418 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

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.

@Alan, no problem.

Genre doesn't matter concerning iakus's complaint, which is that ME3's endings whitewash possible concerns or negative consequences. DA: Origins does that, too, and being a fantasy story is irrelevant.

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

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.

If, what you are saying is that DAO makes sense from thematic intent and Mass Effect 3 doesn't, then I agree.  And yes, that also happens to have nothing to do with genre.  But your point only supports mine...basically in that comparing DAO to ME3 is a bad comparisson.

[SwordofMercy1]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

It is amazing how as soon as this massively overpowered "game over" sized force entered the galaxy this Crucible design suddenly popped up on Mars.

Okay at that part in the game, I kinda roled my eyes. But then I thought, "Hey the humans are new to this sorta thing so lets cut them a break." But then we go to Thessia and find the beacon the Asari were using for thousands of years... and NO ONE found information on the Crucible or that VI?! Are you kidding me?! The Mars one, I get cause its newly discovered, but the one on Thessia, WTF? Are you telling me that the Asari had that thing since the dawn of their culture and not once did they find the crap about the Reapers.
And I know someone is gonna say, "Well the information was only on the Mars one." Not good enough. Why would the 'Protheans' leave the plans on only Mars? IF I were them, I would have been leaving the info everywhere I could.
... Dang it, saw this one post and started ranting.<_< But that's just one thing I had against the Crucible.

[Kel Riever]

CronoDragoon wrote...

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.

@Alan, no problem.

Genre doesn't matter concerning iakus's complaint, which is that ME3's endings whitewash possible concerns or negative consequences. DA: Origins does that, too, and being a fantasy story is irrelevant.

I understand what you are saying now, but look at my post above.

[CronoDragoon]

Wouldn't it be impossible to glean information about the Crucible, Reapers, or whatever from the beacon without the cypher? I mean they say in ME1 that Shepard surviving after contact with the beacon and resulting info dump was an exception.

[dreamgazer]

Kel Riever wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

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.

If, what you are saying is that DAO makes sense from thematic intent and Mass Effect 3 doesn't, then I agree.  And yes, that also happens to have nothing to do with genre.  But your point only supports mine...basically in that comparing DAO to ME3 is a bad comparisson.

Not exactly.  You still have the freedom to consider negative repercussions in the fantasy genre.  In fact, you're not doing the material due diligence if you don't consider both sides of the coin. 

[Kel Riever]

SwordofMercy1 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

It is amazing how as soon as this massively overpowered "game over" sized force entered the galaxy this Crucible design suddenly popped up on Mars.

Okay at that part in the game, I kinda roled my eyes. But then I thought, "Hey the humans are new to this sorta thing so lets cut them a break." But then we go to Thessia and find the beacon the Asari were using for thousands of years... and NO ONE found information on the Crucible or that VI?! Are you kidding me?! The Mars one, I get cause its newly discovered, but the one on Thessia, WTF? Are you telling me that the Asari had that thing since the dawn of their culture and not once did they find the crap about the Reapers.
And I know someone is gonna say, "Well the information was only on the Mars one." Not good enough. Why would the 'Protheans' leave the plans on only Mars? IF I were them, I would have been leaving the info everywhere I could.
... Dang it, saw this one post and started ranting.<_< But that's just one thing I had against the Crucible.

That's what happens when you base the conclusion of ME3 on something that wasn't in ME1 or 2.   You cause problems like this, where you suddenly have to insert a lame reason for something showing up that should have shown up a way long time ago.  Also, by not going back to something in the prior games to base your ending on, you run the risk of forgetting (because that's what BioWare said they did) important things like the relay on the Citadel.  I always love to hear the headcannoning of why the Relay wasn't there, even though BioWare basically already said the reason...

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

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.

If, what you are saying is that DAO makes sense from thematic intent and Mass Effect 3 doesn't, then I agree.  And yes, that also happens to have nothing to do with genre.  But your point only supports mine...basically in that comparing DAO to ME3 is a bad comparisson.

I'm not sure where this is going now, but I think we run the risk of getting in a long tangent that has more to do with DAO than ME3...

Not exactly.  You still have the freedom to consider negative repercussions in the fantasy genre.  In fact, you're not doing the material due diligence if you don't consider both sides of the coin. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

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.

True. That's the reason I see DAO as being better than ME3 in that aspect. It was consistent with the ending and the story that led to it, where ME3 wasn't as consistent.

That said, I do see some people on here who use the "suffieciently advanced technology is equal to magic" approach and that people lack imagination when it comes to the ending, especially in regards to synthesis.

DAO doesn't break its own lore, its own rules, in the ending. 

ME3 does. 

Again though, DAO is arguably less realistic than ME. ME takes place in supposed future of Earth as we are now, with hypothetical technology and capabilities being used, while DAO takes place in an entirely fantastical realm that would hold parallels with our own feudal age, but with magic, demons, dragons, and other creatures of pure fantasy. 

[CronoDragoon]

Kel Riever wrote...

I understand what you are saying now, but look at my post above.

I think the real problem is that ME3 is inconsistent with ME1 and ME2 thematically. It's more consistent with itself, but as the third part of a trilogy it does a rather bad job matching with the others in certain ways. Then again, so did ME2 with ME1, albeit to a lesser extent.

[Kel Riever]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

I understand what you are saying now, but look at my post above.

I think the real problem is that ME3 is inconsistent with ME1 and ME2 thematically. It's more consistent with itself, but as the third part of a trilogy it does a rather bad job matching with the others in certain ways. Then again, so did ME2 with ME1, albeit to a lesser extent.

I'll agree with that.  As much as I like ME2 (not nearly as much as ME1, though), the whole you survive a fall from orbit sets up a WHOLE list of problems...even if we were going to take it at face value. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

Control can also risk total failure if Shepard isn't up to the part of the Catalyst. He does continue them if you tell him no, or if you tell him yes but then shoot him, turns off the Crucible. The Catalyst thinks he can enact a better option than what currently exists, but he needs Shepards help to do it, if Shepard doesn't cooperate he goes back to the default plan.

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. 

He does it's just limited because the device is damaged, he doesn't magically fart out these options(well kinda but not in that way) he has to work through a medium, that medium being the Crucible, if it's damaged he can do less with it it's as simple as that. The Crucible being require was never in question, I'm simply saying that he capable of modifying how the energy is disburst, as was the stated function of the Catalyst in conjunction with the Crucible.

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

I stand corrected, it's little more than a powers source, it's a flying power source that lets the Citadel shoot beams at mass relays. Right, moving on.

Neither hypothetical makes much sense. If he's aware of the design in hypiothetical 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.

How? I never stated that to be my position. The first hypohetical sums up the OP's position of the options coming from the Crucible. It's why I consider the OP's theory to be bunk, I simply put it up for sake of comparision.

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.

He's always aware of the design has for a while and as recently as the Protheans as he indoctrinated a group to try and use the device to control the Reapers, something he repeated in our cycle, that's no an assumption that's just lore, which is why it's presented in both hypotheticals.

However the fact the he is still shooting it implies that the design of the device (which he as we've establishe he is aware of) implies that he shooting at it because there's nothing about it's inherent design that creates the solutions in other words it is not the Crucible that creates the options, as has been my arguement thus far.

He shoots at it because his ideal option, sysnthesis isn't initally part of the design, it only becomes part of it when he takes control and modifies it.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 juin 2013 - 07:20 .

[Iakus]

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?

The only people who knew about the Dark Ritual was the Warden, Morrigan, and maybe Alistair/Loghain.  And I know for fact that you can talk to Alistair about the Dark Ritual during the epilogue if he knows about it.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

The only people who knew about the Dark Ritual was the Warden, Morrigan, and maybe Alistair/Loghain.  And I know for fact that you can talk to Alistair about the Dark Ritual during the epilogue if he knows about it.

So Origins doesn't whitewash the Dark Ritual because the Warden can hide what he's done and Shepard can't?

And your Alistair sentence supports my point. Either he knows about the Dark Ritual and isn't upset about it (which is exactly the sort of complaint you had against ME3's epilogues) or he doesn't know about it, at least not entirely, because the Warden is hiding what he did.

Either way, you can pick the Dark Ritual with virtually no consequence or negative reaction. Now, the only potential difference is that the DR may come into play in DA Inquisition. Then again, it may not. 

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 21 juin 2013 - 07:15 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

So Origins doesn't whitewash the Dark Ritual because the Warden can hide what he's done and Shepard can't?

And your Alistair sentence supports my point. Either he knows about the Dark Ritual and isn't upset about it (which is exactly the sort of complaint you had against ME3's epilogues) or he doesn't know about it, at least not entirely, because the Warden is hiding what he did.

Either way, you can pick the Dark Ritual with virtually no consequence or negative reaction. Now, the only potential difference is that the DR may come into play in DA Inquisition. Then again, it may not. 

No, Origins doesn't whitewash the Dark Ritual because anyone who's still around and knows about it can express concern that they didn't save Thedas so much as "punted" the problem to the next generation.

What does Shepard have to say about his choice in hindsight?  Oh, wait, he can't.  Well, maybe for Destroy he goes *gasp*.  

It's stuff like this that makes the choice in Arrival bearable.  Shepard can express remorse.  People can tell Shepard he/she did the right thing, or be p*ssed about it.  It was a true morally ambiguous choice.  Well, not so much a choice as it had to happen.  But the feelings about it were truly ambivalent.  

As for Alistair, he's definitely concerned about it.  He's willing to keep quiet about it (especially since in certain versions, it's his kid) But at least it wasn't ignored.  In ME3, it seems the threat that "The chaos will come back" simply wasn't enough, and had to include the slaughter of the elves geth as some arbitrary chaser to that decision.

[SilJeff]

I like TC's points in the OP, but you sound like you need a snickers, TC

Modifié par SilJeff, 21 juin 2013 - 07:52 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

No, Origins doesn't whitewash the Dark Ritual because anyone who's still around and knows about it can express concern that they didn't save Thedas so much as "punted" the problem to the next generation.

Alistair says "I'm concerned about what it's going to cost eventually."

Really, THAT's the difference to you? A difference that isn't even expressable in ME3's ending epilogues by characters because there's no conversation after? A line that doesn't implicate the PC's guilt AT ALL, even though the reasons for choosing the Dark Ritual over alternate endings are FAR worse than the reasons for using the Crucible? There is literally no reason to do the DR except to save yourself. It's selfish.

I'm sorry, but ME3 presents at least the same level of concern with every ending except Synthesis, which I can't comment on because I haven't played it. The Control monologues can be pretty ominous, even the Paragon one. You are warned by the Catalyst that if you pick Destroy then synthetics will rise up again and war with organics. Whether or not you believe him is irrelevant, because the game has acknowledged a potential future problem.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 21 juin 2013 - 07:57 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Alistair says "I'm concerned about what it's going to cost eventually."

Really, THAT's the difference to you? A difference that isn't even expressable in ME3's ending epilogues because there's no conversation after? A line that doesn't implicate the PC's guilt AT ALL, even though the reasons for choosing the Dark Ritual over alternate endings are FAR worse than the reasons for using the Crucible? There is literally no reason to do the DR except to save yourself. It's selfish.

It's a sight mor ethan what we get with ME3.  "Geth, what geth?"

Oh, and there are people who choose the DR not just to save a life, but because they want to redeem the Old God as well.  Not all the reasons are selfish.

I'm sorry, but ME3 presents at least the same level of concern with every ending except Synthesis, which I can't comment on because I haven't played it. The Control monologues can be pretty ominous, even the Paragon one. You are warned by the Catalyst that if you pick Destroy then synthetics will rise up again and war with organics.

I'm willing to concede that Control does it better than the others.  But we still get the "and they all lived happily ever after" ending slides and the Stargazer scene.  And the other endings dont' even get the creepy monologue.

And the Catalyst's prediction is meaningless as he provides no evidence beyond "because I said so".  The geth and EDI are (or were) here and now.  And it's totally ignored.  

Modifié par iakus, 21 juin 2013 - 08:03 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
It's a sight mor ethan what we get with ME3.  "Geth, what geth?"

Oh, and there are people who choose the DR not just to save a life, but because they want to redeem the Old God as well.  Not all the reasons are selfish.

I've never heard anyone say that this was why they chose the DR, but I will take your word for it.

As for the geth, you are in essence asking a leading question. Since you believe it's genocide, you expect the game to acknowledge this. But for those who see it as a sacrifice, as collateral damage for using the Crucible, then yes this is acknowledged when Hackett talks about the victory being paid for with allies' lives.

I'm willing to concede that Control does it better than the others.  But we still get the "and they all lived happily ever after" ending slides and the Stargazer scene.  And the other endings dont' even get the creepy monologue.

And you get happily ever after slides and convos with your Origins bros and broettes, too, so that doesn't mean much.

And the Catalyst's prediction is meaningless as he provides no evidence beyond "because I said so".  The geth and EDI are (or were) here and now.  And it's totally ignored.  

Your opinion about the Catalyst's prediction is irrelevant, because it's still an instance of potential problems being brought up.

And no, EDI is not ignored. You see her when Hackett talks about sacrifice. You don't see a random geth, no.

[Eterna]

HYR 2.0, don't let these irrational luddites corrupt you. Dismiss everything they say as nonsense, your words are lost on them.

[KaiserShep]

The catalyst's predictions don't seem to gel with the stargazer scene, which is kind of a shame, because I wish some synthetics came out of nowhere and killed the both of them.

Eterna5 wrote...

HYR 2.0, don't let these irrational luddites corrupt you. Dismiss everything they say as nonsense, your words are lost on them.

If only he could do the Bavmorda scream. "PIGS!"

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 juin 2013 - 08:14 .

[Steelcan]

Eterna5 wrote...

HYR 2.0, don't let these irrational luddites corrupt you. Dismiss everything they say as nonsense, your words are lost on them.

.  Is that you Wulfie?

[dreamgazer]

Eterna5 wrote...

HYR 2.0, don't let these irrational luddites corrupt you. Dismiss everything they say as nonsense, your words are lost on them.

Luddites? Been a while since I've seen that wonderful little word. Guess a certain poster rubbed off on someone.

Should the "irrational luddites" throw insults at the generalized group for which you belong?

[KaiserShep]

Is there such a thing as a rational Luddite?

[CronoDragoon]

Eh, this entire thing has been off-topic. I think we understand each other iakus so maybe we should drop it.