514 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

humes spork wrote...
No, it's there intellectually, too. Allow me the conceit of an example. Has it occurred to you that everything after Shepard is shot by Harbinger is the Divine Comedy in a nutshell? I am as serious as a ****ing heart attack when I say that.

I think you're reading too much into it. There are thematic parallels, of course, like sacrifice and redemption, the walk through hell, and  possibly a few more, but a parallelism with the Divine Comedy specifically strikes me as rather far-fetched. Those themes have been used in different variations in countless stories, and It's likely you're seeing that parallel because the most recent other story you've thought about featuring the same themes as intensely has been the Divine Comedy. So I'd rather focus on themes themselves when discussing the endings. 

When you look exclusively at minutiae and details, you stop seeing the forest for the trees. You miss the greater thematic and narrative context. You're asking "how did Anderson get there?" when you should be asking "why is Anderson there?". Yeah, it's a pisser you have to 180 your entire mental process in the game's last five minutes...but get over it, this is sci-fi. This is what sci-fi is, and what sci-fi does.

I agree that concentrating on the minutiae can make you lose sight of the big picture. It's certainly happened to many players when discussing the endings. The problem, however, is not only on the side of the players. If you use themes and allegories, they must be grounded in in-world logic or they won't work. Take, for instance, the "sacrifice for salvation" theme. We have it embodied by three different characters: Mordin, Legion and Shepard. The difference is: Mordin invokes this theme in a way that makes complete sense in in-world logic, as does Shepard in Paragon Control,  but Legion and Shepard in Synthesis do not. While the former invoke mythological themes through a reasonable in-world action, the latter try to replace the in-world logic with a mythological rationale. That just doesn't work in science fiction, and that's why the former examples work for me but the latter come across as contrived and silly.

I'll leave this already entirely too long post with a quote by Stanley Kubrick, in regards to the ending of 2001:

"Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself...They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded."

That's all very well, except that my own "mythological yearnings" run into the opposite direction of those the original endings triggered. I felt this as keenly as an insult. The original endings took what I believe in and told me "you are wrong". It should not be surprising that that did not make me happy.

Edit:
One thing more: if a theme is grounded in in-world logic, it makes senses even to those who are not familiar with the mythological and philosophical background. A good story has something for everyone, and the advantage of being more erudite and educated just means that you get more out of it than others. It makes no sense to write a story in  a way where you need to be familiar with the philosophical background to get anything out of it, at least not if your target audience is the mass market and video game players. So, no, I don't think this was the intention of the writers. It was a gigantic blunder.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 février 2013 - 12:01 .

[CynicalShep]

@ humes spork

A valid interpretation for you although the further you go into detail the less it looks like Divine Comedy, really. If one puts enough effort and thought in it ME could be made to look like Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Thing is - it is very unlikely that this is what the writers were trying to accomplish. How do you go from a comic book style sci-fi to a dumbed down shooter with a deeply philosophical ending? Better yet, what was the purpose of this change?

[Kataphrut94]

What I've noticed is a lot of projected bitterness extending onto other parts of the game that were perfectly fine. In particular, I've seen people who have been hostile towards the development of the synthetic characters EDI, Legion and the geth in general. While the acquisition of a body and the war with the quarians are respectively large leaps of change, most of their arcs remained consistent with what was established in Mass Effect 2. I can't help but feel that the only reason people are so eager to write off these groups is because they "ruined" the Destroy ending.

There is an enormous amount of popularity behind that particular choice for a lot of reasons, and 'MEHEM' has shown us that many people would be content if that was the sole ending, provided the flaws are excised. So when the proper game says "oh, you can get the conclusion you so desire - IF you're willing to pay this hefty price", the emotionally fragile fanbase lifers that have spent the whole trilogy safely wrapped in their upper-left blue blanket get the rug yanked out from under them. They go into shock, make their choice while whimpering fearfully and then leap to the internet to vent their spleens. The game doesn't even show the synthetics dying for God's sake.

Forgive the pop psychology, but when I see fatuous references to 'Reaper code' and 'sexbots' floating around, I see people subconsciously making excuses for themselves. Too proud to choose one of the other valid options that could have saved the synthetics, they instead try to justify what is essentially genocide. "Ooh, EDI said she wanted to die to stop the Reapers, therefore it's okay!" "Ooh, the Geth VI is kind of mean and that footage from the geth consensus was obvious manipulation, therefore they all deserve to be wiped out!" And lest we forget "They both had Reaper code! The mean, nasty Reaper code that they both totally had a choice in using! It's their fault, not mine!"

I can respect people who can accept the destruction of all synthetic life as a necessary sacrifice to stop the Reapers. There's nothing inherently wrong with taking the Destroy option and the philosophy behind it is one of the best examples of Renegade pragmatism in the series. It's just irritating when people make pathetic excuses like the ones above to gloss over the one major consequence. You can tell because everyone was happy with EDI and Legion's roles in this game until the ending became common knowledge. That's what made the choice such a difficult one in the first place. Linking back to the thread topic, they are judging elements of the game (generally well-executed elements, mind) based on the ending and projecting bitterness in a direction where it is not deserved.

[Grubas]

CynicalShep wrote...

@ humes spork

A valid interpretation for you although the further you go into detail the less it looks like Divine Comedy, really. If one puts enough effort and thought in it ME could be made to look like Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Thing is - it is very unlikely that this is what the writers were trying to accomplish. How do you go from a comic book style sci-fi to a dumbed down shooter with a deeply philosophical ending? Better yet, what was the purpose of this change?

Because this was the costefficient way.
 


 

[Atekimagus]

humes spork wrote...

Atekimagus wrote...

The opposite is true. If you are close minded and only go for the emotional impact of the ending, it is brilliant. The images, the cinematography, especially the brilliant music. All that is top notch and...well, just brilliant, you are right, it hit all the right notes for a maximum of emotional impact...The problem with that is that most people probably refuse to discuss philosophical points and metaphor for a story which doesn't make sense in the first place.

No, it's there intellectually, too. Allow me the conceit of an example. Has it occurred to you that everything after Shepard is shot by Harbinger is the Divine Comedy in a nutshell? I am as serious as a ****ing heart attack when I say that.

The trees that for some reason Shepard sees after being shot, that call back to the dream sequences and play a pretty important role in IT? The Divine Comedy starts in a dark forest, with Dante in the pit of despair, assailed by beasts and unable to find his way to salvation which is symbolized by the sun behind mountains. The Conduit area is dark, Shepard has just been shot by Harby and shell shocked and hallucinating, attacked by husks and Marauder Shields, and trying to make his/her way to a beam of light framed behind giant pillars.

Dante then falls into the Inferno and is rescued by Virgil, who provides exposition as to where Dante is, and why, and guides Dante through the Inferno. Throughout the Inferno, Dante sees the sinful and unrepentant paying the wages for their sin. At the end, Dante and Virgil confront Satan symbolized as a great beast whose fanged maws perpetually chew the great betrayers of humankind (Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot). In ME3, Shepard is teleported into the Citadel and falls into a hallway full of the dead and vivisected (who are almost assuredly people who lived in denial of Shepard's Cassandra truth and the realities of the Reaper war), communicates with Anderson, and climbs their way to the Citadel control room -- which looks like the inside of a fanged maw -- to confront TIM.

Dante and Virgil overcome Satan, and climb into Purgatory. Not much happens there, but at the end Dante must leave Virgil behind to continue, and is then met by Beatrice who guides him to Paradise. in case we haven't figured this out yet, Shepard is Dante, Anderson is Virgil, TIM is Judas Iscariot, and Starjar is Beatrice.

Beatrice exposits to Dante and guides him through Paradise, eventually bringing him before the holy trinity (there's that number three) to find his salvation in God's love...and with that, Dante finds his belief in God and his faith in humanity restored, and awakens (it was all a dream, by the way) to confront a new, unknown and unknowable future.

The entire thing is an extremely cunning metaphor. It parallels Shepard's dying moments as the occur, by symbolizing the afterlife, It foreshadows that to finally use the Crucible and defeat the Reapers, Shepard will die. It recalls that Shepard has in a very real way been through hell and back to get to that point, going through great tribulation and personal loss many times over.

Moreover, it instills (or rather, attempts to instill) in the audience the fact not only Shepard is dying, but the cycle of extinction is coming to an end, that it will only occur through sacrifice (yeah, Shepard is Space Jesus, get over it), and that it simultaneously a rebirth. A new, unknown and unknowable cycle is beginning, that despite coming at great cost carries hope that requires faith to fully realize.

Don't like it, fine. Don't claim it "doesn't make sense", because it does. You just need to take your "action/adventure sci-fi" hat off and put on your "deep, cerebral and philosophical sci-fi" hat. Yeah, it's an unexpected twist and quite the shock. Doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

I had the same thoughts and reactions initially, too. Then I cooled off and started thinking on an intellectual level about the endings, what they represent, and the statement that was trying to be made. Then it clicked. It wasn't even until my third playthrough the Divine Comedy thing hit me.

When you look exclusively at minutiae and details, you stop seeing the forest for the trees. You miss the greater thematic and narrative context. You're asking "how did Anderson get there?" when you should be asking "why is Anderson there?". Yeah, it's a pisser you have to 180 your entire mental process in the game's last five minutes...but get over it, this is sci-fi. This is what sci-fi is, and what sci-fi does. I'll leave this already entirely too long post with a quote by Stanley Kubrick, in regards to the ending of 2001:

"Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself...They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded."

Well that is certainly a way to look at the whole mess. Now granted it probably comes down to personal taste if I would prefer a great alegoric ending or just a solid down to earth one but here is the big bummer, the ending does not stand alone in the narrative.

So it is a methaphor for Dante's Inferno. But where Dante's Inferno stands for itself alone, ME3 had a ME1 and ME2 coming before it and I don't care how many trees I see instead of the forrest, the narrative should be consistent, otherwise I don't care about metophors or alegories because me bull****-detector screams to loud.


And here is the thing, if they wanted this great metaphorical ending, it would have been soooo easy not to break ME1/2 lore to do so. Just have the cataclyst NOT being on the citadal. That is all that was required. (Now there are still a few minor plotholes, but the biggest one, the one that breaks ME1 and ME2 would be out of the way)

Have the cataclyst being somewhere else other than the citadel. The rest you could headcanon somehow to make sense of it.

So kudos for you to find some meaning in those endings for you, but you seem to make the mistake that you only view the ending and not the complete narrative.

And I already said that, when viewed alone, the ending is brilliantly done - for the reason you stated. I don't however judgle only the last two pages of a book. You ignore this problem simply by saying "Who cares, the previous ones didn't make any sense either!" Many others do not view it that way.

[xeNNN]

I dont judge ME3 by the ending for me it was the entire game that was the problem, some of the smallest problems can be the biggest put offs.

- auto-dialogue
- forced sexual orientation (bassically forcing a straight or gay choice on you)
- find & scan missions which consists of 90% of your war assest.
- the war assets dont really contribute to anything but whether you make it to earth or not, with all the - -- searching missions they could of added maybe 4-5 more missions instead of search quests for the war assets to be acquired.
- generally depressing gameplay, though i understand thats the kind of atmosphere they were going for, it was just too dark and not as enjoyable as the previous games in other words there werent enough "fun" moments. (im depressed every time i do a playthrough), i think the music contributed most to this though i do love the music it is trying to get at all the sad emotions, especially the dream scene and sometimes even the combat... which kind of makes even the combat deppressing even though i loved the new combat system.
- characters were given more attention than others.
- squad mates apart from miranda in ME2 Got almost 0 attention in mass effect 3. though they did get specific missions or just a talk they were relatively small and dull.
- emily wongs removal........i wanted that damned interview.
- James..........enough said.
- the fact ashley is constantly complaining 24/7.
- no krogan squad mate, i wanted grunt back to be honest or wrex.
- romance scenes are two quick and dont make feel part of it (as ME is supposed to be a story where you feel like you are part of the story in every aspect) & then are honestly dull apart from liara's.

& THEN there is the end.

but yeah as you can see i have multiple problems with it. quite frankly not only was the final journey an annoyance the destination was equally as crap, out of all 58 games i have on my PC, i have never had so many problems with one game before.

I just hope they dont make these mistakes in the next game or "games".
and if they make it an MMORPG i will kill someone. SOMEONE WILL DIE. ...............................just kiddin' but yeah i wont ever buy that.

Modifié par xeNNN, 10 février 2013 - 04:14 .

[humes spork]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I think you're reading too much into it. There are thematic parallels, of course, like sacrifice and redemption, the walk through hell, and  possibly a few more, but a parallelism with the Divine Comedy specifically strikes me as rather far-fetched. Those themes have been used in different variations in countless stories, and It's likely you're seeing that parallel because the most recent other story you've thought about featuring the same themes as intensely has been the Divine Comedy. So I'd rather focus on themes themselves when discussing the endings.

Honestly, my assessment of it goes in the opposite direction. The Divine Comedy is such a seminal work of literature, that albeit in an exclusively Christian perspective, so perfectly and concisely encapsulates the human experience and the predominant European world and culture of its time (doubt, reason, faith, the trials of life and death, love, guilt and shame) that it's inescapable for many pieces of fiction.

This is tongue in cheek, but very true: the Divine Comedy is the Seinfeld of philosophical/allegorical fiction. The Divine Comedy didn't create philosophical/allegorical fiction, but it was such a landmark that it changed fiction forevermore; the reason these themes and parallels are to be found in "countless" stories is for the Divine Comedy. Yet, the Divine Comedy despite this transformative role it played gets extreme short shift in contemporary culture because it has been copied and paralleled so much we as audiences of fiction have been conditioned to perceive and accept them as a matter of course.

The Divine Comedy works because it is so deeply ingrained in the social consciousness. You needn't have read the Inferno to take note the Citadel corridor can be seen as metaphor for hell.

...While the former invoke mythological themes through a reasonable in-world action, the latter try to replace the in-world logic with a mythological rationale. That just doesn't work in science fiction, and that's why the former examples work for me but the latter come across as contrived and silly.

There's a reason I quoted Kubrick. A shift from the practical to the metaphysical/philosophical/metaphorical/what-have-you, especially when and if science-fiction over the course of its narrative attempts to confront the unknown and unknowable, is actually quite the staple.

The original endings took what I believe in and told me "you are wrong".

Would you care to elucidate how the game told you that you were "wrong"?

[Dr_Extrem]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

^^
Out of curiosity looked up the pricing for the bigger spike award winners of 2012( Canadian future-shop)

Assassin's Creed III --- 59.99
Halo 4 --- 59.99
Borderlands 2 --- 59.99
Dishonored --- 59.99
Diablo III --- 59.99
Guild wars --- 59.99
Black Ops II --- 59.99
X-Com Enemy Unknown --- 59.99

Darksiders 2 --- 49.99
Sleeping Dogs --- 49.99

Max Payne 3 --- 39.99

Mass Effect 3 --- 29.99
Walking Dead --- 29.99 ( note this is original pricing )

edit :The pricing could be in part from the Trilogy release that is 59.99 however.

canadian dollars? ... i have seen mass effect 3 for 19.99 €.

[Ieldra]

humes spork wrote...
The Divine Comedy works because it is so deeply ingrained in the social consciousness. You needn't have read the Inferno to take note the Citadel corridor can be seen as metaphor for hell.

You need not, no. But you don't have to like the omnipresence of these religious themes.

...While the former invoke mythological themes through a reasonable in-world action, the latter try to replace the in-world logic with a mythological rationale. That just doesn't work in science fiction, and that's why the former examples work for me but the latter come across as contrived and silly.

There's a reason I quoted Kubrick. A shift from the practical to the metaphysical/philosophical/metaphorical/what-have-you, especially when and if science-fiction over the course of its narrative attempts to confront the unknown and unknowable, is actually quite the staple.

You do know that the ending of 2001 is considered rather....unique, right? I've read a lot of SF, and almost all of it outside the big well-known worlds, and this was rather rare. Regarding the unknown, I don't need to know how, for instance, Synthesis works in detail, but I won't accept technology working on metaphysical concepts in my science fiction unless they have been divested of their metaphysicalness in the course of establishing the rules of the universe. "Add your energy to the Cruclble" is just plain bullsh*t to me, and that I have to take the word of the local god-analogue that it will work just adds insult to injury. I do not believe in faith. I am not a philosophical idealist. Metaphysical concepts are not real for me, and if in a work of art, the unknown is represented by things I'm familiar with through cultural conditioning, all that evokes in me is suspicion, especially when they come from an ideology I do not agree with. I make my preferred ending choice in spite of those elements, not because of them, and they are a greater hindrance than any ethical consideration.

In other words, if the unknown came knocking at my door, and my senses and my brain were unable to comprehend it, I'm sure whatever or whoever created an allegorical representation for what I can't comprehend would use concepts meaningful and convincing to *me*, not concepts I'd be instantly suspicious of. The reason why those elements don't work for me in ME3's endings is that I'm deeply suspicious of the underlying cultural memes. I am aware of them, but I am not willing to go along with them. For instance, I am not willing to accept a redemptive death as a matter of karma because I do not believe in karma, or rather, I believe it is a social construct rooted in wishful thinking about the nature of the universe. For that reason, any sacrifice *must* be rooted in in-world logic, for the fact that it is a sacrifice in itself cannot, in my worldview, mean anything to the world without being so rooted.

(Note that this is different in fantasy, The genre conventions of fantasy include making the allegorical real. Which is why I could never see a fantasy story which makes use of that as real in the same way as I can see a science fiction story)

Would you care to elucidate how the game told you that you were "wrong"?

That damnable "Crash on Eden" scene with its suggestion of "a new start in a state of innocence on a world untainted by any technology". Gods, was that puke-worthy. We were supposed to see that as a good ending, right, or at least as somewhat emotionally satisfying in a poignant way? My uncensored reaction was similar to this: "They *dare* sell me this Romantic, neo-luddite crap as a good ending! They can stick it where the sun doesn't shine!"

BTW, sorry if this comes across as a sort of rant, but your analysis reminded me of why I hate the original ending. It's nothing personal.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 février 2013 - 10:50 .

[humes spork]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You need not, no. But you don't have to like the omnipresence of these religious themes.

Oh, by no means. As an atheist, I grit my teeth at religious symbolism and metaphor, especially that of the western tradition. I still "get it", though.

You do know that the ending of 2001 is considered rather....unique, right?

Yes, yes it is. The ending is quite often the reason it's cited as the single greatest work of sci-fi cinema yet, for its wealth of metaphor, symbolism, and ambiguity which leads itself very well to personal interpretation and speculation that continues even today, 45 years after its release.

Though, 2001 a bit esoteric? Okay, I'll bring it down to Earth a little, by citing an example of one of the most practical and straightforward sci-fi works of which I can think: remember the episode "Meridian" from SG-1? It's the one in which Jackson Ascends (the first time). The entire portion of the episode that takes place in Jackson's headspace is steeped in metaphor, symbolism, and allegory. The viewer already knows everything they need to know about Ascension, Oma Desala, and Jackson before the episode even begins: the point of the episode is to demonstrate how and why Jackson overcomes his character flaws to Ascend. The final dialogue between Oma Desala and Jackson is more of an afterthought, to make sure anyone who isn't up to speed gets it.

It's pretty heady stuff for something that's only fully explained after the fact. Actually, that entire multi-season arc between Jackson, Oma Desala, Sha'uri and Shifu is the same way, especially "Absolute Power".

That damnable "Crash on Eden" scene with its suggestion of "a new start in a state of innocence on a world untainted by any technology". Gods, was that puke-worthy. We were supposed to see that as a good ending, right, or at least as somewhat emotionally satisfying in a poignant way? My uncensored reaction was similar to this: "They *dare* sell me this Romantic, neo-luddite crap as a good ending! They can stick it where the sun doesn't shine!"

Well, you have to be careful to make a distinction between symbolism that taps into the cultural Zeigesit to invoke certain concepts, and personal inference. There's nothing in the epilogue that suggests an atechnological future, merely that the survivors have entered into a new golden age free from the Reapers and at peace.

[Indy_S]

Argh, that crash scene. Pre-EC, it implied a Stone Age new beginning, one where we 'finally' have the ability to grow as we desire. Of course, we had that desire before and the only difference made came at space travel of which we still have an example on the planet that's bound to interfere with it again.

Post-EC, though, the scene becomes a stupid relic, divorced of symbolism and context. Either everyone on it is dead (which didn't require a planet to crash into) or it's easily fixed and they fly off, back to the bright happy galaxy they just left. The crew and this scene no longer has a purpose.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Even if we set aside the destination. The journey itself was a train wreck of inconsistencies, fringe logic and deus ex machina. Put bluntly, Mass Effect 3 is a good but poorly written game

[Xenite]

I'm sure Kennedy had a lovely car ride in Dallas, it was just the end that sucked.

But hey Bioware went one step further, why ruin one game when you can destroy an entire trilogy and make them unplayable for thousands.

[Maxster_]

[quote]The Interloper wrote...

 [quote]Maxster_wrote...
Of course, you will just ignoreanything i wrote, but i'm writing that for my own amusement. [/quote]Funny,
that’s what I was thinking. Which is why I’m ignoring the arguments I already dealt with too many times.
[/quote]
Oh sure, you just ignoring things stated in codex, and put your headcanon as a fact. Despite having absolutely no proof, like with false statements about krogan rebellions.
Or outright ignoring facts like existance of Council Fleet.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_wrote...You missed the point deliberately. [/quote]
I was thinking that, too. If Saren’s still a trusted spectre, he wouldn’t need to lead his men. That’s the point. All he’d need to do is bring in enough men—only a few hundred (maybe less) be they geth, mercs, or both—and set them loose in the city to keep C-Sec distracted for a few minutes. If three hundred geth start blasting people in the wards, C-Sec, and the SR squad you keep bringing up, will very likely be devoting most of its attention to that. Saren could also use more conventional attacks, like bombs in C-sec HG.
[/quote]
Sure. Like entire C-Sec organization, consisting of 200 thousands of personel, will go to that exact ward to fight a few hundred geth.
And not calling for fleet support.
[quote]
Then in the chaos he could march right into the council chambers and citadel Control, maybe with mercs wearing C-Sec uniforms, and say he’s “securing” them.
[/quote]
1. There will be no chaos.
2. No one will let that band even into presidium.
3. There is no need to "secure" citadel tower, or presidium, because small detachment of geth pose no threat to presidium.
[quote]
If C-sec is busy, they’re not going to turn around and attack the trusted spectre just because he’s standing on the Council platform, certainly not right way. And if Sovy upgrades Saren like he ultimately ended up doing, then he’s not going to go down easy even if C-sec does get wise.
[/quote]
He'll be just shoot by C-Sec if he'll not stand down. And he being alone - that would be easily.
Anyway, you just presuming, that C-Sec consists entirely of idiots.
Being an organization made by two most insidious species, asari and salarians. Who ensured their dominance by all means possible, and those means mostly being dirty and ethical questionable(existence of spectres already tells much about ethics and law of the Council).
Of course, that is making no sense, but when you have a set goal(presenting ME1 as badly written) anything will do.

[quote]
As for port Hanshan, the scans were intended to find weapons and power sources, both of which the Geth have in abundance. What’s more, it’s hardly implausible that Saren’s access to Geth, spectre and reaper gear would give him access to tech that can fool advanced scanners. But that’s all beside the point, because we know that lots of people, drugs, and weapons are smuggled onto the Citadel all the time, without being searched. So it’s pretty plausible that Saren could sneak a fair number of geth into the wards at least, sealed up in storage crates or something, without being caught.
[/quote]
Of course. Except that doesn't help to crush or bypass C-Sec in any way. Or other spectres, for that matters.
Unless he smuggles hunderd thousand geth and mercs(or at least several tens of thousands) - that will crush the C-Sec, and fastly.
Of course, that is not just implausible, that is plainly impossible.
 [quote][quote]Maxster_ wrote... Therefore, ME3 ending does not changes "story's core meaning and point" [/quote] Huge misapprehension. The ending changes the conflict from “defeating the reapers” to “defeating theoretical homicidal synthetics who are not the reapers and who don’t even exist and whom we have never even heard of before.” Under that, defeating the reapers just becomes a side effect; according to the ending, they were never the true problem. It’s this core conflict change that put a bullet through the head of ME’s story. Lazarus didn’t change the core conflict, the human reaper didn’t do that, the Cerberus empire didn’t do that. The ending did.
[/quote]
I like how you completely ignored my point and examples, to counter my example of someone's opinions, presenting said opinion as main.
Demagogy as it is.
[quote]
Anyway, some people would use different definition of the "story
core meaning and point", like ME story is a story of fighting against
reapers. Therefore, ME3 ending does not changes "story's core meaning
and point", and your point is void.[/quote]
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
No amount of retcons and clarification would change reapers arrival, Cerberus Empire, or Crucible to a something sensical, [/quote] Hardly. For example; introduce the crucible earlier in the series. Have vigil mention it when you meet him in ME1, find traces of the plans during ME2.

Clarify that it’s some sort of device that can harness the power of the mass relays into a massive EMP burst that can destroy the reapers, or something; the protheans either developed it or almost developed it during the reaper invasion using their understanding of the relays (just like the conduit). A few added bits of dialogue and maybe an added mission and suddenly we aren’t just building a superweapon when we have no idea what it does.
[/quote]
I like how you cutting my phrases.
Full phrase was
[quote]
No amount of retcons and clarification would change reapers arrival,
Cerberus Empire, or Crucible to a something sensical, other than full
removal of those concepts, or rewriting entire story.
[/quote]
What you said - is a full retcon of Crucible's presentation and rewriting of all it's story.

You just deliberately changed my argument. That is called "strawman fallacy".

To the details - that will not change the fact, that Crucible can not be designed. And therefore can not be built - thus it can not exist.

Protheans did not had full knowledge of relay technology.
Protheans had no idea that Citadel is a relay to dark space, before they were attacked.
Protheans had no idea about reapers threat, before they were attacked.
Protheans had no idea about Citadel being master control unit of relay network, before they were attacked.
Protheans did not had access to the Citadel after they were attacked.

Therefore, they could not design a device, based on full understanding of the relay technology.
They had no idea about Citadel being a master control unit of the relay network - therefore they could not design a device that utilizes it functionality. They could not study master control unit of the relay network, before when they knew it exists - they already lost access to it.
They could not design a device that interfaces with master control unit of the relay network - they have no idea it exists, and thus can not study that to devise an interface.

Therefore, Crucible is still a nonsense and can not exist.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_wrote...
Or like curing the genophage will instantly change social behavior of entire race[/quote]  It’s made pretty clear that it’s not that Krogan can’t be scientists and industrial engineers, it’s that they don’t want to be. The genophage made the Krogan species fatalistic and disinterested in the future; as far as they were concerned, they didn’t have one. Change that, and you change the entire face of Krogan culture. Especially if Wrex is in charge. What’s more, if they join the coalition and help defeat the reapers the Krogan race is going to get a decent amount of goodwill…just like they did after the Rachni wars.
[/quote]
Sure. Like it was instantly changed when salarians uplifted them.
And of course, it completely differs from time of rachni wars, because that time krogans got industrial potential, shipyards, space stations(industrial and military) and all to build and support their massive fleets, and ground forces.

[quote]
And I never said “instantly.” That’s you putting words in my mouth. Give the Krogans a few centuries as part of
mainstream civilization and they’ll inevitably not only get a massive population boost but much better infrastructure. They could also buy ships. Even if they play nice for the first few centuries, that doesn’t mean they’ll remain that way. That's how the salarians think of it, anyway.
[/quote]
Of course you don't. You implied that, and now trying to get away, being caught.
[quote]You also argued, among other things, that a few reapers can easily kill all of the Krogan because their cannons are big, when the Krogans have survived a nuclear holocaust.
You argued that the cured Krogan are still harmless because they are
primitive and have no ships, when they are only primitive because of the
genophage (and the social stagnation it caused) in the first place.[/quote]
Fallacy "argument", or implying that curing the genophage will instantly give them ships.

I said, that krogans are no threat because they have no fleets, no industrial potential to build those ships, and they will not be allowed to do that even if they had industrial potential - which they don't.

1. If you are implying that curing the genophage will give them fleets - that is false and not very smart.
2. Otherwise, that You argued that the cured Krogan are still harmless because they are
primitive and have no ships is a completely unrelated to that when they are only primitive because of the
genophage.

Anyway, it is obvious, that you made up that "they are harmless because they primitive" part, to counter my argument(actually, what you have presented as my argument, when deliberately changed it, that it makes no sense at all) about krogans being no threat to humanity because they have no fleets.

And you countered falsified argument, which you have presented as mine with "when they are only primitive because of the
genophage".

And my real argument being
[quote]
Krogans are no threat to the humanity, they have no fleets, and
subjugated by the council, and condemned for confinement on their
planet.[/quote]
There, of course, nothing about them being primitive.

And that, my dear comrade, is a prime example of "strawman fallacy". Second time.
link
[quote]A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3]
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet
unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without
ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.[/quote]

And of course, my point stands - krogans are no threat to a humanity in any way. They have no fleets, no industrial potential and no resources.
And curing of genophage will not change that in any way.

As you already admitted, krogans will still be no threat to humanity at least in several centuries.
And giving that humanity will be part of said mainstream civilization, humanity's potential will still be higher by orders of magnitude than anything krogans will make.

Several centuries, even 1 century - is enough lag for humanity to be far more powerful than krogans ever will.
Especially, when they are part of said mainstream civilization, and thus controlled by that mainstream civilization.
Meaning no one will allow them to become a threat.
That, of course, depends on SA politics during that lag, and outcomes can differ(in that scenario, using krogans as a leverage and potential allies, can lead to dissolution of the Council and making humanity a galaxy's superpower; or to reforms of the council, which'll lead to asari salarians and turians losing their dominance).

[quote]
At any rate, the series lore is pretty clear that the Krogans were quite outmatched during the rebellions in the spaceship department, and were still winning. It doesn’t go into detail, it just says that that was the way it was. If you think that’s stupid, then take it up with ME1.
[/quote]

That's just pathetic.
You have just made up "argument" to "prove" your "point".
And of course, you haven't even bothered to give actual proof, from codex. Because there isn't.

 [quote][quote]Maxster_ wrote... There is much more alternatives than you presented, reapers have full understanding of relay technology, so they could possibly do something with their end of relay. [/quote] We have no reason to believe that that’s possible, aside from headcannon. And if that were true, that just creates more holes. If it was possible to activate the Citadel relay on the other end, then what’s the need for the Keepers (barring hiding the citadel’s nature) or Sovereign?.
[/quote]
There isn't. But that, of course, doesn't meant that there is no more alternatives than you presented.

And of course, in my example, that could made like they changed relay functioning, but depleted to much energy, or broken it, and thus were able to sent only part of their fleet, and others being really trapped in dark space, without any possibility to get to them in several decades, or centuries, or thousands of years.
Or their energy requirements will not allow that part of their fleet, that get through relay, to get to a trapped reapers(other part that is trapped in dark space) without designing and building special ships with energy reserves.
Or something else.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
otherwise they'd just took Citadel right after they arrived to a relay network, and not spreading to attack everyone at once, like they did in ME3. [/quote]Now that part was actually stupid. They should have had it so the council or something sabotages the relays to the Reapers can’t use them, or can’t access the relays near the citadel and thus have to fly part of the way slowly. But that’s a separate issue from them being able to fly in from
darkspace.
[/quote]
Could be great that if in ME2, council(or human council, or Udina) didn't went full retard, and actually started secret projects to study that master control unit of the relay network(in contrast to protheans, who had no idea that Citadel is master control unit of the relay network, Shepard's cycle knew that)- to control it or just make it nonfunctioning(i.e. destroyed).
This way, in ME3, reapers could took the Citadel right away, but then would be unable to shut down relay network, at least before some repairs(which can take a lot of time).

But alas, that didn't happened.
And then there would be no way that something stupid, lore and plot destroying, like Catalyst could be shoehorned into MEU.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote... Citadel Fleet, was very large and capable for a long time, [/quote] Joker:The council is massing a joint-species fleet to deal with Saren and his Geth.

Which heavily implies that the fleet did not exist before, at least not the same numbers and positioning as usual. Also, much of the citadel fleet was off on patrols normally, so I fail to see how the citadel putting patrols out to watch for Sovereign lowers Citadel defenses to any big degree. It certainly isn’t discussed in the game.
[/quote]

So you just insisting on completely ignoring the codex, to "prove" your "point". Funny, ignoring lore in a discussion about lore.
So credible

[quote]The Citadel Fleet[/b] is the main space defense force of the Citadel. The flagship of the fleet is the asari dreadnought Destiny Ascension, the most powerful ship of the Council races. The Citadel Fleet consists of a mixed group of turian, salarian, and asari vessels, though the greater number of them are turian, due to the turians' peacekeeping role.
The exact number of ships in the Council's fleet is unknown, but there were enough vessels to patrol every mass relay linking Citadel space to the Terminus Systems and still leave a force stationed to protect the Citadel. Ambassador Udina claimed that the Citadel Fleet was large enough to secure the entire Attican Traverse if the Council wished.[/quote]
[quote]










The Destiny Ascension[/b] is an asari dreadnought and flagship of the Citadel Fleet. It is a starship of stunning power; according to a volus
visitor, it has almost as much firepower as the rest of the asari fleet
combined. The Ascension is currently commanded by the asari Matriarch
Lidanya.
[/quote]

More funny that you actually see part of that non-existant Citadel Fleet, in ME1, when you first arriving at the Citadel.
Kaidan: The Ascension. The flagship of the Citadel Fleet.
video.


You gasping for straws is just amazing.
You outright ignore everything that contradicts your quest of presenting ME1 as horrible written.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote... krogans will be very grateful for that[/quote] Yeah, cause we all know how the Krogan have historically repaid those that helped them.
[/quote]
Helped?!
You meant when they were used as cannon fodder in a war they never needed, war for outsiders interests?
And then cast aside in violent way when need for them ended?

Oh, i'm afraid to see, how exactly benevolent Council will help humanity. If there will be any building standing after such help?

No wonder that Terra Firma was so popular

Oh, i'm sure, that in your world, colonists from europe helped american indians. Or Britain colonizers, helped indians from India.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote... big 3 will not allow anyone to threat their everlasting dominance. Thus, Systems Alliance will always be a minor council race thus (krogan) making are good potential allies, although weak. Also, that would make a great leverage for Council, when petitioning for human interests.[/quote] You do realize that humans are rapidly becoming just as powerful as any individual member of the big three, right? It’s the big four, now, and there’s no real sign that the other councilors are trying to gang up on humanity, except where the reapers are concerned.
[/quote]
In no way, of course.
Council treaties are harsh.
link
[quote]
The Treaty of Farixen is a treaty signed by Council races limiting the number of dreadnoughts among the different Citadel races in their given fleets. At the Farixen Naval Conference, the Council races agreed to fix a ratio of dreadnought construction between themselves due to their destructive potential. At the top of the pyramid is the peacekeeping turian fleet which makes up most of the Citadel Fleet. Second, are the other Council races - the asari and the salarians. Council associate races, like the hanar and volus, are at the bottom of the list.
The ratio of turian to Council to associate dreadnoughts is 5:3:1, which essentially means for every five dreadnoughts the turians construct, the asari and salarians are allowed three, and all other
Citadel races one. Signing the Treaty of Farixen is a requirement for any race wishing to open an embassy on the Citadel.
Carriers are megalithic ships that have a similar general design to that of Dreadnoughts. The only difference is that Carriers are designed to carry and transport mass amounts of vehicles, fighters, interceptors, and
troops across the galaxy. Dreadnoughts are specifically designed to combat enemy ships in a space combat environment and/or bombard planetary targets. The construction of Carriers is not included in the
Treaty of Farixen policy resulting in no legal limit upon building any number of Carriers for any race.

Mass Effect 2 %3D%3D
If the Council was left to perish on the Destiny Ascension at the end of Mass Effect, news stories can be heard on the Citadel and Omega in Mass Effect 2 reporting that the turians no longer feel bound by the Treaty, and are stepping up their shipbuilding efforts as a result.

If the Council was saved at the end of Mass Effect, the Systems Alliance is given a seat on the Council out of gratitude for their efforts. This presumably means that, as a Council race, humanity is now entitled to
construct three dreadnoughts for every five turian dreadnoughts.

[/quote]
Oh, that benevolent Council.
To protect lesser races from themselves, benevolent Council, ensured that no one would ever be able to rival military power of the Council.
For a greater good. Lesser races should be protected from themselves.
And benevolent asari, salarians, and turians, will ensure that with their military power. Attacking without warning anyone they see as weak(like humanity in FCW). And in case of those who they attacked really was not weak - they'll use your race as a leverage and asset against someone else(like Batarians in humanity's case).

Anyway, Council is peaceful, and prefer to wage war indirectly. For a greater good.

Of course, being betrayed by the Council, you may leave status of Council associate. And then you will be cut off from Council space's economics, and all alone against full might of Council fleet, which you couldn't ever surpass being Council's associate(5:1 to turians, 3:1 to asari, and 3:1 to salarians, 11:1) for a 2 thousands of years.
Thus, all Council laws, would be easily enforced on you at any time. For a greater good.
That was the fate of the Batarians.

Or, you can outright defy Council's authority, and act independent. But then you'll see a full might of the Council fleet, and all means and methods to stop you. And then, after your defeat, you will be stripped of anything, and remain in that state for eternity.
That was the fate of the Krogans.

Or, you can just transfer from an asset to a liability. This way, you will be just quickly removed from Council races, stripped of anything, including any help or access to economics, and then will be forced to comply a treaty and laws, which forbids you to ever regain your status.
That was the fate of the Quarians.

Back to humans :
As a significant military power outside of jurisdiction of the Council(before joining), you would be offered a deal, when you become Council associate with some terms. Like indirectly offering another Council race's(with which Council is unpleased) zone of colonization, as yours, with all rights. And then, surpisingly, you end up being in
conflict with said race.
And if you refuse - you will not get planets to colonize. Or even become another liability. And we know how Council
deals with liabilities.
And when your task is complete, you'll become a potential treat, and then will be dealt with. And we know how Council
deals with potential(batarians) and direct(krogans) threats.
And that will be the fate of the Humanity.
.

Council grants right to colonization. Council controls exploration. Council enforces restrictions on a military power, ensuring no one will ever endanger their superiority. Council enforces their made up laws, which ensure it's dominance for eternity, with a overwhelming military force.

Council is a benevolent. Council is a trustworthy.
Trust the Council!
Council follows their own laws. Except when greater good demands otherwise(like turians in ME2 when council is dead)
They acts only for a good of the Council greater good!.
[quote]
And make up your mind. Are the krogans an insignificant “weak” species that “barely survive… have no fleets,” or “leverage?” It can’t be both ways.
[/quote]
They are not leverage at a start of ME3(and in entire reapers crisis).

But humanity's indirect help(through Cerberus) can make them leverage. And a fact of such indirect help, no matter how minor it is - is already a leverage.

[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote... you do realise, that salarians have no problem to fight krogans at all? [/quote] Uh…yeah, yeah they do. The salarians have neither the manpower nor the desire to fight the Krogan and the Reapers all at once. They want the Krogans on their side. This much is clear. They just don’t want to cure the genophage in order for that to happen. So they go to shepard to try and wriggle out of their promise while still getting the Krogans on the battlefield.
[/quote]
They don't need to fight all krogans. They need only to ensure that genophage will not be cured. And to ensure that, they could fight small task force of the krogans, and have no problem with that.
And how could that be done in game - they could be in a process of sabotaging it, when krogans arrive, or just be discovered in a process of preparing for cure disperse.
Or it could be written in other way.


P.S.
I like how you completely ignored my other points.
I take it as you being unable to counter them, and therefore agreeing with me.
Like finally agreeing that ME2 makes no sense, and there is no dark energy plot in MEU.
And failing at justifying nonsensical story because it can be rewritten in sensical.
And agreeing that reapers arrival nullifies ME1.

That is the way it should be.

Modifié par Maxster_, 11 février 2013 - 01:32 .

[Ieldra]

humes spork wrote...

That damnable "Crash on Eden" scene with its suggestion of "a new start in a state of innocence on a world untainted by any technology". Gods, was that puke-worthy. We were supposed to see that as a good ending, right, or at least as somewhat emotionally satisfying in a poignant way? My uncensored reaction was similar to this: "They *dare* sell me this Romantic, neo-luddite crap as a good ending! They can stick it where the sun doesn't shine!"

Well, you have to be careful to make a distinction between symbolism that taps into the cultural Zeigesit to invoke certain concepts, and personal inference. There's nothing in the epilogue that suggests an atechnological future, merely that the survivors have entered into a new golden age free from the Reapers and at peace.

Now I think *you* are not seeing things which are there. The Normandy crashed? A beautiful, pristine planet without any technological infrastructure? The Garden Eden imagery? They even named the scene "Crash on Eden" in "The Art of the Mass Effect Universe". No, I think this scene heavily suggests a technological reset of civilization. I was probably meant to evoke hope, but it only does that in the low EMS endings, where it tells us that people survived and life goes on. In the high EMS endings, it comes across as a symbolic rejection of the civilization they left behind.
Think about how different this scene would come across if there had been a communication tower in the background.

As for your SG-1 example, unfortunately I am only superficially familiar with that universe. I don't watch serialized stories on TV as a rule, and I've never found the time to catch up watching recordings. It's a shame, I like that universe. From which season is that? 

[humes spork]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Now I think *you* are not seeing things which are there. The Normandy crashed? A beautiful, pristine planet without any technological infrastructure? The Garden Eden imagery? They even named the scene "Crash on Eden" in "The Art of the Mass Effect Universe". No, I think this scene heavily suggests a technological reset of civilization....

A technological reset? Sure, but not an atechnological future which is what saying something like "neo-luddite" implies.

Remember, a running theme in the ME trilogy is how technology advances. The current cycle is reliant upon Prothean and Reaper tech, the Protheans before them were reliant upon their precursors, all the way back to the Leviathans and perhaps even before them. The mass relays are a major symbol of this throughout the trilogy: they're used handily by organic species, yet the organic species have no understanding of their construction or operation. They're also a Reaper trap, intended to stagnate and bottleneck technological development.

Freedom from the Reapers means more than simply ending the Reaper war, it also means being free from the technological constraints placed upon organics by the Reapers.

[Stalker]

I judge the complete game and I don't like it. Ending still sucks, but it's only the worst part from a large series of disappointments.

[humes spork]

Maxster_ wrote...

Therefore, Crucible is still a nonsense and can not exist.

I would very strongly urge you to go back and rewatch the Vendetta conversation again, if "the Protheans didn't design the Crucible, therefore it's a plot hole" is a lynchpin of your argument.

[Ieldra]

humes spork wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Now I think *you* are not seeing things which are there. The Normandy crashed? A beautiful, pristine planet without any technological infrastructure? The Garden Eden imagery? They even named the scene "Crash on Eden" in "The Art of the Mass Effect Universe". No, I think this scene heavily suggests a technological reset of civilization....

A technological reset? Sure, but not an atechnological future which is what saying something like "neo-luddite" implies.

Remember, a running theme in the ME trilogy is how technology advances. The current cycle is reliant upon Prothean and Reaper tech, the Protheans before them were reliant upon their precursors, all the way back to the Leviathans and perhaps even before them. The mass relays are a major symbol of this throughout the trilogy: they're used handily by organic species, yet the organic species have no understanding of their construction or operation. They're also a Reaper trap, intended to stagnate and bottleneck technological development.

Freedom from the Reapers means more than simply ending the Reaper war, it also means being free from the technological constraints placed upon organics by the Reapers.

Technological constraints are only constraints if you let yourself be constrained. After the relays' purpose becomes known, I do not believe that the relays have to be destroyed to be free from those constraints, and I think this belief should've been accomodated by at least one choice in the OE. I think Destroy should also destroy the relays irrevocably, and I think the EC compromised Destroy's thematic identity because it was retconned, but EC Control was very much as I thought it should work. The original Control ending hinted at something similar, but in such an obscure way that it was hard to determine what was meant.

Also, the Garden Eden scene is not just free of Reaper technology. It's free of technology, period. Even the Normandy is nonfunctional. I think calling the symbolism "neo-luddite" hits very much the mark. As I said, the impression it made would have been completely different had there been a communication tower in the background.

Having said that, I headcanon the relays as destroyed in my Synthesis endings for that reason. Post-Synthesis civilization can choose to rebuild them since it has the knowledge of the Reapers, but I find it more interesting that they find a different method. I don't really have an issue with this theme, I just hated that it was forced on me in all endings and I didn't have a choice. And I hated the symbolism of the Normandy crash. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 février 2013 - 09:23 .

[Atekimagus]

Well in my endings, the normandy flies away again under her own power, so I assume we can dismiss the whole no technology claim entirely.

That being said, the Normandy crashing on the garden world didn't remind me of garden eden. Escpecially the synthesis-ending DID however remind me of the battlestar galactica ending. (which was also not all that well received from what I gather, so maybe they should have taken a hint)

I assume it is safe to say that the developers are huge fans of the series, therefore, Joker get's to make cylon babies with EDI in one ending.

Modifié par Atekimagus, 11 février 2013 - 09:33 .

[1337b0r0m1r]

Xenite wrote...

I'm sure Kennedy had a lovely car ride in Dallas, it was just the end that sucked.

But hey Bioware went one step further, why ruin one game when you can destroy an entire trilogy and make them unplayable for thousands.

I'm sure if you were actually threatened with being murdered, the ending would look much better in comparison.

[1337b0r0m1r]

xeNNN wrote...

- forced sexual orientation (bassically forcing a straight or gay choice on you)

Is this a joke? Are you seriously considering it as a real, actual flaw that there are characters you can't woo no matter how charming you are because they are just not into your sex?

Modifié par 1337b0r0m1r, 11 février 2013 - 10:03 .

[mvaning]

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

xeNNN wrote...

- forced sexual orientation (bassically forcing a straight or gay choice on you)

Is this a joke? Are you seriously considering it as a real, actual flaw that there are characters you can't woo no matter how charming you are because they are just not into your sex?

This is interesting.   A very good quality that the game has is that it holds a respectful moral stance towards sexual orientation. 

But then at the end of the game you are forced to make 3 choices, each of which have moral implications that many people strongly oppose.

[1337b0r0m1r]

mvaning wrote...

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

xeNNN wrote...

- forced sexual orientation (bassically forcing a straight or gay choice on you)

Is this a joke? Are you seriously considering it as a real, actual flaw that there are characters you can't woo no matter how charming you are because they are just not into your sex?

This is interesting.   A very good quality that the game has is that it holds a respectful moral stance towards sexual orientation. 

But then at the end of the game you are forced to make 3 choices, each of which have moral implications that many people strongly oppose.

How are these two things related? And what is your point - that you wanted to have a happy ending?  
Yes, each possible course of action has ramifications that one can find unappealing. Unfortunately, real war is hardly any different.

Modifié par 1337b0r0m1r, 11 février 2013 - 11:16 .

[mvaning]

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

mvaning wrote...

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

xeNNN wrote...

- forced sexual orientation (bassically forcing a straight or gay choice on you)

Is this a joke? Are you seriously considering it as a real, actual flaw that there are characters you can't woo no matter how charming you are because they are just not into your sex?

This is interesting.   A very good quality that the game has is that it holds a respectful moral stance towards sexual orientation. 

But then at the end of the game you are forced to make 3 choices, each of which have moral implications that many people strongly oppose.

How are these two things related? And what is your point - that you wanted to have a happy ending?  
Yes, each possible course of action has ramifications that one can find unappealing. Unfortunately, real war is hardly any different.

I should have clarified.    Each ending choice has ideological analogoes.    For me, it is sort of like being asked "Which ideology do you like best?"  when in reality, my ideologies are different than the choices that they impose on me to make.

What I was trying to IMPLY is that since it is wrong to impose your sexual orientation on someone, isn't it also wrong to impose your ideological stance?