692 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

mopotter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, I think we bicker over it because some people will go to any lengths to force the narrative into the shape they want. At least some of you IT guys are honest about it; the guys who pretend to be literalists while making up bad stuff about Control and Synthesis are far worse.

Which is exactly what the people who see nothing wrong at all with the endings are doing.  Telling the ones who don't agree with them that they just don't get it and the endings are perfect - because they liked them.   They can't seem to agree to disagree.     (what does IT guys stand for?)

This doesn't have anything much to do with what I was talking about. But I'll certainly agree that saying people "don't get" it is overdone.

IT guys = people who believe in IT and related theories. Most alternative ending theories have to take at least a little dip into the indoctrination pool, since the purpose of the theories is to deligitimize some of the ending choices and this isn't really tenable unless you delegitimize some parts of the ending presentation. Sure, someone can say that the Sheplyst will institute a soul-crushing dictatorship, but it's got no real support in the game.

[Roux72]

EntropicAngel wrote...

daaaav wrote...

1.) I honestly don't know what you mean... Yes, I know that force feeding someone too many hamburgers will make them fat... ergo, if I can help it, I will not force someone to eat too many hamburgers and will seek alternatives.

The alternatives... 

2.) The player is not allowed to insert their own motivations into choosing control because Shepard already has motivations and intentions. I.e. I cannot head cannon flying all the Reapers into the Sun because Shepard intends to do something else. Well I could before I saw the epilogue slides...

3.) Eugenics is indeed a buzzword. I'm not sure that we have a word to describe synthesis since it is not a coherent concept.

You can't focus on the solutions without considering the above. It is true that Shepard has no choice but to choose but the solutions are all horrible and that is an objective reason why the endings made people feel bad. Players were not desirous of an intellectual thought experiment but rather  a cathartic resolution to the things that were important to them - the characters. (somewhat fixed by the EC).

1. I'm saying that there are benefits as well as drawbacks. BOTH must be considered, not just, "people will die? Noooooooooooooo!"

2. As I mentioned, at least for DA, Bioware has said that the epilogues are not canon. I wouldn't be surprised if that remains true for ME and thus, we know no more than, "New Shepard-Reaper controls the Reapers." We don't know for certain that it results in a police state.

3. Iakus actually gave a phrase: forced gene therapy. It's a better description.

I'm not saying you shouldn't consider the drawbacks, I'm saying the drawbacks aren't the solutions themselves. They're side effects (take a look at a medicine bottle sometime) or outright speculation.


And: "Players were not desirous of an intellectual thought experiment but rather  a cathartic resolution to the things that were important to them - the characters. (somewhat fixed by the EC)."

Hmm, hmm, hmm! Indeed. I certainly don't disagree.

I have a question for you. What woud be the purpose of this thought expirement?

[windsea]

in my opinion one of the problems is the presentation, if the three endings came from different device, say the control comes from a cerberus device, crucible for destroy, and a reaper device for synthesis, then the crucible would not seem like as much of a deus ex machina.

also the lack of a epilogue and real information on what happen because of the endings hurt it too, the extended cut help a little but is still way to vague on happens.

[congokong]

The original ending was awful. The extended cut ending made me teary. I got so attached to Shepard's relationship with Liara that the story ending reflected their relationship ending.

I had no qualms about paragon/renegade not affecting the ending's choices although being renegade tended to hurt your war assets more. War assets did influence how many choices you have and if Shepard as a chance of surviving. I'm not sure what people expect; that if war assets are high enough the reapers can die with no casualties or something?

I actually admire the situation where you are not given a truly "good" choice. Like the Virmire situation, you can't get the happy ending like you could with the Suicide Mission where everyone survives. Sometimes it doesn't work that way.

Personally, I chose "destroy" because:
1) It's what you set out to do the entire series
2) Control is playing with fire
3) Synthesis is too invasive
4) I wouldn't trust the creator of the reapers enough to jump into a laser and assume it wouldn't do anything but kill me
5) Sad to say losing the Geth/EDI is a far "safer" sacrifice than the organic races because of the organic/synthetic conflict
6) Shepard can live!

[Excella Gionne]

The ending is not bad, but it's not the best either. You can say it satisfies, but it's not for everyone. I like it, and I've never argued about the ending.

[Excella Gionne]

Unless, you're talking pre-EC, then it is pretty bad....

[Roux72]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Roux72 wrote...

I have a question for you. What woud be the purpose of this thought expirement?

The purpose is to crush the concept of "the endings are all bad because there are negative side effects."

That's life.

"Negative side affects." That's a very diplomatic and mild way of putting it sure... Does this not mean that the next Mass Effect game essentially has to be a prequel, like rachni conquests, krogan rebellions, first contact war or something? I just don't see how glactic civilization carries on after any of these "endings" and hence where a sequel would work and be an interesting game to play.

[KaiserShep]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wouldn't care if Control Shep didn't become a dictator. It's not about what-ifs or any particular facts. I'm operating strictly on principle. All so called gods must die. Even good ones. Or if I was offered the position to take on the mantle myself, then I'd have to slap myself.

I rather like the idea of eradicating all of the old space gods.

[AlanC9]

Roux72 wrote...

"Negative side affects." That's a very diplomatic and mild way of putting it sure... Does this not mean that the next Mass Effect game essentially has to be a prequel, like rachni conquests, krogan rebellions, first contact war or something? I just don't see how glactic civilization carries on after any of these "endings" and hence where a sequel would work and be an interesting game to play.

Why couldn't it work? I don't think there's much chance of a Synthesis sequel actually being popular --  done right it'd be too weird to relate to -- but I don't see any conceptual problem with doing a sequel in any of the victory universes.

[KaiserShep]

Not sure why anyone would want to do anything with the rebellions, rachni war or the first contact war, as none of them have anything of particular interest. The first two would not likely be an option anyway, as I doubt that BioWare would ever create a Mass Effect game that totally excluded humans.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 12 janvier 2014 - 08:27 .

[DeinonSlayer]

KaiserShep wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I wouldn't care if Control Shep didn't become a dictator. It's not about what-ifs or any particular facts. I'm operating strictly on principle. All so called gods must die. Even good ones. Or if I was offered the position to take on the mantle myself, then I'd have to slap myself.

I rather like the idea of eradicating all of the old space gods.

"Tekeli-li, bitch!" 

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 12 janvier 2014 - 08:29 .

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

As a paragon player, there are sacrifices I'd be willing to pay that would terrify most other players.

Oh? What sacrifices would "terrify" most other players?

I'd have been fine with a permanently disabled relay network.

What is so much terryfing on this?

Before EC many players chose destroy believing in exactly this - that relays were completely destroyed - and Destroy was (not 100% sure) most popular ending.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 12 janvier 2014 - 03:36 .

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, I think we bicker over it because some people will go to any lengths to force the narrative into the shape they want. At least some of you IT guys are honest about it; the guys who pretend to be literalists while making up bad stuff about Control and Synthesis are far worse.

Which is exactly what the people who see nothing wrong at all with the endings are doing.  Telling the ones who don't agree with them that they just don't get it and the endings are perfect - because they liked them.   They can't seem to agree to disagree.     (what does IT guys stand for?)

This doesn't have anything much to do with what I was talking about. But I'll certainly agree that saying people "don't get" it is overdone.

IT guys = people who believe in IT and related theories. Most alternative ending theories have to take at least a little dip into the indoctrination pool, since the purpose of the theories is to deligitimize some of the ending choices and this isn't really tenable unless you delegitimize some parts of the ending presentation. Sure, someone can say that the Sheplyst will institute a soul-crushing dictatorship, but it's got no real support in the game.

Thanks.

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

I'd have been fine with a permanently disabled relay network.

What is so much terryfing on this?

Before EC many players chose destroy believing in exactly this - that relays were completely destroyed - and Destroy was (not 100% sure) most popular ending.

::shrug:: I dunno.  People seem convinced fleets and worlds will starve.  That nobody will ever, ever figure out how to make new ones.  Or develop a new method of interstellar travel.  That somehow this would stop beinga "Mass Effect" setting.

But as far as I'm concerned, as long as the relays don't nova like in "Arrival" I'd have been happy to sacrifice them.  They were a Reaper trap: "Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire."   Giving them up would force the galaxy to develop along their own lines.  Either by learning how to rebuild them or by finding another way.

It may take years, decades, even centuries.  The map of galactic politics would shatter and shift in ways no one can predict.  But that would pave the way for a fresh reimagining of the Mass Effect setting.  

Imagine revisiting an Eden Prime with little or no contact with the rest of the galaxy for centuries.  How would the geth and quarians get along on Rannoch if they were cut off from the rest of the galaxy?  Would the peace hold?  What would happen to Omega?  Illium?

 Or even Sol?  How many of the fleets would strike out for home, and how many would become permanent guests?  Would Jump Zero be reopened to find new ways to get people home?  Would the turians resettle Mars or Luna?  

So many possibilities, good and bad, and without having to exterminate an entire form of life.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

::shrug:: I dunno.  People seem convinced fleets and worlds will starve.  That nobody will ever, ever figure out how to make new ones.  Or develop a new method of interstellar travel.  That somehow this would stop beinga "Mass Effect" setting.

But as far as I'm concerned, as long as the relays don't nova like in "Arrival" I'd have been happy to sacrifice them.  They were a Reaper trap: "Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire."   Giving them up would force the galaxy to develop along their own lines.  Either by learning how to rebuild them or by finding another way.

It may take years, decades, even centuries.  The map of galactic politics would shatter and shift in ways no one can predict.  But that would pave the way for a fresh reimagining of the Mass Effect setting.  

Imagine revisiting an Eden Prime with little or no contact with the rest of the galaxy for centuries.  How would the geth and quarians get along on Rannoch if they were cut off from the rest of the galaxy?  Would the peace hold?  What would happen to Omega?  Illium?

 Or even Sol?  How many of the fleets would strike out for home, and how many would become permanent guests?  Would Jump Zero be reopened to find new ways to get people home?  Would the turians resettle Mars or Luna?  

So many possibilities, good and bad, and without having to exterminate an entire form of life.

Still not consider it terrifying.

It should be both good and bad. When population on some space and mining stations will extinct, colonies were already based on world supporting life so some pangalactic famine most probably wouldnť happen. Changing of political and social situation is already in move like after every bigger war in history. Destruction of Thessia, fall of Batarian Hegemony and possible curing of genophage already inreversibly change balance in galaxy. And geth and quarians were isolationistic nations long before Reaper war so influence of rest of galaxy on their peace will be small even with function relays.

This definitely isnť sacrifice "that would terrify most other players" as you wrote earlier. This is more gift of freedom and new beginning.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 12 janvier 2014 - 06:43 .

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

Still not consider it terrifying.

It should be both good and bad. When population on some space and mining stations will extinct, colonies were already based on world supporting life so some pangalactic famine most probably wouldnť happen. Changing of political and social situation is already in move like after every bigger war in history. Destruction of Thessia, fall of Batarian Hegemony and possible curing of genophage already inreversibly change balance in galaxy. And geth and quarians were isolationistic nations long before Reaper war so influence of rest of galaxy on their peace will be small even with function relays.

This definitely isnť sacrifice "that would terrify most other players" as you wrote earlier. This is more gift of freedom and new beginning.

Preaching to the choir here.  I just know that some have compared it to being as bad as Refuse.  But it's an option I'd happily take.

I'd even tolerate the breath scene if I could make it.

[JamesFaith]

[quote]iakus wrote...

This definitely isnť sacrifice "that would terrify most other players" as you wrote earlier. This is more gift of freedom and new beginning.

[/quote]

Preaching to the choir here.  I just know that some have compared it to being as bad as Refuse.  But it's an option I'd happily take.

[/quote]

Not most players but only some players now?

So you were just exaggerating before? Again? OK then.

[AlanC9]

Calling iakus on employing rhetorical overstatement isn't a productive strategy. Trust me on this.

[JamesFaith]

AlanC9 wrote...

Calling iakus on employing rhetorical overstatement isn't a productive strategy. Trust me on this.

I'm trusting you.

I asked him twice in past about sources of his claims and in first case it was exaggeration of original and in second his own creation. I was just curious about that giant scary sacrifice.

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

Preaching to the choir here.  I just know that some have compared it to being as bad as Refuse.  But it's an option I'd happily take.

Not most players but only some players now?

So you were just exaggerating before? Again? OK then.

Okay, wtf are you going on about?  Based on my experience here, destroying the relays  would have been a very unpopular option to taking out the Reapers,  No I don't have secret spreadsheets to back up my claim.  But I have floated the idea several times on other threads (Alan can probably attest to that) and it was pretty muc universally booed.

You may not think it would be so bad.  I may not think it's so bad.  Alan may find it a fascinating new direction to go in.  But we=/= everybody.   No I can't cite exact percentages, but if it were still possible I'd make a poll to show just how unpopular it would be at least here on the BSN.

Modifié par iakus, 12 janvier 2014 - 08:16 .

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

Preaching to the choir here.  I just know that some have compared it to being as bad as Refuse.  But it's an option I'd happily take.

Not most players but only some players now?

So you were just exaggerating before? Again? OK then.

Okay, wtf are you going on about?  Based on my experience here, destroying the relays  would have been a very unpopular option to taking out the Reapers,  No I don't have secret spreadsheets to back up my claim.  But I have floated the idea several times on other threads (Alan can probably attest to that) and it was pretty muc universally booed.

You may not think it would be so bad.  I may not think it's so bad.  Alan may find it a fascinating new direction to go in.  But we=/= everybody.   No I can't cite exact percentages, but if it were still possible I'd make a poll to show just how unpopular it would be at least here on the BSN.

From my own experience here on the BSN I can back up what iakus is saying - and for the fleet at Earth I do feel it would be disasterous for the mass relays to be gone. It's one of the very first concepts we're introduced to when we play ME1 and talk to Anderson and Nihlus. Nihlus point blank states that without the mass relays there is no interstellar travel in a meaningful way. 

[Dubozz]

Hello, thanks for the (almost)great series bioware.
ME3 is a good game. On the the other hand ME3 ending is a piece of ****. It's so repulsive, so out of place, so dull and poorly executed that I can't even express how much I dislike it. It's literally ruined the entire franchise for me.

[Linkenski]

Dubozz wrote...

Hello, thanks for the (almost)great series bioware.
ME3 is a good game. On the the other hand ME3 ending is a piece of ****. It's so repulsive, so out of place, so dull and poorly executed that I can't even express how much I dislike it. It's literally ruined the entire franchise for me.

Pfff. It all started right then and there when you began the campaign in ME3. For me it was ruined right then and there...