365 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

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.

I'm not calling it a sure-thing, just saying their body counts are probably a lot closer than one may care to think.

And, again, Rannoch proved it was possible to make peace with them, despite everything. So why not the other?

[ruggly]

^ I think it's mostly due to how they built up the Reapers in the previous games: Brutal, non-caring entities that use pretty disgusting means of defeating and demoralizing you. They were built up as abominations, really, and then at Rannoch one blurts out their purpose, and they pull a big M. Night Shamalan poor plot twist where they're not the bad guys at all. I'd imagine it would be hard as a person in the MEU to forgive the Reapers for what they've done, even if it was all supposed to be for the greater good.

Whereas the Geth for the most part stuck to themselves on Rannoch, until Sovereign came about and the Heretics were formed.  They've done some pretty bad things, but not on a galactic level.

Modifié par ruggly, 09 juillet 2013 - 01:20 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Steelcan wrote...

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.

Not to mention, he does mock himself in Serenity for that kind of attitude.

When Zoey mentions how they would never leave a man behind during wartime, Mal's response is: "Maybe that's why we lost".

[DeinonSlayer]

iakus wrote...

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.

Honestly, I think the "use the mages" scenario is a cop-out.

It takes about a week to make the round-trip to the Circle Tower. By the time the Warden got back, I wouldn't think it inappropriate to find Redcliffe Village once again came under attack from the demon's waves of undead, thanks to the Warden's compulsive need to save everyone overriding expediency in a time-sensitive situation.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 09 juillet 2013 - 01:42 .

[AlanC9]

I think someone says that the Tower is only about one day away at some point. Which makes it less of a cop-out.

Though still a cop-out. OTOH, this is What Bioware Does.

[AlanC9]

ruggly wrote...

^ I think it's mostly due to how they built up the Reapers in the previous games: Brutal, non-caring entities that use pretty disgusting means of defeating and demoralizing you. They were built up as abominations, really, and then at Rannoch one blurts out their purpose, and they pull a big M. Night Shamalan poor plot twist where they're not the bad guys at all. 

They're still bad guys even if they don't think they're bad, aren't they?

[ruggly]

AlanC9 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

^ I think it's mostly due to how they built up the Reapers in the previous games: Brutal, non-caring entities that use pretty disgusting means of defeating and demoralizing you. They were built up as abominations, really, and then at Rannoch one blurts out their purpose, and they pull a big M. Night Shamalan poor plot twist where they're not the bad guys at all. 

They're still bad guys even if they don't think they're bad, aren't they?

Sure.

[The Twilight God]

Steelcan wrote...

@Twilight God,
BioWare has seemed to make it clear that each ending is good in its own way. No more dark age in Destroy, and IT is all but denied.

No, They are objectively bad writing if you take them to be good endings. Even if everything turned out great and you like the endings they are still horrible writing which completely ignore the lore, narrative and common sense. The entire plot was tacky. Reminded me of the final seasons of Stargate SG-1 where there was always a convenient Ancient super weapon to solve every problem that came along. Granted, they had been writing scripts for 9 years and were clearly out of intelligent ideas. Bioware didn't have that handicap.

And there is a dark age in Destroy. They can make all the twitter posts they want to try and retcon their screw ups, but based on what is in the actual games there is a dark age of sorts. An actual retcon would require a patch that alters the ending, which has not occurred. But that's the thing. It's nonsensical and self contradicting... i.e. Bad writing.

[Iakus]

The Twilight God wrote...

And there is a dark age in Destroy. They can make all the twitter posts they want to try and retcon their screw ups, but based on what is in the actual games there is a dark age of sorts. An actual retcon would require a patch that alters the ending, which has not occurred. But that's the thing. It's nonsensical and self contradicting... i.e. Bad writing.

Indeed.  It may not be the ten thousand year dark age some assumed, but the relay network is a long time in getting repaired.

And that's okay.  I actually like that.  It's a reasonable sacrifice.  Destroy the Reapers, lose the relays, for the short or long term.

Fortunately, while there isn't a patch, there is a mod...

[The Twilight God]

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.

For the italized text:

Synthesis: Nothing shown in the Synthesis ending solves the issue the Kid claims results in conflict. They get some circuit skin. How does that solve anything? Did they turn everyone into indoctrinated drones? If not, organics will still be organics and still make synthetics to make their lives more comfortable. Assuming the Kid 's ridiculous assertions were true. When I say the Reapers win I refer to the idea that they got exactly what they want, assuming synthesis is what they want. All the killing was justified if the player agrees that synthesis is necessary. How is that not a win for them?

Furthermore, taking it as a genuinely happy outcome, synthesis is unexplained. How does this "understanding" work? Why was Shepard necessary. Why didn't the Reapers resist the Crucible docking? They had to know what it was and been prepared to use it. Otherwise, why was all those contraptions in the chamber to interface with the thing? It all lazy laaaaaaaaaaaaaazy writing with no regard for internal consistency. How do you throw something out of nowhere like that and not even bother to explain it. 

Control: So in all their attempts to protect all organic life the Reapers, these so-called ultra intelligent machines, never considered the most obvious option: Police the damn galaxy?   So either...

A. The Reapers aren't interested in preserving anything and specifically want to kill everyone to reproduce (til the end of time?). In which case the Kid is full of it.
B. The Reapers tried and failed to police the galaxy. In which case, they'll fail again. Otherwise these super intellectuals would have tried again without Shepard's influence. But the Kid, with presumably billions of years of experience, seemed pretty adamant that the current solution was the only viable way.

If A is correct the Kid is full of **** and you just got indoctrinated and turned into one of them like all the other former organics who are now Reapers. If B is correct then you are going to fail and the Kid knows you are going to fail. It's bad writing. It's just a Deus Ex rip-off in a game that doesn't have the foundation set up to support such endings.

Or give me a C that makes sense in this situation.

For the bold parts:

The point I'm making if that it is incoherent. Relay explodes mean it will take decades and centuries to travel from one side of the galaxy to another. No quarians retruning on their homeworld, no young Grunt landing on Tuchanka, etc. Not going to happen. Now Bioware can ignore their own lore and try to push a "twitter retcon" where all of a sudden relays aren't necessary anymore (LOL), but without an actual patch to keep the relays intact they're just feeding you their headcannon. The lore, codex, etc. disagrees with them. Again, it's a contradictory mess of an ending if you take it as representing any kind of good outcome. That's my definition of a bad ending. My point is not to say their is no happy ending, but that a happy ending contradicts the events that take place (i.e bad writing) You are aware of my alternative to bad writing (http://social.biowar.../index/13419372 ). But for this thread we are assuming that linked material is false and the game has genuine happy outcomes.
 
There are other more creative ways to handle control and synthesis, but Mac Walters doesn't have any passion for this. It's just a paycheck to him. He said so himself, when asked about future games in the series, that everything was a wasteland so there could be no sequels. The "twitter retconning" comes into play AFTER the outrage. All they had to do to fix it was keep the damn relays intact. It's fine for Reapers win endings, but for Destroy everyone is F'ed. Period.

[The Twilight God]

iakus wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

And there is a dark age in Destroy. They can make all the twitter posts they want to try and retcon their screw ups, but based on what is in the actual games there is a dark age of sorts. An actual retcon would require a patch that alters the ending, which has not occurred. But that's the thing. It's nonsensical and self contradicting... i.e. Bad writing.

Indeed.  It may not be the ten thousand year dark age some assumed, but the relay network is a long time in getting repaired.

And that's okay.  I actually like that.  It's a reasonable sacrifice.  Destroy the Reapers, lose the relays, for the short or long term.

Fortunately, while there isn't a patch, there is a mod...

But it doesn't take a long time if you believe the slide show actually comes to pass. No, they magically fix the relays in like a day. The same relays that they have no idea how to make or how they work. Apparently with the help of a powerful wizard. Hence nonsense horrible horribly bad writing. And these same guys who released this crap, Hudson and Walters, are going to continue directing on the franchise into the ground.

I have completely different take on the endings, but coming from the perspective of the masses who think everything turns out nice and lovely, the endings are objectively flawed and a product of the worst writing I've sense since... that last novel:)

Modifié par The Twilight God, 09 juillet 2013 - 04:33 .

[AlanC9]

The Twilight God wrote...

But it doesn't take a long time if you believe the slide show actually comes to pass. No, they magically fix the relays in like a day. The same relays that they have no idea how to make or how they work. Apparently with the help of a powerful wizard..

Leaving the obvious hyperbole of "like a day" aside, what are you talking about? We see Samara and various krogan getting home, but they live long enough to do that even if the relays are never repaired.

[o Ventus]

Bleachrude wrote...

The crew were specifically picked to be the "best front" possible for Shepard. Even in ME2, you find this out since when you interact with the engineers, you find out they left the alliance because of how shepard was treated.

Similarly, the same applies to both Chakwas, Joker and Jacob. They join Cerberus because they see it as the one orgnaization attempting to at least do something...

In fact, now that I think about it...other than Miranda, do we hear ANY of the crew talk about how they joined cerberus because they believed in human destiny/dominance? And even Miranda doesn't espouse any racist views and seemed to join cerberus BECAUSE it was to protect someone...

Miranda didn't join up with Cerberus because of pro-human ideals, she joined because they were the only ones who could keep her and her sister safe from their father. Numerous people on the crew mention that not everybody joins Cerberus out of xenophobia. Raymond Ashe and Kai Leng are the only xenophobes that we know in Cerberus.

[Iakus]

The Twilight God wrote...

But it doesn't take a long time if you believe the slide show actually comes to pass. No, they magically fix the relays in like a day. The same relays that they have no idea how to make or how they work. Apparently with the help of a powerful wizard. Hence nonsense horrible horribly bad writing. And these same guys who released this crap, Hudson and Walters, are going to continue directing on the franchise into the ground.

I have completely different take on the endings, but coming from the perspective of the masses who think everything turns out nice and lovely, the endings are objectively flawed and a product of the worst writing I've sense since... that last novel:)

See, I pretty much reject the entire ending.  Thus the MEHEM sig.

And I choose to interpret the slide show as taking place over decades or even centuries.  That may not be the intention, but I say screw it.  Bioware had two chances to deliver a decent ending.  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ruggly wrote...

^ I think it's mostly due to how they built up the Reapers in the previous games: Brutal, non-caring entities that use pretty disgusting means of defeating and demoralizing you. They were built up as abominations, really, and then at Rannoch one blurts out their purpose, and they pull a big M. Night Shamalan poor plot twist where they're not the bad guys at all.

No argument here. I think Ieldra2 and myself have voiced this issue ourselves in the 'Compendium time and again.

I'd imagine it would be hard as a person in the MEU to forgive the Reapers for what they've done, even if it was all supposed to be for the greater good.

Whereas the Geth for the most part stuck to themselves on Rannoch, until Sovereign came about and the Heretics were formed.  They've done some pretty bad things, but not on a galactic level.

And I'd imagine that the average quarian's opinion of the geth is about the same as that of a ME player's of the Reapers. What I was addressing that got this whole thing started in the first place was simply the idea that any galactic tolerance of the Reapers "does not make sense" if/when you've already accepted very much the same precedent with peace on Rannoch.

That's to say nothing of the uphill battle EC was facing from the start -- trying to cram in a lot of developments in the story in a very small window of space. "Time gets funny in a cell video-game," as Jack would say.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:26 .

[AlanC9]

ruggly wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

^ I think it's mostly due to how they built up the Reapers in the previous games: Brutal, non-caring entities that use pretty disgusting means of defeating and demoralizing you. They were built up as abominations, really, and then at Rannoch one blurts out their purpose, and they pull a big M. Night Shamalan poor plot twist where they're not the bad guys at all. 

They're still bad guys even if they don't think they're bad, aren't they?

Sure.

OK, but then how are the Reapers not bad guys? Are you endorsing their goals and methods?

I'm not saying there's no twist; just that the bolded isn't a great description. That would have been arguably true for the Dark Energy plot, though.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:04 .

[AlanC9]

The Twilight God wrote...
Synthesis: Nothing shown in the Synthesis ending solves the issue the Kid claims results in conflict. They get some circuit skin. How does that solve anything? Did they turn everyone into indoctrinated drones? If not, organics will still be organics and still make synthetics to make their lives more comfortable. Assuming the Kid 's ridiculous assertions were true. When I say the Reapers win I refer to the idea that they got exactly what they want, assuming synthesis is what they want. All the killing was justified if the player agrees that synthesis is necessary. How is that not a win for them?

What you said was that Synthesis made no sense, not that it was a Reaper win. I have no particular problem with calling Synthesis a co-op victory; I don't have any skin in that game since what the Reapers want is of only historical interest to me, although my Shepards also have an interest in such knowedge for tactical purposes.

Note that as phrased above it sounds like you've got the Catalyst's explanation of Synthesis backwards. The mental changes are on the synthetic side, not the organic side. But that's probably just rhetoric.

Why didn't the Reapers resist the Crucible docking? They had to know what it was and been prepared to use it.

You mean why did they resist it docking, right? EMS scores are conclusive about that.

Control: So in all their attempts to protect all organic life the Reapers, these so-called ultra intelligent machines, never considered the most obvious option: Police the damn galaxy?   So either...

A. The Reapers aren't interested in preserving anything and specifically want to kill everyone to reproduce (til the end of time?). In which case the Kid is full of it.
B. The Reapers tried and failed to police the galaxy. In which case, they'll fail again. Otherwise these super intellectuals would have tried again without Shepard's influence. But the Kid, with presumably billions of years of experience, seemed pretty adamant that the current solution was the only viable way.

I see you couldn't resist IT, which is the only way to make A workable. That leaves us with B, tried-and-failed, or a fairly obvious C, ruled-out-on-theoretical-grounds-and never-attempted. (H.Y.R., care to offer up a D or E?)

The point I'm making if that it is incoherent. Relay explodes mean it will take decades and centuries to travel from one side of the galaxy to another. No quarians retruning on their homeworld, no young Grunt landing on Tuchanka, etc.

Quarians are already on their homeworld. Most of them stayed behind when the fleet came to Sol. This is explictly stated in several dialogues.

And is Grunt all that young in the slides? I'm weak on krogan signs of aging.

[ruggly]

AlanC9 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

^ I think it's mostly due to how they built up the Reapers in the previous games: Brutal, non-caring entities that use pretty disgusting means of defeating and demoralizing you. They were built up as abominations, really, and then at Rannoch one blurts out their purpose, and they pull a big M. Night Shamalan poor plot twist where they're not the bad guys at all. 

They're still bad guys even if they don't think they're bad, aren't they?

Sure.

OK, but then how are the Reapers not bad guys? Are you endorsing their goals and methods?

I'm not saying there's no twist; just that the bolded isn't a great description. That would have been arguably true for the Dark Energy plot, though.

Ah sorry, the 'sure' wasn't really supposed to be an answer.  To answer it then, from the view of a person within the MEU the Reapers certainly are seen as the bad guys.  I certainly do not endorse their methods, and I'm not quite sure what to think of their goal.  I understand that life in general is more important that lives, but I really do see the reapers as wiping out the people more than saving them. I said in another post that we (and I think you responded to that one
as well), that we generally would prefer to keep our own bodies than be
'preserved' in a metal jar. Players destroy them, and the history of their culture is lost, perhaps, but can you really preserve a culture through their methods anyhow?  The way that it's written makes it so, but I still have a hard time myself suspending my belief about that.  I also believe that whatever they knew about the galaxy can be found again.  As for the bolded, I can't really think of a better description.  It is a plot twist, and they're very free to try and pull one off, I just think that they didn't do it well.

[ruggly]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

^ I think it's mostly due to how they built up the Reapers in the previous games: Brutal, non-caring entities that use pretty disgusting means of defeating and demoralizing you. They were built up as abominations, really, and then at Rannoch one blurts out their purpose, and they pull a big M. Night Shamalan poor plot twist where they're not the bad guys at all.

No argument here. I think Ieldra2 and myself have voiced this issue ourselves in the 'Compendium time and again.

I'd imagine it would be hard as a person in the MEU to forgive the Reapers for what they've done, even if it was all supposed to be for the greater good.

Whereas the Geth for the most part stuck to themselves on Rannoch, until Sovereign came about and the Heretics were formed.  They've done some pretty bad things, but not on a galactic level.

And I'd imagine that the average quarian's opinion of the geth is about the same as that of a ME player's of the Reapers. What I was addressing that got this whole thing started in the first place was simply the idea that any galactic tolerance of the Reapers "does not make sense" if/when you've already accepted very much the same precedent with peace on Rannoch.

That's to say nothing of the uphill battle EC was facing from the start -- trying to cram in a lot of developments in the story in a very small window of space. "Time gets funny in a cell video-game," as Jack would say.

I guess it was a bad example. My point about that is with the exception of the Heretics, though, it was mostly just Geth v. Quarians, and not Geth v. Everybody.  We know a lot more about the Geth though the first two games than we do the Reapers, especially after we meet Legion and he tells what they really are trying to do, and what they want.  And even after making peace, don't the squadmates still express a bit of concern over it?  I haven't played in a while, so my memory on that is a bit foggy. But I understand what you're sayingthough.  Guess I misinterpreted what you were trying to ask. (edit: in fact I know I did, but that will happen when you're getting pulled behind a hydro walk-behind all day..)

Modifié par ruggly, 09 juillet 2013 - 10:48 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

They're still bad guys even if they don't think they're bad, aren't they?

Agreed. At some point you stop trying to prove them wrong; they won't see it that way even if you did. You'd have no better luck proving the Catalyst wrong than the Joker since they speak in such long-term generalities (and in fact, you could interpret TDKR as the Joker being right). But I think this need to prove the Catalyst wrong has its basis in two events:

1. The original endings made the Catalyst more word-of-Godish. The entire tone of the conversation was one of the writers educating the players on the universe. This feeling is produced by Shepard's silence, a lack of backstory about the Catalyst, etc etc. With Leviathan and the redone EC dialogue with the Catalyst, I feel this presentation flaw has been mostly corrected, although it could be better served by presenting the options in a circle equidistant around the elevator, such that the only suggestion that Synthesis is the best ending comes from the Catalyst's mouth, and not some metatextual hint from BW.

2. The utter confusion about how the Catalyst and Crucible and Citadel and relay network all work together to generate the choices. Anyone who claims to know definitively how they all work to produce Destroy/Control/Synthesis is mistaken. Because of this ambiguity combined with the distaste for the aftermath of each ending, one popular interpretation is that they are all "his" choices, and that no matter what you are doing his bidding. It's hard for me to buy into this given what the Catalyst actually says when discussing Destroy and Control, but since you can't prove they aren't all supposed to be more solutions to the synthetic/organic conflict...

In summary, had the game been more adamant about the Catalyst and/or his logic being defeated in the endings, I don't think we'd see so many threads actually trying to prove the villain's logic incorrect with such vehemence.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 09 juillet 2013 - 02:23 .

[Iakus]

These may not be "the Catalyst's choices" but they are still Bioware's choices. And what EC does NOT do is alter those choices, the context for them, or their outcome. Therefore: bad choices are still bad.

Fixing the spelling and penmanship to a poorly written essay is still a poorly written essay.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

These may not be "the Catalyst's choices" but they are still Bioware's choices. And what EC does NOT do is alter those choices, the context for them, or their outcome. Therefore: bad choices are still bad.

Fixing the spelling and penmanship to a poorly written essay is still a poorly written essay.

But the EC does alter the outcome. The relay retcon is an obvious example. Another is the degree to which technology in general is irrevocably destroyed. The galactic dark age interpretation is dead. Additionally the EC established that Shepard-AI does not merely fly the Reapers into the sun. And I'm going to pre-empt your "that makes it worse" response by pointing out that this isn't a valid response to the line of discussion about whether or not the EC changed the outcome.

Your analogy is flawed. What the EC does is more akin to a paper rewrite in which unintentional interpretations of points are eliminated, and key phrasing is reworded to be more concise and understandable (and in the relay case, actually changing what your argument is to a less extreme one, which has implications for your other points in the paper). That doesn't mean that the intentional interpretations of points are any good, but it's still an improvement.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 09 juillet 2013 - 03:48 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

These may not be "the Catalyst's choices" but they are still Bioware's choices. And what EC does NOT do is alter those choices, the context for them, or their outcome. Therefore: bad choices are still bad.

Fixing the spelling and penmanship to a poorly written essay is still a poorly written essay.

But the EC does alter the outcome. The relay retcon is an obvious example. Another is the degree to which technology in general is irrevocably destroyed. The galactic dark age interpretation is dead. Additionally the EC established that Shepard-AI does not merely fly the Reapers into the sun. And I'm going to pre-empt your "that makes it worse" response by pointing out that this isn't a valid response to the line of discussion about whether or not the EC changed the outcome.

Your analogy is flawed. What the EC does is more akin to a paper rewrite in which unintentional interpretations of points are eliminated, and key phrasing is reworded to be more concise and understandable. That doesn't mean that the intentional interpretations of points are any good, but it's still an improvement.

Given I never really saw the relays as being destroyed even in the original endings I'd say that was not such an obvious example.  All EC does is add details that validate certain interpretations of outcomes, not the actions themselves.  In fact, by validating certain interpretations and not others (such as the Reapers taking over in Control) it leaves us with fewer options for interpreting endings where I don't find Shepard to be a complete monster.

Destroy still wipes out all Synthetics (note I didn't say "genocide?" You're welcome) That does not change, nor does the context of that decision.

No, the Shepalyst does not fly the Reapers into the sun, but Shepard still dies, the Shapalyst is still just an AI with Shepard's memories.  With the power of the Reapers at its disposal and none of Shepard's humanity or connection to organics.

Synthesis is....still creepy, though in a different, more Stepford way. But the context is as inscutable as ever.  "Organic energy"?  Really?

The actions Shepard has to take do not change.  Nor does the context change, nor do the outcomes I find so horrific.  All that changed is the "Shepard got away with it" speech at the end.

[AlanC9]

So the EC does what Bio always said it was going to do, right? They promised clarification, not change.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
Given I never really saw the relays as being destroyed even in the original endings I'd say that was not such an obvious example.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't? You are told they will be destroyed and then you see them explode.

 

Destroy still wipes out all Synthetics (note I didn't say "genocide?" You're welcome)

Thanks!

That does not change, nor does the context of that decision.

No, the Shepalyst does not fly the Reapers into the sun, but Shepard still dies, the Shapalyst is still just an AI with Shepard's memories.  With the power of the Reapers at its disposal and none of Shepard's humanity or connection to organics.

Synthesis is....still creepy, though in a different, more Stepford way. But the context is as inscutable as ever.  "Organic energy"?  Really?

The actions Shepard has to take do not change.  Nor does the context change, nor do the outcomes I find so horrific.  All that changed is the "Shepard got away with it" speech at the end.

Fair enough. The EC didn't retcon what you saw as horrible about the choices. As it pertains to Destroy I agree with you.

Essentially, pre-EC release I had 3 hopes. Well, 2 hopes really as two points were connected:

1. Galactic dark age gone: Success! (two main points were relays not destroyed and Normandy not stranded on some jungle planet - though largely this second one is probably my fault for not knowing enough of the lore to know they weren't actually stranded).

2. Synthetics not destroyed: Failure. Not only is this not changed, they didn't even bother to change the dialogue lines to actually put some effort into it making sense.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 09 juillet 2013 - 04:14 .