lordhugorune wrote...
Unschuld wrote...
Oh look, another "If you don't choose control/synthesis, you're stupid" statement.
You may choose to interpret what I've said that way, but that was not my intention.
Modifié par o Ventus, 14 février 2013 - 05:01 .
Guest_Sion1138_*
Uncle Jo wrote...
I seriously wonder why people search for some deep meanings in a game which plot was always straightforward and conventional.
Modifié par Sion1138, 14 février 2013 - 04:49 .
Right, because the propensity to think is an automatic irrevocable proof of intelligence...Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...
lordhugorune wrote...
Unschuld wrote...
Oh look, another "If you don't choose control/synthesis, you're stupid" statement.
You may choose to interpret what I've said that way, but that was not my intention.
Then you should really word your arguments a bit differently than "Control and Synthesis is for the thinking man and woman."
o Ventus wrote...
>Poses a glorified opinion as a fact.
>Says a number of arguments for Destroy are subjective.
Irony.
EnvyTB075 wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Reapers die (as expected) and synthetic collateral damage.
I still haven't seen enough evidence beyond "The Catalyst said so" to support that.
CronoDragoon wrote...
EnvyTB075 wrote...
I still haven't seen enough evidence beyond "The Catalyst said so" to support that.
EDI's name on the wall and a wasteland on Rannoch if you killed the quarians on Rannoch and then picked Destroy.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
I still haven't seen enough evidence beyond "I didn't see it happen"-pendantry to support otherwise.
The death of the geth and EDI are downplayed, but hardly what I'd call a secret ... as Aria would say.
Modifié par EnvyTB075, 14 février 2013 - 05:01 .
Ieldra2 wrote...
Not at all. It's like a TV show with an epic finale. Then the producers want to continue it so everything goes back to the status quo ante when it shouldn't have. What had been interesting, inviting exploration, becomes dull and uninspiring. The epic event becomes part of its history, but it didn't change anything significant. Do you care for the message that sends?clennon8 wrote...
It seems to me that to say a post-Destroy MEU is boring is to say that pre-Destroy MEU is boring.
Uncle Jo wrote...
I seriously wonder why people search for some deep meanings in a game which plot was always straightforward and conventional.
Ieldra2 wrote...
The future of civilization, however, is more important. This is just a greater version of what Shepard says about Balak: "I want you to put a bullet in his head, but we're all making some sacrifices today". And so I take what I want from the Catalyst, namely, that - among other things - it's the developer's mouthpiece explaining our choices, choose the future I find most interesting and avoid the one I find boring.
EnvyTB075 wrote...
Yes, EDI was placed on the wall (albeit so inconspicuosly i only saw it when pointed out), but shes represented by her physical platform in the flashbacks. Not the smartest of descisions, since i can then ask whether or not its just her physical platform that is disfunctional. A better representation of EDI's demise would be to show an emotional Joker in the AI core, since the relationship he has with her goes beyond her mere physical appearance, at least thats my interpretation.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
I seriously wonder why people search for some deep meanings in a game which plot was always straightforward and conventional.
My actual-theory says otherwise (skip to Sec IV... editted for convenience).
FOX216BC wrote...
Yeah... i think i'll stick with destroy.
Ieldra2 wrote...
Not at all. It's like a TV show with an epic finale. Then the producers want to continue it so everything goes back to the status quo ante when it shouldn't have. What had been interesting, inviting exploration, becomes dull and uninspiring. The epic event becomes part of its history, but it didn't change anything significant. Do you care for the message that sends?clennon8 wrote...
It seems to me that to say a post-Destroy MEU is boring is to say that pre-Destroy MEU is boring.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
EnvyTB075 wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Reapers die (as expected) and synthetic collateral damage.
I still haven't seen enough evidence beyond "The Catalyst said so" to support that.
I still haven't seen enough evidence beyond "I didn't see it happen"-pendantry to support otherwise.
The death of the geth and EDI are downplayed, but hardly what I'd call a secret ... as Aria would say.
Modifié par Wayning_Star, 14 février 2013 - 04:58 .
Ieldra2 wrote...
More specifically:
High EMS Destroy in the EC version is utterly boring and unworthy of the story that came before.
Why? Well, who of you thought the ME trilogy would end as a standard "kill the evil monsters and go home" story? Who of you all thought it *should* end that way? If you did, then perhaps you're satisfied with Destroy, but I could never be. After all the interesting themes touched by the story, after hours and hours of story that made me think, discussing the themes involved with many others, story that triggered emotions and intellectual curiosity, made me angry at people's narrow-mindedness in and out of the story or appreciative of how others were handled, after almost living in this fictional world in spite of the occasional silliness, this is how it ends? Kill the evil monsters and go home to friends and family, nothing else really changes, the relays are rebuilt in time and everything goes back to normal? This is how it ends, with Hackett giving an epilogue speech that sounds like cobbled together from every alien invasion B-movie since the 1950s? To say it with Jon Irenicus: To end....like this?
Never. A story that ends like this could never be my story. At least, in the original Destroy ending, there was some change since the relays were destroyed. Good or bad, civilization went of into a new direction. There was something to think about. Was it worth the price? What would happen now? An ending like that sends my imagination into overdrive, triggering countless story hooks in my mind, just as the other endings do. High-EMS-Destroy? Triggers nothing. Instead, it smothers my imagination with its utter conventionality. And don't tell me about a "missing" reunion scene, that would have made it worse, adding yet another conventional stereotype.
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. I want change, I want things to happen that have never happened before, new wonders and new horrors both, a challenge for the civilization that emerges after the war, something to look forward to, something to think about, some cool stuff to happen. So if you want to turn your ME trilogy into a standard "kill the evil
monsters and go gome" story, that's your choice, but don't tell me it should be mine as well. For me, Destroy (the high EMS EC version) is the bad choice, the one that devalues everything that came before, thematically, symbolically, and drowns it all in an ocean of conventionalist crap.
Bioware has gone to great pains to assure us that whatever we do, it ends reasonably well. With the possible exception of Renegade Control, Destroy ends reasonably well, Control ends reasonably well, Synthesis ends reasonably well, even if you Refuse, things eventually end reasonably well. We all win, the endings just show us the style of the future we are creating, the themes and memes that will dominate civilization. None of them can be objectively considered bad, you can only disagree with the dominating themes and memes.
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.
lordhugorune wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
I seriously wonder why people search for some deep meanings in a game which plot was always straightforward and conventional.
My actual-theory says otherwise (skip to Sec IV... editted for convenience).
In other words a central message of the series is that you should never trust your assumptions.
Is anything of that told in the epilogue?iakus wrote...
A post-Destroy galaxy will be a new frontier drawn on an old map.
Ieldra2 wrote...
Is anything of that told in the epilogue?iakus wrote...
A post-Destroy galaxy will be a new frontier drawn on an old map.
A Destroy epilogue with destroyed relays could have told us how the old pathways between the stars have gone and new ones have to be explored, opening new frontiers and places never seen before. It could've told us how the relays prevented us from ever looking into the space between them, which we must now confront. That would have been interesting, and it would have appealed to why most of us like science fiction.
Sure, you can headcanon it that way, just as I can headcanon "Control for Synthesis" where the control entity guides the galaxy to Synthesis instead of forcing it on everyone. We can do that, but it's not the same.
Modifié par Fawx9, 14 février 2013 - 05:08 .
fainmaca wrote...
All four endings are incredibly boring ways to end a Galactic War for all existence. In three of them, the authors intervened to give us a way to finish things, and the fourth was basically sitting down and letting the next cycle do the hard work.
Ieldra2 wrote...
Is anything of that told in the epilogue?iakus wrote...
A post-Destroy galaxy will be a new frontier drawn on an old map.
A Destroy epilogue with destroyed relays could have told us how the old pathways between the stars have gone and new ones have to be explored, opening new frontiers and places never seen before. It could've told us how the relays prevented us from ever looking into the space between them, which we must now confront. That would have been interesting, and it would have appealed to why most of us like science fiction.
Sure, you can headcanon it that way, just as I can headcanon "Control for Synthesis" where the control entity guides the galaxy to Synthesis instead of forcing it on everyone. We can do that, but it's not the same.
Retour en haut
