485 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

It's not that you don't see the horrors inherent in ME3's ending, it's that you go out of your way to ignore them. Disingenuous much?

Actually, the problems I had were mostly clumsy foreshadowing and Shepard's death. I never had true moral problems with Control.

Yeah, but Bioware really ignores the deathcamp problem they set up. It's
one thing to have players getting along with someone that's been set up
as an antagonist - even a vile antagonist - and another to have the
player team up with the villans that have actual deathcamps.

Hey, they did it in DA.

There's a moral event horizon that the reapers shot so far past that it's impossible not to have a significant base of your players just find the endings offensive.

The Reapers don't have enough free will for morals to apply to them one way or the other.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 août 2013 - 03:40 .

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not that you don't see the horrors inherent in ME3's ending, it's that you go out of your way to ignore them. Disingenuous much?

Actually, the problems I had were mostly clumsy foreshadowing and Shepard's death. I never had true moral problems with Control.

How do you handle the death camp angle? Because there are going to be hundreds of millions of people that won't be happy with the continued existence of the things that melted down their children, parents and friends into a slurpee. 

Modifié par In Exile, 18 août 2013 - 03:40 .

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not that you don't see the horrors inherent in ME3's ending, it's that you go out of your way to ignore them. Disingenuous much?

Actually, the problems I had were mostly clumsy foreshadowing and Shepard's death. I never had true moral problems with Control.

How do you handle the death camp angle? Because there are going to be hundreds of millions of people that won't be happy with the continued existence of the things that melted down their children, parents and friends into a slurpee. 

That is their privilege. But if they would rather see the Reapers destroyed than the Reapers helping to rebuild, and actually saving numerous lives that would have been otherwise lost without their reconstruction and relief capabilities, then too bad.

Also, keep in mind that no one knew what the Crucible did. Would anyone truly know that there were multiple choices, apart from Shepard?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 août 2013 - 03:42 .

[In Exile]

[Edited out]

Modifié par In Exile, 18 août 2013 - 03:50 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
There's no such "message" for Shepard. You go to war with the Crucible you have, not the Crucible you wish you had.

Yeah, but Bioware really ignores the deathcamp problem they set up. It's one thing to have players getting along with someone that's been set up as an antagonist - even a vile antagonist - and another to have the player team up with the villans that have actual deathcamps. 

There's a moral event horizon that the reapers shot so far past that it's impossible not to have a significant base of your players just find the endings offensive. 

For Synthesis, absolutely. I'm not sure how exterminating them or enslaving them count as teaming up with them.

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
That is their privilege. But if they would rather see the Reapers destroyed than the Reapers helping to rebuild, and actually saving numerous lives that would have been otherwise lost without their reconstruction and relief capabilities, then too bad.

I'm going to have to leave this thread, because I have relatives to lived through what happend in '39-'45. This isn't a conversation that you can even being to understand and I can have in a sensible way.

The reapers build death camps, and if you're somehow OK with that then it's frankly offensive to have you walk around the DA threads talking about the plight of the mages. 

It's not that I'm okay with it, it's that you're not blaming the right source. The Reapers were tools. Blaming them for building death camps is like blaming SS construction equipment. The intelligence behind it all, the Catalyst, is no more. Your justice was done.

[In Exile]

[Edited out]

Modifié par In Exile, 18 août 2013 - 03:50 .

[In Exile]

[Edited out]

Given that this issue is very personally hot-button, I think it's best I step out of the thread. Thanks everyone. 

Modifié par In Exile, 18 août 2013 - 03:51 .

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
It's not that I'm okay with it, it's that you're not blaming the right source. The Reapers were tools. Blaming them for building death camps is like blaming SS construction equipment. The intelligence behind it all, the Catalyst, is no more. Your justice was done.

Would you want to fly the Swastika over my great-grandparents graves, too? It's just a piece of cloth, right? I'm done with this conversation. 

I'm sorry for your relatives' loss. However.

First of all, keep in mind the gigantic leap you just made, from "war criminal" to "offensive symbol." Second, that's a terrible analogy because swastikas have no useful capabilities; the Reapers, on the other hand, have a multitude of them. The swastika's only value is symbolic, but the Reapers can do so much more. If you want symbolism fixed, I'd be fine with, like, redesigning the Reapers so they no longer looked squidlike, but that'd probably have to wait until, well, the galactic reconstruction with millions of lives hanging in the balance was finished. I cannot prioritize symbolic offensiveness when actual lives are on the line.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 août 2013 - 03:51 .

[Arcian]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

They were unexpected. Our solutions to everything would be to blow things up and shoot people, but the game ended with Shepard choosing how to commit suicide*. It's not really a bad concept, it's just a very unexpected one.

Sort of like if you got mustard on your burger instead of ketchup. Yeah, it would be unexpected and unwanted, but it would still be an edible burger.


*Except for one ending. That one is left to the imagination.

A burger with feces would still be an edible burger. That doesn't mean it's acceptable for people to serve me one.

[Xilizhra]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not that you don't see the horrors inherent in ME3's ending, it's that you go out of your way to ignore them. Disingenuous much?

Actually, the problems I had were mostly clumsy foreshadowing and Shepard's death. I never had true moral problems with Control.

Nope, your history here on the BSN makes it perfectly clear that you go out of your way to ignorereinvent the horrors inherent in ME3's ending so you can go on enjoying your game. As such, you are very well aware of the sketchy nature of those solutions - don't pretend otherwise!

Destroy is terrible, Synthesis was poorly set up, but Control is honestly fine, to me.

[Vigilant111]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not that you don't see the horrors inherent in ME3's ending, it's that you go out of your way to ignore them. Disingenuous much?

Actually, the problems I had were mostly clumsy foreshadowing and Shepard's death. I never had true moral problems with Control.

Nope, your history here on the BSN makes it perfectly clear that you go out of your way to ignorereinvent the horrors inherent in ME3's ending so you can go on enjoying your game. As such, you are very well aware of the sketchy nature of those solutions - don't pretend otherwise!

Destroy is terrible, Synthesis was poorly set up, but Control is honestly fine, to me.

"Fine" is SUCH a monumental understatement <_<

[Xilizhra]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not that you don't see the horrors inherent in ME3's ending, it's that you go out of your way to ignore them. Disingenuous much?

Actually, the problems I had were mostly clumsy foreshadowing and Shepard's death. I never had true moral problems with Control.

Nope, your history here on the BSN makes it perfectly clear that you go out of your way to ignorereinvent the horrors inherent in ME3's ending so you can go on enjoying your game. As such, you are very well aware of the sketchy nature of those solutions - don't pretend otherwise!

Destroy is terrible, Synthesis was poorly set up, but Control is honestly fine, to me.

Right, so one needn't necessarily take a 'pessimistic' view of ME3's ending to accept Dray's point about the thematic statement of the entire game!

Not as such. Synthesis was clearly intended to be a mutual and harmonious blending, judging by the cutscene, so the flaw there was in the execution and not the narrative. Destroy is pretty standardly Renegade.

"Fine" is SUCH a monumental understatement

You'd prefer "glorious?" "Rapturous?" "Exalted?"

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 août 2013 - 04:04 .

[dorktainian]

destroy the reapers. hey peeps want control or synthesis then fine.. whatever.

my opinion fwiw is that the endings were designed to divisive. divide the community into factions for some as of yet unknown reason. very clever.

unfortunately their undoing.

[KaiserShep]

Other options in the game can be considered divisive as well. I remember reading through a couple of genophage threads and seeing people get pretty worked up over whether or not it's right to cure the genophage, regardless of whether or not you have both Wrex and Eve alive. I don't think it's the polarizing nature of the decisions that detract from its quality, but the let downs that lead to the decision chamber. Priority: Earth felt surprisingly small scale despite the backdrop. Regardless of all the forces you gathered, it's just you and the two in your squad, and seemingly no one else from the Normandy joins the fight. The Citadel DLC seems to mock by allowing you to have everyone go on the mission in separate fire teams that you can actually see, which I sorely wish was the case for the final battle, but instead, your entire team leaves the planet for no reason, and then jump lightyears away.

But even if the final battle was fantastic, and it truly was an epic ride up until the final decision, it would always be divisive. Some people would be wholeheartedly set on Synthesis, some would be strictly for Control, and some like myself are never going to pick anything other than Destroy, for all sorts of reasons. All three have pretty fleshed out epilogues, though only two actually do have closure, since Shepard dies and the memorial scene goes as planned. The tease of Shepard's survival was a mistake they made in the original ending, and unfortunately could not be erased from the game, so they had to work around that to confirm the reveal.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 août 2013 - 04:27 .

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...
But even if the final battle was fantastic, and it truly was an epic ride up until the final decision, it would always be divisive. Some people would be wholeheartedly set on Synthesis, some would be strictly for Control, and some like myself are never going to pick anything other than Destroy, for all sorts of reasons.

And this kind of divisiveness was the design intent all along, it seems. (One of the rare times I agree with dorktanian, eh?)

I imagine Bio was surprised that more than a handful of us took the drayfish/iakus/3D position that all of the endings are unaccceptable, though.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 août 2013 - 04:52 .

[AlanC9]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not that I'm okay with it, it's that you're not blaming the right source. The Reapers were tools. Blaming them for building death camps is like blaming SS construction equipment. The intelligence behind it all, the Catalyst, is no more. Your justice was done.

I think the italed is the key to a lot of the problems people had with the endings. This was simply unacceptable to many of us.

Didn't have a problem with it myself. I always figured that the Reapers were victims themselves, since the cycles don't do any good for the Reapers qua Reapers. Whether it's organic paste or refined metals they want, there are ways to get them that don't involve shutting thmeselves down for 50,000 years.

[Xilizhra]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Not as such. Synthesis was clearly intended to be a mutual and harmonious blending, judging by the cutscene, so the flaw there was in the execution and not the narrative. 

Aye and Synthesis is a choice that requires you violate the personal freedoms of every living thing in the galaxy! And as for Destroy and Control, well we are all aware of the moral shortcomings of picking either, even if we claim otherwise. So no - one need only be forthright to say that Mass Effect is a game that celebrates the virtue of becoming a war criminal - not pessimistic.

I'm not really aware of any significant shortcomings with Control. Synthesis is less morally unpleasant than incompetently executed.

[Steelcan]

There are moral shortcomings in Destroy?

[Zazzerka]

Steelcan wrote...

There are moral shortcomings in Destroy?

DOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO

[Xilizhra]

Fandango9641 wrote...

And does the incompetent execution of Synthesis not make it morally unpleasant (look who am asking)? And, at best, Control is a choice that champions authoritarian domination and slavery - at worst despotism.

Again, three very sketchy choices and three choices that support Dray's point about the thematic statement of the entire game! Explicitly!

The outcome actually looks fine and does not seem to have damaged anyone's free will, it just wasn't explained well. As for Control, there's no required domination over anyone.