617 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am not saying that Destroy is objectively bad, but I do not care for the style of future created by Destroy. I disagree with most of its dominating themes and memes, and I do not like the kind of story that choosing Destroy makes of the ME trilogy. Because it's boring and conventional. In the end, that's why I choose a different ending, with almost all of my many Shepards.

Fair enough (this is also a much better thread title). I feel the same way about Synthesis, and not even in any kind of moral way: I find the "resolution" to be a cop-out, too convenient  to be a compelling way to make a final statement about the synthetic and organic conflicts we've seen in the story. The way to end race conflict is to.....correct the most glaring flaw of each state of being? What about working together in spite of flaws? The gritty, hard way? Didn't we just spend 3 games getting people to work together despite their differences?

Moreover, we aren't given hardly enough information about what Synthesis does for me to find it interesting enough to choose.

[Nerevar-as]

klarabella wrote...

And I readily admit that Synthesis (sillness of how and why aside) is a more interesting premises for a setting (thinking of the sequel now).

Galactic peace, everybody´s friends with everyone, immortality round the corner, synthetics really alive (because it confirms they weren´t before <_<),... There´s nothing to make a sequel out of this. Utopia tales work when you see what´s wrong with them, otherwise it´s just propaganda of an author´s ideals who ignore anything that would make their perfect picture fall apart.

[crimzontearz]

Nerevar-as wrote...

klarabella wrote...

And I readily admit that Synthesis (sillness of how and why aside) is a more interesting premises for a setting (thinking of the sequel now).

Galactic peace, everybody´s friends with everyone, immortality round the corner, synthetics really alive (because it confirms they weren´t before <_<),... There´s nothing to make a sequel out of this. Utopia tales work when you see what´s wrong with them, otherwise it´s just propaganda of an author´s ideals who ignore anything that would make their perfect picture fall apart.

unless the bratalist was lying....and we are headed toward the Zha-til path

[AlexMBrennan]

So, dear Destroyers, don't tell me how appropriate this ending is, how it's the only reasonable choice, a matter of military necessity etc.. etc.. That is all very subjective, and completely irrelevant in the face of one single fact: The game gives me an opportunity to shape the future of the galaxy, and I do not want the future that Destroy creates.

Lol what? The viability of the ending is not a subjective matter since it is a matter of fact that Shepard only heard about Synthesis from Godchild, and is vehemently opposed to Control as demonstrated by generous auto dialogue.

ME is nominally a role playing game so saying that destroy is a bad ending unworthy of the story etc etc is completely missing the point of the game - all that matters is whether it makes sense for Shepard to choose Destroy.
You are taking meta gaming to it's absolute extreme, and such a discussion is as pointless as "Know the winning lottery numbers" is good investment advice.

[Auld Wulf]

@OP

You're right. What I think is being glossed over though is that for the majority? It's the only choice they can choose. I have to say that that makes me really sad on the inside.

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books. And the wrong video games at that. Admittedly this is mostly a console problem, but there is a problem with those games dating all the way back to the '80s and the very first consoles: They all had exactly the same theme.

It doesn't matter whether it's Megaman, Mario, Tomb Raider, Call of Duty, or whatever. All of these console games shared one, similar theme. Almost every console game did. It's not like you had games like The Longest Journey on consoles, after all. (Could you imagine how some Destroy pickers would just completely break at TLJ?) They've never been exposed to the ambiguity of a good story, and their familiarity with one theme and one theme alone is overpowering.

1 is good, 0 is bad, 1 destroys 0, 1 is given a parade.

I ask you to just let that sink in for a moment so that you can realise just how many games follow that theme. And this extends to most recent games. Honestly, just process as many recent games and realise how many of them thematically fit into this niche. The problem is is that the people who've played those video games have been programmed to accept this binary state as a matter of fact. It's reality to them.

That's not how I see reality, though. I see us as collectively us, all different people with different motivations. I don't see a state of us vs. them, which is purely binary, purely black/white, purely good/evil. As Carl Sagan pointed out, we're all made of star stuff. The problem here is though that due to the classical conditioning that's occurred with them having game after game forcing this theme into their brains, they can't choose anything else.

Another option never even occurs to them. That's why Destroy pickers are a little boring, they perceive one of the better game stories as just a dull state of 1 vs. 0. Skyrim players had the same problem. They couldn't pardon Paarthurnax despite him being good, despite him being a peaceful entity who wanted to teach other dragons to be good. Why? Paarthurnax was a dragon, so Paarthurnax was 0, the player was 1, the purpose of 1 is to destroy 0.

What binary thinking gamers glossed over, of course, is that the Blades want to commit genocide against all dragons, even those who've managed to overcome their nature and become peaceful creatures. Even dragons who've done much for mortalkind, and continue to do so. And what's worse is that if you talk to Paarthurnax, he even says that he understands why people are this way and that he doesn't hate the dragonborn for embracing that way of thinking (if he does).

But hey, the dragon is 0, right?

That's why Destroy is the only option for them. It's the only option they can choose. Otherwise they feel unsatisfied and unfulfilled. Video games of the past have taught them to only feel fulfilled if they destroy 0. 1 destroys 0, 1 wins. Look at the earliest 8-bit games on consoles and they were almost Universally that way, and they continue to be that way. And it's just ingrained by this point. They can't even understand picking another option because the Universe is so binary to them.

Genocide? Well, that's just an acceptable loss if 1 destroys 0. So long as 1 destroys 0, 1 is good. 0 is always an unmitigated evil. So they have to choose Destroy. They have no free will in the matter. It's just the natural choice for them. And that makes me sad for them, that their brains are so locked into a binary state that they can't perceive things any other way. That they can't even begin to understand that 1 might not be completely good, that 0 might not be entirely evil, or that 1 doesn't necessarily have to destroy 0.

But overcoming classical conditioning instilled over the course of their lives? That's not easy. Nor will they ever realise or admit this is the case. I feel sad for them, since they'll do anything to get their 1 destroys 0 'hit.'

[Unschuld]

d-boy15 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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

but to be fair, pro-destroy were coming after them this past year...

That's like saying the mentally ill have turned to persecuting the sane, which is justified because the sane people have been treating them like, you know, wrong in the head for a while. Personally, I wouldn't feel threatened. No matter how many times it's rationalized, synthesis is crap  both in terms of ethics and consistency. It's also been bashed to death countless times, as have the ethics behind sacrificing synthetics to save everyone else in the galaxy. Personally, I find it far less damning to kill a few million (which can be recreated in time anyway) to save trillions rather than the forcible permanent alteration of everyone ever and from now on without consent.


Screw you, Shepard, for eternally trapping me and everyone else in this abominable mockery of life and  giving me back my consciousness so that I'm fully aware of my situation.
                                 -Signed, Everyone Ever Reaperfied

 
Is the option with the closest thing to narrative cohesiveness (besides refuse) with the rest of the story "boring" to you and therefor inferior? If so, please never try to write anything resembling a story.

[Nerevar-as]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

You're right. What I think is being glossed over though is that for the majority? It's the only choice they can choose. I have to say that that makes me really sad on the inside.

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books. And the wrong video games at that. Admittedly this is mostly a console problem, but there is a problem with those games dating all the way back to the '80s and the very first consoles: They all had exactly the same theme.

It doesn't matter whether it's Megaman, Mario, Tomb Raider, Call of Duty, or whatever. All of these console games shared one, similar theme. Almost every console game did. It's not like you had games like The Longest Journey on consoles, after all. (Could you imagine how some Destroy pickers would just completely break at TLJ?) They've never been exposed to the ambiguity of a good story, and their familiarity with one theme and one theme alone is overpowering.

1 is good, 0 is bad, 1 destroys 0, 1 is given a parade.

I ask you to just let that sink in for a moment so that you can realise just how many games follow that theme. And this extends to most recent games. Honestly, just process as many recent games and realise how many of them thematically fit into this niche. The problem is is that the people who've played those video games have been programmed to accept this binary state as a matter of fact. It's reality to them.

That's not how I see reality, though. I see us as collectively us, all different people with different motivations. I don't see a state of us vs. them, which is purely binary, purely black/white, purely good/evil. As Carl Sagan pointed out, we're all made of star stuff. The problem here is though that due to the classical conditioning that's occurred with them having game after game forcing this theme into their brains, they can't choose anything else.

Another option never even occurs to them. That's why Destroy pickers are a little boring, they perceive one of the better game stories as just a dull state of 1 vs. 0. Skyrim players had the same problem. They couldn't pardon Paarthurnax despite him being good, despite him being a peaceful entity who wanted to teach other dragons to be good. Why? Paarthurnax was a dragon, so Paarthurnax was 0, the player was 1, the purpose of 1 is to destroy 0.

What binary thinking gamers glossed over, of course, is that the Blades want to commit genocide against all dragons, even those who've managed to overcome their nature and become peaceful creatures. Even dragons who've done much for mortalkind, and continue to do so. And what's worse is that if you talk to Paarthurnax, he even says that he understands why people are this way and that he doesn't hate the dragonborn for embracing that way of thinking (if he does).

But hey, the dragon is 0, right?

That's why Destroy is the only option for them. It's the only option they can choose. Otherwise they feel unsatisfied and unfulfilled. Video games of the past have taught them to only feel fulfilled if they destroy 0. 1 destroys 0, 1 wins. Look at the earliest 8-bit games on consoles and they were almost Universally that way, and they continue to be that way. And it's just ingrained by this point. They can't even understand picking another option because the Universe is so binary to them.

Genocide? Well, that's just an acceptable loss if 1 destroys 0. So long as 1 destroys 0, 1 is good. 0 is always an unmitigated evil. So they have to choose Destroy. They have no free will in the matter. It's just the natural choice for them. And that makes me sad for them, that their brains are so locked into a binary state that they can't perceive things any other way. That they can't even begin to understand that 1 might not be completely good, that 0 might not be entirely evil, or that 1 doesn't necessarily have to destroy 0.

But overcoming classical conditioning instilled over the course of their lives? That's not easy. Nor will they ever realise or admit this is the case. I feel sad for them, since they'll do anything to get their 1 destroys 0 'hit.'

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, I just find it too funny how you got me completely wrong. And probably most destroyers too.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Troll harder Ieldra.

[SimonTheFrog]

Well... that is one way of putting it, op.

I would put it differently, though:
BioWare created a quite powerful situation at the end of ME3. Shep standing at the console of the crucible, Tim finally out of the way, Andersons final sacrifice etc...
They could have used this situation in so many cool ways.

They could have opened a channel to EDI at that point that would enable Shep to use the crucible in different ways. Or let Shep call Javik, Liara, Hackett... or the Geth or whatever...

But instead they decided to let Shep have a chat with the enemy and let the enemy do all the talking about what the crucible does.

This taints everything thereafter and makes it impossible for the player to predict what any of the ending actually mean. Is synthesis a trap? Is it utopia? Who knows...

In that mess, "destroy" seems to be the only option that does what it says on the tin.

Also, since none of the endings are fleshed out, explained or shown in any detail, it all becomes pointless anyway. It is a shallow, empty canvas for people to fantasize on. If they are imaginative and willing enough to bother. In that respect i guess "synthesis" works best because it's the least defined canvas.

But the way i see it, BioWare forces the player to do their job for them. They create a technically messed and thematically random situation and then run away for the audience to pick up the pieces.

And i refuse to do that.

For me the game ends with the stupid slide and their empty words.
Therefore each ending is equally empty, silly and cliched.

Yeah.

[Unschuld]

Auld Wulf wrote...*snip*

Um, NO, and what are you substances are you currently consuming?

PS, I always pick destroy, AND pardon Paarthunax. Your gross and incorrect oversimplification is just... wow. I'll leave it at that.

Modifié par Unschuld, 14 février 2013 - 03:54 .

[Enhanced]

I'm not a fan of the Destroy, but it's anything but boring for the future after the ME trilogy. It's the solution that make peace in the galaxy least likely. As the Leviathans, Catalyst, and creators of the Crucible believed, the synthetics/organics conflicts are inevitable. The Reapers won't be around to prevent synthetics in the galaxy from advancing to the point that they surpass organics.

Modifié par Enhanced, 14 février 2013 - 03:58 .

[Kel Riever]

Boring > Idiot > Moron > FU from BioWare.

So tell me again how one of the endings doesn't suck?

[jtav]

Ieldra has a point. Destroy is dull. It didn't have to be. It could have been "No more will we depend on what we don't understand. Now comes a technological renaissance as we forge our own paths." But that's not what we see. The epilogue provides us with very little that's visually interesting. Hackett's speech is uninspired. Control has the Reapers swarming over the relays like ants. Synthesis has the (sapient?) husks and futuristic cities. I want to play around in these universes more than I do the Destroy one.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

crimson tears wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

klarabella wrote...

And I readily admit that Synthesis (stillness of how and why aside) is a more interesting premises for a setting (thinking of the sequel now).

Galactic peace, everybody´s friends with everyone, immortality round the corner, synthetics really alive (because it confirms they weren't before <_<),... There´s nothing to make a sequel out of this. Utopia tales work when you see what´s wrong with them, otherwise it´s just propaganda of an author´s ideals who ignore anything that would make their perfect picture fall apart.

unless the bratalist was lying....and we are headed toward the Zha-til path

The Council is MIA, presumed dead. 

The Alliance Parliament is dead.  Admiral Hackett is leading under martial law. He may not give that power without a fight.

The Asari High Command is MIA and is presumed is dead. Who will lead the asari?

The Salarians could be heading towards a military coup. Hackett states that during the war that were cracks developing between the salarian politicians and military this could continue after the war.

The Krogan are rebuilding. If Wrex and Barkara can't keep order then a second war with them is very likely.

The Quarians are rebuilding. If Admiral Xen has her way the geth will be rebuilt and another war with the new geth could happened. And we don't know for certain if all of the geth was wiped out some could have survived and might want revenge.

The Leviathans are rebuilding. They might want to be the Apex race again war with them very likely.  

The humans, asari, turians, and salarians have very high casualties and Earth, Thessia, and Palavin are devastated. Sur'Kesh might also be devastated. Fleets and troops are low.

The Citadel and the Mass Relays are badly damaged and must be repaired fast to get aid war-ravaged worlds and prevent civil wars and coups from starting and spreading. 

So despite the slide show, I don't think the status quo is not returning for a couple hundred years at least and  there are a lot of conflicts in a Post-Destroy ending that could be followed up on.

Modifié par Cyberstrike nTo, 14 février 2013 - 04:02 .

[Jenonax]

[quote]Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

You're right. What I think is being glossed over though is that for the majority? It's the only choice they can choose. I have to say that that makes me really sad on the inside.

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books. And the wrong video games at that. Admittedly this is mostly a console problem, but there is a problem with those games dating all the way back to the '80s and the very first consoles: They all had exactly the same theme.

[/quote]

Allow to please interject right there, Auld Wolf.  I picked destroy and I'm doing an English Literature degree.  Where does that put me in your little generalisation?  Because as you can guess, I've read a book or two in my time.

Ask around, there are some very intelligent people on this forum.  Ive met other Destroyers who are professionals or at University or the like.  Frankly, though, what does it matter?  People who pick destroy are not stupid for doing so, we have our reasons and can defend them. I for one certainly don't appreciate the implication that im unintelligent for picking an option to a video game.

[quote]

It doesn't matter whether it's Megaman, Mario, Tomb Raider, Call of Duty, or whatever. All of these console games shared one, similar theme. Almost every console game did. It's not like you had games like The Longest Journey on consoles, after all. (Could you imagine how some Destroy pickers would just completely break at TLJ?) They've never been exposed to the ambiguity of a good story, and their familiarity with one theme and one theme alone is overpowering.

[/quote]

I loved The Longest Journey and all its subtelties and ambiguity.  Again, where does that leave me?


[quote]

1 is good, 0 is bad, 1 destroys 0, 1 is given a parade.

I ask you to just let that sink in for a moment so that you can realise just how many games follow that theme. And this extends to most recent games. Honestly, just process as many recent games and realise how many of them thematically fit into this niche. The problem is is that the people who've played those video games have been programmed to accept this binary state as a matter of fact. It's reality to them.

[/quote]

Yes, because I've played and loved Tomb Raider and Megaman I therefore am unable to think in any other way than 'Me good, must kill bad guy.'

Video Games certainly haven't programmed me to think in any way.  Some have allowed me to think and to analyse, see Bioshock, Shadow of the Colossus and Mass Effect, but none of them have effectively brainwashed me into accepting one way of thinking.

[quote]

That's not how I see reality, though. I see us as collectively us, all different people with different motivations. I don't see a state of us vs. them, which is purely binary, purely black/white, purely good/evil. As Carl Sagan pointed out, we're all made of star stuff. The problem here is though that due to the classical conditioning that's occurred with them having game after game forcing this theme into their brains, they can't choose anything else.

[/quote]

Good for you.  So do many many other people.  You'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who actually thinks in so black and white terms.  We all accept shades of grey, I will live with the consequences of Destroy.  Its not black and white it is an uncomfortable ammoral shade of grey mixed with the blood of EDI and the Geth.

And I certainly can choose, I just don't want to.

[quote]

Another option never even occurs to them. That's why Destroy pickers are a little boring, they perceive one of the better game stories as just a dull state of 1 vs. 0. Skyrim players had the same problem. They couldn't pardon Paarthurnax despite him being good, despite him being a peaceful entity who wanted to teach other dragons to be good. Why? Paarthurnax was a dragon, so Paarthurnax was 0, the player was 1, the purpose of 1 is to destroy 0.

[/quote]

I spared Paarthunax.  He wasn't a threat, he was my friend (almost) and I understood that I had a choice not to kill him and was grateful that that option was open to me, because I certainly wouldn't have been happy if the game had forced it on me.


[quote]

And that makes me sad for them, that their brains are so locked into a binary state that they can't perceive things any other way. That they can't even begin to understand that 1 might not be completely good, that 0 might not be entirely evil, or that 1 doesn't necessarily have to destroy 0.

But overcoming classical conditioning instilled over the course of their lives? That's not easy. Nor will they ever realise or admit this is the case. I feel sad for them, since they'll do anything to get their 1 destroys 0 'hit.'[/quote]

[/quote]

Well please don't feel sad.  Im perfectly accepting of my choice, though I would hesisitate to say happy.  

Though I will say, I am very happy for you to have reached such a high level of existance, transendence and  understanding that you can look down at us poor unintelligent luddites with nothing but saddness and pity.

You really are doing other synthesis supporters a disservice by being constantly insulting, I hope you realise.

[Auld Wulf]

To further weigh in on binary thinking and the problems it causes, I'll add the following:

I recently had an engineer friend play the Mass Effect series. He's not actually a gamer, that's the thing, he's more a movie-goer and someone who spends most of his time coding and tinkering. He reads the odd book, but mostly it's films and music he enjoys. So he's got a unique perspective outside of the realm of gaming, one that isn't dictated by binary thinking.

He chose Control. I asked him about why he didn't choose Destroy, at the time. (And this was pre-EC.) His reasoning went something like this: "Logically it would be kind of silly to do so. You have all of this reaper technology which could be used to help you rebuild. It would be foolhardy to destroy it just because it's reaper tech. There's absolutely no point to Destroy them, you're throwing away technology and aid."

This is what I'm getting at: If you're not enslaved by binary thinking, the logical choices are either Synthesis or Control. It's illogical to just throw away the reapers.

It's also kind of funny how people knee-jerked at my statement. To me, that just proves it. Whenever you point out someone who has a problem or an addiction, they'll try and turn it back on you in the most ridiculous and illogical ways. Destroy continues to be silly. Excuses for Destroy continue to be silly.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 14 février 2013 - 04:03 .

[Samtheman63]

Indoctrinated presence detected

[ATiBotka]

CoolioThane wrote...

Synthesis is wrong. There is only one choice: Destroy

Synthesis is superior, deal with IT 

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

So here is the tldr version for Auld's argument folks.

If you pick destroy, you're probably uneducated and stupid.

[Auld Wulf]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

So here is the tldr version for Auld's argument folks.

If you pick destroy, you're probably uneducated and stupid.

That's not what I said at all. But hey, if that's your knee jerk reaction to it, then you just run with that.

[Unschuld]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

So here is the tldr version for Auld's argument folks.

If you pick destroy, you're probably uneducated and stupid.

No, he's trying to be deep but ended up taking a swan dive into the shallow end of the pool.

[nos_astra]

Nerevar-as wrote...

klarabella wrote...

And I readily admit that Synthesis (sillness of how and why aside) is a more interesting premises for a setting (thinking of the sequel now).

Galactic peace, everybody´s friends with everyone, immortality round the corner, synthetics really alive (because it confirms they weren´t before <_<),... There´s nothing to make a sequel out of this. Utopia tales work when you see what´s wrong with them, otherwise it´s just propaganda of an author´s ideals who ignore anything that would make their perfect picture fall apart.

I didn't mean it that way.

I mean interesting as in getting to explore all the fridge horror that comes with forcing utopia on the galaxy at the push of a button (or a jump in a beam).

Or interesting as in exploring a galaxy of uplifted hybrids that share some sort of hive consciousness (only without the unicorns and the rainbows). 

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

[Jenonax]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

So here is the tldr version for Auld's argument folks.

If you pick destroy, you're probably uneducated and stupid.

That's not what I said at all. But hey, if that's your knee jerk reaction to it, then you just run with that.

It is, in fact, exactly what you said.

[Kel Riever]

Really, I don't mind someone saying Destroy is boring.  But that's because the whole game fails the moment Starbrat opens his nonsense mouth.  Beyond that point, the player is doing the work BioWare was supposed to do in making the end make sense.  BioWare can't do a good job so the excuse they use is 'use your imagination.'  Since I'm writing the ending for them, I chose Destroy, because the Geth survive, EDI survives and Shepard lives.
And if you can't figure out how that happens, you know what I have to say to you? Use your imagination.  Or you just aren't creative enough to figure it out....

[Argolas]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

You're right. What I think is being glossed over though is that for the majority? It's the only choice they can choose. I have to say that that makes me really sad on the inside.

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books.

*did not even bother to read the rest because of this*

I know I might be falling for a troll and should feel stupid for it, but you are starting to annoy the hell out of me with insults like that. Do you realize that you are calling the clear majority of the people here in this BSN section stupid?