AndyAK79 wrote...
Whilst it's nice that you can talk about Latin in a way that most users of this forum won't remotely understand (I'm not belittling anyobody, it's just that there aren't a lot of walks of life where a functional knowledge of Latin is remotely useful) it does't chage the fact that you are misusing the phrase. Ad hominem would apply if I was criticising you personally, rather than the structure of your argument. And it is about your argument, because using words and phrases you don't understand is innevitably damaging to that argument.
For example, I have no idea what Größenwahn means (well, actually I do, but only becauseI looked it up), so I wouldn't consider using it in my discussion of the game.
Some earlier statements of yours about those not content with the vanilla finale and substituting it for something else would somewhat fall into criticism on a 'personal level', however. And didn't exactly improve the atmosphere of the discussion.
Ultimately, it is apparent that we apply different connotations to megalomania, hence why I put up the equivalent of it in my native language. The gravity of not just one, but two of the decisions put into the PC's, hence the player's palm I view as certainly playing on that level.
Despite the fact you are clearly taking this criticism personally you are still misusing megalomania (or Größenwahn if you must). At best your quote suggests (somewhat insubstantially, given that 'kinda cool' suggests a less than absolute desire for power) that Mark Meer might be a Megalomaniac. Megalomania is pathological; it concerns a desire for power not the mere aquisition of it. Barack Obama isn't a megalomaniac just beacause he is president. Shapard doesn't desire to become a God, and this is not remotely implied anywhere in the series.
Even ignoring this, godhood is only the result of one of four choices, which hardly suggests the final decision is in any way megalomaniacal.
The ironic thing is, in the case of Control/'commandeering the Reapers', the idea of which was a matter of discussion with TIM throughout the game I would accept its validity a deal more if Shepards were able to express at least support in principle of it in those conversations, if only as a 'plan B', and if it were explored as such well prior to the end. Instead, it's flat-out rejected every single time, the further possible applications of the Crucible aren't much explored at all anyway and TIM's last appearance certainly did not help make Control any more credible. Throwing TIM away in that scene like a second Saren was a waste, generally speaking, which I expressed elsewhere before.
To then all but shrug that opposition off and go along with that regardless is not exactly consistent, and the mechanics of its execution rather, well, silly, what with the electrocution and all. Of course, Control isn't the only end guilty of being carried out in a non-sensical manner (Red's suicidal walk and Green's 'leap of faith' says hi). Further, having this superfluous amount of options for 'sacrifice' somewhat undermines the meaningfulness of it.
BW went that particular route before in the plots of their games, the PC's desire for power. And did it well then, as far as tying it into the plot of the overall game was concerned. As well as that path to 'absolute power' entailing more than just that: in KotOR it was also a matter of reclaiming the PC's actual identity; in Jade Empire it could also be expressed as a rejection of a natural order of things in the game's setting that did anything but prioritse the best interests of the PC's immediate environment, as well as tying in nicely into the student-master relationship between the PC and a certain NPC in that game.
Both these outcomes can be considered 'evil', 'tis true. Yet there is more to them than that, as I pointed out, and they aren't blurred by non-committal ambiguity. Hence, something another here mentioned:
RatThing wrote...
The way I see it, every ending in the trilogy so far had the choises to sacrifise something to keep the status quo or to risk something which CAN backfire and lead to a greater sacrifice. Like ME1, sacrifice human lifes to keep the old coucil, or let the council die to make room for a new power.
Here you can sacrifice AI's with destroy so that the galaxy continues by the old ways, or create a completely new situation with control and even more with synthesis. That's why it makes sense that consequences were not fully presented. Choosing control or synthesis schould be a risk with many ways how it can backfire but with a chance that it actually leads to something better.
the ways certain choices can and even do backfire being
shown rather than all but glossed over I would rather have had than it being left entirely in the realm of 'speculations'. Does not only go for the final choice, but also the longer term impact of decisions such as Tuchanka and Rannoch (the latter of which is somewhat made redundant by the finale, regrettably). It would have been nice to see, for one, that those who went for the 'Wreav-gambit' on Tuchanka, faking the genophage and thus still getting Salarian support, would have gotten a more palpable pay-off out of that than just higher EMS.
By the way, nice to see that we can discuss this, after all, rather than resort to mud-flinging.
Modifié par Chashan, 12 octobre 2013 - 12:06 .
Retour en haut
