418 réponses à ce sujet

[Kel Riever]

After reading the OP arguement...I really have to say it makes no damn sense.

Arguing where you choice comes from is just pedestrian. You have choices (or really a lack of choices that matter, but you have to pick one) and the point is the outcome. While the OP likes to bash ending haters, the OP is making one of the same mistakes he is insinuating they make, by assuming he knows how they think.

There aren't too many ending lovers around these days that make any sense. The worst, right now, is Seival, since Auld Wulf ran away from the forums. And there's a fair share of ending haters that make no sense. In fact, Hyr has made some common sense arguements before, but this really isn't one of them.

What is supposed to happen is you come to the end of the game and, being a game based on making choices that matter, you should have choices that matter. You don't. THEN and AFTER that problem, you have to look at the story, without choices that you were supposed to be making that matter, and see if it is any good. It isn't. So, happy ending, sad ending, blue, red, green or refuse, the ending of ME3 is a pile of nonsense.

[GreyLycanTrope]

AlanC9 wrote...
(Wait.... you're counting the Reapers? Is the Catalyst no longer in control of them?)

Anyway, your definition of an immediate threat seems to be having a highly technological civilization at all. Destroy AIs without destroying the civilization and they can be constructed again. And the Catalyst knows this; he says this himself.

He's letting Shepard destroy the Reapers to gain..... a few decades? I'm not sure how seriously to take this argument; it's starting to sound like a bizarre rationalization.

The Catalyst no longer relies on them to implement a solution, this is the case in synthesis as well.
And yes synthetics can be be built again, but organics now have the technology to destroy them if a problem arises down the line, ie the Crucible, it just needs to be built again just like the synthetics(if organics even try to rebuild them given what they know, now), it's meant to be used as many times as needed much like the repetative nature of the cycles, only organic technological advancement won't suffer as a result(with the exception of AI research). He's letting Shepard destroy the Reapers because he's handing control of the management of the situation over to organics (similar to how he hands over Control of the Reapers to Shepard in Control, it's just a different method of management.)

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 juin 2013 - 04:34 .

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...

What is supposed to happen is you come to the end of the game and, being a game based on making choices that matter, you should have choices that matter. You don't..

The choices don't matter? So how come I see so many threads about Synthesis being evil, Destroy being genocide, and so forth?  People certainly talk like the choices matter.

Or is this one of those odd BSN things where people say things in a sort of code?  Doesn't matter = I don't like them? Something like that?

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2013 - 04:35 .

[o Ventus]

AlanC9 wrote...

The choices don't matter? So how come I see so many threads about Synthesis being evil, Destroy being genocide, and so forth?  People certainly talk like the choices matter.

The follow-up for each choice is most certainly the same.

Destroy = everyone is happy
Control = everyone is happy
Synthesis = everyone is happy

[Kel Riever]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

What is supposed to happen is you come to the end of the game and, being a game based on making choices that matter, you should have choices that matter. You don't..

The choices don't matter? So how come I see so many threads about Synthesis being evil, Destroy being genocide, and so forth?  People certainly talk like the choices matter.

Or is this one of those odd BSN things where people say things in a sort of code?  Doesn't matter = I don't like them? Something like that?

Well, I see those threads to and will say the same thing.  But you've brought this up before and I stand by what I've said.  ALL the choices are pointless because the whole premise of the Catalyst asking you to make them makes no sense at all.  That's what happens when you see what is behind the curtain.  That is regardless of the debate of which choice that really makes no difference whatsoever gets picked...because you have to move your character somewhere to get the end credits.

If you want to use an analogy, it is like picking which poison you want to drink.  People will pick the one that kills them slowest as long as it isn't painful.  That doesn't mean you don't die and the fundamental point of drinking poison doesn't matter because you die. (FYI, the analogy has nothing to do with Shepard dying in the game).

Modifié par Kel Riever, 21 juin 2013 - 04:46 .

[AlanC9]

Greylycantrope wrote...
The Catalyst no longer relies on them to implement a solution, this is the case in synthesis as well.
And yes synthetics can be be built again, but organics now have the technology to destroy them if a problem arises down the line, ie the Crucible, it just needs to be built again just like the synthetics(if organics even try to rebuild them given what they know, now), it's meant to be used as many times as needed much like the repetative nature of the cycles, only organic technological advancement won't suffer as a result(with the exception of AI research). He's letting Shepard destroy the Reapers because he's handing control of the management of the situation over to organics (similar to how he hands over Control of the Reapers to Shepard in Control, it's just a different method of management.)

In a low-EMS state the Crucible devastates Earth and the galaxy. Organics are going to be ready to repeat the experience? To defeat a threat they don't believe in, and that the Reapers have thoroughly discredited? Nobody's going to take Reaper ideology seriously after what they've done. And he doesn't say anything about using the Crucible again when needed; what he says is that the method will fail.

if the Catalyst's in control, he couldn't come up with something better than a crapshoot like that?

If the Catalyst's in control, why does the Collector base choice govern the low-EMS outcome?

Since the Catalyst knew about the Crucible project for several cycles, why was he trying to stop it right up to the moment it docked?

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2013 - 04:56 .

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...

If you want to use an analogy, it is like picking which poison you want to drink.  People will pick the one that kills them slowest as long as it isn't painful.  That doesn't mean you don't die and the fundamental point of drinking poison doesn't matter because you die. (FYI, the analogy has nothing to do with Shepard dying in the game).

That analogy is badly flawed. Death is a common factor for all those poison choices. The only common factor to all the ME3 ending results is that the galaxy is saved. Refuse excepted, of course, though even there the Reapers are eventually defeated.

You're obviously not saying that the ending choices are pointless because Shepard has to save the galaxy.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2013 - 04:59 .

[AlanC9]

o Ventus wrote...

The follow-up for each choice is most certainly the same.

Destroy = everyone is happy
Control = everyone is happy
Synthesis = everyone is happy

Yep. Like I said, Shepard has to save the galaxy.

Nothing unusual about that. There's no DA:O outcome where the Blight isn't stopped either.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

The follow-up for each choice is most certainly the same.

Destroy = everyone is happy
Control = everyone is happy
Synthesis = everyone is happy

Yep. Like I said, Shepard has to save the galaxy.

Nothing unusual about that. There's no DA:O outcome where the Blight isn't stopped either.

Thre's also no DA:O outcome where the Warden killing the archdemon kills all the elves either
Nor is there an outcome where th Warden can imprint his/her memories onto the archdemon, who does on to rule Thedas.
Nor is there an outcome where the Warden turns everyone in Thedas into Grey Wardens so they can achieve "perfect understanding" with the darkspawn

So yeah, there's a few differences between ME3 and DAO, and DAO is way better, imo.

[Kel Riever]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

If you want to use an analogy, it is like picking which poison you want to drink.  People will pick the one that kills them slowest as long as it isn't painful.  That doesn't mean you don't die and the fundamental point of drinking poison doesn't matter because you die. (FYI, the analogy has nothing to do with Shepard dying in the game).

That analogy is badly flawed. Death is a common factor for all those poison choices. The only common factor to all the ME3 ending results is that the galaxy is saved. Refuse excepted, of course, though even there the Reapers are eventually defeated.

You're obviously not saying that the ending choices are pointless because Shepard has to save the galaxy.

No, you are missing the point of what I am saying, which is way simpler than that.

"The galaxy is saved," is a premise you accept because you already accept the atrocious ending(s).  The moment the Glowjob starts offering 'choices' based on his idiot logic, the game is a fail.  In other words, the game died.  What you pick just simply doesn't matter beyond that point because the whole game took an idiocy turn that ruins the experience of what you did for the past 100-ish hours of gameplay.  That's why the choices simply don't matter.  Because the game, summed up, becomes stupid no matter what. 

Modifié par Kel Riever, 21 juin 2013 - 05:11 .

[David7204]

o Ventus wrote...

The follow-up for each choice is most certainly the same.

Destroy = everyone is happy
Control = everyone is happy
Synthesis = everyone is happy

If players demand 'moral ambiguity,' this is precisely what it looks like.

All choices must be equal. No choice is allowed to be better than others, because that's just not morally ambiguous. Everything must be equal. Everything must be grey.

Modifié par David7204, 21 juin 2013 - 05:14 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

What is supposed to happen is you come to the end of the game and, being a game based on making choices that matter, you should have choices that matter. You don't..

The choices don't matter? So how come I see so many threads about Synthesis being evil, Destroy being genocide, and so forth?  People certainly talk like the choices matter.

Or is this one of those odd BSN things where people say things in a sort of code?  Doesn't matter = I don't like them? Something like that?

The choices don't matter because to an awful lot of people the chocies are all evil.  Or morally dark, dark grey at least.  We believe that mere survival is simply not enough.  At some point, there's a line you simply do not cross and the game is no longer worth playing.  These endings not only cros those lines, they sprint across laughing and screaming "trolololol!"

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

So yeah, there's a few differences between ME3 and DAO, and DAO is way better, imo.

DA:O also has the benefit of being in a high-fantasy setting where things are easily hand-waved, like the reason a warden's sacrifice is necessary and the creation of an old god baby to avoid all death.

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

So yeah, there's a few differences between ME3 and DAO, and DAO is way better, imo.

DA:O also has the benefit of being in a high-fantasy setting where things are easily hand-waved, like the reason a warden's sacrifice is necessary and the creation of an old god baby to avoid all death.

Despite popular belief, there are clear differences between Fantasy and Science Fiction.  I already posted up the definitions of each, so at this point, if someone wants to find out, they should use their dictionary and notice the differences are signifigant.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 21 juin 2013 - 05:15 .

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The choices don't matter? So how come I see so many threads about Synthesis being evil, Destroy being genocide, and so forth?  People certainly talk like the choices matter.

The follow-up for each choice is most certainly the same.

Destroy = everyone is happy
Control = everyone is happy
Synthesis = everyone is happy

If players demand 'moral ambiguity,' this is precisely what it looks like.

All choices must be equal. No choice is allowed to be better than others.

Moral ambiguity is where you can see benefits and drawbacks to each choice.  If all three options are complete deal-breakers, there is no ambiguity, it's all bad.

And EC's solution is siomply to tack on "And everyone who lived was happy afterwards"  

Well, great.  Society gets rebuilt on the atrocity you perpetrated.  Somehow, that doesn't make the atrocity less ambiguous.  

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

So yeah, there's a few differences between ME3 and DAO, and DAO is way better, imo.

DA:O also has the benefit of being in a high-fantasy setting where things are easily hand-waved, like the reason a warden's sacrifice is necessary and the creation of an old god baby to avoid all death.

Bah, by the end, ME3 was more fantasy than Dragon Age.  There was so much handwaving, Shepard could practically fly.

There is no reason given why the Crucible cannot target just the Reapers.  There is no reason given why the Reapers can't simply leave in Control.  Synthesis...Synthesis is pure handwaving from beginning to end.

[dreamgazer]

Kel Riever wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

So yeah, there's a few differences between ME3 and DAO, and DAO is way better, imo.

DA:O also has the benefit of being in a high-fantasy setting where things are easily hand-waved, like the reason a warden's sacrifice is necessary and the creation of an old god baby to avoid all death.

Despite popular belief, there are clear differences between Fantasy and Science Fiction.  I already posted up the definitions of each, so at this point, if someone wants to find out, they should use their dictionary and notice the differences are signifigant.

Oh, I agree, but it makes scenarios like the end-game choices in DA:O much more acceptable and easier to dismiss, because magic.  They're handled interestingly in Origins, which I dig quite a bit, but it's still a crutch. 

[Kel Riever]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

So yeah, there's a few differences between ME3 and DAO, and DAO is way better, imo.

DA:O also has the benefit of being in a high-fantasy setting where things are easily hand-waved, like the reason a warden's sacrifice is necessary and the creation of an old god baby to avoid all death.

Bah, by the end, ME3 was more fantasy than Dragon Age.  There was so much handwaving, Shepard could practically fly.

There is no reason given why the Crucible cannot target just the Reapers.  There is no reason given why the Reapers can't simply leave in Control.  Synthesis...Synthesis is pure handwaving from beginning to end.

Because the entire 'Catalyst' is a giant handwave.  But even worse, his reasons are a handwave (as you are pointing out), long before you 'choose' anything.

@dreamgazer:  DAO is far better than ME3 for a long list of reasons, even beyond that it is of a genre that allows you to not have to explain certain things.  But also because it happens to fulfill its own genre of being BOTH a fantasy story and a video game rpg, much better.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 21 juin 2013 - 05:23 .

[Enhanced]

Kel Riever wrote...

"The galaxy is saved," is a premise you accept because you already accept the atrocious ending(s).  The moment the Glowjob starts offering 'choices' based on his idiot logic, the game is a fail.  In other words, the game died.  What you pick just simply doesn't matter beyond that point because the whole game took an idiocy turn that ruins the experience of what you did for the past 100-ish hours of gameplay.  That's why the choices simply don't matter.  Because the game, summed up, becomes stupid no matter what. 

As the OP has proved, the choices are not the Catalyst's to offer. The Catalyst just explains the choices that are built into the Crucible.

Modifié par Enhanced, 21 juin 2013 - 05:24 .

[o Ventus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yep. Like I said, Shepard has to save the galaxy.

Nothing unusual about that. There's no DA:O outcome where the Blight isn't stopped either.

Except in 2 out of 4 endings, the galaxy isn't necessarily saved.

I shouldn't need to point out why comparing this to DAO, especially your particular comparison, is bad.

[Kel Riever]

Enhanced wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

"The galaxy is saved," is a premise you accept because you already accept the atrocious ending(s).  The moment the Glowjob starts offering 'choices' based on his idiot logic, the game is a fail.  In other words, the game died.  What you pick just simply doesn't matter beyond that point because the whole game took an idiocy turn that ruins the experience of what you did for the past 100-ish hours of gameplay.  That's why the choices simply don't matter.  Because the game, summed up, becomes stupid no matter what. 

As the OP has proved, the choices are not the Catalyst's to offer. He just explains the choices that are built into the Crucible.

You have to reread what I said in an earlier post.  My point is it doesn't MATTER the explanation and that is why the OP doesn't matter.  All that detail as to who is having you make a choice doesn't matter when the choices themselves don't, nor do the reasons behind them.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

So yeah, there's a few differences between ME3 and DAO, and DAO is way better, imo.

DA:O also has the benefit of being in a high-fantasy setting where things are easily hand-waved, like the reason a warden's sacrifice is necessary and the creation of an old god baby to avoid all death.

Bah, by the end, ME3 was more fantasy than Dragon Age.  There was so much handwaving, Shepard could practically fly.

There is no reason given why the Crucible cannot target just the Reapers.  There is no reason given why the Reapers can't simply leave in Control.  Synthesis...Synthesis is pure handwaving from beginning to end.

Agree about the fantasy, disagree about how easy you're making the ending.  If they had pulled a Babylon 5 in that scenario or given a literal Reaper-only off button, it would have been equally as silly.   Synthesis, as it's presented, is hogwash---but it could've been more interesting in better hands. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

AlanC9 wrote...
In a low-EMS state the Crucible devastates Earth and the galaxy. Organics are going to be ready to repeat the experience? To defeat a threat they don't believe in, and that the Reapers have thoroughly discredited? Nobody's going to take Reaoer ideology seriously after what they've done. And he doesn't say anything about using the Crucible again when needed; what he says is that the method will fail.

Only because the device was damaged, if you have an undamaged one there's no problem. Some of us don't take their ideology seriously now, that doesn't mean they weren't a formitable force. A race of super AI's invading the galaxy and almost destroy the top civilizations, fairly sure people will remember that lesson. No he says the chaos will return, it also returns periodically now with his current solution which he fully implemented so why are you suprised he'd propose something similar?

if the Catalyst's in control, he couldn't come up with something better than a crapshoot like that?

He does comes up with several, synthesis and control amongst them, he's just not certain which route to take. They're all crapshoots if you ask me, but I don't expect much from the guy.

If the Catalyst's in control, why does the Collector base choice govern the low-EMS outcome?

Because the Crucible is still the device he has to use to implement said changes, if it's damaged he has less to work with.

Since the Catalyst knew about the Crucible project for several cycles, why was he trying to stop it right up to the moment it docked?

That's the same question that lead me to my interpreation, as it can be possed to any of the options, but it's only relevant when you consider that to option come from the Cruible not that they come from the Catalyst:
-Hypothetical 1: The options come from the Crucible. The catalyst is well aware of the Crucible's design, (including his ideal solution to the problem synthesis, something he tried to attain in the past) but only uses said device once it interfaced with him.

-Hypothetical 2: The options  do not come from the Crucible. The Catalyst is well aware of the Crucible's design, but since it is only a power source he doesn't pay much attention to it, once said device is connected he realized he can modify it's output and can focus the enegry from it to implement a number of solutions.

Which makes more sense to you?

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 juin 2013 - 05:30 .

[dreamgazer]

 Kel, you're preaching to the choir when you say DA:O is leagues better than ME3. 

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Thre's also no DA:O outcome where the Warden killing the archdemon kills all the elves either
Nor is there an outcome where th Warden can imprint his/her memories onto the archdemon, who does on to rule Thedas.
Nor is there an outcome where the Warden turns everyone in Thedas into Grey Wardens so they can achieve "perfect understanding" with the darkspawn

So yeah, there's a few differences between ME3 and DAO, and DAO is way better, imo.

Yep. The ending choices in ME3 matter more than the ones in DA:O.