582 réponses à ce sujet

[nevar00]

I like Catcher in the Rye.

Great Expectations though... not so much. Pip can suck it.

[eddieoctane]

nevar00 wrote...

I like Catcher in the Rye.

Great Expectations though... not so much. Pip can suck it.

Hated that book, too.

I like two pieces of literature in high school that were mandatory reading.

Great Gatsby and The Odyssey. Though as far as Homer is concerned, I enjoyed translating excerpts of the Aeneid from Latin more than reading the Odyssey in English. I love how English is mandatory and I have to choose between Latin and engineering courses that earn college credit. I really question the education system's priorities.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

And in rejecting it in Destroy you kill all synthetics thus accepting the message that synthetics and organics cannot get along.

The answer my friends is fascism! That's right Fascism!

RENEGADE CONTROL is the only way that one can have diversity. You will have diversity in this galaxy, and you will like it. So there! That is the answer.

1) Shepard must play the renegade ass for the entire series -- no love interest -- it makes things easier, trust me.

2) Shepard must surrender and yield to his/her inner knotzie, and grab the control rods.

3) Now you have closure in the end of the series, because you are dead.

I am really sick of these stupid emo endings. We goths knew how to party back in the day. Screw realism. Shepard would have risen from the dead ready to party down. Sisters of Mercy, Bauhaus

The ending was a pile of crap in the beginning, and it is still a pile of crap.

[McFlurry598]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is the first interesting anti-ending post in weeks. Thanks, OP.

this

[KyleR92]

I seriously think the BSN must be retarded. The entire message of bioware is STRENGTH THROUGH DIVERSITY. this is why you unite so many different races, this is why their is a council that (at least is supposed to) sees to everyones needs. This goddamn idea is hammered in across three games. Their is conflict with organic and synthetics yes but thats because bioware lets you decide (as is obvious from EDI's convos) whether or not synethtics really are "alive". If you believe they are and are just as alive as any distinct race then reject the catalsts notion or pick a different ending, if you don't think theyre alive then destroy them. Bioware lets you choose this you damn imbeciles.

[Indy_S]

KyleR92 wrote...

I seriously think the BSN must be retarded. The entire message of bioware is STRENGTH THROUGH DIVERSITY. this is why you unite so many different races, this is why their is a council that (at least is supposed to) sees to everyones needs. This goddamn idea is hammered in across three games. Their is conflict with organic and synthetics yes but thats because bioware lets you decide (as is obvious from EDI's convos) whether or not synethtics really are "alive". If you believe they are and are just as alive as any distinct race then reject the catalsts notion or pick a different ending, if you don't think theyre alive then destroy them. Bioware lets you choose this you damn imbeciles.

That is a fairly hostile response to the discussion. Yes, strength through diversity is present through the whole series. However, two of the solutions given remove diversity. We can question why such a decision was thought to be a good idea.

[daaaav]

KyleR92 wrote...

I seriously think the BSN must be retarded. The entire message of bioware is STRENGTH THROUGH DIVERSITY. this is why you unite so many different races, this is why their is a council that (at least is supposed to) sees to everyones needs. This goddamn idea is hammered in across three games. Their is conflict with organic and synthetics yes but thats because bioware lets you decide (as is obvious from EDI's convos) whether or not synethtics really are "alive". If you believe they are and are just as alive as any distinct race then reject the catalsts notion or pick a different ending, if you don't think theyre alive then destroy them. Bioware lets you choose this you damn imbeciles.

Yes exactly!

The entire trilogy validates and reinforces the strength through diversity theme RIGHT UP TO THE VERY END.

• Destroy: you either don't think synthetics are alive or you think that this is the lesser of three evils
• Synthesis: you acknowlege that something must be changed about the very nature of organics and synthetics to achieve lasting peace.
• Control: possibly the best ending but probably the most problematic as well. You are not given much of a reason to sympathise with this point of view throughout the series. It is clear that with Reap shep in the picture, the galaxy has LOST the right to self determinate.

So tell me, where is Biowares voice in all this?

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Where is it shown the catalyst is shackled?

It says it itself and it's creators say it. EC AND LEVIATHEN DLC.

nope ... you stiull could not provide one solid evidence to prove your assumption. only more assumptions.

How is this....


Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



Leviathan:  To counter this problem we creater an intelligence with the mandate to perserve life at any cost.

Not solid proof?
Explain.

just because the ai still does its job, it is shackled? following its programming does not imply shackles. it is not a proof. its an assumption based on a very shaky statement.

we made an ai to do a job. it has free reign to do, what it does (this alone implies the absense of shackles). we did not implement the "need" and motivation to do something else. 

the only thing that keeps the catalyst from doing something else, is its limited programming - not shackles.


the tankborn from grunts recruitment mission is a good analogy. "i am not perfect but i have purpose." his "programming" was "limited" by okear. it only knows fighting - takte fighting away from the tankborn and its life has no meaning anymore.

if the catalyst would not do its job, it would not have a purpose anymore and therefore no reason to exist. the cycles and its own search for a new solution, are its only reason to exist.


in short, the catalyst is just terribly boring, is not interested in other things and is not very creative. it is not shackled, it is dumb.

[KyleR92]

Just frustrating its like these people didn't playu the game at all and just watched the ending videos and thats it. Even if two of the endings reject diversity it is still retarded to say you have a sour taste in your mouth from bioware. Bad guys are always going to have crazy motivations, just because bioware gives you the option of agreeing with the antagonist (which doesn't mean your racist you may not believe machines = life) doesnt mean they agree with them. Synthesis isnt even racist because its obvious that each race maintains their identity (at least in EC) and if you pick destroy (I did) killing the geth and EDI isnt racist either just an acceptable casualty of war.

[AdmiralCheez]

OP: Yeah, the endings are disturbing to the point that I can't believe nobody stopped to think it over. Not only is the Catalyst's logic abominable, but Shepard is forced to either accept it or let the galaxy die. Each "victory" is gained through a serious breach of standard ethical principles.

Seriously, I wonder what point Bioware intended to make? Certainly not something so antithetical to the rest of the series!

@KyleR92: Bro, I am totally okay with the bad guy having whacked-up motivations.  What's not okay is that it's the bad guy that dictates the final outcome.  It's not a victory if the battle ends with you submitting to the enemy.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 22 février 2013 - 08:18 .

[Bill Casey]

KyleR92 wrote...

I seriously think the BSN must be retarded. The entire message of bioware is STRENGTH THROUGH DIVERSITY. this is why you unite so many different races, this is why their is a council that (at least is supposed to) sees to everyones needs. This goddamn idea is hammered in across three games. Their is conflict with organic and synthetics yes but thats because bioware lets you decide (as is obvious from EDI's convos) whether or not synethtics really are "alive". If you believe they are and are just as alive as any distinct race then reject the catalsts notion or pick a different ending, if you don't think theyre alive then destroy them. Bioware lets you choose this you damn imbeciles.

Each of the three ending choices goes against this theme...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 février 2013 - 08:17 .

[Sajuro]

Are people just looking for anything to be upset about now?

[Bill Casey]

Sajuro wrote...

Are people just looking for anything to be upset about now?

Are you ****ting me?
This thread is nothing new...
People have been ****ing about the racism in the FTV ending for a year now...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 février 2013 - 08:20 .

[Biotic Sage]

Again, a misunderstanding of the Catalyst scene. The Catalyst is not a stand-in for Bioware's views. If you truly analyze the authorial viewpoint, the Catalyst is actually the antithesis to Bioware's viewpoint. The Catalyst presents ITSELF as infallible and with a true understanding of organic-synthetic relations, but the game presents the Catalyst as a misguided, rogue AI that has fulfilled its programming built on false assumptions in an ironic way.

So OP is kind of null and moot.

[AdmiralCheez]

@Biotic Sage: If that's the case, then why do we get a game over when we try to disagree with it?

[KyleR92]

daaaav wrote...

KyleR92 wrote...

I seriously think the BSN must be retarded. The entire message of bioware is STRENGTH THROUGH DIVERSITY. this is why you unite so many different races, this is why their is a council that (at least is supposed to) sees to everyones needs. This goddamn idea is hammered in across three games. Their is conflict with organic and synthetics yes but thats because bioware lets you decide (as is obvious from EDI's convos) whether or not synethtics really are "alive". If you believe they are and are just as alive as any distinct race then reject the catalsts notion or pick a different ending, if you don't think theyre alive then destroy them. Bioware lets you choose this you damn imbeciles.

Yes exactly!

The entire trilogy validates and reinforces the strength through diversity theme RIGHT UP TO THE VERY END.

• Destroy: you either don't think synthetics are alive or you think that this is the lesser of three evils
• Synthesis: you acknowlege that something must be changed about the very nature of organics and synthetics to achieve lasting peace.
• Control: possibly the best ending but probably the most problematic as well. You are not given much of a reason to sympathise with this point of view throughout the series. It is clear that with Reap shep in the picture, the galaxy has LOST the right to self determinate.

So tell me, where is Biowares voice in all this?

choosing synthesis doesnt mean their is a problem with organics and synthetics persay. The argument is that there will always be war and this is true. Even if only organics existed there would still ocassionally be wars in the galaxy. The problem is that synthetics will eventually so far outpace organics that when war does break out, organics will lose. Synthesis doesn't change anything, and won't stop future wars even all it does it but the two different groups on equal footing. You could say thats racist but I would disagree.

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Biotic Sage: If that's the case, then why do we get a game over when we try to disagree with it?

Because conventional warfare can't defeat the Reapers.

[ObserverStatus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
OP: Yeah, the endings are disturbing to the point that I can't believe nobody stopped to think it over. Not only is the Catalyst's logic abominable, but Shepard is forced to either accept it or let the galaxy die. Each "victory" is gained through a serious breach of standard ethical principles.
Seriously, I wonder what point Bioware intended to make? Certainly not something so antithetical to the rest of the series!
@KyleR92: Bro, I am totally okay with the bad guy having whacked-up motivations.  What's not okay is that it's the bad guy that dictates the final outcome.  It's not a victory if the battle ends with you submitting to the enemy.

If World War II ended like ME3, Hitler would have convinced the allies that the Holocuast was a necessary evil to prevent gay people from driving the human race to extinction by not having babies or something, and Shepard would use the Thule Society's magic to either:
A: Sacrifice himself to take control of every German everywhere.
B: Prevent the gay apocalypse by granting humans the ability to reproduce asexually via budding.
or
C: Blow up the death camps with both the guards and their victims inside.

Modifié par bobobo878, 22 février 2013 - 08:37 .

[KyleR92]

Bill Casey wrote...

KyleR92 wrote...

I seriously think the BSN must be retarded. The entire message of bioware is STRENGTH THROUGH DIVERSITY. this is why you unite so many different races, this is why their is a council that (at least is supposed to) sees to everyones needs. This goddamn idea is hammered in across three games. Their is conflict with organic and synthetics yes but thats because bioware lets you decide (as is obvious from EDI's convos) whether or not synethtics really are "alive". If you believe they are and are just as alive as any distinct race then reject the catalsts notion or pick a different ending, if you don't think theyre alive then destroy them. Bioware lets you choose this you damn imbeciles.

Each of the three ending choices goes against this theme...

You do realize that whatever ending you pick you're using the crucible, a weapon passed down through thousands of cycles and cultures all coming together across millions of years to be assembled by a council of different races to be deployed against a common enemy. don't see the message still?

[Bill Casey]

bobobo878 wrote...

If World War II ended like ME3, Hitler
would have convinced the allies that the Holocuast was a necessary evil
to prevent gay people from driving the human race to extinction by not
having babies or something, and Shepard would use the Thule Society's
magic to either:
A: Sacrifice himself to take control of every German everywhere.
B: Prevent the gay apocalypse by granting humans the ability to reproduce asexually via budding.
or
C: Blow up the death camps with both the Germans and their victims inside.

Actually, the justification for the holocaust was based on "the protocols of the elders of zion", a fraudulent document partly plagiarized from a play. The hoax document purported the Jews were planning on taking over the world...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 février 2013 - 08:30 .

[Biotic Sage]

LineHolder wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Biotic Sage: If that's the case, then why do we get a game over when we try to disagree with it?

Because conventional warfare can't defeat the Reapers.

It should be obvious, but I'll humor you. 

That means the ideology of the Reapers/star-brat cannot be defeated. Hence the thread. 

No man.  It means that you can't shoot the Reapers out of the sky with the weapons/arsenal that we possess.  The ideology (programming) of the Catalyst is what drives the Reapers, but "defeating the ideology" is an abstract that is really meaningless because anyone can defeat the ideology by proving the Catalyst's assumption about organics/synthetics to be unsound.

You do need to use the Crucible.  How you use it is up to you.

[KyleR92]

bobobo878 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
OP: Yeah, the endings are disturbing to the point that I can't believe nobody stopped to think it over. Not only is the Catalyst's logic abominable, but Shepard is forced to either accept it or let the galaxy die. Each "victory" is gained through a serious breach of standard ethical principles.
Seriously, I wonder what point Bioware intended to make? Certainly not something so antithetical to the rest of the series!
@KyleR92: Bro, I am totally okay with the bad guy having whacked-up motivations.  What's not okay is that it's the bad guy that dictates the final outcome.  It's not a victory if the battle ends with you submitting to the enemy.

If World War II ended like ME3, Hitler would have convinced the allies that the Holocuast was a necessary evil to prevent gay people from driving the human race to extinction by not having babies or something, and Shepard would use the Thule Society's magic to either:
A: Sacrifice himself to take control of every German everywhere.
B: Prevent the gay apocalypse by granting humans the ability to reproduce asexually via budding.
or
C: Blow up the death camps with both the Germans and their victims inside.

Why do people have to bring Hitler into every argument it's like they can't even defend their point of view. and yeah we did kill millions of innocents and civilians in world war two to stop the axis, it's called casualties of war, just like the geth (which is why i pick destroy though i did synthesis whenever i romance miranda)

[AdmiralCheez]

Unfortunately, bobobo878's Godwinian allegory is spot-on accurate.

Also, nice Spectre, bro.

@Biotic Sage: Real talk?  If Bioware hadn't tacked on the "kill all robots" condition to the Destroy ending, none of this would be a problem.  However, the fact that they need to insert genocide to make the other two options remotely palatable should have been a massive hint that they totally and completely suck.

Well, Control only sucks because you die and reprogram the Catalyst in your image, which is whacked.  Synthesis, on the other hand, is 100% whacked.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 22 février 2013 - 08:35 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Biotic Sage wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Biotic Sage: If that's the case, then why do we get a game over when we try to disagree with it?

Because conventional warfare can't defeat the Reapers.

the massage is still the same.


i am not calling the devs "motivated". i am calling them short sighted. implementing stull like this is a bad idea. you cant promote diversity, friendship  freedom of speech, free will ect. in the game and then force shepard to become a fascist to win.

it is clear - to win, you have to succumb to my agenda.


implementing messages like this is short sighted and dumb.