be construed as religious. Shepard takes a leap of faith into a beam of light, assuming the exact position of Christ on the cross. His essence is dispersed to every living creature in the galaxy, literally making him omnipresent. He dies for our syn(thesi)s. It's blatant, clear-cut religious allegory. What's more, it's a last moment conversion and affirmation of religion in a story that had largely been anti-religious up to that point. You should be suspicious of it.

When I played Synthesis I did not feel assailed as an atheist. I felt assailed as a fan of good fiction.

[clennon8]

Many of your arguments boil down to "At first blush, this thing that you're saying didn't occur to me. Therefore I reject it."

[Meltemph]

Hadeedak wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

One of you is saying it was artistic and the other is saying it was religious. Neither feels right and both make me wrinkle my nose.

Well, I'm not sure I'd ascribe it a positive value judgement. It's presented a bit weakly. What I am saying is that the motifs are there, and are hardly exclusive to religious icons.

And I do think synthesis is as viable as any other ending.

I guess this:

"Or it could be a standard ascension of the hero, a common artifact of human mythology that has staying power across cultures with a fair amount of dramatic symbolism. It shows in both how we portray important historical and political figures and in what stories we choose to tell."

-- sounds like a positive value judgment to me. Seemed like you were comparing it to traditional and historical examples of the trope. The importance being that most traditional and historical examples did it well.

Well, I could compare it to the 'death' of Silver Age Superman, if that'd make you feel better. Not all ascensions are well written or moving. I'm going to stay out of whether this one is one of them, and just say that it has its pros and cons. I just felt comparing it to the Passion was oddly and unnecessarily specific. It's not like "Hero dies through self destruction to bring about change/save others" is unusual.

Haha, as someone who doesnt care much about this debate(I find it somewhat entertaining to follow) you could say that the "green" was the holy spirit entering everyones body and saving them.  

Sorry, I had to do it.