190 réponses à ce sujet

[Warlock Adam]

Kel Riever wrote...

*Sigh*

The game has an atrocious ending because basically the ending choices are basically all the same, and all of them ignore information provided to you in the same game itself that happened no longer than 10 minutes before the ending(s)

So, a false sense of choice fails long before story failure and autodialogue.

I guess people are so used to having no choice that matters that they start arguing about control vs synthesis or destroy. Since the game failed long before you chose, I find it nothing short of cathartic that people continue to argue over the fake choice that they made. When the producers of Mass Effect 3 completely forgot not only what kind of product they were making, but didn't bother to read their own story in the name of some misguided attempt at emo one-up nonsense to the world of 'art', it shouldn't be a surprise why people have to continue to struggle to make sense of a product that is a failure in making sense.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

[Hadeedak]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

For Control i only got one thing to say.

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Died a hero. The machine made from her memories is something new. <3

[SyK18]

Entertain this thought for a while. Shepard's thoughts are in the new Reaper (collectively as many put it). It will protect the many. It will try to protect organic life as best as it can.

What if organic life decides to make more synthetic life and then the organics tries to control said synthetic life. Causing synthetic life to retaliate and then start killing organic life that is trying to control it. Will Shep-ai decide the best way to protect organics is to get rid of said retaliating synthetics? Or will Shep-ai see that the true threat to organics is the organics themselves who create said synthetics and then kill (or preserve) all organic life to protect them from themselves?

Let me know if unclear, or just play Rannoch and all will be clear. Pay close attention to Legions story on the Geth ship.

[Warlock Adam]

Jenonax wrote...

Warlock Adam wrote...

*sigh*

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with that kind of argument. If I were fighting a war, and said, "let's evacuate the people in this village," the reponse wouldn't be "well, you didn't mention those OTHER people so you must be excluding them."

That type of logic--if you don't explicitly state that you're for it, you must be against it--is inherently flawed, simply because it's impossible to bring up every conceivable issue in any kind of statement, discussion, or argument. Shepard isn't excluding anyone from his protection, except maybe the Leviathans--Paragon Shepard is hostile towards NO ONE in his speech. I'm sorry, but I think you're only seeing what you wish to see.

I don't see myself changing your mind and we're kinda moving off topic, so we should probably just drop it there.

Please don't sigh, I'm not a simpleton.

My reasoning comes from my stance on Control and the overwhelming feeling I get that the Reapers should be gone and its not possible to control them.  This is just my opinion and my interpretation.

My logic is that Shepard says 'Many.' That is the exact word that he says.  Many.  Meaning the majority but not all.  I just want to know what happens to the Few.  

I don't for a minute think that people would accept the Reapers in Control.  I think that most of the Galaxy would want them gone for what they've done.  They weren't in the Catalyst chamber, they don't know the inherent problem.  Never do we trust the Galaxy with this information.  People don't know we've given control over to Shepard.  As soon as the Reaper's stop one would think the first plan of action would be to kill them immediately before they had a chance to start up again.  

So I merely muse that that the new Catalyst in his quest to protect and guard the Galaxy may take this assault on his new thralls/slaves/buddies as a bit of an affront.  As conflict.  He doesn't want conflict.  His whole mission is to stop conflict.  

I just want to know what happens to the people who create conflict under this new galactic dictatorship.

I suppose for your Shepard, they might be obliterated. Which is why you wouldn't choose Control, and is perfectly fine.

For my Shepard, they wouldn't be. Which is why Control is my preferred ending, and is also fine.

So there you have it. Not sighing because of your intelligence or your choice, just because I'm exasperated. I'll respect your ending if you respect mine.

[McFlurry598]

Jenonax wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I did and I replied.

Im not interested in a pissing contest over this.  I just like debating stuff.  I have an interpretation of Control and you have yours.  I'm not trying to be fasicous or change your point of view I just like talking about it.

As do I, nice to see someone civil on  BSN

Why thank you, I do try.  Though I've blown up in the past on here.  The problem is the ending deal with such terrible atrocities its impossible to not have an emotional reaction to it.

My standpoint is that all three have horrible, horrible consequences and its a matter of pick your poison in a flavour that seems less evil to you.  But thats just me.  I'm glad people have different opinions.  It would be very very boring around here if we didn't.

Yes. But i still think your posts about the whole 'many' concept are wrong, i agree with Warlock Adams, the term 'i will protect all' is corny..

[Jenonax]

Warlock Adam wrote...

I suppose for your Shepard, they might be obliterated. Which is why you wouldn't choose Control, and is perfectly fine.

For my Shepard, they wouldn't be. Which is why Control is my preferred ending, and is also fine.

So there you have it. Not sighing because of your intelligence or your choice, just because I'm exasperated. I'll respect your ending if you respect mine.

I respect your choice just fine.  I like the debate as I said to Mcflurry up there.  

Modifié par Jenonax, 25 février 2013 - 12:11 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Hexley UK wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

You bend the Reapers to your will...thereby enslaving them, you now have the power to control the entire galaxy at will and nobody can argue with you, they all have to do what you say or pay the consequences.

In other words slavery.

Directly by you enslaving the Reapers and everyone else by proxy.

Maybe you should replay the Control ending.....

Shepard says he will help rebuild that the many have lost. He says he will defend the entire galaxy. He helps rebuild the mass relays. I don't know where you came up with him enslaving the galaxy. That wasn't even thought, better yet mentioned, in the ending 

Benevolent or not they still have to do what he says.

The galaxy has proved time and again they are too stupid to govern themselves.

[Obadiah]

Anyone remember that pro-human organization that was trying to dominate the galaxy? On a long enough timeline, for any ending, I calculate 100% chance that someone somewhere tries to impose a Totalitarian regime.

Modifié par Obadiah, 25 février 2013 - 12:06 .

[SyK18]

[/quote]

I suppose for your Shepard, they might be obliterated. Which is why you wouldn't choose Control, and is perfectly fine.

For my Shepard, they wouldn't be. Which is why Control is my preferred ending, and is also fine.

So there you have it. Not sighing because of your intelligence or your choice, just because I'm exasperated. I'll respect your ending if you respect mine.

[/quote]

From what i have read there is respect on both sides. Keep it going. This is fun.

[Jenonax]

McFlurry598 wrote...

Yes. But i still think your posts about the whole 'many' concept are wrong, i agree with Warlock Adams, the term 'i will protect all' is corny..

And I will protect the many doesn't sound any better if we're meant to take it the way you do.  

Its an interpretation, my post about the 'many.'  I'm not saying I'm right its just the way I interpret what Cat-Shep says.  Quite frankly I trust Paragon Cat-Shep way more than his Renegade counterpart, that dude is just scary. 

But I would still like to know just how Cat-Shep is going to solve conflict when he's in charge.  I doubt he'll be sitting everyone down to talk about their feeling somehow.

I can see a path where in his quest to keep the peace Shepard becomes that which he destroyed.  A dictator keeping the peace by force and the whole thing starts over again.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions after all.

Modifié par Jenonax, 25 février 2013 - 12:10 .

[ruggly]

For all we know, control Shepard could end up like



Or Shepard may not, hence the whole left up to your imagination deal

[Rip504]

Warlock Adam wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...

Well it would be" Lets evacuate this village and save many of these villagers." One can safely assume this implies casualties. IMO you both are doing the same thing. Interpreting what was said the way you want to. Shepard did say many,not all/everyone etc. So one can safely assume Shepard is not talking about all. Words create the law. Look at specific labels and disclaimers. If you meant all say all,or if you meant many say many.

It is not hard to understand where either of you are coming from. Just my random opinion.

Also Shepard is a completely new entity once being uplifted to Reaper form. This does not make the Reaper evil or good,just different. "The man/woman I once was." Implying there is something new. Even a human remaining human and using this phrase is implying they have changed and became something new. Changing from human to Reaper is becoming something new,so I would not say it is the "same" Shepard. As I said before this does not make it evil or good,just different. Just another random opinion.

Modifié par Rip504, 25 février 2013 - 12:14 .

[Kel Riever]

 Since BioWare didn't do the work to finish their game, I did.

Here's what my Shepard did.  My Shepard picked Destroy.  My Shepard also saved the Geth and EDI by picking destroy because only a complete moron who doesn't know what code is would think you couldn't destroy the Reapers without destroying the Geth or EDI.  Then my Shepard got out of the rubble and lived because only a moron who didn't know how breathing worked would think that breath scene was a last breath.

Then my Shepard walked over and kicked the writer of this nonsense straight in his face.  Strangely, that writer showed up in the game:



The End.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 25 février 2013 - 12:15 .

[Warlock Adam]

SyK18 wrote...

Entertain this thought for a while. Shepard's thoughts are in the new Reaper (collectively as many put it). It will protect the many. It will try to protect organic life as best as it can.

What if organic life decides to make more synthetic life and then the organics tries to control said synthetic life. Causing synthetic life to retaliate and then start killing organic life that is trying to control it. Will Shep-ai decide the best way to protect organics is to get rid of said retaliating synthetics? Or will Shep-ai see that the true threat to organics is the organics themselves who create said synthetics and then kill (or preserve) all organic life to protect them from themselves?

Let me know if unclear, or just play Rannoch and all will be clear. Pay close attention to Legions story on the Geth ship.

Hmmmm I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I feel like it always depends on the Shepard in charge.

Assuming your logic is correct: a Shepard who murdered Legion and the Geth, with no regard for synthetic life, would probably choose to wipe out the synthetics that retaliate. Simple enough.

Conversely, a Shepard who cured the Genophage with Wreav in charge--who blamed the Salarians for uplifting the Krogan before their time, not the Krogan for their inherent violence--might see a parallel, leave the synthetics the way they were, and murder any organics who tried to create more. The same would likely apply to one who sacrificed the Quarians.

But I'd like to think that many Shepards would take the third option, in true Shepard-fashion--unite the two sides and conflicting philosophies, simply by not being beholden to the flawed logic of the Catalyst. Because the Shepard-AI isn't at all associated with the inane organics-synthetics problem, and can "control and direct the Reapers as he sees fit."

Personally, my Shepard would just allow the sides to work it out themselves. He's had enough of intergalactic metal space squids meddling in the affairs of everyone else.

[Legbiter]

Using destroy means the Galaxy will only host one order of consciousness, that of organics. It eliminates AI monsters like the geth and Reapers. Sounds good to me.

[Jenonax]

Rip504 wrote...

Well it would be" Lets evacuate this village and save many of these villagers." One can safely assume this implies casualties. IMO you both are doing the same thing. Interpreting what was said the way you want to. Shepard did say many,not all/everyone etc. So one can safely assume Shepard is not talking about all. Words create the law. Look at specific labels and disclaimers. If you meant all say all,or if you meant many say many.

It is not hard to understand where either of you are coming from. Just my random opinion.

Also Shepard is a completely new entity once being uplifted to Reaper form. This does not make the Reaper evil or good,just different. "The man/woman I once was." Implying there is something new. Even a human remaining human and using this phrase is implying they have changed and became something new. Changing from human to Reaper is becoming something new,so I would not say it is the "same" Shepard. As I said before this does not make it evil or good,just different. Just another random opinion.

I wish I could word my posts as succinctly as you just did.

[Dr_Extrem]

@warlock Adam

I get the impression, that you did not read my whole post. You missed the most important part at the end.

The evaluations point was only to show, that the endings are so open ended, that it is very easy to destroy a view, if you push the "right buttons". The big problem with any of the endings is, that in the end, only the will of the player is left to hold the endings high. The endings are too open to interpretation.

Writing stuff from a smartphone sucks

 

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 25 février 2013 - 12:25 .

[Warlock Adam]

Jenonax wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...

Yes. But i still think your posts about the whole 'many' concept are wrong, i agree with Warlock Adams, the term 'i will protect all' is corny..

And I will protect the many doesn't sound any better if we're meant to take it the way you do.  

Its an interpretation, my post about the 'many.'  I'm not saying I'm right its just the way I interpret what Cat-Shep says.  Quite frankly I trust Paragon Cat-Shep way more than his Renegade counterpart, that dude is just scary. 

But I would still like to know just how Cat-Shep is going to solve conflict when he's in charge.  I doubt he'll be sitting everyone down to talk about their feeling somehow.

I can see a path where in his quest to keep the peace Shepard becomes that which he destroyed.  A dictator keeping the peace by force and the whole thing starts over again.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions after all.

I think the ideal way to solve internal conflict would be to do nothing. Paragon Shepard's already left behind an excellent legacy of friends, comrades, and leaders willing to think smart and proactive, work towards a common good, and put the interests of their own races AND others in mind. Liara the Shadow Broker, Primarch Victus, Wrex and Eve, the Rachni Queen, Admirals Tali and Koris, Matriarch Aethyta, Admiral Hackett, Kirrahe and Jondom Bau, a self-aware Geth sharing Rannoch, a partially reformed Aria...

I feel like the galaxy can take care of itself from now on. That was how the whole stupid cycle began in the first place; outside meddling from arrogant forces. Shepard's united them, and Shepard can let them be. All he needs to be concerned with is rebuilding the damage (the relays and civilizations) and keeping the Leviathans in check. Pretty cut-and-dry, but there you have it.

[KiwiQuiche]

ruggly wrote...

For all we know, control Shepard could end up like



Or Shepard may not, hence the whole left up to your imagination deal

I would approve of my Control-Shep ending up like that.

[Reorte]

Warlock Adam wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Warlock Adam wrote...

I'm kinda losing track of what you're saying. But the Shepard AI IS my Shepard--that's the whole point. It was based on his thoughts, his morals, his ideals.

You hope that he is. You have no way of knowing that he is.

HE SAYS THAT HE IS.

He certainly thinks that he is. That's not the same thing is it? The whole tone is rather creepy IMO.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's some "mandate" built in there, to follow the original Catalyst's programming. The Catalyst even says, "We will be yours to control and direct as you see fit." Shepard is COMPLETELY REPLACING it.

Does that seem likely to happen?

Considering it's EXPLICITLY STATED, I would say so. There's nothing ambiguous about it.

If you take dubious-sounding statements at face value. That's the whole point about "likely to happen." Is what's claimed plausible?

The Catalyst says, and I quote, "I would not enjoy being replaced by you...but I would be forced to accept it." So yes, stepping aside is exactly what he's doing. He vanishes before our eyes. There's no crude destructive process, there's no "accurate simulation" of a human being or flawed design to worry about as long as you have enough War Assets.

So why does it do it? No crude destructive process? Have you actually seen the Control ending? Shepard gets crudely fried. And of course there's the issue about how accurate the hardware can simulate Shepard, what on earth have war assets got to do with it?

I am pretending nothing. The Catalyst says exactly what will happen: "Your corporeal form will be dissolved, but your thoughts, and even your memories, will continue. Your connection to your kind [his mortality] will be lost, though you will be aware of their existence [he will retain his empathy]."

You're assuming that mortalilty is the only things lost, that isn't stated. You're assuming that empathy will remain. That isn't stated.

And we know exactly where the technology came from: the Illusive Man. And he proved it could work on Sanctuary, despite his horrific methods, and the myriad of Shepards who weren't indoctrinated and chose Control proved it could work. 

No, it didn't come from the Illusive Man. None of his work ended up on the Crucible. He was trying to achieve control but by completely different means. Nothing proves that it works.

Modifié par Reorte, 25 février 2013 - 12:24 .

[Warlock Adam]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

@warlock Adam

I get the impression, that you did not read my whole post. You missed the most important part at the end.

The e

Oh, the part about the endings being "too open to interpretation?" I agree to a point. The original ending was just god-awful, no kind of closure whatsoever. But I feel like the Extended Cut fixed enough of it to satisfy me; after all, there's a fine line between wrapping up a story and writing exposition out the wazoo. They had to end it somewhere.

[Jenonax]

Warlock Adam wrote...

I think the ideal way to solve internal conflict would be to do nothing. Paragon Shepard's already left behind an excellent legacy of friends, comrades, and leaders willing to think smart and proactive, work towards a common good, and put the interests of their own races AND others in mind. Liara the Shadow Broker, Primarch Victus, Wrex and Eve, the Rachni Queen, Admirals Tali and Koris, Matriarch Aethyta, Admiral Hackett, Kirrahe and Jondom Bau, a self-aware Geth sharing Rannoch, a partially reformed Aria...

I feel like the galaxy can take care of itself from now on. That was how the whole stupid cycle began in the first place; outside meddling from arrogant forces. Shepard's united them, and Shepard can let them be. All he needs to be concerned with is rebuilding the damage (the relays and civilizations) and keeping the Leviathans in check. Pretty cut-and-dry, but there you have it.

I think you're right in what you say with each individual Shepard doing things differently. 

Meddling in affairs that don't concern you is certainly the path straight back to the Cycles being started up again, so yes I agree that the best way is to stay out of the affairs of the Galaxy.

But people fight, they always do and eventually at some point in the future conflict is going to break out.  Shepard states he's going to protect the many.  Just hope he still has the willpower to stay the heck out of it when the time comes.  Otherwise, boom, cycle 2.0?

[Dr_Extrem]

Warlock Adam wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

@warlock Adam

I get the impression, that you did not read my whole post. You missed the most important part at the end.

The e

Oh, the part about the endings being "too open to interpretation?" I agree to a point. The original ending was just god-awful, no kind of closure whatsoever. But I feel like the Extended Cut fixed enough of it to satisfy me; after all, there's a fine line between wrapping up a story and writing exposition out the wazoo. They had to end it somewhere.

edited my post.


 
The current endings are still to open, if I can use ingame knowledge to reduce your argumentation chain to "my Shepard would never do this".

 
But this works for all endings. I am glad, that you can get your kicks out of the endings - I am not that lucky.

[DextroDNA]

I don't get pro-controllers. In high-EMS destroy; Shepard lives, the reapers are destroyed, and everything is rebuilt. In control Shepard dies, the Reapers live and everything is fixed. I don't see the logic... wouldn't you rather Shepard lived and the Reapers were gone? Because that's what it boils down to in the end.

[MegaSovereign]

I picked Charmander.

No regrets.