606 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

I take it you haven't run into the OP before, Bael?

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 11 juin 2013 - 08:31 .

[Obadiah]

OP, I think everyone still left in this forum has at some point already been exposed to the argument that Sacrifice is the theme of Mass Effect 3, and a good portion of the trilogy.

[Ticonderoga117]

Obadiah wrote...

OP, I think everyone still left in this forum has at some point already been exposed to the argument that Sacrifice is the theme of Mass Effect 3, and a good portion of the trilogy.

And then promptly disagreed with it.
Sacrifice is the theme my behind.

[David7204]

That is just stupid. Was Shepard supposed to throw himself in front of the Reapers and stop them from going through the relay?

Modifié par David7204, 11 juin 2013 - 01:06 .

[David7204]

You need to distinguish between the Catalyst telling you to do something and the narrative. The Catalyst is not the mouth of BioWare.

[Iakus]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

They certainly put a positive spin on synthesis, that's true.

But txgoldrush is correct. You said and I quote "we all have to be the same for there to be peace and happiness". If you pick destroy there is peace and happiness and not everyone is the same. So obviously your claim is wrong. End of discussion.

Everyone is organic.

The geth, EDI, all synthetic life, they've been exterminated.  Organics and syntheticics clearly (emphasis on sarcasm) can't work out their differences peacefully.  So one side or the other must be exterminated.  Shepard becomes Reaper-Lite.

So yes, it still gives the message "we all have to be the same for there to be pece and happiness"  Synthetics need not apply

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

You need to distinguish between the Catalyst telling you to do something and the narrative. The Catalyst is not the mouth of BioWare.

Unless there's a way to effectively defy the Catalyst or find another solution, the Catalyst is the mouth of Bioware.

[dorktainian]

the message was right at the beginning of the game.

[David7204]

There would have been nothing wrong with some sacrifice if it had been done well and had meaningful themes attached. I think it was a foregone conclusion long before ME 3 was released that there's no way Shepard would live if the player was a total screw-up and half the galaxy was gone by the end.

The problem, as you said, is that Shepard's death is completely arbitrary. It sounds to me the developers basically said "This ending is too happy so Shepard dies." And yes, that was incredibly foolish of them.

Modifié par David7204, 11 juin 2013 - 01:37 .

[David7204]

iakus wrote...

Unless there's a way to effectively defy the Catalyst or find another solution, the Catalyst is the mouth of Bioware.

Choosing Destroy is defying the Catalyst. It goes against everything he says.

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Unless there's a way to effectively defy the Catalyst or find another solution, the Catalyst is the mouth of Bioware.

Choosing Destroy is defying the Catalyst. It goes against everything he says.

It's the first thing he says!

[dorktainian]

iakus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Unless there's a way to effectively defy the Catalyst or find another solution, the Catalyst is the mouth of Bioware.

Choosing Destroy is defying the Catalyst. It goes against everything he says.

It's the first thing he says!

yes but he tries to tell you it's wrong whereas with the other options he tries to persuade you they're ok.

[David7204]

iakus wrote...

It's the first thing he says!

If you're determined to disagree with everything your enemy says just because he's your enemy, you're a complete idiot and you'll pay for it. What happens when your enemy says 2+2=4?

Picking Destroy goes against the dogma the synthetics and organics must be in conflict. It goes against the dogma the Synthesis is good or necessary or inevitable. It goes against the dogma that the Reapers themselves are necessary.

[David7204]

Fandango9641 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

[Choosing Destroy is defying the Catalyst. It goes against everything he says.

Destroy is a choice that actually validates the Catalysts racist mandate in that it necessitates the wholesale slaughter all forms of synthetic life. Honestly, refuse is the only choice that rejects the Catalysts xenophobic mantra, but  its also an action that condemns the galaxy to die. Urgh, what a vile message.

That is ridiculous. The geth and EDI are not killed because the Catalyst finds it funny. They're killed because it's how the Crucible works. Was that done particularly well? No, not in the slightest. But Destroy is not 'advocating' a racist mandate any more than combat advocates humans are awful and all need to die.

Modifié par David7204, 11 juin 2013 - 01:49 .

[dorktainian]

David7204 wrote...

iakus wrote...

It's the first thing he says!

If you're determined to disagree with everything your enemy says just because he's your enemy, you're a complete idiot and you'll pay for it. What happens when your enemy says 2+2=4?

Picking Destroy goes against the dogma the synthetics and organics must be in conflict. It goes against the dogma the Synthesis is good or necessary or inevitable. It goes against the dogma that the Reapers themselves are necessary.

     

If we dont destroy (including the synthetics), then harbie and his crustacian pals will destroy all organics.   


yeah.  seems fair.

Modifié par dorktainian, 11 juin 2013 - 01:49 .

[David7204]

Are people who have Congenital Insensitivity to Pain not alive to you, then?

Modifié par David7204, 11 juin 2013 - 01:54 .