138 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

iakus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

iakus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Iakus, you never turned on your allies. That implies malice on your part, they simply died as a result of victory.

They died because Shepard threw them under the bus for completely arbitrary reasons.  And in so doing, rendering the game bitter and hopeless.

My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.

-Arthur Welleslly 

They died because Shepard had no way to save them.  And this in no way taints the whole enging.  The Destroy ending is still very upbeat and hopeful, even if the geth are killed off.

  It's the very fact that Shepard has no way to save them that makes the situation hopeless.They died as a punishment for daring to choose other than Synthesis.  It's an arbitrary smiting by the cruel and capricious Bioware gods.  Even in your moment of  victory, Bioware sabotages it because they demand moar sadz.  How can there be hope when Jigsaw the Catalyst forces you to shoot an ally in the back, or he'll kill everyone?

Then... shoot 'em in the front? Thrice? 

I'm helping, damn it!

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 03 juillet 2013 - 05:16 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

Saying the means "may not be perfect" is such an understatement it bends back around to overstating the case, keeps going past that, and ends up back at "understatement"

In truth I felt similarly about calling the ending "an atrocity for an antrocity."

You say you can't leave out the ends.  I say you can't leave out the means.  There are ponts which if crossed, makes victory seem hollow and pontless

I never did. As I said before, even if those (RBG) means are equally as bad as the Reapers' means (I don't even agree, but let's say it is) it's still not the same thing, given the wide disparity between ends. Again, it's the sum of all parts.

I can and I will.  Because mere survival is not enough.  I don't play a game to be an animal.

I don't play a game to go "Yeah I turned on my own allies to secure victory.  It was awesome."

... which is what I was saying before. It may not feel good to some (YMMV) but that doesn't mean it's a hopeless end.

It isn't. That life will continue alone is a major positive and reason to be hopeful going forward.

Unless you the galaxy is hopeless.

These choices remind me of the Joker in The Dark Knight: 

 "See, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people? They'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve."

This scene (same movie) is a direct response to that quote: .

Desperate times do call for desperate actions. That's not reason to lose hope, though.

You keep fighting, dig 'til you hit daylight in hopes it was worth it.

[Steelcan]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think the issue here is more a matter of why couldn't Shepard save them and still kill the Reapers. Why do you have to make such a heavy price to beat the Reapers? Why can't a person who get's a theoretically perfect trilogy run get something more from the ending than someone who didn't try or didn't play from the beginning? That last one is my biggest issue.

.  Because no one would ever consider synthesis if this was possible.

This is the whole thing. No one would have considered this or control. Why would they? Well maybe Auld Wulf and a few others would have. I think a lot of people would have chosen synthesis their first game by accident. ... you know walk up to investigate and trigger the point of no return? Yeah, that way. Some of those of us who finished the game at 3:00 a.m. Me? I got tunnel vision. I saw "Destroy the Reapers" on the right and my brain shut off. Die b****es! But I still blew up the galaxy.

The mass relays exploded. The Normandy crashed. Where were they? The Asari populate this new world. Was anyone else even alive? I would never see Liara again which was all I wanted. Then they gave me this gasp of air and leave me buried under a pile of rubble just to break my heart one more time. 22 Mar 2012 0320 hrs

I didn't even bother beating the game until after the EC

[o Ventus]

Steelcan wrote...

 Destroy ending is still very upbeat and hopeful, even if the geth are killed off.

Only because everything that happens in the end just sort of forgets that the geth even exist.

[Steelcan]

o Ventus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

 Destroy ending is still very upbeat and hopeful, even if the geth are killed off.

Only because everything that happens in the end just sort of forgets that the geth even exist.

I doubt anybody will be crying to see the genocidal bots go

[teh DRUMPf!!]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not assuming the Catalyst was right.

I'm talking from a narrative perspective. The narrative of the game has changed. The theme of the game has changed.

The purpose is no longer to beat the Reapers. The purpose is now to handle the organic/synthetic conflict.

It didn't change; it stayed the same.

The Catalyst/Reapers = singularity, reached within Leviathan Era and every ensuing "cycle."

You deal with the problem both now and in the future with each choice.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

This is the whole thing. No one would have considered this or control. Why would they?

Let's not forget the even bigger downsides the other options are stuck with, which make Destroy's pale in comparison.

Destroy remains the easiest decision to make of the four.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Yes it was the easiest of the three choices. I'd already destroyed the Geth on Rannoch. I doubt having EDI die would have blackened my soul any more. I wasn't a fan of the dialogues we'd had. They were a choice of full naïve ****** Shepard or practical but psycho Shepard. I hate the auto dialogue. I wished there was a break so I could have made other choices. But you know how it is. So basically Shepard's idea ended up: EDI's a piece of equipment ... so no problem. Replace it with a new model.

[KaiserShep]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think the issue here is more a matter of why couldn't Shepard save them and still kill the Reapers. Why do you have to make such a heavy price to beat the Reapers? Why can't a person who get's a theoretically perfect trilogy run get something more from the ending than someone who didn't try or didn't play from the beginning? That last one is my biggest issue.

.  Because no one would ever consider synthesis if this was possible.

This is the whole thing. No one would have considered this or control.

I guess without the geth/EDI death gag, the order of options would have to change too. If the Catalyst told you "You can destroy us" and basically gave us no consequence, there's no possibility of leading into other options. Shepard can just say "F*ckin' A point me to the kill switch" and it'd be a wrap. It would have to just tell you about synthesis, and I guess delve into some kind of labyrinth of dialogue options in order to lead to refusal to go that route. 

[Archonsg]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Yes it was the easiest of the three choices. I'd already destroyed the Geth on Rannoch. I doubt having EDI die would have blackened my soul any more. I wasn't a fan of the dialogues we'd had. They were a choice of full naïve ****** Shepard or practical but psycho Shepard. I hate the auto dialogue. I wished there was a break so I could have made other choices. But you know how it is. So basically Shepard's idea ended up: EDI's a piece of equipment ... so no problem. Replace it with a new model.

Still boils down to whether or not Shepard is "light side", one who values life and has the *capacity* to assign that value to beings he or she sees as a person. 

Playing a "dark side" character who sees the value of life as nothing more than assets or one without the capacity to assign that value to people or things he or she interact with,  there is no conflict at all. 

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Why are you assuming that the Catalyst was right?

I'm not assuming the Catalyst was right.

I'm talking from a narrative perspective. The narrative of the game has changed. The theme of the game has changed.

The purpose is no longer to beat the Reapers. The purpose is now to handle the organic/synthetic conflict.

But you are assuming that the Catalyst is right about the organic/synthetic conflict existing.

What if there is no such thing? There are particular conflicts between particular races over particular issues, of course; sometimes organics are on one side and a synthetic race is on the other, and then we have an organic/synthetic war.  But that's it. There's nothing to solve because there's no general problem.

This would mean the narrative is about a self-fulfilling prophecy that was only true because it was made true. 

Though you can also go with H.Y.R.'s formulation, where the Reapers are a particular case of the general problem.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juillet 2013 - 09:15 .

[KaiserShep]

I just assume that it's wrong, and stargeezer is just having a senior moment when he says that the details were lost in time.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Archonsg wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Yes it was the easiest of the three choices. I'd already destroyed the Geth on Rannoch. I doubt having EDI die would have blackened my soul any more. I wasn't a fan of the dialogues we'd had. They were a choice of full naïve ****** Shepard or practical but psycho Shepard. I hate the auto dialogue. I wished there was a break so I could have made other choices. But you know how it is. So basically Shepard's idea ended up: EDI's a piece of equipment ... so no problem. Replace it with a new model.

Still boils down to whether or not Shepard is "light side", one who values life and has the *capacity* to assign that value to beings he or she sees as a person. 

Playing a "dark side" character who sees the value of life as nothing more than assets or one without the capacity to assign that value to people or things he or she interact with,  there is no conflict at all. 

Well you see that's the problem. There is no degree of capacity allowed. You either are 100% or 0%. That is the way the screwy logic in the game is. Unfortunately people are not wired that way, and that's where the whole thing falls flat. This light side of the force, dark side of the force comic book bull**** philosophy Walters is shoving down our throats is crap and I refuse to play along. Hence the ending mod where we give the worst insult of all: we ignore it. Unfortunately console players don't have that option.

[Tonymac]

AlanC9 wrote...

Tonymac wrote...

frostajulie wrote...

each of the endings are devoid of hope except refuse and we get to see how badly trusting to hope plays out. The tragedy is I would rather trust to hope than accept fate even when I already know the outcome.

That's why the ending sucks. It is the death of hope. The death of dreams.

^   QFT

There is no hope - only the harvest (and bad writing). 

I cannot think of a worse ending(s) than what they produced.  The EC helped, but by sticking with these horrible endings shows how far out of touch Bioware is with fans, and why we play these games.

No hope? Galaxy saved, last I checked. But I guess that's a certainty so hope doesn't apply?

Alan, I like you - you bring some good intellect to the equation. 

However, the funny thing about hope is that its all about perspective.  There is no 'Galaxy saved'.  You murder EDI and the Geth, you assimilate the entire known Galaxy, or you step directly into the Indoctrination Device.  I like the part where we kill the Illusive man for trying to control the Reapers, then we decide to control them.  Good stuff.  No matter what you choose you die like a crispy critter.  Yeah - thats hope, right?

There is no hope for the player - for Shepard.  Mac was trying to snap us out of being Shepard with that writing.  It would have worked, except some of us are really attached.  I care about Shep, put a lot of time into Shep, had a lot of fun with Shep.  I spent 2 games andf who knows how many run throughs making the galaxy the way I wanted it to be.   I stopped Saren and Sovereign, then I defeated the Collectors - and I had to work hard to make sure everyone got out alive.  I enjoyed how my choices affected lives and I could paint the story happy or sad.  I choose who lives, who dies - how it all works.

ME3 is a travesty in that regard - as far as the ending is concerned.  The rest of the game is rather good.  But those endings are hopeless.

[Erez Kristal]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


This is the whole thing. No one would have considered this or control. Why would they? Well maybe Auld Wulf and a few others would have. I think a lot of people would have chosen synthesis their first game by accident. ... you know walk up to investigate and trigger the point of no return? Yeah, that way. Some of those of us who finished the game at 3:00 a.m. Me? I got tunnel vision. I saw "Destroy the Reapers" on the right and my brain shut off. Die b****es! But I still blew up the galaxy.

The mass relays exploded. The Normandy crashed. Where were they? The Asari populate this new world. Was anyone else even alive? I would never see Liara again which was all I wanted. Then they gave me this gasp of air and leave me buried under a pile of rubble just to break my heart one more time. 22 Mar 2012 0320 hrs

Best hours to play.
My first run also finished in 03:00 am but i had a more horrifying expirence when shep called the normady to come pick edi up... Worst Wtf moment in my gaming history.

[Erez Kristal]

[quote]KaiserShep wrote...


This is the whole thing. No one would have considered this or control. [/quote]

I guess without the geth/EDI death gag, the order of options would have to change too. If the Catalyst told you "You can destroy us" and basically gave us no consequence, there's no possibility of leading into other options. Shepard can just say "F*ckin' A point me to the kill switch" and it'd be a wrap. It would have to just tell you about synthesis, and I guess delve into some kind of labyrinth of dialogue options in order to lead to refusal to go that route. 

[/quote]
In the first run i felt destroy was a trap.
WHy would he tell me how to kill him in the first place. if the catalyst wanted the conflict to end the reapers could have just left. this was the answer i was hoping for. but it wasnt there.

I ended doing what the catalyst wanted. the only thing which felt like a win-win. lesser evil.

-Shoottube- destroy the crucible, reapers continue the harvest.
-Try to control, electrify yourself and die. reapers continue the harvest.
-Jump into the beam.  hope the reapers get what they want and stop the harvest. synthesis is really the only valid option in this hope lacking situation

[Cheviot]

Tonymac wrote...

However, the funny thing about hope is that its all about perspective.  There is no 'Galaxy saved'.  You murder EDI and the Geth, you assimilate the entire known Galaxy, or you step directly into the Indoctrination Device.  I like the part where we kill the Illusive man for trying to control the Reapers, then we decide to control them.  Good stuff.  No matter what you choose you die like a crispy critter.  Yeah - thats hope, right?

There is no hope for the player - for Shepard.  Mac was trying to snap us out of being Shepard with that writing.  It would have worked, except some of us are really attached.  I care about Shep, put a lot of time into Shep, had a lot of fun with Shep.  I spent 2 games andf who knows how many run throughs making the galaxy the way I wanted it to be.   I stopped Saren and Sovereign, then I defeated the Collectors - and I had to work hard to make sure everyone got out alive.  I enjoyed how my choices affected lives and I could paint the story happy or sad.  I choose who lives, who dies - how it all works.

ME3 is a travesty in that regard - as far as the ending is concerned.  The rest of the game is rather good.  But those endings are hopeless.

Shepard frees the galaxy from the Reaper threat so the people of the galaxy can rebuid and improve on what went before.  A number of centuries-long feuds have been resolved too.  There's the hope in the endings. 

[Tonymac]

Cheviot wrote...

Tonymac wrote...

However, the funny thing about hope is that its all about perspective.  There is no 'Galaxy saved'.  You murder EDI and the Geth, you assimilate the entire known Galaxy, or you step directly into the Indoctrination Device.  I like the part where we kill the Illusive man for trying to control the Reapers, then we decide to control them.  Good stuff.  No matter what you choose you die like a crispy critter.  Yeah - thats hope, right?

There is no hope for the player - for Shepard.  Mac was trying to snap us out of being Shepard with that writing.  It would have worked, except some of us are really attached.  I care about Shep, put a lot of time into Shep, had a lot of fun with Shep.  I spent 2 games andf who knows how many run throughs making the galaxy the way I wanted it to be.   I stopped Saren and Sovereign, then I defeated the Collectors - and I had to work hard to make sure everyone got out alive.  I enjoyed how my choices affected lives and I could paint the story happy or sad.  I choose who lives, who dies - how it all works.

ME3 is a travesty in that regard - as far as the ending is concerned.  The rest of the game is rather good.  But those endings are hopeless.

Shepard frees the galaxy from the Reaper threat so the people of the galaxy can rebuid and improve on what went before.  A number of centuries-long feuds have been resolved too.  There's the hope in the endings. 

Hope for who?  Certainly not my Shepard.  My Shepard does not get to win. 

[rohanks]

Interesting article from the OP. Thanks.

Fate is a serviceable mechanic in the narrative when the fate of the protagonist is foreshadowed consistently from the beginning of the story and is intermittently reinforced by the lore of that universe.

Having played through the trilogy a few times, I did not identify any foreshadowing of Shepherd's death and would argue that his/her ultimate fate (Put simply "You must die so that they might live" - or at least some of them) was not signalled or no signposts offered to the player in the Mass Effect narrative.

Rather. Contrived in the last 15 minutes of the game.

There are different views as to why it was contrived in the way but I don't want to play with that toy anymore. It's broken and hurts my hands when I pick it up.

[AlanC9]

Tonymac wrote...

Alan, I like you - you bring some good intellect to the equation. 
However, the funny thing about hope is that its all about perspective.  There is no 'Galaxy saved'.  You murder EDI and the Geth, you assimilate the entire known Galaxy, or you step directly into the Indoctrination Device.  I like the part where we kill the Illusive man for trying to control the Reapers, then we decide to control them.  Good stuff.  No matter what you choose you die like a crispy critter.  Yeah - thats hope, right?

Thanks.

I guess this depends on what's required for "hope." The way I see it, no Shepard would be all that concerned about dying in the moment of final victory; any Shep who's really upset about that made the wrong career choice. (We can leave aside high-EMS Destroy since Shepard doesn't know about that). And if my character's fine with it, I'm fine with it.

So the question becomes, are these endings final victory? I think they are. Destroy saves the vast majority of intelligent life. A Shepard who thinks that Synthesis is an Indoctrination Device doesn't have to pick it. Only a very few Shepards will be forced into Control. There are risks to Control and Synthesis, but like many other Bio choices, the PC gets lucky and the downsides don't happen.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juillet 2013 - 04:17 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess this depends on what's required for "hope." The way I see it, no Shepard would be all that concerned about dying in the moment of final victory; any Shep who's really upset about that made the wrong career choice. (We can leave aside high-EMS Destroy since Shepard doesn't know about that). And if my character's fine with it, I'm fine with it.

Or bought the wrong game, apparantly...

So the question becomes, are these endings final victory? I think they are. Destroy saves the vast majority of intelligent life. A Shepard who thinks that Synthesis is an Indoctrination Device doesn't have to pick it. Only a very few Shepards will be forced into Control. There are risks to Control and Synthesis, but like many other Bio choices, the PC gets lucky and the downsides don't happen.

Here's the thing about Destroy.

Remember how in the rachni mission, Grunt stys behind and faces down a horde of ravagers to allow Shepard and the raachni queen to escape?  Remember how he fights to the bitter end, swarmed on every side, until his shotgun breaks and he ends up going off a cliff?  Before it was shown that he survived, I thought "Dang.  That was sad, but an awesome death for him.  Doesn't get much more heroic than that"

Now imagine if, instead of making this stand, Shepard simply kneecaps Grunt and leaves him for the Reapers while the queen makes her escape.  That's Destroy for me. 

[SpamBot2000]

It's simple: there is no WIN in the ABC because they are all choices given to you by King Reaper. No amount of spin changes that fact. That thing tells Shep what to do, even with "Destroy". Why? I don't freaking know, Mac Walters probably doesn't. He just didn't give a damn. And I did.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

In my ending where I blew up the galaxy at 3:20 am on March 22 2012, where Shepard was buried under a pile of rubble somewhere; Joker, Liara and Javik were crash landed on some planet; the mass relays destroyed, and I was left wondering if anyone else was still alive, THIS ended up being the fate of the galaxy:

[teh DRUMPf!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Yes it was the easiest of the three choices. I'd already destroyed the Geth on Rannoch. I doubt having EDI die would have blackened my soul any more. I wasn't a fan of the dialogues we'd had. They were a choice of full naïve ****** Shepard or practical but psycho Shepard. I hate the auto dialogue. I wished there was a break so I could have made other choices. But you know how it is. So basically Shepard's idea ended up: EDI's a piece of equipment ... so no problem. Replace it with a new model.

So much for the other choices becoming "more appealing" than Destroy.

As Jack said: "Death is easy. F***in' on/off-switch."

Same with Destroy. Nothing ballsy about it. Just hit the switch: quick, clean, easy. That's why it's the runaway favorite. 

[favoritehookeronthecitadel]

Uh, yeah, except that Shepard doesn't know they're going to survive. So...