225 réponses à ce sujet

[George Costanza]

Destroy is the only ending I've ever picked.

To be honest, when I get to the end, I just kinda pretend it's the only choice. The others are so idiotic, and raise so many issues with logic and the series lore, that I just consider the Destroy ending to be the natural conclusion of the story.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan, I suggest you look up the "This is not a pipe argument". Destroy is, to a degree, a submission to the Reapers and their motives. I wish it wasn't, but it is forcibly presented that way since BW wants us to think the Reapers were the good guys all along. Refusal was a tacked on FU to the Retake Movement.

. It is in no way submission.  Synthesis is submission.  Destroy is not.

Coming from a fellow destroyer, yes as it is presented, it is a submission. BW intended it to be. I would have loved to have told the Catalyst that organic and synthetic conflict wasn't the issue and that he and his Reapers are. But I can't.

The only option where Shepard doesn't (ethically) anyway submit to the Reapers is Refuse. And it accomplishes nothing for this cycle.

http://awtr.ca/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

[Steelcan]

It says so in there. Author intent isn't important.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

BD Manchild wrote...

Well, if you don't believe anything he's telling you, why on Earth would you believe that Destroy actually does what he says it does?

Yeah, I know, it's a strawman argument, but it seems odd to me that you'd choose not to believe him yet do the very thing he says will destroy his kind. Kind of a contradiction there, don't you think? For all you know, he could be goading you into sabotaging the Crucible.

In that case, you'd be left with refuse, in which case, you'd really have nothing going for you.

BW made it clear that we HAVE to listen to glowboy and accept his logic. There was unfortunately, no manual telling me how to set it off.

That said, glowboy never states how to cause destroy. He states that it's an option. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

It says so in there. Author intent isn't important.

Read the whole thing.

[BD Manchild]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Coming from a fellow destroyer, yes as it is presented, it is a submission. BW intended it to be. I would have loved to have told the Catalyst that organic and synthetic conflict wasn't the issue and that he and his Reapers are. But I can't.

The only option where Shepard doesn't (ethically) anyway submit to the Reapers is Refuse. And it accomplishes nothing for this cycle.

http://awtr.ca/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

I think it's debatable if Bioware intended the ending to be basically submitting to the Reapers' logic (to be honest I don't credit their writers with that much intelligence), but the fact that it's even possible to get such interpretations of the ending speaks volumes about just how much they broke the rules of good storytelling.

In that case, you'd be left with refuse, in which case, you'd really have nothing going for you.

Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but did you just say that people who pick Refuse are lower than dirt?

Otherwise, yeah, I would've loved to have been able to tell Smeghead to get lost and take his Reapers with him, and have him actually do so. He himself admits that his "solution" doesn't work anymore, so why does he carry on with it if you say no? The ending basically undoes its own internal logic (because its logic certainly isn't consistent with the rest of the series) constantly and consistently.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 14 mars 2013 - 03:25 .

[Sajuro]

I tried to choose synthesis, but I didn't want replace our souls with tech

[CronoDragoon]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
BW made it clear that we HAVE to listen to glowboy and accept his logic. There was unfortunately, no manual telling me how to set it off.

No, Destroy is anti-Catalyst. He straight up tells you that it will perpetuate the organic/synthetic conflict.

The synthetic destruction was not intended to be thematic acceptance. It was a poorly-thought out balancing mechanism to make Control and Synthesis look better. It's clear to me the ending writers simply didn't pause and think what effect destroying synthetics would produce to Destroy's overall theme.

[BD Manchild]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The synthetic destruction was not intended to be thematic acceptance. It was a poorly-thought out balancing mechanism to make Control and Synthesis look better. It's clear to me the ending writers simply didn't pause and think what effect destroying synthetics would produce to Destroy's overall theme.

Try reading the whole article he links to. Authorial intent doesn't matter; the argument is that (and I happen to agree) the fact that we can even interpret the endings as thematic acceptance is a core element of why the endings are so terrible.

[CronoDragoon]

BD Manchild wrote...

Try reading the whole article he links to. Authorial intent doesn't matter; the argument is that (and I happen to agree) the fact that we can even interpret the endings as thematic acceptance is a core element of why the endings are so terrible.

That's all fine. I was simply replying to a post that made a clear statement about BW's authorial intent.

[Guanxii]

Sajuro wrote...

I tried to choose synthesis, but I didn't want replace our souls with tech

Is EDI soulless to you?

Modifié par Guanxii, 14 mars 2013 - 03:31 .

[BD Manchild]

CronoDragoon wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

Try reading the whole article he links to. Authorial intent doesn't matter; the argument is that (and I happen to agree) the fact that we can even interpret the endings as thematic acceptance is a core element of why the endings are so terrible.

That's all fine. I was simply replying to a post that made a clear statement about BW's authorial intent.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I spoke about that point as well. My apologies.

[Astartes Marine]

You know the big problem I see with Synthesis aside from it being exactly what Saren wanted in the first game? 

Husks are now sentient.  So all those Brutes, Banshees, Cannibals, Marauders, etc. now have their minds or some kind of mind back.  They're alive again...and the first words they will probably say will be "Kill me".

[ruggly]

Auld Wulf wrote...

snip

Since that's quite a bit to quote.  But it's so much nicer to see you post in a well mannered way.  And you're right, I will never understand what you've gone through, that is your own personal experience.  And I have my own personal experience.  You said it yourself, we are all different.  I've been living a fairly comfortable life, in good health.  While I don't make a lot of money, I rent my own house in a very nice neighborhood, I drive a Mercedes (she was pretty inexpensive, and has an ungodly amount of miles), and I can afford to do things if I penny pinch.  But for everything that synthesis provides in the game, I cannot, for everything that I believe in, choose it.  I cannot justify forcing this major change on every single being in the galaxy, it just feels so wrong.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

BD Manchild wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Coming from a fellow destroyer, yes as it is presented, it is a submission. BW intended it to be. I would have loved to have told the Catalyst that organic and synthetic conflict wasn't the issue and that he and his Reapers are. But I can't.

The only option where Shepard doesn't (ethically) anyway submit to the Reapers is Refuse. And it accomplishes nothing for this cycle.

http://awtr.ca/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

I think it's debatable if Bioware intended the ending to be basically submitting to the Reapers' logic (to be honest I don't credit their writers with that much intelligence), but the fact that it's even possible to get such interpretations of the ending speaks volumes about just how much they broke the rules of good storytelling.

In that case, you'd be left with refuse, in which case, you'd really have nothing going for you.

Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but did you just say that people who pick Refuse are lower than dirt?

Otherwise, yeah, I would've loved to have been able to tell Smeghead to get lost and take his Reapers with him, and have him actually do so. He himself admits that his "solution" doesn't work anymore, so why does he carry on with it if you say no? The ending basically undoes its own internal logic (because its logic certainly isn't consistent with the rest of the series) constantly and consistently.

It's a lot of thought out processes and a lot of time on people's hands (myself included). I personally don't believe that SuperMac and Casey (they were the two writers of the ending) really had a clue as to what they were going for, minus wanting the intellectual, enemotional, "thought provoking" ending. But yeah, there's an essay in that site that details just how badly they screwed up with the narrative cohesion.

As for Refuse, no. I support them, but I don't pick it myself. I'm saying in the context of what you said. If I have no reason to believe anything the Catalyst says and that he's deliberately trying to trick me, the only thing left I can do is refuse, which means I'm screwed, no matter how many war assets I have (I have over 17,000 and it doesn't do jack squat. Yes our choices certainly "matter").

[CronoDragoon]

BD Manchild wrote...

Oh, I see. Yeah, I spoke about that point as well. My apologies.

No prob. I would also say that although it may not lessen the mediocrity of the endings, authorial intent definitely matters in my opinion of BW.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 mars 2013 - 03:34 .

[Steelcan]

Guanxii wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

I tried to choose synthesis, but I didn't want replace our souls with tech

Is EDI soulless to you?

. <_<  Vitalism rears its head again

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

Guanxii wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

I tried to choose synthesis, but I didn't want replace our souls with tech

Is EDI soulless to you?

. <_<  Vitalism rears its head again

Someone needs their thetan levels checked. 

[Zazzerka]

EDI is a person.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I have to admit, if Citadel DLC was emotional blackmail for Destroy, it was very effective!

That said, I'm sticking to my guns.

So, it's still Synthesis/Green/Bulbasaur for ole HYR.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Edit:
As for the goodbye line, here's what it means to me: Dear player, if you want your Shepard to live (Destroy), come back from the dead again (Synthesis), reconnect with old friends (Control) in spite of everything, then that's what will happen in your timeline. Make it so. We've told our story, now you can tell yours. The story as Bioware tells is it over, but don't tell me your Shepards don't live on in your minds. They only die if you let them. It's just that this time, we have to use our own imagination. We can now do so unconstrained by the story as told by Bioware.

You know, I had a similar thought along those very lines. Might have to make a thread about it. 

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

Guanxii wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

I tried to choose synthesis, but I didn't want replace our souls with tech

Is EDI soulless to you?

Ahahaha 

[Teddie Sage]

George Costanza wrote...

Destroy is the only ending I've ever picked.

To be honest, when I get to the end, I just kinda pretend it's the only choice. The others are so idiotic, and raise so many issues with logic and the series lore, that I just consider the Destroy ending to be the natural conclusion of the story.

That's the same thing I thing I think all the time.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Steelcan wrote...

. It is in no way submission.  Synthesis is submission.  Destroy is not.

That's crap. It can only be "submission" if you're coerced into it. You can only get Synthesis with High-EMS Destroy *and* Control next to it. If you choose Synthesis, it's because it's your choice, because you have all the power not to.

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

. It is in no way submission.  Synthesis is submission.  Destroy is not.

That's crap. It can only be "submission" if you're coerced into it. You can only get Synthesis with High-EMS Destroy *and* Control next to it. If you choose Synthesis, it's because it's your choice, because you have all the power not to.

. It's submission to the Catalyst's assertions.

[Sideria]

When you agreed with someone, is it submission ?