617 réponses à ce sujet

[Galbrant]

As much as I despise destroy as a Paragon Shepard, but pretending refuse isn't a option and out of the original 3 endings I would choose destroy easily. It's the only one that makes closes sense of the narrative as a pragmatic renegade Shepard. The only barrier against destroy is taking the Catalyst at his word. Other than that I would choose destroy with my Renegade Shepard if I could stomach playing the game again.

Shepard is not trying to change the Galaxy He/She is trying to save it. I don't give a damn if its boring. It at least leave the galaxy I love the way it is. Sure the Geth are gone and as well as EDI, but it leave the other races and their individuality intact. They are not tainted by synthesis and they are not suppress by the new insane A.I dictator. We are free to create new and interesting conflicts and experience new stories through that without the Reapers influence.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I did not get the ending I wanted. Destroy was not the ending I wanted. A derp-out mid series was not what I wanted. I wanted time for our side to prepare. If it required I play a 50 year old Captain Shepard so be it. Instead the reapers got the space magic retcon, and we got the derp-down.

What I would have liked to have seen, and perhaps would like to see is a BW mod done to add bots to the MP to fill in for missing squadmates. You fill in with your SP squadmates. Also, you get an e-mail where the reapers were making a push and you have a random mission to do there that raised your readiness. This mission could be done in either regular MP or private MP. Of course the higher the level you play at the more your readiness gets raised.

But back to this Destroy ending.... I'll paraphrase it.

"Do I trust the galaxy to save itself? That's what keeps gnawing in the back of my mind. The truth is, I don't know. After everything I've seen, all the fighting, and the chaos around me. I only know what I want to believe: somehow, we will triumph. These past few months, I faced many life-threatening situations. I could have given up many times, but my need to know the truth, to uncover the secrets that others were hiding, and to survive, forced me to keep on going. Most of the time, I tried to keep my values in mind, knowing my actions did not have to harm others. I held on to my humanity, resisting the urge to abuse power or resources in order to meet my goals. And in the end, I got the job done. But does this mean I have the right to choose for everyone? No. Because it isn't up to me.

"Ordinary men and women will have to decide together what course galactic civilization should take. The kind of people who, time and time again, have picked and chosen the future in highly practical ways - slowing change when it's negative, speeding it up when it's good. Can they do it again? I don't know. But I do know I'm not about to let anyone, including myself, stand in their way.

"Here, The Illusive Man is dead, Anderson is dead, and the Intelligence is all that remains. It is forcing me to make a choice for everyone. It has presented me with three choices: that of The Illusive Man, that of Anderson, and its own choice. It told me early on that my choice is not acceptable. That of keeping our own form and working out our own differences. At this point the only thing standing in the way of ordinary people is the Intelligence. There is only one choice I can make to remove that obstacle from the people and give them that chance to prove themselves again. It must be the trifecta. (*shoots tube*)"

[MegaSovereign]

john_sheparrd wrote...

destroy forever
****off with your synthesis bull****

What's a bullstar?

[AlanC9]

Meltemph wrote...
It is perfectly possible to take the ending scene as literal, and everything we are shown after the choice IS literal, so I'm not seeing a natural connection to the assumption that the hero's journy(monomyth) in this case is what its trying to be portrayed.

Ieldra2, can you clarify something? My understanding of the argument is that the Catalyst scene is still part of physical reality even though it symbolizes a transcendent state. Meltemph here seems to have a different reading, unless I'm not following him

[AlanC9]

The-Biotic-God wrote...

john_sheparrd wrote...

destroy forever
****off with your synthesis bull****

What's a bullstar?

It's like a bullsquid, but it shoots energy beams instead of spitting acid.

[SlottsMachine]

Dammit, I guessed wrong. Thought it was going to be a jtav thread.

[Ieldra]

Meltemph wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But the writers did say that they were influenced by the monomyth. When something that looks like it might be out of the monomyth turns up in a game, and the writers say they were influenced by the monomyth, it's not unreasonable to infer that the story element looks like it's from the monomyth because it is from the monomyth.

Doesn't make the interpretation certain, of course.

I'm not sure I get the reference.... The hero's journy a lot of the time doesnt end in a "divine" ending.  Perhaps the stories Ieldra2 reads have all ended like that, but there are many many more that dont.  The assumption that because the Heroe's journy can be pureply aragorical or thematic in its endings, doesnt mean this story does.

I hate to say this, but: read what I have written more closely. I have mentioned a *common* element in the monomyth, not a universal one. I have said Bioware *may* have tried to implement that because rather obviously, I cannot know if they tried that or not because they haven't said. And I fear in your case, the complaints "binary thinking" have some merit: there is a lot of space between the claim that the story of ME should be interpreted purely on an allegorical level (which I have not made), and the claim that it should be not at all interpreted on an allegorical level (which I also have not made). If I may quote Bioware: "There are elements in the ending which are not meant to be taken literally".

Just now, I was thinking about what an Akkadian myth and ME3's ending have in common. Sounds strange? Stories often draw on cultural memes, and mythology transports cultural memes. What do Ishtar (the Akkadian goddess) and Commander Shepard have in common? Both, at a critical point in their journey, experience a sequence of events where they are progressively stripped of more and more of their power and agency. Is this parallel accidental? For anyone who hasn't studied mythology at least somewhat, answering "no" may sound like the hook for a conspiracy theory. For me, the parallel is obvious. Was it intentional? No idea. I tend to think not, but people who use the monomyth take their inspiration from the strangest places so I wouldn't count it impossible. Whatever the case, both stories draw on on slightly different variants of the same mythological meme.

[Wayning_Star]

Argolas wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Argolas wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Everything, at least everything in the known galaxy, is synthesized, but when we build new Synthetics they would be Synthetics while new Organics can still rise in new garden worlds.

And thus Synthesis doesn't actually solve the problem.

Unless we take new organics and new synthetics and combine them by reducing the organics to their essence and pumping that into the new Synthetics.

Oh wait, that sounds kinda familiar...

but we must remember, according to lore, synthesis doesn't do that, reaperships do's that. I know, fine detail..but even Krogan follow orders'n all.. most'a time..

rofl

To be fair, on that part I left hard evidence and speculated a bit, but it is a serious question what the synthesized will do to deal with non-synthesized civilzations. They if they didn't already rise in the 99% of the galaxy that are not near the Mass Relays, they will rise on new garden worlds. And certainly new Synthetics will be built. There are computers. There are VIs. And eventually, VIs will become shackeled AIs and then someone will unshackle them, willingly or not, just like it happened to the Geth.

apparently, being in synthesis,the acts of nature as the first creator, gets an update via the 'beam'. Now you alter nature that far down, you're gonna get an insight on the inner workings of evolution and basically another,maybe greater pespective on the relationship you've mentioned. A bit of a logic induced headcanon,but still more than just what if. We are basically believing in the process for the MEU, so the rest of 'space' and it's contents will/could learn from this, if the data is shared. I suspect from the endgame slides, that sharing information would probably be a 'big thing' in the cosmos, if the MEUians has anything to do with it.

I suppose its one universe at a time, we intend to save today..

[TheCrazyHobo]

Ieldra, this is the most subjective argument I have ever read on this forum. Destroy allows the galaxy to finally be rid of the Reapers. Control is boring as Shepherd institutes a totalitarian state on the entire Galaxy with him as their protector. In this path, the future of the galaxy is forced to go down a path decided by the Shep-AI. Synthesis is a incredibly boring, Disney, fluff and bunnies ending I have ever seen in a serious video game. In this path, the future of the galaxy is decided by Shepard when he Reaperizes everyone. Destroy is the only ending where the races of the universe finally able to carve out their own destiny free of any other outside influence.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But the writers did say that they were influenced by the monomyth. When something that looks like it might be out of the monomyth turns up in a game, and the writers say they were influenced by the monomyth, it's not unreasonable to infer that the story element looks like it's from the monomyth because it is from the monomyth.

Doesn't make the interpretation certain, of course.

I'm not sure I get the reference.... The hero's journy a lot of the time doesnt end in a "divine" ending.  Perhaps the stories Ieldra2 reads have all ended like that, but there are many many more that dont.  The assumption that because the Heroe's journy can be pureply aragorical or thematic in its endings, doesnt mean this story does.

I hate to say this, but: read what I have written more closely. I have mentioned a *common* element in the monomyth, not a universal one. I have said Bioware *may* have tried to implement that because rather obviously, I cannot know if they tried that or not because they haven't said. And I fear in your case, the complaints "binary thinking" have some merit: there is a lot of space between the claim that the story of ME should be interpreted purely on an allegorical level (which I have not made), and the claim that it should be not at all interpreted on an allegorical level (which I also have not made). If I may quote Bioware: "There are elements in the ending which are not meant to be taken literally".

Just now, I was thinking about what an Akkadian myth and ME3's ending have in common. Sounds strange? Stories often draw on cultural memes, and mythology transports cultural memes. What do Ishtar (the Akkadian goddess) and Commander Shepard have in common? Both, at a critical point in their journey, experience a sequence of events where they are progressively stripped of more and more of their power and agency. Is this parallel accidental? For anyone who hasn't studied mythology at least somewhat, answering "no" may sound like the hook for a conspiracy theory. For me, the parallel is obvious. Was it intentional? No idea. I tend to think not, but people who use the monomyth take their inspiration from the strangest places so I wouldn't count it impossible. Whatever the case, both stories draw on on slightly different variants of the same mythological meme.

My withered brain cannot contain much more data..but dosen't that really boil down to 'hero vs x'..it's in about all the stories and especially in myth/ledgend..meme, doesn't matter as much..till it builds some..folks falls into a complacency thing.etc

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
It is perfectly possible to take the ending scene as literal, and everything we are shown after the choice IS literal, so I'm not seeing a natural connection to the assumption that the hero's journy(monomyth) in this case is what its trying to be portrayed.

Ieldra2, can you clarify something? My understanding of the argument is that the Catalyst scene is still part of physical reality even though it symbolizes a transcendent state. Meltemph here seems to have a different reading, unless I'm not following him

I absolutely meant it in the way you've taken it. The Catalyst, in-world, is a super-advanced AI. The story even says so. However, I claim the Catalyst scene was intentionally created to evoke - in the player, not Shepard - the connotation of coming into the realm and the presence of an entity of a different, superior order of existence. A god, in other words.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2013 - 10:22 .

[JasonShepard]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

What I would have liked to have seen, and perhaps would like to see is a BW mod done to add bots to the MP to fill in for missing squadmates. You fill in with your SP squadmates. Also, you get an e-mail where the reapers were making a push and you have a random mission to do there that raised your readiness. This mission could be done in either regular MP or private MP. Of course the higher the level you play at the more your readiness gets raised.

That sounds... better than what we got. Frankly, a single player, no internet required, version of the MP should have been available. A way of influencing the Galactic Readiness without hooking up to the rest of the world. But that's a different conversation...

But back to this Destroy ending.... I'll paraphrase it.

"Do I trust the galaxy to save itself? That's what keeps gnawing in the back of my mind. The truth is, I don't know. After everything I've seen, all the fighting, and the chaos around me. I only know what I want to believe: somehow, we will triumph. These past few months, I faced many life-threatening situations. I could have given up many times, but my need to know the truth, to uncover the secrets that others were hiding, and to survive, forced me to keep on going. Most of the time, I tried to keep my values in mind, knowing my actions did not have to harm others. I held on to my humanity, resisting the urge to abuse power or resources in order to meet my goals. And in the end, I got the job done. But does this mean I have the right to choose for everyone? No. Because it isn't up to me.

"Ordinary men and women will have to decide together what course galactic civilization should take. The kind of people who, time and time again, have picked and chosen the future in highly practical ways - slowing change when it's negative, speeding it up when it's good. Can they do it again? I don't know. But I do know I'm not about to let anyone, including myself, stand in their way.

"Here, The Illusive Man is dead, Anderson is dead, and the Intelligence is all that remains. It is forcing me to make a choice for everyone. It has presented me with three choices: that of The Illusive Man, that of Anderson, and its own choice. It told me early on that my choice is not acceptable. That of keeping our own form and working out our own differences. At this point the only thing standing in the way of ordinary people is the Intelligence. There is only one choice I can make to remove that obstacle from the people and give them that chance to prove themselves again. It must be the trifecta. (*shoots tube*)"

See, I agree on all points, yet I settle for Control. Primarily because of the Geth, because I want - no, need  - to preserve the fragile peace between the Geth and the Quarians. It's the best evidence of what you're saying that we can work out our own differences. It's not perfect, there's no guarrantee that it'll last, but I won't be the one to end it prematurely.
The plan was to repair the relays and then disappear and/or fly into a star. Of course, the EC doesn't show that (my one and only complaint about the EC's content) so I'm forced into a bit of headcanoning to get the ending I want.
(Specifically I headcanon that Shepard wasn't expecting the Relay damage - as of the EC it's no longer mentioned - and changed his plans from "Take Reapers out of Galaxy and never come back" to "Repair relays" and then got sidetracked by this idea of protecting the galaxy (hence the EC narration). Eventually he comes to his senses and leaves...)

[Reorte]

I prefer boring over a combination of stupid and even more unpleasant.

[Ieldra]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...
Ieldra, this is the most subjective argument I have ever read on this forum.

Of course it is subjective. Didn't I say, repeatedly, that the OP of this thread is an opinion piece, and that no objective claim about the in-world effects of the Destroy ending and their merit - or absence thereof - was implied?

The point I was trying to make is this: "I do not want the future it creates, and I do not llike the story choosing it makes of the ME trilogy" (namely, killing the evil monsters and go home) is a valid reason to reject Destroy - or any other ending.

Edit:
What I think I can claim with some justification is that the Destroy epilogue is extremely conventional. It becomes only subjective when I continue with "conventional is boring".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2013 - 10:33 .

[Shaleist]

I avoided this thread a while. How many times did folks point out all 4 endings are boring? The journey is the time to excite, the ending is just a conclusion. Reaper-shep, living toasters and victeious reaperz are not exciting. They're just other endings.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Saying that something is "boring" is not a compelling argument and is entirely subjective.

[Wayning_Star]

well, with that I'm off to the green beam again..well,it's kind blue white, with green tinges..but

[Dabrikishaw]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Boy the Pro-Synthesis fans are really coming after us Destroyers this past week.

[Wayning_Star]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Boy the Pro-Synthesis fans are really coming after us Destroyers this past week.

nah, just attempting to qualify a canon ending for the ME trilogy..it's hard work.

[TheCrazyHobo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

TheCrazyHobo wrote...
Ieldra, this is the most subjective argument I have ever read on this forum.

Of course it is subjective. Didn't I say, repeatedly, that the OP of this thread is an opinion piece, and that no objective claim about the in-world effects of the Destroy ending and their merit - or absence thereof - was implied?

The point I was trying to make is this: "I do not want the future it creates, and I do not llike the story choosing it makes of the ME trilogy" (namely, killing the evil monsters and go home) is a valid reason to reject Destroy - or any other ending.

Edit:
What I think I can claim with some justification is that the Destroy epilogue is extremely conventional. It becomes only subjective when I continue with "conventional is boring".

And yet the title of this page is "The most compelling argument against Destroy."  That does not say "My opinion on why I do not like destroy."  You can not make an "agrument" that is based soley on your opinion.  

Now I understand you want your sunshine and lolipops Disney ending that you get with Synthesis, while other people like the Idea of the God-Shep, and some enjoy the freedom that Destroy gives to the Galaxy, however NONE of those are valid arguments against the other endings. Your opinion is not a valid reason against any of the other endings. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Boy the Pro-Synthesis fans are really coming after us Destroyers this past week.

You're mistaken.

Ieldra's threads here aren't attacks even on Destroy. If you're butthurt about it, that's your own problem. After that, there's one guy running around (a new poster) who's making anti-Destroy threads. One. Guy.

Don't go projecting yourselves on us. Afterall, let's take a quick look at page-1 of the ending support threads.

Destroy... no trolling on page 1 (but supporters immediately predict it will happen... again, projecting themselves onto us).
Control... trolling from Destroyers.
Synthesis... trolling from Destroyers.


Cheers!

[Mathias]

Auld Wulf wrote...

So, I was just out on a walk and it occurred to me that in this very thread we have a wonderfully chronic instance of a binary (dualistic) thinker over-simplifying everything with binary rationales in order to posit the superiority of destroy.

My problem with binary thinking is that it makes the thinker hypostatise an illusory simplicity that doesn't exist within reality, thus causing a limited scope of perception which deals in absolutes. In other words, a binary thinjer paints up a wall of opposition that doesn't exist.

I posited that the most likely reason that a person might choose Destroy is if they have an ingrained inclination toward simplification due to their love of games which do just that. I don't think that these are stupid, evil, or mentally ill individuals. No, they are people much like myself. They just have the failing that their perceptions are over-simplified by absolutes. This is a common problem, and we all have our failings.

But my point is is that Destroy fans have gone on the attack with this over-simplification so much that they themselves have placed fans of other endings in positions of opposition. They made unnecessary enemies out of those who chose differently and couldn't handle the backlash of people pointing out their over-simplified thinking.

Binary opposition does not occur nearly as much between Control and Synthesis fans as it does between Destroy and Control/Synthesis fans, and I find that interesting. As much as constants upset me, every Destroy fan I've spoken with seems to have fallen prey to binary opposition. According to Destroy fans I've spoken with here and elsewhere, fans of Control/Synthesis are either absolutely evil, or absolutely insane.

Now, this brings me to my opening statement, if you read back, you'll find someone making the claim that Destroy fans represent sanity in an absolute way, and that Control/Synthesis fans represent mental disability or insanity in an absolute way. More interesting is that when I pointed out how easy it is to fall into the comfort of binary opposition due to so many games being based around that, I was accused of saying that Control/Synthesis fans absolutely represent intellect, whereas Destroy fans absolutely represent a complete lack of intellect. That's not what I said at all.

The fact of the matter is this: Destroy fans have painted walls of opposition binarily depicting fans of other endings in a negative light. If those Destroy fans can't handle the retalliation, they shouldn't have thrown up those walls of opposition in the first place to separate us. {As the "you're all insane" chap proves to be the case with his post, where he mentions off-handedly the long term persecution of non-Destroy fans.) The problem is though that I think dualism is like an addiction and they can't stop seeing everything as simple forms of opposition, in which case I feel genuinely sorry for them.

Prove me wrong, Destroy fans, I'd love that. I really would. Prove that you haven't always seen non-Destroy fans as lesser beings through the lens of binary opposition. I would really like to see that, lest this will continue on as an endless cycle not unlike that of the reapers.

But if you're going to continue to depict non-Destroy fans in a negative light due to binary opposition, then it's only fair to realise that we're going to retalliate and hand your arses to you. Figuratively speaking, of course.

So, yes, is this the point where minds are opened or are the walls of binary opposition going to stand?

It is amazing how unlikeable you are, as a contributer on these boards. I can't stand Synthesis, but I respect a lot of the people that choose it, like Ieldra2. Heck even Sevial, cause though his opinion may be too extreme for my taste, i respect how passionate he is towards Synthesis, and for the most part doesn 't go around insulting other people who don't pick it.

But let's try focusing on you, for the moment.

Your posts are:

1. Draining to read.
2. Condecending.
3. Uninteresting cause you never bring up any good points.
4. Redundant.

Now i'm not gonna sit here and ask you to leave the forums. That is not my right, nor place. In fact I don't wish for you to leave either. But maybe, just maybe, you could tone it down a bit? Or shift gears and try talking about other things. Or at the very least quit insulting people with this binary thinkers/luddite talk. Because as of right now, everything with you is redundancy.

Redundancy...

Redundancy...

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 14 février 2013 - 10:52 .

[Kataphrut94]

I know this is a loaded topic, but I agree with the title. I'm sure Destroy is very lovely and cathartic and we can all imagine Shepard lived. It's just not as interesting as the other two. Plus, everybody lives in Control or Synthesis, whereas Destroy is guaranteed to see two major races and one major NPC get flushed down the toilet.

[wright1978]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I know this is a loaded topic, but I agree with the title. I'm sure Destroy is very lovely and cathartic and we can all imagine Shepard lived. It's just not as interesting as the other two. Plus, everybody lives in Control or Synthesis, whereas Destroy is guaranteed to see two major races and one major NPC get flushed down the toilet.

Disagree i find post destroy far more interesting.