428 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRealJayDee]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are rape victims? No.

Does it matter to you and those lilke you that the Reapers were controlled and forced to do these things? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that, once freed, the Reapers are peaceful, benign creatures? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are victims of the Leviathans, as much as anyone else? No.

Does it matter to you that the Reapers know no existence besides the cycle? That they were created for no other purpose than using deception and violence to execute one genocide after another?

If I had to decide what do to with a pack of attack dogs freed from an abusive owner, knowing they were bred and trained by him for nothing but viciousness, aggressiveness and bloodthirstiness - well, let's just say I wouldn't feel too comfortable with them being around people off-leash and without muzzle.

But wait, the Reapers aren't animals, you say, and neither are they mere Cthulhu-shaped Terminators, programmed only to destroy - they have intelligence, a psyche. Once freed from the leash of the Intelligence they have gained awareness of and control over their minds and bodies and -despite the sole purpose of their creation- they are actually "peaceful, benign creatures". 

Yet somehow that wouldn't really make me that much more comfortable with the whole situation, because then we'd be jumping headfirst into "unimaginable psychic trauma" territory. Don't think rape victims, think child soldiers. Each born from a genocide at that, likely with the blood of another genocide on their hands (and the responsibility for creating Husks, now probably "awakened" themselves), and without any prior life to return to - no family, no familiar environment, simply completely lacking the "re" aspect of a chance for reintegration. Sounds pretty damn problematic to me.

So even if I go with the whole "Reapers are mind-controlled victims" line of thinking I still don't see the post-Synthesis galaxy with the "freed" Reapers present as one with the perspective for uncomplicated coexistence and lasting peace. Unless, of course, Synthesis itself severely tampers with everyone's minds, (magically) removing traumata from both the victimized Reapers and the Reapers' surviving victims from the current cycle (and damn, those poor Husks...) - I just don't see improved "understanding" or technological enhancements achieving that.  


All that being said, I still don't see any solid evidence for "freed" Reapers in Synthesis in the first place, so...

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 20 mai 2013 - 01:16 .

[Chashan]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I wonder: had there been some neutral source of the ending exposition, would people have less problems with them? Is it the Catalyst as the spokesperson which creates the problem or is it really the ending options themselves?

It's the ending options themselves.  It doesn't matter who gives teh exposition..

Shepard, alone, rewriting how the galaxy works is a Bad Thing.  Full stop.  Eityher in forcing transhumanism on everyone, creating a Reaper police force to rule the galaxy, or deciding organics are more worthy to live than synthetics.

As for tone:

Arrival should not have set the tone of ME3, as it's just one DLC for a previous game.  What should have set the tone for ME3?  ME1 and ME2.

It's both, really: the entirely misplaced cast of the 'intelligence', the leading figure of the apocalyptic force of the Reapers with an inexplicable fetish for posing as a deceased kid and sporting characterisation befitting of a piece of furniture, as well as elevating Shepards to the rank of 'Chosen One'/'Messiah' straight from a fantasy story, or even that of a fable, at the behest of as unconvincing an antagonist.

A 'Messiah' whose symbolically overcharged sacrifice is somehow required to turn everything into cyborg-utopia, or go ahead and simply disregard the conflict with one of the game's main antagonists, Mr Harper, and decree through it how that villain's plan will absolutely work for Shepards - who up until then hardly could exhibit aspirations to apotheosis. The mechanics of the right-hand side choice, too, cannot be taken seriously, ultimately.


Yes yes, I have skimmed through the reasonings how it does not have a hand in events at all, how it is at our mercy etc. etc. - and I do not find that realized convincingly at. All.
When it comes down to it, it is just plain obnoxious and why BW did not do themselves a favour and included an option where-by its bluebox is ripped out and thrown into the fancy beam will likely always remain a mystery.

Hyr 2.0 wrote...
I've listened to what anti-enders have to say about the ending, and the
final decision. I get it. In fact, I can agree with it to some extent. I
see it both ways, though, and this is one way I see it positively: BW did not want to portray war as clean.

Had BW staged an enemy more nuanced and ambiguous than the Reaper-killbots, I would cede the point. Given that they are apocalypse incarnate though, with lovely annotations to more distasteful recent historical events thrown in - their death-camps and the heroism of those captured within the most obvious one -, ME3 already is as 'unclean' as it gets.

You don't build up an antagonistic force like that and then, only at the very end, execute a 'negotiation' in as farcical a manner as BW did. That's what breaks the finale's back to me as served by BW, and that is why I ultimately prefer that particular part cut out of my playthroughs, thank you very much.

Modifié par Chashan, 20 mai 2013 - 02:30 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Chashan wrote...

Hyr 2.0 wrote...
I've listened to what anti-enders have to say about the ending, and the
final decision. I get it. In fact, I can agree with it to some extent. I
see it both ways, though, and this is one way I see it positively: BW did not want to portray war as clean.

Had BW staged an enemy more nuanced and ambiguous than the Reaper-killbots, I would cede the point. Given that they are apocalypse incarnate though, with lovely annotations to more distasteful recent historical events thrown in - their death-camps and the heroism of those captured within the most obvious one -, ME3 already is as 'unclean' as it gets.

You don't build up an antagonistic force like that and then, only at the very end, execute a 'negotiation' in as farcical a manner as BW did. That's what breaks the finale's back to me as served by BW, and that is why I ultimately prefer that particular part cut out of my playthroughs, thank you very much.

The antagonists are beside the point.

Who plays ME2 and honestly feels bad about all the people that the Collectors killed? I would dare to guess that nobody gives it a second thought at the end of the game, just react something along the lines of: "F-- YEAH, I SAVED THE DAY!!"

ME1 is better in that the Destiny Ascension can be sacrificed and the player may feel bad about their loss, as it was their choice. However, it's kind of ruined by the paragon option presenting an easy-way-out, as sacrificing the Alliance Fifth Fleet is quite the contrary. Rescuing the DA is celebrated and the loss of Fifth Fleet is nowhere close to being as tragic.

ME3 doesn't give the player any easy-way-out. In some ways, that's questionable. For one thing, should we not have some "optimal" ending for optimal (imported) careers? For two, is it not still a worthwhile moral decision if all options are stripped of their arbitrary downsides, and instead it's made an all-positives ending?

As to the point I was making, there are some elements to the final decision -- as it's presented -- that are still worthwhile, IMO. This was a war story at the end of the day. That many people feel the ending is (1) morally dubious and (2) entails a feeling of heavy loss at the end means that they (the writers) got it right. That's the burden that comes with, not only fighting in a war, but being in a leadership position of one (I'd imagine, anyway).

Again, I feel both sides of this issue. For that reason, I accept some reasons why the options to end the war are rejected. However, there are then also reasons I don't accept at all. When people go into "Shepard's mandate was" -nonsense, that's an example of someone who just didn't get what was going on here. Hence the OP.

Like I said, this ain't politics, this is war.

[masster blaster]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Hyr 2.0 wrote...
I've listened to what anti-enders have to say about the ending, and the
final decision. I get it. In fact, I can agree with it to some extent. I
see it both ways, though, and this is one way I see it positively: BW did not want to portray war as clean.

Had BW staged an enemy more nuanced and ambiguous than the Reaper-killbots, I would cede the point. Given that they are apocalypse incarnate though, with lovely annotations to more distasteful recent historical events thrown in - their death-camps and the heroism of those captured within the most obvious one -, ME3 already is as 'unclean' as it gets.

You don't build up an antagonistic force like that and then, only at the very end, execute a 'negotiation' in as farcical a manner as BW did. That's what breaks the finale's back to me as served by BW, and that is why I ultimately prefer that particular part cut out of my playthroughs, thank you very much.

The antagonists are beside the point.

Who plays ME2 and honestly feels bad about all the people that the Collectors killed? I would dare to guess that nobody gives it a second thought at the end of the game, just react something along the lines of: "F-- YEAH, I SAVED THE DAY!!"

ME1 is better in that the Destiny Ascension can be sacrificed and the player may feel bad about their loss, as it was their choice. However, it's kind of ruined by the paragon option presenting an easy-way-out, as sacrificing the Alliance Fifth Fleet is quite the contrary. Rescuing the DA is celebrated and the loss of Fifth Fleet is nowhere close to being as tragic.

ME3 doesn't give the player any easy-way-out. In some ways, that's questionable. For one thing, should we not have some "optimal" ending for optimal (imported) careers? For two, is it not still a worthwhile moral decision if all options are stripped of their arbitrary downsides, and instead it's made an all-positives ending?

As to the point I was making, there are some elements to the final decision -- as it's presented -- that are still worthwhile, IMO. This was a war story at the end of the day. That many people feel the ending is (1) morally dubious and (2) entails a feeling of heavy loss at the end means that they (the writers) got it right. That's the burden that comes with, not only fighting in a war, but being in a leadership position of one (I'd imagine, anyway).

Again, I feel both sides of this issue. For that reason, I accept some reasons why the options to end the war are rejected. However, there are then also reasons I don't accept at all. When people go into "Shepard's mandate was" -nonsense, that's an example of someone who just didn't get what was going on here. Hence the OP.

Like I said, this ain't politics, this is war.

I cared, and I killed them to realease them from this life that is now hell to them.  Felt sorry that they got turned into Collectors, yet they are long gone. Mordin tells your Shepard that " What ever they were gone for ever."

I only feel one side. Kill the Reapers. Before you speak listen.  The Reapers are monsters wether you like it or not. Millions of organic minds inside one Reaper. I don't think anyone should be stuck inside a Reaper, that killed and harvested billions in each cycle. Nor wouldI want the Intellegence to get what it wants. To many have died for it's own needs alone. It's not right for the Reaper to live, as well as any husk soldier. Their times has long been over due. If the catalyst wants balance, then imo Destroy is the balance. Organics have a chance  to forge their own paths. They have the power to either repeat history, or try to correct their past mistakes. In way they don't have a Reaper Shepard telling them what to do, nor do they have to be forced to get alone  with the Reapers because I doubt anyone would forgive the Reapers, no matter if they were forced to or not.

Modifié par masster blaster, 20 mai 2013 - 03:40 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I should clarify...

Who, at the end of the ME2, is feeling a sense of loss over the victims of the Collectors?

Unless you actually lose a squadmate on the mission, all you're feeling is probably "FFF YEAHH!"

That's fine for ME2, in fact. ME3? Not so much. It's a war story, after all. (& brb, gotta walk the doggy)

[masster blaster]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Many people here at BSN believe that Synthesis is an abominable choice, and are frustrated that BioWare presented it as the best choice. Some even think that the favorable presentation of Synthesis suggests that the writers completely lost touch with their own story. Although I like the results of Synthesis, I hate the way it is implemented, and I think Shepard's new Extended Cut dialogue explains the main problem:

"You're asking me to change everything, everyone. I can't make that decision. I won't."

Does the addition of this line suggest that the writers actually are aware of the serious ethical problem of Synthesis? The line is very effective because it exposes the megalomania inherent within the choice. Not even Control gets such criticism from Shepard; he just complains about not wanting to lose everything he has.

Then again, Shepard gives an inspiring "freedom" speech if you choose Refuse, and the result is annihilation. So I suppose you can argue that the writers actually made the entire ending even more morally objectionable.

I created this thread because I recently completed my first Renegade playthrough of ME3, and I had the most frustrating time trying to make Shepard favor the idea of Control. Almost every encounter with the Illusive Man resulted in complete rejection of Control, even as a Renegade. When it comes down to it, BioWare failed to present a compelling argument for Control and Synthesis. And when you have a quote like this from Mac Walters:

"You can't go and find one Reaper who actually turns out to be a good guy… things like, 'Oh, yeah, these Reapers are OK.' People playing the game will hopefully say, ‘Nope. They're as bad as everyone said they are.' You really don't want to be doing anything but killing them."

... what are we supposed to think?

Harbinger, and Nazara do you really think they are good. Nazara said each Reaper is independent. The intellegence may have control over the Reapers, but it is the Reapers that choices not to fight the catalyst control. THink about it one organic mind can fight a Reapers Indoctrination, yet millions of minds can't. Also not every organic cycle was good. For all we know half of the Reapers have evil organics inside the Reaper. Also have you conisder about freeing them from that prison.

Remeber in ME1 when that guy was in a comma, and you have a choice to kill him, or not. I chose to kill him because there was no hope for him because all brain wave activite was gone. The Reapers are made from millions of organics that should have died a long time ago.  Do they deserve to live inside a monster that killed billions, and harvested trillions in each cycle?

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I should clarify...

Who, at the end of the ME2, is feeling a sense of loss over the victims of the Collectors?

Unless you actually lose a squadmate on the mission, all you're feeling is probably "FFF YEAHH!"

That's fine for ME2, in fact. ME3? Not so much. It's a war story, after all. (& brb, gotta walk the doggy)

It's also a Mass Effect game.  The game that gives you "FFF YEahh!!" heroic moments.
So it's fine for trilogies to radically shift focus and tone from one episode to another?

It's okay for two games to beat you over the head with the message that "there's always another way" and the third to go "Frak you.  Pick a color and die"?

What better time is there for a fist-pumping "FFF Yeah!!" than at the very end to an epic trilogy?

[masster blaster]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I should clarify...

Who, at the end of the ME2, is feeling a sense of loss over the victims of the Collectors?

Unless you actually lose a squadmate on the mission, all you're feeling is probably "FFF YEAHH!"

That's fine for ME2, in fact. ME3? Not so much. It's a war story, after all. (& brb, gotta walk the doggy)

Oh sorry. I do feel for the victimes.And I hate the catalyst for that, and the Reapers. I am not talking about the organics inside the Reaper, but who make the one unified Reaper.  Not only that in ME3 more people die than the lives taken in ME1, and ME2 combined. All because of the intellegence and it's logic. I feel for them, and when ever I saw bodys ever where I was enraged , and I killed them all. ( The Husk) That's why I pick Destroy to take vengence, but there is more to it.

[Chashan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...



The antagonists are beside the point.

Who plays ME2 and honestly feels bad about all the people that the Collectors killed? I would dare to guess that nobody gives it a second thought at the end of the game, just react something along the lines of: "F-- YEAH, I SAVED THE DAY!!"

Except that their leader is crucial to the catch-22 scenario you are trying to argue for, so the execution of it as a character and driving force behind events very much matters. And fails spectacularly, as I already pointed out, to the point that its absence actually is an improvement, far as I am concerned.


As for the other...so you are going with the fallacy again how the unchecked genocidal conduct of the Reapers and their minions is of no consequence at all? Really?
Truth be told, I found the unavoidable 'processing' of the civilian, Lilith, horrid enough, sufficient proof along with the blunt number of people processed in like manner that the bugs and their Reaper-overlords need gutting at the time.

ME1 is better in that the Destiny Ascension can be sacrificed and the player may feel bad about their loss, as it was their choice. However, it's kind of ruined by the paragon option presenting an easy-way-out, as sacrificing the Alliance Fifth Fleet is quite the contrary. Rescuing the DA is celebrated and the loss of Fifth Fleet is nowhere close to being as tragic.

ME3 doesn't give the player any easy-way-out. In some ways, that's questionable. For one thing, should we not have some "optimal" ending for optimal (imported) careers? For two, is it not still a worthwhile moral decision if all options are stripped of their arbitrary downsides, and instead it's made an all-positives ending?

As to the point I was making, there are some elements to the final decision -- as it's presented -- that are still worthwhile, IMO. This was a war story at the end of the day. That many people feel the ending is (1) morally dubious and (2) entails a feeling of heavy loss at the end means that they (the writers) got it right. That's the burden that comes with, not only fighting in a war, but being in a leadership position of one (I'd imagine, anyway).

Except Shepards are no generals. They are commando operatives, in charge of a select number of men and women (although the 'Dirty Dozen' analogy certainly applies better, in practical terms). Add to that BW abandoning the concept of ME1 of Shepards giving input to a whole military force as to where to strike, and 'leadership' doesn't enter the picture in any convincing manner here.

(And no, the pointless section of Shepards ordering when the fleets approaching Earth are to open fire doesn't really count for this one, especially as there is no actual choice involved in the matter.)

To be frank, had the tough decision here been one of where to expend which 'war assets', at the cost of heavy casualties to advance to the objective, we would have had a more convincing 'war story'-vibe going. The tri-colour pills are anything but, especially the middle and left option which are fancy fairy tales. As I posited elsewhere, utopeia and apotheosis fit those two quite neatly, and those are hardly topoi you'd wish associated with a war story, do you?

Modifié par Chashan, 20 mai 2013 - 04:17 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I should clarify...

Who, at the end of the ME2, is feeling a sense of loss over the victims of the Collectors?

Unless you actually lose a squadmate on the mission, all you're feeling is probably "FFF YEAHH!"

That's fine for ME2, in fact. ME3? Not so much. It's a war story, after all. (& brb, gotta walk the doggy)

Yeah, I do. I lost half my crew. I remember what the Collectors did to the colonists. I saw that pile of bodies on the ship. I knew who they were working for. I was out for blood.

I don't give a damn about the reapers. I just want them dead. If it takes the Geth? I don't care about them either. I remember Noveria, Feros, Eden Prime, Ilos, The Battle of the Citadel. Rannoch. No one is going to miss them either.

[spirosz]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Although I like the results of Synthesis, I hate the way it is implemented

Basically my beef with it.  

[AresKeith]

spirosz wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Although I like the results of Synthesis, I hate the way it is implemented

Basically my beef with it.  

For me it's the way it's implemented, the way it looks, and the fact that its forced on the galaxy

[spirosz]

I still don't understand how Wulf denies the "forced" aspect of it.

[AresKeith]

Probably because the Starbrat says "you are ready"

Or he's just a troll as Jade said

[Iakus]

masster blaster wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I should clarify...

Who, at the end of the ME2, is feeling a sense of loss over the victims of the Collectors?

Unless you actually lose a squadmate on the mission, all you're feeling is probably "FFF YEAHH!"

That's fine for ME2, in fact. ME3? Not so much. It's a war story, after all. (& brb, gotta walk the doggy)

Oh sorry. I do feel for the victimes.And I hate the catalyst for that, and the Reapers. I am not talking about the organics inside the Reaper, but who make the one unified Reaper.  Not only that in ME3 more people die than the lives taken in ME1, and ME2 combined. All because of the intellegence and it's logic. I feel for them, and when ever I saw bodys ever where I was enraged , and I killed them all. ( The Husk) That's why I pick Destroy to take vengence, but there is more to it.

Lilith's death is pretty horrific, yeah.

[masster blaster]

Dear god the first time i saw that i freaked out. Shepard freaked out. It was.....sick. That's why to hell with the Reapers, the intellegence and the husk. I feel sorry for those husk, and organics inside the Reapers, but i believe they would want to die. Think of it a death is a reward and not a punishment.

[KaiserShep]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are rape victims? No.

Does it matter to you and those lilke you that the Reapers were controlled and forced to do these things? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that, once freed, the Reapers are peaceful, benign creatures? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are victims of the Leviathans, as much as anyone else? No.

Does it matter to you that the Reapers know no existence besides the cycle? That they were created for no other purpose than using deception and violence to execute one genocide after another?

If I had to decide what do to with a pack of attack dogs freed from an abusive owner, knowing they were bred and trained by him for nothing but viciousness, aggressiveness and bloodthirstiness - well, let's just say I wouldn't feel too comfortable with them being around people off-leash and without muzzle.

But wait, the Reapers aren't animals, you say, and neither are they mere Cthulhu-shaped Terminators, programmed only to destroy - they have intelligence, a psyche. Once freed from the leash of the Intelligence they have gained awareness of and control over their minds and bodies and -despite the sole purpose of their creation- they are actually "peaceful, benign creatures". 

Yet somehow that wouldn't really make me that much more comfortable with the whole situation, because then we'd be jumping headfirst into "unimaginable psychic trauma" territory. Don't think rape victims, think child soldiers. Each born from a genocide at that, likely with the blood of another genocide on their hands (and the responsibility for creating Husks, now probably "awakened" themselves), and without any prior life to return to - no family, no familiar environment, simply completely lacking the "re" aspect of a chance for reintegration. Sounds pretty damn problematic to me.

So even if I go with the whole "Reapers are mind-controlled victims" line of thinking I still don't see the post-Synthesis galaxy with the "freed" Reapers present as one with the perspective for uncomplicated coexistence and lasting peace. Unless, of course, Synthesis itself severely tampers with everyone's minds, (magically) removing traumata from both the victimized Reapers and the Reapers' surviving victims from the current cycle (and damn, those poor Husks...) - I just don't see improved "understanding" or technological enhancements achieving that.  


All that being said, I still don't see any solid evidence for "freed" Reapers in Synthesis in the first place, so...

Personally, I find the comparison to "rape victims" oddly repugnant. I agree about this dubious victim status of the reapers. There's absolutely nothing in the game that makes it remotely obvious. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

It's also a Mass Effect game.  The game that gives you "FFF YEahh!!" heroic moments.
So it's fine for trilogies to radically shift focus and tone from one episode to another?

Well, if the story is going to radically change, then yes. ME1 & 2 were not set in impending apolcalypse.

'Not like ME3 lacked for fulfilling heroic moments, either.

The "Priority:" storylines in ME3 were far more meaningful than ME2's main plot.

It's okay for two games to beat you over the head with the message that "there's always another way" and the third to go "Frak you.  Pick a color and die"?

Nothing so severe, it's simply a question of how far you go/what you do to save the galaxy you've fought for.

And yes, as of ME3, the themes of the story have changed. Not everyone is going to like it, but that's fandom for you.

The tone shifts, too, set by everything from coversations with Garrus to the mission to save Zal'Koris.

What better time is there for a fist-pumping "FFF Yeah!!" than at the very end to an epic trilogy?

The end of an epic trilogy should have an epic ending indeed.

I maintain that such an ending can be any of a tragedy, comedy (happy ending), or tragicomedy (bittersweet).

As far as I can tell, BW was clearly going for the last one (though not everyone will see it that way).

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 mai 2013 - 05:09 .

[spirosz]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are rape victims? No.

Does it matter to you and those lilke you that the Reapers were controlled and forced to do these things? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that, once freed, the Reapers are peaceful, benign creatures? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are victims of the Leviathans, as much as anyone else? No.

Does it matter to you that the Reapers know no existence besides the cycle? That they were created for no other purpose than using deception and violence to execute one genocide after another?

If I had to decide what do to with a pack of attack dogs freed from an abusive owner, knowing they were bred and trained by him for nothing but viciousness, aggressiveness and bloodthirstiness - well, let's just say I wouldn't feel too comfortable with them being around people off-leash and without muzzle.

But wait, the Reapers aren't animals, you say, and neither are they mere Cthulhu-shaped Terminators, programmed only to destroy - they have intelligence, a psyche. Once freed from the leash of the Intelligence they have gained awareness of and control over their minds and bodies and -despite the sole purpose of their creation- they are actually "peaceful, benign creatures". 

Yet somehow that wouldn't really make me that much more comfortable with the whole situation, because then we'd be jumping headfirst into "unimaginable psychic trauma" territory. Don't think rape victims, think child soldiers. Each born from a genocide at that, likely with the blood of another genocide on their hands (and the responsibility for creating Husks, now probably "awakened" themselves), and without any prior life to return to - no family, no familiar environment, simply completely lacking the "re" aspect of a chance for reintegration. Sounds pretty damn problematic to me.

So even if I go with the whole "Reapers are mind-controlled victims" line of thinking I still don't see the post-Synthesis galaxy with the "freed" Reapers present as one with the perspective for uncomplicated coexistence and lasting peace. Unless, of course, Synthesis itself severely tampers with everyone's minds, (magically) removing traumata from both the victimized Reapers and the Reapers' surviving victims from the current cycle (and damn, those poor Husks...) - I just don't see improved "understanding" or technological enhancements achieving that.  


All that being said, I still don't see any solid evidence for "freed" Reapers in Synthesis in the first place, so...

How'd I miss this post.  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Chashan wrote...

Except that their leader is crucial to the catch-22 scenario you are trying to argue for, so the execution of it as a character and driving force behind events very much matters. And fails spectacularly, as I already pointed out, to the point that its absence actually is an improvement, far as I am concerned.

Eh, the catalyst is another whole can-of-worms.

Admittedly, I can't see it the same way as those who have a problem with dealing with him.

I don't get it. It's beyond me. Don't waste your time trying to school me on it.

As for the other...so you are going with the fallacy again how the unchecked genocidal conduct of the Reapers and their minions is of no consequence at all? Really?

Yes really.

The human mind does a poor job comprehending tragedies of greater than about four individual deaths.

It's just statistics/numbers to us. It sounds horrible, but it's the truth. You're not thinking of it while chatting up Tali.

Truth be told, I found the unavoidable 'processing' of the civilian, Lilith, horrid enough, sufficient proof along with the blunt number of people processed in like manner that the bugs and their Reaper-overlords need gutting at the time.

Sure, but even yet, I should doubt you came out of ending feeling like "man, I know we won, but we lost so many..."

Which, again, is fine for ME2, but the stakes are considerably higher in ME3.

If the end of a war story conveys a true sense of loss within the player, I'd argue they got it at least partially right.

Except Shepards are no generals. They are commando operatives, in charge of a select number of men and women (although the 'Dirty Dozen' analogy certainly applies better, in practical terms). Add to that BW abandoning the concept of ME1 of Shepards giving input to a whole military force as to where to strike, and 'leadership' doesn't enter the picture in any convincing manner here.

I don't care what, officially, Shepard's rank is in the Alliance.

When I play, what I see between Shepard and Anderson or Hackett (in any conversations with them) is basically an unspoken agreement: Hackett and Anderson may be his superiors, but Shepard runs the show.

Other people can play it differently, as they see fit, but *I* reject Shepard simply being a soldier taking orders.

To be frank, had the tough decision here been one of where to expend which 'war assets', at the cost of heavy casualties to advance to the objective, we would have had a more convincing 'war story'-vibe going. The tri-colour pills are anything but, especially the middle and left option which are fancy fairy tales. As I posited elsewhere, utopeia and apotheosis fit those two quite neatly, and those are hardly topoi you'd wish associated with a war story, do you?

YMMV.

All "pills" are bittersweet to me.

Admittedly, EC gave them a heavy dose of sugar, but whatever.

[Bleachrude]

I would point out that "There are _ONLY_ tough choices" trailer was part of the advertising for ME1.

ME1 also had you lose a squadmember so it's not like ME3 was just NOW introducing tough choices to the universe....

[Iakus]

Bleachrude wrote...

I would point out that "There are _ONLY_ tough choices" trailer was part of the advertising for ME1.

ME1 also had you lose a squadmember so it's not like ME3 was just NOW introducing tough choices to the universe....

Yeah, losing a squad member is totally the same as rewriting the galaxy. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Virmire's sacrifice carries weight, as does that of the ones you make at the end of ME3.

It carries more weight than any scripted death of an NPC; you kind of just accept that's the way it is.

Having to make that decision yourself makes a world of difference -- far more impactful.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 mai 2013 - 05:28 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Well, if the story is going to radically change, then yes. ME1 & 2 were not set in impending apolcalypse.

'Not like ME3 lacked for fulfilling heroic moments, either.

The "Priority:" storylines in ME3 were far more meaningful than ME2's main plot.

I don't disagree that the Priority missions felt more meaningful than ME2's mission.  But that just illustrates my point.  In the end, those options don't do anything for the end choices.  No matter how much of a difference you made, you didn't make any difference.  You're still stuck with these terrible options.

Nothing so severe, it's simply a question of how far you go/what you do to save the galaxy you've fought for.

And yes, as of ME3, the themes of the story have changed. Not everyone is going to like it, but that's fandom for you.

The tone shifts, too, set by everything from coversations with Garrus to the mission to save Zal'Koris.

I'd say Bioware gravely miscalculated their fandoms in this case.  I still wonder if they understand what went wrong, or if they're still convinced it was merely "confusion"

And yes, I kept a hopeful tone in my game.  My Shepard expressed confidence, strove to save everyone he could (even if he didn't always succeed)  And in the end, that bleak, hoepless set of chocies felt all the worse for it.

Aren't games supposed to make you feel happy?  Aren't they suppsoed to give you as sense of satisfaction or accomplishment for having completed?  No?

The end of an epic trilogy should have an epic ending indeed.

I maintain that such an ending can be any of a tragedy, comedy (happy ending), or tragicomedy (bittersweet).

As far as I can tell, BW was clearly going for the last one (though not everyone will see it that way).

Putting it mildly...

I was hoping for a fist pumping, back from the edge ending like the first two games.  Instead I end up feeling like Colonel Nicholson on "Bridge on the River Kwai"

"What have I done?"

[Chashan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...


Eh, the catalyst is another whole can-of-worms.

Admittedly, I can't see it the same way as those who have a problem with dealing with him.

I don't get it. It's beyond me. Don't waste your time trying to school me on it.

So you don't. As we both got ways to come to terms with that, I suppose we can leave it at that.

Yes really.

The human mind does a poor job comprehending tragedies of greater than about four individual deaths.

It's just statistics/numbers to us. It sounds horrible, but it's the truth. You're not thinking of it while chatting up Tali.

The near-extinction event of her people in the Morning War very much is a conversational topic in ME1.

So that is your sole retreat here, citing base psychology to dismiss the sheer scale of the kill-bots' atrocities? If so, naught else to add.
Except...the inevitable death of Anderson would fall into that particular range. So even sáns the 'intelligence´ there is still your moment of 'loss' present in the finale.

Sure, but even yet, I should doubt you came out of ending feeling like "man, I know we won, but we lost so many..."

Which, again, is fine for ME2, but the stakes are considerably higher in ME3.

If the end of a war story conveys a true sense of loss within the player, I'd argue they got it at least partially right.

As pointed out, you could lose people along the way, whether the end-game of ME2 was an epic or a tragedy was in the players' hands (dictated by certain scripts - right squad-mate in the right spot - but still).
That set a benchmark, and expectations. Ones certainly missed in ME3's end-game in that regard.

I don't care what, officially, Shepard's rank is in the Alliance.

When I play, what I see between Shepard and Anderson or Hackett (in any conversations with them) is basically an unspoken agreement: Hackett and Anderson may be his superiors, but Shepard runs the show.

Other people can play it differently, as they see fit, but *I* reject Shepard simply being a soldier taking orders.

I'll have to say that I, then, have a very hard time taking your harping about 'war story'-ing seriously, if that is how you elect to view 'The Shepards'.
But then again: your game, that, not mine.

YMMV.

All "pills" are bittersweet to me.

Admittedly, EC gave them a heavy dose of sugar, but whatever.

To the point there is no deliciously 'evil' outcome any longer. Something I admire older BW-titles for.