202 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I never asked for this...

It's okay: according to some, it's apparently optional.

Do I just side step the magic green light?

[dreamgazer]

Taboo-XX wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I never asked for this...

It's okay: according to some, it's apparently optional.

Do I just side step the magic green light?

Poor trees.

[Absaroka]

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

Because as much as despots of the past have tried to pretend otherwise, these limitations still exist - as well they should.

I've roleplayed all four of my Shepards as human beings, flawed in their own ways. Both paragon and renegade have their own flaws; I don't march a straight line with either of them.

I confess, I've gone almost wholly Paragon with my own, and I honestly doubt that anything at all could make her truly give up her convictions.

There's a word for that, it's called a zealot. 

If someone claims they deserve power because their morality is beyond reproach, then all the more reason they cannot be trusted with it. It is all but an admission of hubris and lack of nuance.

[ObserverStatus]

Brass_Buckles wrote...
Again, my reason for choosing Destroy is to end the cycle, because I've already proven synthetics and organics can get along.  Not all of the geth would agree with my sacrificing them, but Legion would have understood.  I think so would EDI. 

Legion sure as hell wouldn't have approved of Synthesis, that's for sure. In Mass Effect 2 he explained that the Geth refused to accept reaper technology so that they could build their own future. The geth know that allowing the Reapers to dictate the final stage of their evolution as in the Synthesis ending would blind them to alternative paths, and forcing a fate upon them that is completely antithetical to their doctrine actually seems crueller than just killing them.

[Xilizhra]

Absaroka wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

Because as much as despots of the past have tried to pretend otherwise, these limitations still exist - as well they should.

I've roleplayed all four of my Shepards as human beings, flawed in their own ways. Both paragon and renegade have their own flaws; I don't march a straight line with either of them.

I confess, I've gone almost wholly Paragon with my own, and I honestly doubt that anything at all could make her truly give up her convictions.

There's a word for that, it's called a zealot. 

If someone claims they deserve power because their morality is beyond reproach, then all the more reason they cannot be trusted with it. It is all but an admission of hubris and lack of nuance.

It's not that I deserve power, I just have to take it because it's the best possible alternative.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

All four are just about as different from each other as they can be. Different classes and backstories. No two romance the same person (or persons). Each brings a different combination of survivors into ME3, with different outcomes in the trilogy spanning story arcs. As I see it, this lets me see the most content possible.

I personally only ever have one set of content I really want to see. At least, to play for myself. The one exception would be a possible Samara romance, but while that's... kind of there now, it's not enough for me to play a whole game without Liara.

I consider Tali my canon romance. That said, only one out of my four Shepards romances her (the first of the four I mentioned, shown in my avatar - he romances no one else). One of my alternates actually betrays her at her trial.

It lets you see different sides of the same character, approaching them as a friend in one playthrough and something more in another.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 08 mars 2013 - 07:23 .

[goose2989]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Destroy Pre-EC.

Destroy Post-EC.

Profoundly, happily, enthusiastically Destroy post-Citadel.

Shoot the tube, live happily. 

[Eterna]

EDI gave you a ring you destructive monsters.

[Taboo]

Eterna5 wrote...

EDI gave you a ring you destructive monsters.

She should have put a ring on it.

[DeinonSlayer]

Eterna5 wrote...

EDI gave you a ring you destructive monsters.

Kaidan was a friend to Shepard, too. Still left him behind on Virmire.

[Xilizhra]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

EDI gave you a ring you destructive monsters.

Kaidan was a friend to Shepard, too. Still left him behind on Virmire.

So it's established that your Shepards don't quite know what a truly necessary sacrifice is?

[BattleCop88]

I-AM-KROGAN wrote...

I still pick Synthesis. I Just don't like the idea of control very much, and I can't just kill the geth.

This. Other than that I would pick destroy. Gotta love forced tough choices...

[ObserverStatus]

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
EDI gave you a ring you destructive monsters.

Kaidan was a friend to Shepard, too. Still left him behind on Virmire.

So it's established that your Shepards don't quite know what a truly necessary sacrifice is?

Kaiden's sacrifice probably wasn't necessary either, they could have just left and come back to nuke Virmire later.

[Xilizhra]

bobobo878 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
EDI gave you a ring you destructive monsters.

Kaidan was a friend to Shepard, too. Still left him behind on Virmire.

So it's established that your Shepards don't quite know what a truly necessary sacrifice is?

Kaiden's sacrifice probably wasn't necessary either, they could have just left and come back to nuke Virmire later.

Sovereign was present and would have blown up the Normandy had it tried to load the bomb onto it, so I fear it was necessary.

Kaidan or Ashley. Shepard or EDI. I'm not seeing the difference much.

EDI, plus every other synthetic, plus all that's left of the victims of the harvest.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 mars 2013 - 07:30 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

EDI gave you a ring you destructive monsters.

Kaidan was a friend to Shepard, too. Still left him behind on Virmire.

So it's established that your Shepards don't quite know what a truly necessary sacrifice is?

I'm well aware of it. EDI is no different from the engineers on X57, or Admiral Koris' crew. Just because a sacrifice is avoidable doesn't make it unnecessary. In my judgement, the alternatives to Destroy are worse. In your judgement, one of those alternatives (control) is better. That's all there is to it.

[ObserverStatus]

Xilizhra wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
EDI gave you a ring you destructive monsters.

Kaidan was a friend to Shepard, too. Still left him behind on Virmire.

So it's established that your Shepards don't quite know what a truly necessary sacrifice is?

Kaiden's sacrifice probably wasn't necessary either, they could have just left and come back to nuke Virmire later.

Sovereign was present and would have blown up the Normandy had it tried to load the bomb onto it, so I fear it was necessary.

Right, because a Specter totally doesn't have the resources to get a second bomb.

[Absaroka]

Xilizhra wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

First point, it's not weakness. Knowing one's own limitations is a crucial trait of any leader.

Why have such limitations?

Because as much as despots of the past have tried to pretend otherwise, these limitations still exist - as well they should.

I've roleplayed all four of my Shepards as human beings, flawed in their own ways. Both paragon and renegade have their own flaws; I don't march a straight line with either of them.

I confess, I've gone almost wholly Paragon with my own, and I honestly doubt that anything at all could make her truly give up her convictions.

There's a word for that, it's called a zealot. 

If someone claims they deserve power because their morality is beyond reproach, then all the more reason they cannot be trusted with it. It is all but an admission of hubris and lack of nuance.

It's not that I deserve power, I just have to take it because it's the best possible alternative.

And yet you characterize Shepards who refuse to choose Control as being "weak," implicitly placing your own that chooses Control on a pedestal.

Again, it's indicative of arrogance and a belief in one's own moral superiority that would somehow ensure that a Shepard that assumes control of the Reapers won't misuse the power at his/her disposal.

[WarGriffin]

The problem with the endings... is from a writing stand point... they are narratively constraining for a continuation

Destory robs you of basically the two iconic villians of the game -Geth and Husks- but atleast puts an end to the Reaper arc.

Control... obvious plot thread is obvious, and We're back to fighting Reapers

Synthesis, removes potential internal conflict so all the conflict will have to come from outside the galaxy.

If they do ME4, I can't see them dropping the Geth, getting past the Reapers sure, but not the Geth -they have to justify them in Mplay XD-

[Xilizhra]

And yet you characterize Shepards who refuse to choose Control as being "weak," implicitly placing your own that chooses Control on a pedestal.

Specifically the ones who couldn't handle Control. Although I do consider genocide a sign of weakness.

Again, it's indicative of arrogance and a belief in one's own moral superiority that would somehow ensure that a Shepard that assumes control of the Reapers won't misuse the power at his/her disposal.

Some might. Mine won't. I know this because, again, she's my character and it's my place to decide.

You can't actually believe that liquified people pumped into a Reaper actually count as being alive.

I believe that the Reapers are alive.

And as for the geth, they paid the price for siding with the enemy back on Rannoch.

Ah, yes, you already got a head start on genocide. Well done.

[FOX216BC]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Another OP that basically reads "It's all about me, baby! My Shepard, my Universe. Suffering people? Potential war? Who gives a crap! It's my Universe! MINE. MINE. MINE." and... wow. Well, let's just say that I have more respect for the people within my version of the ME Universe. I have more admiration and love for them. I want things to go right, I don't want to see them suffer with things any more (like Joker's incurable illness). So I choose Synthesis.

I'm not disenchanted at all. I know I've given Joker & EDI, the geth, and company a damn good shot at life. That's the best I could have done for them. Screw the clone's breath scene. My Shepard died for the good of them all. She always was selfless.

Well i bought the mass effect games, so the copies in  my possession are "MINE".
And it's a character focused game, so hell yeah it's about "MY SHEPARD!"

And don't forget Synthesis all the SAME strenght and all the SAME weakness.
There is no pros without cons.

[CosmicGnosis]

People are angry that BioWare ruined Destroy by tacking on the synthetic annihilation. I'm angry that BioWare ruined Synthesis by disregarding the rights of the individual. All those lofty ideals of knowledge, transcendence, and advancement are thrown out the window. The stupid abomination aesthetic further encourages people to fear anything related to the Reapers.

Lovecraft was right! There really are things that shouldn't be known! That scary Reaper tech can't be studied because it will indoctrinate you! It's so mystical and unknowable, and it will consume your soul if you try to use it. Reaper tech is fundamentally evil! You don't want to understand something that is evil, right? Did you know that the mass relays are Reaper tech as well? They must be evil too! They should be destroyed because they are evil. We should stay on Earth and fear the big bad universe. Who knows what we'll find? Who knows what we might let in? What we'll discover can only bring us sorrow and destruction.

[Absaroka]

Xilizhra wrote...


And yet you characterize Shepards who refuse to choose Control as being "weak," implicitly placing your own that chooses Control on a pedestal.

Specifically the ones who couldn't handle Control. Although I do consider genocide a sign of weakness.


Again, it's indicative of arrogance and a belief in one's own moral superiority that would somehow ensure that a Shepard that assumes control of the Reapers won't misuse the power at his/her disposal.

Some might. Mine won't. I know this because, again, she's my character and it's my place to decide.

If you think like this, you really have decided your Shepard's morals beyond reproach.