369 réponses à ce sujet

[Erez Kristal]

David im waiting for the flames, here is my alternate current vision for how the reapers could have been handled http://social.biowar...scussion/28903/

[Coyotebay]

KaiserShep wrote...

Yes. It seems to be based on both the secondary character you talk to the most, as well as the love interest.

I played through my ending twice and got two different results.  In one I got Anderson/Liara/EDI and in the second one I got Anderson/Thane/Liara. (Liara was his love interest)  Weird.

[tanisha__unknown]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

The EC served its purpose well enough.

Agreed. According to the developer, its purpose was to provide more clarification and closure, tha latter one we definitely got, wether or not the catalyst is explained better everyone may decide for themselves.

Modifié par Jinx1720, 26 juin 2013 - 09:00 .

[tanisha__unknown]

David7204 wrote...

You know, I still don't think people are really thinking through what they mean when they say "the Catalyst."

I'm thinking when people say the "Catalyst" they just mean "everything I don't like about the endings." Because surely the 'worst' part of the endings is not the fact that a Reaper AI exists on the Citadel? That sounds very silly.

And of course, as I've pointed out numerous times, the ending could easily have been exactly the same - the same themes, same choices, same outcomes - with the Catalyst entirely gone and simply having Harbinger land and speak to Shepard. Therefore the existence of the Catalyst as a character is surely not that impactful.

People do not question its existance, but its design, both exterior and iterior.

[AlexMBrennan]

Jinx1720 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

The EC served its purpose well enough.

Agreed. According to the developer, its purpose was to provide more clarification and closure, tha latter one we definitely got, wether or not the catalyst is explained better everyone may decide for themselves.

Well, sorta. The EC wasn't made because Bioware, looking back, felt that they wanted to add more clarification and closure.

[David7204]

Jinx1720 wrote...

People do not question its existance, but its design, both exterior and iterior.

It's design? Could you elaborate on that?

[drayfish]

The one (and only) thing that I am grateful to the Extended Cut for is the ability to Refuse Bioware's asinine nihilistic moral bargain.

The fact that they then poison-chaliced this option by slaughtering everyone, calling Shepard's principles and audacity to hope a 'failure', and slathering further glory onto acts of genocide, totalitarian rule and eugenics, merely confirmed how petulant and adolescent their writing had become in ME3, and how far it had fallen.

In a way it made the ending easier to ignore because it was clearly constructed by people more interested in manufacturing faux gravitas than maintaining any logical or thematic coherency.

The plot still boils down to a magic button (built by people who didn't know what they were doing, apparently) that can (somehow) remake the entire universe. And this premise would be infantile enough were it not for the narrative forcing you to then arbitrarily endorse a war crime. ...Because that's so deep. That really makes people think.

Or not.

After all, the EC makes it clear that everything turns out fine no matter what, as long as you just agree with history's most vile genocidal racist:

Different people really can't get along unless you force them to and violate their freedoms.

Thanks Bioware. You should print that up on t-shirts.

[AresKeith]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

A toast, to the Extended Cut.

I'll take the Red thank you lol 

[Iakus]

drayfish wrote...

The one (and only) thing that I am grateful to the Extended Cut for is the ability to Refuse Bioware's asinine nihilistic moral bargain.

THere's one other thing it's good for.  It's content was instumental in making MEHEM.

The fact that they then poison-chaliced this option by slaughtering everyone, calling Shepard's principles and audacity to hope a 'failure', and slathering further glory onto acts of genocide, totalitarian rule and eugenics, merely confirmed how petulant and adolescent their writing had become in ME3, and how far it had fallen.

In a way it made the ending easier to ignore because it was clearly constructed by people more interested in manufacturing faux gravitas than maintaining any logical or thematic coherency.

Or have a general respect for their audience.

How did it come to this, Bioware?

[Bill Casey]

drayfish wrote...

The one (and only) thing that I am grateful to the Extended Cut for is the ability to Refuse Bioware's asinine nihilistic moral bargain.

The fact that they then poison-chaliced this option by slaughtering everyone, calling Shepard's principles and audacity to hope a 'failure', and slathering further glory onto acts of genocide, totalitarian rule and eugenics, merely confirmed how petulant and adolescent their writing had become in ME3, and how far it had fallen.

In a way it made the ending easier to ignore because it was clearly constructed by people more interested in manufacturing faux gravitas than maintaining any logical or thematic coherency.

The plot still boils down to a magic button (built by people who didn't know what they were doing, apparently) that can (somehow) remake the entire universe. And this premise would be infantile enough were it not for the narrative forcing you to then arbitrarily endorse a war crime. ...Because that's so deep. That really makes people think.

Or not.

After all, the EC makes it clear that everything turns out fine no matter what, as long as you just agree with history's most vile genocidal racist:

Different people really can't get along unless you force them to and violate their freedoms.

Thanks Bioware. You should print that up on t-shirts.

I cordially invite you to this thread...

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/16867188/

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 juin 2013 - 09:52 .

[David7204]

Do you just copy and paste an ellipsis after everything you write?

[KaiserShep]

David7204 wrote...

Jinx1720 wrote...

People do not question its existance, but its design, both exterior and iterior.

It's design? Could you elaborate on that?

The fact that it looks like the little boy from Earth does raise some questions. Does the AI interpret itself into something familiar to Shepard? If so, does it mean that this thing is really talking to us through direct access to Shepard's brain, much like Legion did when entering the geth consensus? None of this is explained, and it's strange that Shepard, having recurring nightmares about the little boy, doesn't even bring this up. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 26 juin 2013 - 10:00 .

[Lee80]

For me I can remember how all the twitter messages were all like talking about the EC being something amazing, and it would clarify the ending.

However, for me I was not impressed. It was a glorified slide show that added almost no clarity whatsoever. I don't get what exactly it is it was meant to clarify, but hooray for slide shows I suppose. -shrug-

Maybe I would have been okay with the choice for slide show fest if not for the simple fact that the slides for all 3 ending were basically the same-which means yet again they had 2 shots at adding variety to the endings, but still we have 3 color choices and a different voice over. zzzzzzzzz

[David7204]

KaiserShep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's design? Could you elaborate on that?

The fact that it looks like the little boy from Earth does raise some questions. Does the AI interpret itself into something familiar to Shepard? If so, does it mean that this thing is really talking to us through direct access to Shepard's brain, much like Legion did when entering the geth consensus? None of this is explained, and it's strange that Shepard, having recurring nightmares about the little boy, doesn't even bring this up. 

It sounds to me like that's pretty obvious. There's no other way it could take the form of the kid. Does it really need to be explained?

[KaiserShep]

Some slides were the same, but there were enough that weren't. As a destroyer, I certainly do not see the geth and reapers standing together in Control, or the geth and Quarians conversing in Synthesis, or Kasumi uniting with a now virtual Keiji. The ones that I saw that were basically identical with different skins I can understand, because there doesn't seem to be much point in making variations of every single one. The most important slides are unique to each choice.

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

Do you just copy and paste an ellipsis after everything you write?

Apologies, but did I miss something?  What does this mean?

[tanisha__unknown]

David7204 wrote...

Jinx1720 wrote...

People do not question its existance, but its design, both exterior and iterior.

It's design? Could you elaborate on that?

Exterior: its superficial appearance. It looks like the little boy you saw dying in the beginning. Why does the catalyst assume the shape of a kid? And why of that kid specifically? Does he know about what is going on in Shepard's head and how so?
Furthermore it is often criticised that in the 2nd game, Harbinger was established as the villain, the chief overlord you were up against. And now the final confrontation is not with him, but with this child, and I found no good eason for that.

Interior: its programming. His arguments flatly contradict what Shepard experienced throughout the game. He states that the created will always rebel against their creators. The geth attacked only after the Quarians stroke first, and stroke first means try to wipe them out entirely. Thereafter they vanished into the Perseus veil and where only seen again attacking after Sovereign made them attack.
Javik's civilization fought a war against synthetics and won. If anything, from what the player knows, the thesis of the catalyst has been proven wrong empirically.
I'll leave out the 'when fire burns, is it at war' - part and the 'the fact that you are standing here proves my solution won't work anymore'-part.

let's for a moment assume that the catalyst actually has a valid reason to prevent organics from developing a supremely evolved AI. If anything like that ever happened, provided we use networked computers then, it would have access to the nervous system of our civilization and could advance technologically very rapidly, simply by rewriting its code into more evolved algorithms. Genetic algorithms are actually used to find optimal  solutions to problems, and this AI could simulate them and find them rapidly, whereas our evolution would still progress naturally, meaning much slower.

So again, let's for the moment assume that the catalyst actually has a valid cause.

The solutions he offers us are
1) destroy - the Reapers are eliminated. Our children will create synthetics. That solves the conflict how?
2) control - Shepard replaces the catalyst - so a different entity takes over, again how does that solve anything
3) synthesis - how does that solve anything? I mean, really? How???!!!! It does, but by what means? Synthetics and organics become more alike, organics get this nifty circuits on their skin and green glowing eyes and don't need to use technology to augment themsleves anymore and synthetics understand organics. I would go as far as saying that does not solve anything. Today we understand each other pretty well, we still mistreat each other. Understanding is no guarantee that a sufficiently advanced AI that understands organics won't be hostile.

People argue the crucible changed him, but did it damage its logic circuits so severely that it offers two options that won't solve the problem and not come up with a good explanation for the 3rd one?
The definition of intelligence is somewhat ambiguous, in my opinion thinking logical is part of it. Drawing the right conclusions from facts and knowing what conclusions you can't draw. In my opinion tha catalyst, which is an artificial intelligence, and if he is the Reaper overlord, a very andvanced one, clearly lacks it.

[David7204]

Look a Bill Casey's posts...

They all end like this...

It's to convey a tone of hopelessness and it's a bit irritating...

[KaiserShep]

David7204 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's design? Could you elaborate on that?

The fact that it looks like the little boy from Earth does raise some questions. Does the AI interpret itself into something familiar to Shepard? If so, does it mean that this thing is really talking to us through direct access to Shepard's brain, much like Legion did when entering the geth consensus? None of this is explained, and it's strange that Shepard, having recurring nightmares about the little boy, doesn't even bring this up. 

It sounds to me like that's pretty obvious. There's no other way it could take the form of the kid. Does it really need to be explained?

Yes, actually it does, simply because this is an oddity that should raise questions for the character. Options to point out why something looked odd was always addressed in the past, so this should be no exception. Shepard can question Legion's armor, why Shiala is green, why the Quarians have masks in the geth consensus archives, so what makes this any different? This is part of what fed all those goofy indoctrination theory people who even went so far as to speculate that Shepard was indoctrinated because the gun had infinite ammo. 

Something being obvious (to you) does not preclude providing some clearer insight into what the hell we're looking at. And really, any normal person with half a brain would wonder these things, and point them out.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 26 juin 2013 - 10:22 .

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

Look a Bill Casey's posts...

They all end like this...

It's to convey a tone of hopelessness and it's a bit irritating...

Well, I don't know the larger context of Bill Casey's contributions to the discussion, but if he is trying to capture the cheap vaguary of Bioware's ending, chances are I would probably agree with him.

To me the whole thing sags under the rote manipulative tone of:

'We won, but at what cost...?'

or:

'Sure, we have peace for now, but for how long...?'




...Unless you're already cool with racism and social engineering, then it's:

'Yay!  We won!  Look at the smiley faces!  I knew that was the right thing to do!'

[David7204]

Maybe you should put your perceptions to work and speak to the many posters on the BSN gleefully shilling 'moral ambiguity' and condemning heroism as naive and stupid. This is exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like.

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 10:30 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

drayfish wrote...
Well, I don't know the larger context of Bill Casey's contributions to the discussion, but if he is trying to capture the cheap vaguary of Bioware's ending, chances are I would probably agree with him.

To me the whole thing sags under the rote manipulative tone of:

'We won, but at what cost...?'

or:

'Sure, we have peace for now, but for how long...?'




...Unless you're already cool with racism and social engineering, then it's:

'Yay!  We won!  Look at the smiley faces!  I knew that was the right thing to do!'

Not so much, he just does elipses. Asked him about it once, said it was due to his autism if I'm remembering right.

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...

The one (and only) thing that I am grateful to the Extended Cut for is the ability to Refuse Bioware's asinine nihilistic moral bargain.

The fact that they then poison-chaliced this option by slaughtering everyone, calling Shepard's principles and audacity to hope a 'failure', and slathering further glory onto acts of genocide, totalitarian rule and eugenics, merely confirmed how petulant and adolescent their writing had become in ME3, and how far it had fallen.

Is it really correct to say that they poison-chaliced Refuse in the EC? Before the Refuse option existed refusing to use the Crucible would have led to failure. Bio didn't retcon anything when they added the option, so Refuse did the same thing that happened pre-EC if Shepard just stood there and did nothing.

[Clayless]

drayfish wrote...

The one (and only) thing that I am grateful to the Extended Cut for is the ability to Refuse Bioware's asinine nihilistic moral bargain.

The fact that they then poison-chaliced this option by slaughtering everyone, calling Shepard's principles and audacity to hope a 'failure', and slathering further glory onto acts of genocide, totalitarian rule and eugenics, merely confirmed how petulant and adolescent their writing had become in ME3, and how far it had fallen.

In a way it made the ending easier to ignore because it was clearly constructed by people more interested in manufacturing faux gravitas than maintaining any logical or thematic coherency.

The plot still boils down to a magic button (built by people who didn't know what they were doing, apparently) that can (somehow) remake the entire universe. And this premise would be infantile enough were it not for the narrative forcing you to then arbitrarily endorse a war crime. ...Because that's so deep. That really makes people think.

Or not.

After all, the EC makes it clear that everything turns out fine no matter what, as long as you just agree with history's most vile genocidal racist:

Different people really can't get along unless you force them to and violate their freedoms.

Thanks Bioware. You should print that up on t-shirts.

So, to get this straight, you hate a game about hard choices because it gave you a hard choice? Or you think that all stories should conform to your morals?