365 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

iakus wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Well, technically aren't both cases similar? Both the Alliance soldiers and the synthetics died as a result of Shepard's decision, who had a tough call to make?

The Alliance soldiers had a chance.  They faced their enemies, they were armed, and they knew what they were fighting for.  They had a chance.  The geth and EDI had none.

Isn't that true for the Geth and EDI too? Infact isn't the bolded part exactly what some destroyers say while justifying the sacrifice?.. that they knew what they were up against and even say so?

[AlanC9]

The Twilight God wrote...
The reapers are only defeated in Destroy. In all others they win. The get their way in synthesis, they continue being Reapers in Control and Shepard gives up in Refuse. Both Synthesis and Control make no sense if things actually turned out well. And even in the one where you do defeat them the universe is in shambles and you very likely never see your loved ones again. Not exactly a great outcome. The endings are just a huge mess of nonsense and contradictions or Bioware is deceiving everyone with 3 out of 4 endings.

Can we get an explanation for the italed point? Preferably non-IT.

The bolded one isn't very easy to make consistent with the known facts about the ending either.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I love the endless nonsense of how it is impossibru that galaxy and Reapers could ever make peace, but nobody picks this same nit with the quarians accepting the AI that slaughtered billions of their ancestors.


Within our cycle alone, Reapers may not have even killed as many as the geth did.

[Eckswhyzed]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
The reapers are only defeated in Destroy. In all others they win. The get their way in synthesis, they continue being Reapers in Control and Shepard gives up in Refuse. Both Synthesis and Control make no sense if things actually turned out well. And even in the one where you do defeat them the universe is in shambles and you very likely never see your loved ones again. Not exactly a great outcome. The endings are just a huge mess of nonsense and contradictions or Bioware is deceiving everyone with 3 out of 4 endings.

Can we get an explanation for the italed point? Preferably non-IT.

The bolded one isn't very easy to make consistent with the known facts about the ending either.

You won't without IT, considering you have to massively distort lots of content from the EC.

It's a little amusing really, I just nodded and smiled pre-EC when people screamed at me that choosing Synthesis meant that the Reapers won, freedom died, the galaxy was doomed and there were no kittens.

Since extended cut you have to pretty much ignore all the effort Bioware put into dispelling the whole galactic dark age thing. It's as bad as me saying Mass Effect 2 has a bad ending because the Normandy is severely damaged and limping through space.

[KaiserShep]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I love the endless nonsense of how it is impossibru that galaxy and Reapers could ever make peace, but nobody picks this same nit with the quarians accepting the AI that slaughtered billions of their ancestors.


Within our cycle alone, Reapers may not have even killed as many as the geth did.

The reapers have only been around for a short period of time and already killed millions in the initial attack on a single planet. The rate of deaths matters just as much as the actual body count, but in any case, there's nothing to prove that the geth killed more people, even over the course of 300 years.

As for the possibility of making peace, the game doesn't really give us any idea that peace is at all possible over the course of the entire trilogy. There needs to be outliers to give us some kind of perspective, but we have zero. All we see is giant evil things that want to kill us all for some reason, and make monsters out of our dead. The geth, on the other hand, have such a character in Legion. We get a different side of Krogan in Wrex in the very beginning. One could argue something along the lines of these characters being some kind of anomaly or dismissing them altogether as not being a concern, but that person would be wrong. If some malevolent monster was telling me that "You will end because we demand it", why the hell would I even entertain the possibility of peace at that point? 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 08 juillet 2013 - 06:42 .

[Eckswhyzed]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I love the endless nonsense of how it is impossibru that galaxy and Reapers could ever make peace, but nobody picks this same nit with the quarians accepting the AI that slaughtered billions of their ancestors.


Within our cycle alone, Reapers may not have even killed as many as the geth did.

Nitpick: Considering the population of Earth alone is around 11.4 billion (pre-war) and that the Quarians formerly numbered around 17 billion, I'd consider it more likely that the Reapers killed more.

[AlanC9]

Right. But that still leaves the geth way ahead in the percentage of the relevant population exterminated.

[DirtyPhoenix]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I love the endless nonsense of how it is impossibru that galaxy and Reapers could ever make peace, but nobody picks this same nit with the quarians accepting the AI that slaughtered billions of their ancestors.

And how, because a single human can bring a single Geth to tali's Trial, all of them should be immediately convinced of their innocence and become the bestest friends ever with the Geth...

Modifié par pirate1802, 08 juillet 2013 - 08:01 .

[KaiserShep]

AlanC9 wrote...

Right. But that still leaves the geth way ahead in the percentage of the relevant population exterminated.

Obviously the geth killed more Quarians than the reapers, but that's not really what was being argued.

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I love the endless nonsense of how it is impossibru that galaxy and Reapers could ever make peace, but nobody picks this same nit with the quarians accepting the AI that slaughtered billions of their ancestors.


Within our cycle alone, Reapers may not have even killed as many as the geth did.

Given how few worlds the quarians can colonize, I find that estimation highly speculative.

The geth only had a genocidal war against one race, and let the remnants go at that.

The Reapers got into a genocidal war with every single organic they encountered, and don't stop til they've killed/smoothied/huskified everyone they can find.

The geth made it clear they simply want to be left alone, and are willing to make peace provided the quarians stop trying to exterminate them.  Heck, they'll even help the quarians resettle.

WIth the Reapers, they'll only make "peace" if you put them under new management (where they simply conquor rather than exterminate) or forcibly rewrite everyone's DNA.

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Right. But that still leaves the geth way ahead in the percentage of the relevant population exterminated.

Obviously the geth killed more Quarians than the reapers, but that's not really what was being argued.

I thought it kinda was, but I shoukd leave that to the guy that argued it 

[CronoDragoon]

pirate1802 wrote...

Isn't that true for the Geth and EDI too? Infact isn't the bolded part exactly what some destroyers say while justifying the sacrifice?.. that they knew what they were up against and even say so?

Presumably the difference is that had the geth known about the other options, they may have objected to Destroy. There's not really any alternative in the ME1 decision that would affect the soldiers' opinion of Shepard's choice.

In other words, the comparison would be more accurate if Destroy and Refuse were the only options.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:02 .

[CronoDragoon]

Robosexual wrote...

Which shows that hope isn't the theme of Mass Effect, seeing as though you can get through the series destroying it.

Agreed. It shows that Paragon and Renegade playthroughs can generate entirely different themes. Which really means that the overarching theme is moral choice (not necessarily the consequences of moral choice as there are essentially none for Paragons).

Still, the only people that can really appreciate this larger theme are people who have no bias towards Renegades or Paragons and play both styles. People who self-identify strongly with Paragons - and thus may see their playthrough's theme as hope - have some reason to be upset with the endings in this regard.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:16 .

[Mathias]

It's funny because this made the top pages of Reddit lately:
http://www.reddit.co...all_wanted_me3/

It seems that across the board, people are still soured by the ending.

[DirtyPhoenix]

CronoDragoon wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Isn't that true for the Geth and EDI too? Infact isn't the bolded part exactly what some destroyers say while justifying the sacrifice?.. that they knew what they were up against and even say so?

Presumably the difference is that had the geth known about the other options, they may have objected to Destroy. There's not really any alternative in the ME1 decision that would affect the soldiers' opinion of Shepard's choice.

In other words, the comparison would be more accurate if Destroy and Refuse were the only options.

Well, Shepard can always choose to sacrifice the council and spae the alliance soldiers, wouldn't that affect their opinion of Shepad's choice?

PS: Not trying to pillor destroy or destroyers here, I myself an one.

[Iakus]

pirate1802 wrote...

iakus wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Well, technically aren't both cases similar? Both the Alliance soldiers and the synthetics died as a result of Shepard's decision, who had a tough call to make?

The Alliance soldiers had a chance.  They faced their enemies, they were armed, and they knew what they were fighting for.  They had a chance.  The geth and EDI had none.

Isn't that true for the Geth and EDI too? Infact isn't the bolded part exactly what some destroyers say while justifying the sacrifice?.. that they knew what they were up against and even say so?

And if the geth and EDI died defending the Crucible while it charged up, that would have been an honorable, bittersweet death for them.

If Shepard had been able to warn them, and they gave their blessing, telling Shepard to shoot the pipe, it would have been a sacrifice worth remembering.

Instead they die to a wave of red energy unleashed by their own ally, whom they have neither warning nor defense against.  They had no chance.  They did not die to enemy fire.  They had no idea what happened to them.

There's a difference between dying a tthe hands of the enemy and dying as collateral damage.

And keep in mind, I am not a Destroyer, I choose MEHEM

Edit:  Think of it as what Mal Reynolds says to SImon when he joins his crew:  "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me, and you'll be armed. "

Modifié par iakus, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:35 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Still, the only people that can really appreciate this larger theme are people who have no bias towards Renegades or Paragons and play both styles. People who self-identify strongly with Paragons - and thus may see their playthrough's theme as hope - have some reason to be upset with the endings in this regard.

One of the problems with the P/R system - and I don't think this would have been very obvious to Bio before actually making the games - is that Paragon and Renegade aren't so much about ethics as they are about metaphysics. How do decision and action work in the universe; does "should" imply "can"?

So a final choice in which "should" definitely does not imply "can" is, in a sense, the universe itself turning hostile to Paragons. Or revealing that it always was hostile, if you like.

[CronoDragoon]

pirate1802 wrote...

Well, Shepard can always choose to sacrifice the council and spae the alliance soldiers, wouldn't that affect their opinion of Shepad's choice?

They obviously will each have their own preference of what they would choose. But it's a choice of which they know already. By following the order they are agreeing to the obvious consequence of possibly dying to save the Destiny Ascension. But for the end choice, by participating in the battle the geth are agreeing to the consequence of possibly dying in order to prevent everyone from being harvested. If instead they were notified that the choice was to die, with certainty, in order to prevent Synthesis, then their acquiescence might change.

Or it might not. They were not given the opportunity to decide, which I take is the issue for people who see it as an issue. Others point out that it would not be reasonable for Shepard to take the time to explain to the geth the situation so they could tell him their answer. The response would be a rejection of the fictional scenario and a substitution of another, such that this moral issue would not arise in the first place.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:46 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

So a final choice in which "should" definitely does not imply "can" is, in a sense, the universe itself turning hostile to Paragons. Or revealing that it always was hostile, if you like.

Or simply realigns the Mass Effect story into tragic territory, if you identify  the the main character's dilemma as forever being stuck between how the world should work and how it does work, unable to achieve the ideal situation but unwilling to resign oneself to the cynical acceptance of reality. I think this could apply to the endings of ME3.

Of course, I doubt this was at all intended by BioWare. It seems clear they wanted a bittersweet comedy.

[AlanC9]

I think Bio might have confused themselves about what they were actually delivering. While the vision of ME1's "Distress Call" trailer was abandoned way before release, they've always talked like they didn't realize that they were making games where you could get out of making such choices.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 juillet 2013 - 05:06 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Reorte wrote...

And what's wrong with that? There's a lot more pressure on the choice if you can screw up by making the wrong one, and a lot more impact on the player when he sees the result of it. That's good. By avoiding that because of metagaming you're removing one of the biggest tools an RPG can have as a unique storytelling medium. Personally I judge how well these things work on my first playthrough, when they reall can have an impact. Also, it sounds too much like you're suggesting everything must be bad because you don't like one result being good. Or everything good I suppose, but in any case whilst they might give equal but different results (and there should be some choices like that) they would become largely pointless.

The only games which I have played able to effectively do this have been those where there is no reload mechanic available. I'm thinking State of Decay, Dark Souls, and Heavy Rain as examples.

Without that you've got a game that really isn't terribly interesting, if all you can do is win in different ways, whereas what I want is a game where you can achieve anything from miserable failure to great victory. Makes it more engaging, more exciting, more emotional.

Actually, I'd argue it makes the game more interesting, since it raises the question of how each player defines win. Saving someone you love vs. ten innocent lives? I find that interesting. Using the Anvil of the Void? I also find that interesting, especially since it encourages discussion.

Games which have a good and bad ending are often boring because they don't ask any interesting questions. With the Redcliffe scenario in DA:O, using the Circle Mages to save the child is the objective best case scenario and deprives the scenario of any intrigue.

[Erez Kristal]

In redcliff its because you didnt have option d.
which was beat the crap out of that kid, tie him up in chains, sedate him and have morrigan put a hex spell on him. then drag him up to the circle.

When you lack option d. reverting to have a best option is the best way.
Since bioware took option d from us when they took control from us between me2 and m3.(see first post)
Having a best option was a reasonable choice.

Modifié par erezike, 08 juillet 2013 - 05:53 .

[Iakus]

Even if Redcliffe didn't have the "use the mages" scenerio (which doesn't exist in some cases) you still have someone who is informed of what it takes to stop the demon, and is willing to die to see it happen.

ie: Jowan explains to both the Warden and Isolde what the ritual entails, rather than just the Warden, who then has the option to stab her in the back and drain her blood.

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

And if the geth and EDI died defending the Crucible while it charged up, that would have been an honorable, bittersweet death for them.

If Shepard had been able to warn them, and they gave their blessing, telling Shepard to shoot the pipe, it would have been a sacrifice worth remembering.

Instead they die to a wave of red energy unleashed by their own ally, whom they have neither warning nor defense against.  They had no chance.  They did not die to enemy fire.  They had no idea what happened to them.

There's a difference between dying a tthe hands of the enemy and dying as collateral damage.

And keep in mind, I am not a Destroyer, I choose MEHEM

Edit:  Think of it as what Mal Reynolds says to SImon when he joins his crew:  "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me, and you'll be armed. "

As much as I love Firefly, Mal isn't exactly experienced in the "winning a war" department.

Modifié par Steelcan, 08 juillet 2013 - 06:33 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

*edit* oops, DP!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 08 juillet 2013 - 07:52 .