582 réponses à ce sujet

[ObserverStatus]

Bill Casey wrote...
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...

Not in this hypothetical scenario where the war ended like ME3 it wasn't.

[Biotic Sage]

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.

If those are the only options available, then you have to pick one.  It sucks, yeah, but that's why it's a "hard decision."  By picking one of the only available options though, you don't have to accept Hitler's views.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 08:33 .

[KyleR92]

Dr_Extrem 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.

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.

Then pick refuse, its still a winning ending seeing as the reapers are still destroyed its just not the one you want.

[Dr_Extrem]

KyleR92 wrote...

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)

i am german - and it did not offend me. i cant speak for the victims out there but my workmate (jew from russia) would find this analogy amusing and fitting.

our fall has to be good for something.

[Dr_Extrem]

KyleR92 wrote...

Dr_Extrem 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.

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.

Then pick refuse, its still a winning ending seeing as the reapers are still destroyed its just not the one you want.

you mean the glorified "suck it - you still loose" button?


edit: shepard cant know for certain, that someone will ever find liaras time capsules. the "just pick refuse" argument is based on meta gaming.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 08:36 .

[ObserverStatus]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
i am german - and it did not offend me. i cant speak for the victims out there but my workmate (jew from russia) would find this analogy amusing and fitting.
our fall has to be good for something.

I would have used another word for the perpetrators, but BSN would have censored it.

[daaaav]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Agree that the Catalyst is not a stand in for Bioware. So through what means does Biowares voice come through during the conclusion? It's not the catalyst, and Shepard has been muzzled, so how do we know what Bioware was thinking?

[AdmiralCheez]

daaaav wrote...

Agree that the Catalyst is not a stand in for Bioware. So through what means does Biowares voice come through during the conclusion? It's not the catalyst, and Shepard has been muzzled, so how do we know what Bioware was thinking?

That's kind of the problem, here.

They.  Weren't.  Thinking.

Or maybe they were thinking, but only about the message they wanted to deliver.  They may have forgotten to look at what actually came across in the finished product.

What is true in life is also true in writing: Check thineself before thoust wreck thineself.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 22 février 2013 - 08:39 .

[ObserverStatus]

Cthulhu42 wrote...
If synthetics were really equal to organics, Javik wouldn't say otherwise.

Can't argue with logic like that.

[Biotic Sage]

daaaav wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Agree that the Catalyst is not a stand in for Bioware. So through what means does Biowares voice come through during the conclusion? It's not the catalyst, and Shepard has been muzzled, so how do we know what Bioware was thinking?

It's supposed to be our voice.  If you pick Destroy or Refuse, then you are rejecting the idea that organic/synthetic genocide is inevitable.  If you pick Synthesis, you are accepting that it is inevitable unless we change the rules.  And Control you could pick for a variety of reasons.  The act of making the choice is giving the player a voice.  In my opinion Bioware heavily favors Destroy, especially based on further evidence confirming the Catalyst's inception from the Leviathan DLC.

[Dr_Extrem]

bobobo878 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
i am german - and it did not offend me. i cant speak for the victims out there but my workmate (jew from russia) would find this analogy amusing and fitting.
our fall has to be good for something.

I would have used another word for the perpetrators, but BSN would have censored it.

why? 

its fitting - unpleasant but fitting.


there are other examples off course ... armenians/turks, tutsi/hutu, mao, stalin (who almost started a second shoa in russia - but died before)

[dorktainian]

to all those that think the ending is bad I sympathise. However hold fire till after the last DLC and if you still feel the same way you are quite entitled to make your feelings known.

One thought for me is this constant statement of it not being 'post ending DLC' when it obviously cannot be.

So this next DLC is either gonna save the franchise or kill it.

With ME4 in development it might be wise for bioware to actually listen for a change. Otherwise i think people will drop this franchise like a stone and walk away.

[Dr_Extrem]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

daaaav wrote...

Agree that the Catalyst is not a stand in for Bioware. So through what means does Biowares voice come through during the conclusion? It's not the catalyst, and Shepard has been muzzled, so how do we know what Bioware was thinking?

That's kind of the problem, here.

They.  Weren't.  Thinking.

Or maybe they were thinking, but only about the message they wanted to deliver.  They may have forgotten to look at what actually came across in the finished product.

What is true in life is also true in writing: Check thineself before thoust wreck thineself.

it was a short sighted decision to make shepard abandon his/her own believes .. i guess it was done to show shepards determination and to build a true "fallen hero" image. simply killing shep was not enough i guess

but it backfired.

[Biotic Sage]

dorktainian wrote...

With ME4 in development it might be wise for bioware to actually listen for a change. Otherwise i think people will drop this franchise like a stone and walk away.

Even if Bioware had not released the EC and even if they don't release post-ending DLC, forgive me, but I highly doubt that a significant number of people would drop the franchise like a stone and walk away, including you.  I've suffered through three abysmal Star Wars prequels, way worse than any alleged offense ME3 perpetrated, and I'm still excited about the POSSIBILITY that the next trilogy might be good.  I'll be there opening night, despite my reservations.  And you'll be buying ME4.  Deny it if you wish.

[Dr_Extrem]

dorktainian wrote...

to all those that think the ending is bad I sympathise. However hold fire till after the last DLC and if you still feel the same way you are quite entitled to make your feelings known.

One thought for me is this constant statement of it not being 'post ending DLC' when it obviously cannot be.

So this next DLC is either gonna save the franchise or kill it.

With ME4 in development it might be wise for bioware to actually listen for a change. Otherwise i think people will drop this franchise like a stone and walk away.

well they did not listen yet. the last dls was the moment to show off.

and merizan did ... "we roled the numbers"


the dlc will provide a pointless sidemission, useless war assets, fluff and will cost 15 bucks. its basically omega with booze and floosies.

[daaaav]

Biotic Sage wrote...

daaaav wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Agree that the Catalyst is not a stand in for Bioware. So through what means does Biowares voice come through during the conclusion? It's not the catalyst, and Shepard has been muzzled, so how do we know what Bioware was thinking?

It's supposed to be our voice.  If you pick Destroy or Refuse, then you are rejecting the idea that organic/synthetic genocide is inevitable.  If you pick Synthesis, you are accepting that it is inevitable unless we change the rules.  And Control you could pick for a variety of reasons.  The act of making the choice is giving the player a voice.  In my opinion Bioware heavily favors Destroy, especially based on further evidence confirming the Catalyst's inception from the Leviathan DLC.

That's as good a theory as i've heard yet still problematic. This would have worked rather nicely if Edi and the Geth had some actual AGENCY in their fate. Yes, they acknowleged that they were willing to die for a chance at freedom  they did not deserve to be betrayed by their allies in the manner they were. 

[AdmiralCheez]

Biotic Sage wrote...

It's supposed to be our voice.  If you pick Destroy or Refuse, then you are rejecting the idea that organic/synthetic genocide is inevitable.  If you pick Synthesis, you are accepting that it is inevitable unless we change the rules.  And Control you could pick for a variety of reasons.  The act of making the choice is giving the player a voice.  In my opinion Bioware heavily favors Destroy, especially based on further evidence confirming the Catalyst's inception from the Leviathan DLC.

Supposed to =/= is.  Fact is, Starbrat's still the one telling you to pick your favorite color.  It's still the Catalyst's logic that dictates the terms.  No matter your motivations, the results are the same.  You are probably right about what Bioware wanted, but it is unfortunately not what came across.

Also, I disagree with you; Synthesis is obviously Bioware's baby.

[Biotic Sage]

daaaav wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

daaaav wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Agree that the Catalyst is not a stand in for Bioware. So through what means does Biowares voice come through during the conclusion? It's not the catalyst, and Shepard has been muzzled, so how do we know what Bioware was thinking?

It's supposed to be our voice.  If you pick Destroy or Refuse, then you are rejecting the idea that organic/synthetic genocide is inevitable.  If you pick Synthesis, you are accepting that it is inevitable unless we change the rules.  And Control you could pick for a variety of reasons.  The act of making the choice is giving the player a voice.  In my opinion Bioware heavily favors Destroy, especially based on further evidence confirming the Catalyst's inception from the Leviathan DLC.

That's as good a theory as i've heard yet still problematic. This would have worked rather nicely if Edi and the Geth had some actual AGENCY in their fate. Yes, they acknowleged that they were willing to die for a chance at freedom  they did not deserve to be betrayed by their allies in the manner they were. 

Well if you aren't comfortable with making the sacrifice for the greater good without their consent on principle, then that's why I could see some people choosing Refuse, having faith in the future cycles to finish the job.

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

It's supposed to be our voice.  If you pick Destroy or Refuse, then you are rejecting the idea that organic/synthetic genocide is inevitable.  If you pick Synthesis, you are accepting that it is inevitable unless we change the rules.  And Control you could pick for a variety of reasons.  The act of making the choice is giving the player a voice.  In my opinion Bioware heavily favors Destroy, especially based on further evidence confirming the Catalyst's inception from the Leviathan DLC.

Supposed to =/= is.  Fact is, Starbrat's still the one telling you to pick your favorite color.  It's still the Catalyst's logic that dictates the terms.  No matter your motivations, the results are the same.  You are probably right about what Bioware wanted, but it is unfortunately not what came across.

Also, I disagree with you; Synthesis is obviously Bioware's baby.

Well I can definitely see the case for Synthesis being Bioware's preferred ending, there are definitely points to both.  I'll still have to disagree because of these points:
- The breath scene
- Reapers/Reaper babies presented as abominations that should be destroyed because of what they represent
- ^ The above coupled with the obvious Bioware paragon bias throughout all 3 games
- Anderson wanted it damn it!  Anderson!

I'll still disagree with your "Starbrat" analysis on objective terms.  It is not the Catalyst's logic that dictates the terms.  The Crucible dictates the terms, which is the culmination of thousands of civilizations and races working together to combat the Reaper's iron hold on galactic determinism.  If anything, this is an argument FOR diversity and working together.  Which is why the OP is null in my opinion.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 08:54 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Well if you aren't comfortable with making the sacrifice for the greater good without their consent on principle, then that's why I could see some people choosing Refuse, having faith in the future cycles to finish the job.

Yeah, because murdering everybody is better than just murdering some of them.

Seriously, Refuse felt like a big "screw you" to the more vocal fans  "Don't like our philosophical masterpiece, eh?  Well, joke's on you!  Everyone dies!  LOL!"  Again, was that their intention?  Probably not, but the final message of a work exists independently of authorial intent.

[Bill Casey]

bobobo878 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
i am german - and it did not offend me. i cant speak for the victims out there but my workmate (jew from russia) would find this analogy amusing and fitting.
our fall has to be good for something.

I would have used another word for the perpetrators, but BSN would have censored it.

Which is funny, because in Mass Effect 2 files, you can find them calling Cerberus "**** Scientists" in the game files...
The censored word being a certain organization headed by a certain person with a certain kind of name which is Hitler...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 février 2013 - 08:56 .

[Jadebaby]

I agree with AdmiralCheez, it's also why the breath scene doesn't work, despite their intentions.

[Indy_S]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Seriously, Refuse felt like a big "screw you" to the more vocal fans  "Don't like our philosophical masterpiece, eh?  Well, joke's on you!  Everyone dies!  LOL!"  Again, was that their intention?  Probably not, but the final message of a work exists independently of authorial intent.

I agree with that. The work exists beyond the author's interpretation as well. They are just another member of the audience. Having their context is still a good thing, though.