418 réponses à ce sujet

[Kel Riever]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

That's funny, because they absolutely don't.  Unless you are just ignoring the whole point of having a reason behind making choices and just want to look at results.  Which is exactly what SuperMac did and wants people to.  He's a writer who would prefer you ignore the 'writing' part of his job description.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 21 juin 2013 - 05:33 .

[AlanC9]

o Ventus wrote...

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.

We were specifically talking about choices mattering when you jumped in about all the endings being happy.  Or was your earlier interjection just a non-sequitur?

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...


That's funny, because they absolutely don't.  Unless you are just ignoring the whole point of having a reason behind making choices and just want to look at results.  Which is exactly what SuperMac did and wants people to.  He's a writer who would prefer you ignore the 'writing' part of his job description.

What do the reasons behind a choice have to do with the choice mattering? I seriously don't know what you mean by "matter" in this context.

[Enhanced]

Kel Riever wrote...

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.

Ok. I don't understand  "choices don't matter",  if you are talking about the in-game effects.  Would the Geth and EDI agree with that statement? I'm sure it would matter to them.

Modifié par Enhanced, 21 juin 2013 - 05:40 .

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

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. 

The choice, to me, should have been:

Destroy:  The galaxy is left to clean up the mess on their own, and advance at their own pace.  No more free rides, the training wheels are now off.  The people of the galxay, separate or together, needs to find thier own path.

Control:  Try to harness the power of the Reapers, either purely for Earth or for the galaxy as a whole.  Use Reaper tech to continue rapid advancement, perhaps too fast and risk not being able to handle it.

There's no reason to hold the geth hostage or create a galactic overlord.  And Shepard's survival should have been based on preparation, not imagination.  And certainly not forced.

Modifié par iakus, 21 juin 2013 - 05:42 .

[Kel Riever]

@Both Alan and Enhanced. I'm simply saying if the premise for making a choice is a fallacy and has no basis in logic, particularly logic in the game, then making a choice simply has no importance. Because at that point, the entire point of the story and the point of making a choice is gone. You both probably disagree because you find at least some sort of logic within the tale that the Catalyst sets up that gives merit to one of the 4 outcomes you select. I don't. Therefore none of them have any meaning. And honestly, I blame the creators of Mass Effect 3. Not 'the catalyst' for that.

[o Ventus]

AlanC9 wrote...

We were specifically talking about choices mattering when you jumped in about all the endings being happy.  Or was your earlier interjection just a non-sequitur?

And they all are, with the sole exception being Refuse. I thought that was obvious enough to the point that I need not mention it.

At a core level, like I said, they are almost identical for everybody involved besides Shepard. Everyone is happy and lives happily ever after. Shepard is the only character whose outcome is wildly different depending on choice. Jack and Kasumi to a far, far lesser extent.

I don't care what you were discussing earlier. I wasn't a part of that discussion. I was responding to a point that you made, not jumping into a conversation.

[AlanC9]

Greylycantrope wrote...
 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?

Because his new plan has a risk of total failure that his old plan didn't. Since your argument is that the Crucible can't function without his consent, this means that the Reapers can't actually be defeated, and building a Crucible doesn't prove that the original solution won't work anymore since the Catalyst could continue the cycles whether or not Shepard's standing there.

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.

In low EMS he only comes up with one choice. So he has no control there except that you say he could still pick Refuse. 

-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?

Hypothetical 2 isn't quite correctly phrased -- you're still saying "only." Hard habit to give up, I see.

Neither hypothetical makes much sense. If he's aware of the design in hypothetical 1, he shoudln't be shooting at it since it can solve his problem - unless he's scared that Shepard might pick a bad option with it, but that would mean your whole theory's bunk. If he's aware of the design in hypothetical 2, he would know that he can control what the device will do when it docks,  and then he really shouldn't be shooting at it since all he's doing is reducing his own options.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2013 - 05:54 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Not really, because the people in ME3 seems totally cool with any choice you made.  Your atrocity is whitewashed regardless of the one you chose.

Geth?  who are they?  

The Reapers aren't leaving?  We welcome our new overlords!

[o Ventus]

iakus wrote...

Destroy:  The galaxy is left to clean up the mess on their own, and advance at their own pace.  No more free rides, the training wheels are now off.  The people of the galxay, separate or together, needs to find thier own path.

I think that, thematically, this was the intended message.

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...

@Both Alan and Enhanced. I'm simply saying if the premise for making a choice is a fallacy and has no basis in logic, particularly logic in the game, then making a choice simply has no importance. Because at that point, the entire point of the story and the point of making a choice is gone. You both probably disagree because you find at least some sort of logic within the tale that the Catalyst sets up that gives merit to one of the 4 outcomes you select. I don't. Therefore none of them have any meaning. And honestly, I blame the creators of Mass Effect 3. Not 'the catalyst' for that.

Actually, my disagreement is with your use of the word importance. You seem to be talking more about the entire work rather than the importance of the particular choice. The choice makes the whole work trivial, or some such.

This doesn't make the particular choice unimportant, it makes all of ME3 unimportant

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2013 - 06:04 .

[Iakus]

o Ventus wrote...

iakus wrote...

Destroy:  The galaxy is left to clean up the mess on their own, and advance at their own pace.  No more free rides, the training wheels are now off.  The people of the galxay, separate or together, needs to find thier own path.

I think that, thematically, this was the intended message.

Too bad you have to shoot EDI and the geth in the back to get that message.

[Enhanced]

Kel Riever wrote...

@Both Alan and Enhanced. I'm simply saying if the premise for making a choice is a fallacy and has no basis in logic, particularly logic in the game, then making a choice simply has no importance. Because at that point, the entire point of the story and the point of making a choice is gone. You both probably disagree because you find at least some sort of logic within the tale that the Catalyst sets up that gives merit to one of the 4 outcomes you select. I don't. Therefore none of them have any meaning. And honestly, I blame the creators of Mass Effect 3. Not 'the catalyst' for that.

I see what you are saying.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Not really, because the people in ME3 seems totally cool with any choice you made.  Your atrocity is whitewashed regardless of the one you chose.

Geth?  who are they?  

The Reapers aren't leaving?  We welcome our new overlords!

Almost nobody would have cared about the geth. 

And if people hate the Sheplyst and his minions... so what? They'd still be happy to be alive and at peace, and my Control Sheps wouldn't care much.  Once the relays are fixed up she'd want to keep the Reapers mostl out of sigh, of course.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

iakus wrote...

Destroy:  The galaxy is left to clean up the mess on their own, and advance at their own pace.  No more free rides, the training wheels are now off.  The people of the galxay, separate or together, needs to find thier own path.

I think that, thematically, this was the intended message.

Too bad you have to shoot EDI and the geth in the back to get that message.

Darn those indiscriminate overload bursts.

Unless, of course, you're one of those players who already lost the geth. 

[o Ventus]

iakus wrote...

Too bad you have to shoot EDI and the geth in the back to get that message.

At least in the geth's case, they could theoretically be rebuilt.

Not to the point of havig the Reaper upgrades (or something to that capacity), but more to a pre-Morning War state. Thematically, I think this is more acceptable than the current geth. It could be seen as a "fresh start" between the geth and the quarians.

[Kel Riever]

@Enhanced: cool

@Alan. I don't mind you disagreeing with that. But that is my basic premise of why I think someone else needed to write the ending of ME3, and if they were going to make choices, make them different and logical.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Not really, because the people in ME3 seems totally cool with any choice you made.  Your atrocity is whitewashed regardless of the one you chose.

And Origins didn't whitewash the Dark Ritual, in which you gave Old God power to a baby that will be raised by a witch....just to save yourself?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 21 juin 2013 - 06:07 .

[KaiserShep]

iakus wrote...
Not really, because the people in ME3 seems totally cool with any choice you made.  Your atrocity is whitewashed regardless of the one you chose.

Geth?  who are they?  

The Reapers aren't leaving?  We welcome our new overlords!

This is something that bugs me the most about Control. People would still continue to shoot and kill the remaining husks, banshees and other monsters, even if they're no longer being aggressive, because it would be the perfect opportunity to strike at them once and for all. If the reapers don't leave, people will just shoot at them too, even if they're helping. You'd have factions organizing ways to knock out anything reaper-like that's still walking around on their worlds, because they just don't know if/when the reapers will go apesh*t again. The balance of power is what would drive people crazy, because as long as they're around, people will be at their [benevolent] mercy, and that just wouldn't fly with a lot of people. It would have to be something like in Childhood's end, so the current generation would just have to deal with it until their progeny replaces them, but that would be well over a thousand years, considering certain lifespans. 

That said, there's a lot of nuance that is ignored for a lot of choices. You don't get chewed out or punished for everything, and really, to be able to offer these choices to players, there has to be some level of fairness forced into them. If you were to show all these things happen in Control, it would kind of render it invalid, since you're just causing a whole different kind of conflict. Similarly, if you fast-forwarded to a time when the synthetics rose up again, and actually showed them killing everyone, it would do the same to Destroy. If you were to actually address all of the problems inherent with Synthesis, it'd be the same story. Not to say that I approve of much of this, but I can see why they made the epilogue variants the way they did. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 juin 2013 - 06:06 .

[CronoDragoon]

KaiserShep wrote...
This is something that bugs me the most about Control.

Sounds to me like an interesting future. Personally I would love a post-Control Mass Effect game.

But just because they show slides of your squadmates happy in Control doesn't mean they are whitewashing all the concerns away. I mean, if you listen to the Shepalyst's monologue I think they intentionally put some ambiguous language in there.

My personal canon for my Renegade Control Shep is that **** hits the fan in the future. And I love that.

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...

@Enhanced: cool

@Alan. I don't mind you disagreeing with that. But that is my basic premise of why I think someone else needed to write the ending of ME3, and if they were going to make choices, make them different and logical.

No problems. These language disputes aren't worth taking too seriously. I'll try tomremembe what you mean fir next time.

[dreamgazer]

CronoDragoon wrote...


But just because they show slides of your squadmates happy in Control doesn't mean they are whitewashing all the concerns away. I mean, if you listen to the Shepalyst's monologue I think they intentionally put some ambiguous language in there.

My personal canon for my Renegade Control Shep is that **** hits the fan in the future. And I love that.

Ding, ding, ding.

[Kel Riever]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Not really, because the people in ME3 seems totally cool with any choice you made.  Your atrocity is whitewashed regardless of the one you chose.

And Origins didn't whitewash the Dark Ritual, in which you gave Old God power to a baby that will be raised by a witch....just to save yourself?

Again, not understanding the fundamental difference of fantasy and science fiction.  That's why you think there is some sort of comparisson here.

@Alan, no problem.

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...

You'd have factions organizing ways to knock out anything reaper-like that's still walking around on their worlds, because they just don't know if/when the reapers will go apesh*t again. The balance of power is what would drive people crazy, because as long as they're around, people will be at their [benevolent] mercy, and that just wouldn't fly with a lot of people. It would have to be something like in Childhood's end, so the current generation would just have to deal with it until their progeny replaces them, but that would be well over a thousand years, considering certain lifespans. 

I was actually thinking something along the lines of Second Foundation would be appropriate. Get everybody to think that the Reapers have been destroyed, then keep running everything behind the scenes. Come to think of it, the Second Foundation uses Indoctrination all over the place.

[dreamgazer]

Kel Riever wrote...

Again, not understanding the fundamental difference of fantasy and science fiction.  That's why you think there is some sort of comparisson here.

Differentiation in genres doesn't excuse thematic intent, namely how it relates to ambiguity and interpretation.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 21 juin 2013 - 06:20 .