369 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...


Not continuing the universe in the same way wasn't a problem for me either. I've been lobbying for ME4 to be set in a post-Destroy MEU with non-functional relays since before the EC.

Yes, it could be facinating to see how different worlds changed when they were cut off from the galactic community for years, decades, even centuries.  But the murder of synthetics is simply too much to make it worthwhile.

[MegaSovereign]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Reputation refers to paragon/renegade values.

You're assuming people only like the setup because it makes them feel superior to those that don't. "Empirical Observation" sounds like a euphemism....

Ah, OK. I don't really like the whole Paragon/Renegade thing, I wouldn't want a game to be based on that kind of thing really.

And the setup is what I always liked, it's the punchline that I hate. And I've come to realize that I simply am unable to believe what takes place. Seriously. A ghost kid comes up and spins me this wacked out ABC choice. I cannot believe that happened in Mass Effect. And it ruins the whole thing I loved for me.

I assume what I do simply because I know this kind of thing from personal experience. These are basic mechanisms that we all have. And I've had some practice in trying to pin down my own behavior patterns, so I guess I have just thought about this kind of thing a lot. Hence "empirical observation". I don't really know what it could be an euphemism for.

You have every right not to like it but I don't understand why you felt the need to attack those that do. "Empirical Observation" sounds more like prejudice based on a conditional sampling size.

I don't like the way ME3's ending was executed either but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked a "tough choice" scenario that could have potential reflected what type of character I was role-playing. I believe being able to persuade my way out of every scenario devalues some of those moments.

[SpamBot2000]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


Not continuing the universe in the same way wasn't a problem for me either. I've been lobbying for ME4 to be set in a post-Destroy MEU with non-functional relays since before the EC.

Yes, it could be facinating to see how different worlds changed when they were cut off from the galactic community for years, decades, even centuries.  But the murder of synthetics is simply too much to make it worthwhile.

Haven't games been wallowing in apocalypse enough lately, though?

I get called crazy on BSN a lot, but I would assume a setting in space could really profit from having some space travel in it.

[SpamBot2000]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You have every right not to like it but I don't understand why you felt the need to attack those that do. "Empirical Observation" sounds more like prejudice based on a conditional sampling size.

I don't like the way ME3's ending was executed either but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked a "tough choice" scenario that could have potential reflected what type of character I was role-playing. I believe being able to persuade my way out of every scenario devalues some of those moments.

Sorry if you felt attacked personally, I was actually attacking some other people. I realize that I'm making a generalization that doesn't cover everyone, and maybe I should say so. I just find myself somewhat out of patience with BSN these days.

I believe tough choices would make for an interesting game, but handled way better than BioWare have managed here. Not just attaching an arbitrary sting to an otherwise desirable choice. And I also believe a game shouldn't end with a choice. Choices should have consequences that you get to live with. Simple as that.

[Iakus]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Haven't games been wallowing in apocalypse enough lately, though?

I get called crazy on BSN a lot, but I would assume a setting in space could really profit from having some space travel in it.

Oh, but there would still be space travel:  standard ftl.  The galaxy would no longer be one huge community, more like islands of civilization.  Space would go back to being "the final frontier"  If you wanted to visit another homeworld, you better put your stuff in storage because you're not going to be home in a while.

edit:  Not ot mention the possibility that relays could be rebuilt.  Heck the protheans were on the verge of building their own then the Reapers hit them.

Modifié par iakus, 28 juin 2013 - 08:00 .

[Coyotebay]

Well I didn't go with the destroy ending simply because of the annhiliation of synthetics and EDI.  I also saw no point in making that a consequence of destroying the Reapers.  It would be like having a war story set on modern-day Earth, where it's the Puerto Ricans who are attacking England, and at the end of the story it is abruptly revealed that you can stop those evil Puerto Ricans, but only if you wipe out every hispanic on the face of the Earth.  Huh?   And no offense to Puerto Ricans! 

[SpamBot2000]

iakus wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Haven't games been wallowing in apocalypse enough lately, though?

I get called crazy on BSN a lot, but I would assume a setting in space could really profit from having some space travel in it.

Oh, but there would still be space travel:  standard ftl.  The galaxy would no longer be one huge community, more like islands of civilization.  Space would go back to being "the final frontier"  If you wanted to visit another homeworld, you better put your stuff in storage because you're not going to be home in a while.

It seems to be a larger cultural thing, this societal collapse motif. It's all over our entertainment, so I guess there's a perceived demand for that kind of thing. Me though, I feel kinda done with it. 

I just recently discovered a copy of Motorstorm Apocalypse that I once got free with a PS3 controller, so I decided to play that. It really hit me that I'd prefer racing in an intact environment. Not that it's a great game anyway, but the "awesome destruction" just felt so done to death. Oh well... next gen will have even more "awesome environmental destructiooooon!"

[3DandBeyond]

Nightwriter wrote...

Ah, how I remember the motivationals.

And it worked so well.  We finally learned that ambiguity means closure in someone's dictionary.

[3DandBeyond]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

iakus wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Haven't games been wallowing in apocalypse enough lately, though?

I get called crazy on BSN a lot, but I would assume a setting in space could really profit from having some space travel in it.

Oh, but there would still be space travel:  standard ftl.  The galaxy would no longer be one huge community, more like islands of civilization.  Space would go back to being "the final frontier"  If you wanted to visit another homeworld, you better put your stuff in storage because you're not going to be home in a while.

It seems to be a larger cultural thing, this societal collapse motif. It's all over our entertainment, so I guess there's a perceived demand for that kind of thing. Me though, I feel kinda done with it. 

I just recently discovered a copy of Motorstorm Apocalypse that I once got free with a PS3 controller, so I decided to play that. It really hit me that I'd prefer racing in an intact environment. Not that it's a great game anyway, but the "awesome destruction" just felt so done to death. Oh well... next gen will have even more "awesome environmental destructiooooon!"

I agree.  So much of the future is seen in this narrow view of grim reality and gritty, dank, and dirty.  It makes you wonder why anyone that thinks this is cool would want to have children and grandchildren.  I mean I may not always prefer the pollyanna attitude of ST and ST:TNG, but I long for someone to get over this crappiness.

It's like taking some of the attitudes that prevailed when crafting Star Wars and going a step too far.  In Star Wars they wanted things to look lived in and used-something that really had not been done before, SF was sterile and clean.  And then Blade Runner and Alien and so on and on and then people decided that unless everything turns to crap it won't feel real, so let's make it look miserable or end miserably.  Yeah, as if that's the only story, movie, or game I'd like.

For once I'd like people to revisit the attitude that we might just overcome all this crap that is happening and the better parts of being human might win out instead of the more demented we must annihilate ourselves vision that in many ways ME3 perpetuated.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


Not continuing the universe in the same way wasn't a problem for me either. I've been lobbying for ME4 to be set in a post-Destroy MEU with non-functional relays since before the EC.

Yes, it could be facinating to see how different worlds changed when they were cut off from the galactic community for years, decades, even centuries.  But the murder of synthetics is simply too much to make it worthwhile.

That's the great thing about making Destroy canon; whether it was worthwhile is the exact same non-question as whether the extermination of all the previous cycles was worthwhile. Maybe it wasn't worthwhile, but they're dead and we're not.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 juin 2013 - 08:42 .

[Archonsg]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

iakus wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Haven't games been wallowing in apocalypse enough lately, though?

I get called crazy on BSN a lot, but I would assume a setting in space could really profit from having some space travel in it.

Oh, but there would still be space travel:  standard ftl.  The galaxy would no longer be one huge community, more like islands of civilization.  Space would go back to being "the final frontier"  If you wanted to visit another homeworld, you better put your stuff in storage because you're not going to be home in a while.

It seems to be a larger cultural thing, this societal collapse motif. It's all over our entertainment, so I guess there's a perceived demand for that kind of thing. Me though, I feel kinda done with it. 

I just recently discovered a copy of Motorstorm Apocalypse that I once got free with a PS3 controller, so I decided to play that. It really hit me that I'd prefer racing in an intact environment. Not that it's a great game anyway, but the "awesome destruction" just felt so done to death. Oh well... next gen will have even more "awesome environmental destructiooooon!"

Actually @SpamBot2000, I think one of my earliest speculation for what Mass Effect was, was to be a Elite Plus (or Privateer take your pick) + Wing Commander + Exploration FPS / TPS .... then I was brought back to earth by someone mentioning that it was *for the console*. 

So yeah, I would like one day to see a game, a true blue Sci-Fi, exploration RPG that has space combat, space and planetary exploration with each planet giving about 20 - 100 hours worth of game play value.  And oh yes, this being a *galactic exploration game* we should have no less then 20 star systems to go to.

Ah well, one can dream.

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I agree.  So much of the future is seen in this narrow view of grim reality and gritty, dank, and dirty.  It makes you wonder why anyone that thinks this is cool would want to have children and grandchildren.  I mean I may not always prefer the pollyanna attitude of ST and ST:TNG, but I long for someone to get over this crappiness.

It's like taking some of the attitudes that prevailed when crafting Star Wars and going a step too far.  In Star Wars they wanted things to look lived in and used-something that really had not been done before, SF was sterile and clean.  And then Blade Runner and Alien and so on and on and then people decided that unless everything turns to crap it won't feel real, so let's make it look miserable or end miserably.  Yeah, as if that's the only story, movie, or game I'd like.

For once I'd like people to revisit the attitude that we might just overcome all this crap that is happening and the better parts of being human might win out instead of the more demented we must annihilate ourselves vision that in many ways ME3 perpetuated.

And that's exactly why I would have preferred the relays go instead of synthetics.

I don't see their loss as apocolyptic.  A setback, sure.  But as humans, we would adapt, find another way.  Heck, build our own relays!  Might take a while, but we'd get it done. There's always a period of reconstruction after a major war.  We're not going to live in the squalor of burnt-out ruins forever.   What the Reapers knocked down, we'll rebuild.  Bigger and better than before.  With no more cycles to worry about, we're free to choose our own path, not stagnate in the trap the Reapers left for us.

But forcing us to betray our allies, kill them as "collateral damage" to save ourselves?  That is annihilating ourselves.  That's destroying the very soul of the alliance we worked so hard to build up.

Modifié par iakus, 28 juin 2013 - 08:39 .

[Little Princess Peach]

yup thank you bioware for not stranding my beloved Normandy now go make us proud by blowing up our new ship go on now

[ThePinkFoxx]

*Reads Title*

Wow really? Damn that was fast...

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

But forcing us to betray our allies, kill them as "collateral damage" to save ourselves?  That is annihilating ourselves.  That's destroying the very soul of the alliance we worked so hard to build up.

Anyone who picks Destroy does not do so merely to save the galaxy; the other choices do that, too. The geth and EDI don't die for that, they die for all the other things Destroy does including allow future organics and synthetics to make peace without the Reaper cycle.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 juin 2013 - 08:41 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Oh, but there would still be space travel:  standard ftl.  The galaxy would no longer be one huge community, more like islands of civilization.  Space would go back to being "the final frontier"  If you wanted to visit another homeworld, you better put your stuff in storage because you're not going to be home in a while.

edit:  Not ot mention the possibility that relays could be rebuilt.  Heck the protheans were on the verge of building their own then the Reapers hit them.

Re-establishing contact with some clusters that have dropped out of communication would be a good mission for the game. Maybe a primary relay connection needs you to take a particle to the destination the same way a QEC does?

[Arcadian Legend]

ThePinkFoxx wrote...

*Reads Title*

Wow really? Damn that was fast...

IKR?  Doesn't feel like it was that long ago.

[Archonsg]

3DandBeyond wrote...

For once I'd like people to revisit the attitude that we might just overcome all this crap that is happening and the better parts of being human might win out instead of the more demented we must annihilate ourselves vision that in many ways ME3 perpetuated.

I think it's the age group.
And perhaps the lack of perspective?

I mean, as far as I know, my adult friends in my own age bracket are mostly the "there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" in mentality. We try to chase the impossible dream, even knowing that we will fail. 
And even so, we for the most part have rescued a princess, married her, slain the dragon and well depending on one's point of view, defeated the wicked witch (mother in law ) whom have kept said princess imprisoned. 


On the flip side, some of  my son's friends think its all doom and gloom and the world is a sh*thole and life is hardly worth living.
/shrugs 

In any case, I still want to make the point that the ME series Is. A. Goddamn game.
There should have been an option, for a happily ever after. 

[Reorte]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Anyone who picks Destroy does not do so merely to save the galaxy; the other choices do that, too. The geth and EDI don't die for that, they die for all the other things Destroy does including allow future organics and synthetics to make peace without the Reaper cycle.

The other choices require a much bigger leap of faith to believe that they save the galaxy and / or an even bigger price.

[Coyotebay]

Reorte wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Anyone who picks Destroy does not do so merely to save the galaxy; the other choices do that, too. The geth and EDI don't die for that, they die for all the other things Destroy does including allow future organics and synthetics to make peace without the Reaper cycle.

The other choices require a much bigger leap of faith to believe that they save the galaxy and / or an even bigger price.

Sure, if he picks synthesis he doesn't really know how that's going to turn out.  Starbrat has shown no real understanding of organics and still thinks harvesting was a great idea, so you can't trust what he says about it.  Control is never absolute, and people would live in constant fear knowing the Reapers were still out there.  What if the Citadel was destroyed one day?  All of a sudden, no one is controlling the Reapers.  Then what?  Way too risky, I would never pick that in a million years, unless once in control you could order the Reapers to commit suicide.  I only went with synthesis to save EDI.  It is a space opera after all, what happens to the characters is most important to me.  How the galaxy turns out is just a lot of pointless abstract speculation.

In any case, I still want to make the point that the ME series Is. A. Goddamn game.
There should have been an option, for a happily ever after.

I second this.  Just give you the option to kill the starbrat which shuts down the Reapers.   No more have to die, the relays stay  intact.  End of story. 

Modifié par Coyotebay, 28 juin 2013 - 10:23 .

[CronoDragoon]

Archonsg wrote...

I think it's the age group.
And perhaps the lack of perspective?

Lack of perspective applies to everyone when they are young. It isn't related to whether you like grimdark or happy ending type stories. Then, as you grow up, you go one way on another depending on your experiences and observations. One type of fiction isn't inherently better than another: its how you do it. BioWare's mistake wasn't in trying to make a bittersweet ending, it was in doing it poorly. They totally miscalculated what their audience considered "bittersweet". They actually miscalculated a lot, clearly, if they didn't know that their audience was invested in the characters.

[drayfish]

Robosexual wrote...

drayfish wrote...

-don't like your answer therefore you never answered it-

That's nice, but I answered your question, trying to dismiss it because you don't like the answer doesn't change anything, and your opinion on the matter doesn't change anything either.

Now can you answer mine? What point are you making by saying it's "racist"? Because that's not a point, it's an observation.

Thanks for this reply.  It proves what I've been suspecting for the past couple of days. 

You have no answer.  In fact, you clearly have no idea.  Which helps, because now I know that there is no possible answer coming.

When pressed to elaborate on how these endings - in which horror is repeatedly handwaved away as necessary, and beneficial, and heroic, and universally beloved - could in any possible way be considered 'hard' you simply (rather sadly) disappear in a cloud of cliche, spouting the words 'difficult choices' and 'morally grey' with absolutle nothing to back any of it up.

It would be hysterical if it weren't being used to obfuscate something so revolting.

To answer your cheap distraction: the destroy ending can be called 'racist' because it validates the mindset of anyone who believes that the Geth weren't really alive anyway, and that their 'right to life' was merely humouring them all along.  The fact that the game utterly ignores their death and 'sacrifice' in the end, concentrating instead on the 'everything' that can be 'rebuilt', rewards anyone who believed that they weren't worth saving anyway.  Saying that this is 'difficult', when the game goes out of its way to only sing your praises, and shamelessly placates your actions, is laughable.

It's the same with synthesis.  It rewards anyone who thinks it was okay to ignore other people's basic personal freedoms for the greater good.  After all, everyone is way better afterwards.  And there is world peace.  And they are all happy.  You probably even get a Ferarri.  It rewards you for embracing forced eugenics.  There is no downside.  Calling that a 'hard' choice is ridiculous.

And precisely the same with control.  It gratifies anyone who believes that the universe does need a dictator - and especially if that dictator is you.  And if you had any reservations about it, well, hey, don't worry about it: cause the universe loves you, guy!  And there is world peace.  And everything's fine.  And you get to ascend to the status of a god and live forever.  And how is that Ferrari going?  How you could claim this is 'hard' is mystifying.

Indeed, it is the most childish wish fulfillment nonsense (all the endings are) that could possibly be conceived, and the fact that they mix in some atrocities and overtly celebrate them just so that voices like yours can convince themselves they are thinking 'deep' thoughts while being mindlessly placated is legitimately sad.

The game strips away any negative connotations from these actions (even so far as to all but ignore the annihilation of a race and making defiling peopes personal freedoms something they gleefully thank you for) and throws a parade in your honour, gushing over how wonderful and brave and marvelous you are.

I am literally tired of typing this sentence (because it is obviously never going to crack through the way that this game shamelessly massages your ego), but:

That is why they are not hard choices. 

Asking someone to choose between three awesome endings where everything turns out okay because, 'Hey, seriously, guy: none of that bad stuff mattered - in fact, it wasn't even bad stuff, it was fantatsic stuff! - is not difficult.  It is gratuitous pandering.  And thinking that it makes you 'profound' to have willful ignorance rewarded and complex moral and ethical issues reduced to asinine win-states, is merely a sign that you enjoy being shamelessly indulged.

But you would think that.  After all, you are a witch.

Modifié par drayfish, 29 juin 2013 - 12:34 .

[Mcfly616]

Coyotebay wrote...

Well I didn't go with the destroy ending simply because of the annhiliation of synthetics and EDI.  I also saw no point in making that a consequence of destroying the Reapers.  It would be like having a war story set on modern-day Earth, where it's the Puerto Ricans who are attacking England, and at the end of the story it is abruptly revealed that you can stop those evil Puerto Ricans, but only if you wipe out every hispanic on the face of the Earth.  Huh?   And no offense to Puerto Ricans! 

did the rest of Hispanics have Puerto Rican code upgrades?

[GreyLycanTrope]

scyphozoa wrote...

Poor ME3 ending. The EC was a great band-aid, it really helped me get over the original ending. But under scrutiny, the EC still has some flaws. I just wish the original ending had never been the trainwreck it was. In an alternate universe, ME3 had a great ending that peopled rejoiced over.

I'm still seething at my alternate self for getting that version. Lucky bastard.