518 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
Governments by immortal mind-controlling AIs with armies of space zombies which have already misinterpreted their function and virtually eliminated their creator race once before?

Yep. Still not synonomous with slavery.

[Chashan]

zed888 wrote...
And for my taste the game as a whole could have been darker.   A lot of the most disturbing things about the harvest were only talked about— Edi talking about concentration camps, Javik's stories, etc.   And Shepard's war-weariness was unconvincing.

That in particular invokes certain similarities that make a 'negotiated solution' with the big bad commanding the Reapers a not tolerable stretch.

And the game did indeed have plenty of opportunity overall to go even grimmer on us, 'tis true. Would have been more welcome to have more enemy action in the galaxy's own lines by indoctrinated agents rather than Cerberus most of the time.

Which points out that not only the finale of ME3 has its problems at the end of the day.

Modifié par Chashan, 10 octobre 2013 - 06:07 .

[KwangtungTiger]

My main problem with Synthesis is it "May" stop one problem but creates an entirely new set of problems.

First we need to understand what synthesis actually does to organics.

-Do we still eat?
-Do we still need resources?
-We know that we need somewhere to live (right?)
-Do we now live forever or do are cells still decay and die?
-Are aggression levels somehow changed within the species?

With the above, conflict and war are still inevitable. Just because we somehow have an understanding with Synthetics now doesn't mean the day to day lives of a now semi-synthetic/organic species have truely changed for the better.

Lets take the Krogan with their high birth rate and now "eternal" life span. They were already bad enough before Shepard stepped on the scene and depending on your choice prior (Wreav or Wrex) could have dire consequences for the galaxy.

Better yet, what about the Yahg?

There will ALWAYS be conflict and despite Shepard's best intentions, could have put the galaxy in a far worse situation down the road. This of course being if we do live forever because we know from the slides that birth is still possible. With a constant expansion without death how long would it be before a planets (or even the solar systems) resources are completely used up?

Again, I need to point no further than the Krogan Rebellion and what it did in a small time frame.

The problem with this style of story telling comes down to the players imagination. There are players on both sides of the fence (Happy go luck everything is fine and the others saying Doom and Gloom the galaxy is destroyed). And lets face it, NOBODY is wrong. Thats the great thing about an imagination.

My point, I believe NO ending stops the chaos/conflict forever.

Control: No matter how good a government (Shepard/Catalyst) is for its poeple, there will be some who dont want an all controling god in the sky and will revolt. Now how far will this go? All out war? We just dont know.

Destroy: Well this is pretty much self explained. Someone is going to create more synthetics down the road. I still choose this one but fully understand what it may/will lead up to.

Synthesis: Already explained above.

Modifié par KwangtungTiger, 10 octobre 2013 - 06:29 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Yep. Still not synonomous with slavery.

Seriously?

You think this is government by the consent of the governed?  More like Loki from the Avengers:

Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.

[AndyAK79]

Again, I say, all outcomes must have a downsid to be valid choices.

A perfect choice isn't a difficult decision, it's an opportunity to avoid making one.

[AndyAK79]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Yep. Still not synonomous with slavery.

Seriously?

You think this is government by the consent of the governed?  More like Loki from the Avengers:

Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.

You are confusing slavery with despotism. And even that oversimplifies the extent of your failure to understand slavery.

[Iakus]

AndyAK79 wrote...

You are confusing slavery with despotism. And even that oversimplifies the extent of your failure to understand slavery.

It's not slavery, it's despotism!"

Okay now I've heard it all.

[Zan51]

AndyAK79 wrote...

[/quote]

MEHEM is a travesty designed by people who can't handle being asked to make grown up or difficult choices, so throw the rattle out of the pram and rewrite the end to suit them.

It's a mod, it isn't canon and (and I am aware am repeating myself) if a similar ending was included nobody would choose anything else and it would make a mockery of a choice-based game. It doesn't let you imagine your own happy ending it lets someone else do it for you. It's also dramatically laughable.

The writers of the game determine how the story ends. The sense that people are somehow have a right to the ending they want is ridiculous. Quite apart from the fact that everyones ideal ending would be different, your rights are to play the game or don't, buy the game or don't.

MEHEM is an insult to everyone who put time and effort into ME3 - Bioware and players alike. [/quote]
------
I keep coming across this comment that I Bolded. Why, if it was a valid choice for the ending, would the fact that more players would choose it rather than the ones we were actually offered, would it invalidate it as a choice? If more players would choose it then it is glaringly obvious something is severely lacking in the original endings that make people want the MEHEM ending.

The rational for not having it, that "nobody would choose anything else" alone validates it as a genuine choice. Your argument is flawed on that basis alone because you are saying you don't want it as a choice because everyone but you would choose it so it can't be valid.

Sorry, but I want an uplifting ending. This is a game, not RL. I want a "Saren's Dead" moment, or a "We survived the Suicide Mission" moment, not some last minute Deus Ex Macnina moment where the Big Bad I have fought through 3 games to destroy tells me what I can choose as the Win situation. How logical is that??

I actually consider the endings I was offered as an insult to me as a paying player who has all 3 games. The Citadel as an ending is good, but add in MEHEM and cut out all that rubbish with the forced Star Brat and its choices, and it makes it make sense finally. You want logic? Hell, putting ALL the resources of all the ME races into building the Crucible when we have not a clue what it does, or how it works, is totally insane, and I thought that from the get-go!

Modifié par Zan51, 10 octobre 2013 - 08:30 .

[eyezonlyii]

I think what would have been better for the endings would have been to have shown control and synthesis be more viable throughout the game. The problem is that both of the people who advocate for the other two options (TIM and Saren) both end up falling to indoctrination, and subsequently dying. So the series spend three games herding you to Destroy and then in a last ditch effort to "make us think" sabotages destroy by targeting all synthetic life and (originally) killing Shepard as well. To me that was too much. If Shepard HAD to die (DISCLAIMER: I'm one for a happier ending, but oh well), then there was no reason for EDI and the Geth to Die as well. Maybe EDI, because she spent the game with us and it would have had more impact, especially if they showed a final scene between her and Joker. Or even not have killed Legion off and had a scene with them and Tali. Either way, the fact that they had to sandbag one choice so heavily to make the other choices anywhere near palpable is why I ultimately don't like the ending.

[AndyAK79]

Zan51 wrote...

I keep coming across this comment that I Bolded. Why, if it was a valid choice for the ending, would the fact that more players would choose it rather than the ones we were actually offered, would it invalidate it as a choice? If more players would choose it then it is glaringly obvious something is severely lacking in the original endings that make people want the MEHEM ending.

More players don't choose MEHEM. Very few players choose MEHEM. What invalidates it as a choice is that it isn't part of the game. It is, in essence, a cheat. Can't save everyone? Just cheat. Choices too difficult? Just cheat. Not willing to make the sacrifices? Just cheat. It's a cheap and lazy way of avoiding the difficult decisions featured in the games climax.

The rational for not having it, that "nobody would choose anything else" alone validates it as a genuine choice. Your argument is flawed on that basis alone because you are saying you don't want it as a choice because everyone but you would choose it so it can't be valid.

If nobody chooses anything else then whats the point of having a choice at the end at all? And I'm not saying everyone but me would choose a happy ending, I'm saying that everyone including me would choose the happy ending. The writing ensures I don't have an easy get-out, and therefore have to make a difficult choice. the fact that there is no easy answer is what makes it a choice worth making.

MEHEM is to the authentic Mass Effect experience what Quorn is to real meat; a poor imitation of an authentic experience.

If your going to rewrite a story to cram in a happy ending then call it what it is; WDME (Walt Disney's Mass Effect).

Modifié par AndyAK79, 10 octobre 2013 - 09:30 .

[Iakus]

AndyAK79 wrote...

MEHEM is to the authentic Mass Effect experience what Quorn is to real meat; a poor imitation of an authentic experience.

If your going to rewrite a story to cram in a happy ending then call it what it is; WDME (Walt Disney's Mass Effect).

Except:

Anderson is still dead
Thane is still dead
Legion is still dead
Every ME1 & ME2 squadmate who dies in ME3 is still dead
Earth is still trashed
Thessia is still trashed
The Citadel is still trashed
All the refugees on Sanctuary are still dead
Enkindlers-know how many colonies have been wiped out
The relays are still "severely damaged" and there are no Reapers or Reaper knowledge to fix them.

But Shepard's alive, the geth are alive (if they didn't die on Rannoch), it must be full of rainbows and butterflies, amirite?

Modifié par iakus, 10 octobre 2013 - 09:46 .

[KaiserShep]

AndyAK79 wrote...

More players don't choose MEHEM. Very few players choose MEHEM. What invalidates it as a choice is that it isn't part of the game. It is, in essence, a cheat. Can't save everyone? Just cheat. Choices too difficult? Just cheat. Not willing to make the sacrifices? Just cheat. It's a cheap and lazy way of avoiding the difficult decisions featured in the games climax.

To be fair, between the 4 platforms available for the game, only one can even use this mod. 

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...
You are confusing slavery with despotism. And even that oversimplifies the extent of your failure to understand slavery.

It's not slavery, it's despotism!"

Okay now I've heard it all.

He's right, though. The words aren't synonyms.

Whether Control means despotism or not is interesting. Is Star Trek a despotism because the Organians can do whatever they please? Though a better model for the Sheplyst would probably be Asimov's Second Foundation, who have no qualms about using Indoctrination.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 octobre 2013 - 11:06 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Yep. Still not synonomous with slavery.

Seriously?

You think this is government by the consent of the governed?  More like Loki from the Avengers:

Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.

Peisistratos was a tyrant and he was a great leader.

[AndyAK79]

iakus wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

MEHEM is to the authentic Mass Effect experience what Quorn is to real meat; a poor imitation of an authentic experience.

If your going to rewrite a story to cram in a happy ending then call it what it is; WDME (Walt Disney's Mass Effect).

Except:

Anderson is still dead
Thane is still dead
Legion is still dead
Every ME1 & ME2 squadmate who dies in ME3 is still dead
Earth is still trashed
Thessia is still trashed
The Citadel is still trashed
All the refugees on Sanctuary are still dead
Enkindlers-know how many colonies have been wiped out
The relays are still "severely damaged" and there are no Reapers or Reaper knowledge to fix them.

But Shepard's alive, the geth are alive (if they didn't die on Rannoch), it must be full of rainbows and butterflies, amirite?

I think what you're saying is they need a couple of songs to really give it that Mouse House atmosphere.

I agree completely.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 11 octobre 2013 - 10:49 .

[AndyAK79]

The reason most arguments about having a better ending available are problematic is that you want one ending that gives the perfect outcome (or closer to it than the other endings, at least). But doing so would completely invalidate the other endings. All the choices have to have positive and negative consequences so that the choice is real. The endings have to be equally valid.

You are arguing for an ending to be more valid than the others so that you can 'win.' A dramatic choice cannot, by its very nature, allow for this.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 11 octobre 2013 - 10:48 .

[Dubozz]

I would rather have any other ending than the one we have. If suddenly crucible will transform itself into Optimus Prime - it would still be a better ending than "I am the Catalyst, what's your favourite colour?". ME3 is a great example how you can destroy the game and the series in 5 minutes.

[Chashan]

Lizardviking wrote...


Peisistratos was a tyrant and he was a great leader.

And Shepards hardly are material for that type of position, at the end of the day.

AndyAK79

I think what you're saying is they need a couple of songs to really give it that Mouse House atmosphere.

I agree completely.

Yea, handing godhood on a platter is so much more believeable and 'real'. Following goes just splendidly with Control:

Die Partei hat immer Recht

(translation of the lyrics, if needed, here)

Just as valid as your picking what qualifies as 'mature' and what does not, and what makes for 'dramatic choice'. ME3 had plenty of baggage that made for an invariably 'imperfect' outcome, not least of which is the mess the post-war galaxy is in. Which has been pointed out repeatedly here, but since 'drama', in your view, requires for a megalomanic decision to be undertaken by whichever contrived means, the ramifications of which are left high up in the air to be picked and chosen by players at will, I guess that's simply not 'dramatic' enough for you.

Modifié par Chashan, 11 octobre 2013 - 12:12 .

[Deverz]

Just imagine if John Connor was lifted up by Skynet and was kindly given the choices of giving up his life and controlling them, jump into a fire and make everyone a cyborg-human hybrid, or shoot their harddrive, damage some of their own equipment (oh and Arnie dies ) and maybe survive and go home.

Doesn't matter if the choices are equally valid when they are presented in such a contrived way. I don't blame people for dismissing the ending and creating MEHEM when the concept of the real ending is so utterly ridiculous.

Hell, I'd rather have this guy than the Catalyst.

Modifié par Deverz, 11 octobre 2013 - 01:01 .

[AndyAK79]

Chashan wrote...

Just as valid as your picking what qualifies as 'mature' and what does not, and what makes for 'dramatic choice'. ME3 had plenty of baggage that made for an invariably 'imperfect' outcome, not least of which is the mess the post-war galaxy is in.

Which doesn't remotely address my argument. It doesn't matter if all potential arguments are 'imperfect' if one is clearly better than the others. Given an 'imperfect' ending with significantly better results than the other endings you are always going to pick that one. it's not a question of perfection, but of equal validity.

Which has been pointed out repeatedly here, but since 'drama', in your view, requires for a megalomanic decision to be undertaken by whichever contrived means, the ramifications of which are left high up in the air to be picked and chosen by players at will, I guess that's simply not 'dramatic' enough for you.

It would significantly help your case if I had ever actually said this, or anything remotely resembling it. For the record I have never suggested, either implicitly or explicitly, that drama in any way required megalomaniac decisions or that those decsions can be reached by any contrived means. You are arguing with the words in your head, rather than anything on this thread.

Your post also strongly suggests you don't know what megalomania is.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 11 octobre 2013 - 01:08 .

[Chashan]

AndyAK79 wrote...

Which doesn't remotely address my argument. It doesn't matter if all potential arguments are 'imperfect' if one is clearly better than the others. Given an 'imperfect' ending with significantly better results than the other endings you are always going to pick that one. it's not a question of perfection, but of equal validity.

Should 'equal validity' - equal how? Number of times a finale is picked across the board? - truly enter the picture, though, when that 'validity' is entirely decided by the individual player?
And as another poster before you just mentioned: if the 'choice' requires such a, bluntly put, mind-bogglingly stupid set-up, is there much of any inherent value left for it to be there?

It would significantly help your case if I had ever actually said this, or anything remotely resembling it. For the record I have never suggested, either implicitly or explicitly, that drama in any way required megalomaniac decisions or that those decsions can be reached by any contrived means. You are arguing with the words in your head, rather than anything on this thread.

Your post also strongly suggests you don't know what megalomania is.

In the case of ME3, that's what the Catalyst-section boils down to, however. A hardly believeable set-up for a 'choice' where players can play god through their PC at will - which does certainly fit 'megalomanic' proportions. And piece together pretty much however they want what follows that 'choice'.

You were talking of 'consequences' being a requirement for the choices to be 'real' before. The problem is: the finale isn't terribly forthcoming about showing them, other than Shepards being killed in a number of ways. Neither the end of the Geth, nor possble problems of the transition into a post-Control/Synthesis galaxy get any screen-time, if at all.

[CronoDragoon]

AndyAK79 wrote...

The reason most arguments about having a better ending available are problematic is that you want one ending that gives the perfect outcome (or closer to it than the other endings, at least). But doing so would completely invalidate the other endings. All the choices have to have positive and negative consequences so that the choice is real. The endings have to be equally valid.

Fine, but I don't think the specific consequences Destroy chose work. I think it would have worked better thematically - and made more sense - for the Destroy wave to disable the relays (while the other waves do not) rather than destroy synthetics. Thematically it works better because Destroy is an utter rejection both of the Catalyst's goals and his means. Losing the relays, therefore, makes more sense than losing synthetics, unless you play an AI-hating Shepard, in which case current Destroy doesn't have a consequence anyway.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 octobre 2013 - 01:50 .

[RatThing]

iakus wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

You can save Shepard

At the expense of all synthetic life?  I don't think my SHepard would want to live after doing that.

Whilst you clearly think that the after-effects of control and synthesis are 'horrible' you offer no compelling reason why this is the case. Control in particular has few consequences other than sacrificing Shepard. 

Enslaving the galaxy or forcible violation of every living being's genetic code isn't compelling as horrible consequences?

THE GALAXY ISN'T DESTROYED!!! The galaxy survives all three endings. Refuse destroys galactic civilisation (not the actual galaxy) but that's as close as you get.

Yes, galactic civilization is rebuild with a horrible atrocity as the foundation.  SHepard gets to pick teh atrocity.  Yay, I guess.

It's wrecked for me

Maybe the reason you hate the endings is because your imagining stuff that doesn't actually happen.

I suspect the reason you like the endings is because you're imagining stuff that isn't really there either.

Whre does that leave us?

I really don't understand why people are suprised about this. This is what every ending in a ME game was about, difficult choises. In Me1 it was either let the council die or sacrifice plenty of human lifes. In Me2 it was either keep a tainted base in the hand of an untrustworthy organization or destroy it and loose valuable information. There's a pattern observable. So it should've been absolutely clear, that the end of the trilogy would be something like this in big. I mean what about the supposedly leaked ending. Sacrifice humanity or destroy the reaper and have a slow demise of the whole galaxy through dark matter?   Compared to this, the ending we got is rainbows and butterflies.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

You are confusing slavery with despotism. And even that oversimplifies the extent of your failure to understand slavery.

It's not slavery, it's despotism!"

Okay now I've heard it all.

There were despotic states where slavery was forbidden.
There were non-despotic states where slavery was according to law.

You definitelly didn't hear it all, minimally not at basic school during history lessons.

[Kel Riever]

For the record, I have no problem with good happy endings either.

Because they're good.  Not because they are happy.

Dead people doesn't make an ending better, nor more 'moving' 

Anyway, back to topic...closure.  Closure can be good.  I usually recommend closure for the major character at least.

And if you aren't going to give the protagonist closure, you better know the hell what you are doing!

Which, er, didn't seem to be the case in ME3 at all...