1483 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Best guess is that the Crucible changes the Catalyst.

I don't mean to come across as defending the clarity of the scene. I'm just pointing out that the Catalyst-lying hypothesis doesn't work on its own terms.

 

Except the Crucible is just a battery

[Iakus]

Shepard would decide to shoot a pipe on his own. You don't actually believe that.

 

I don't believe Shepard would shoot a pipe on a whim

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The crucible is nothing more than a battery. Hey, you know that EA could have gotten a bigger budget for the game and perhaps gotten us a better ending if they'd had Duracell sponsor the Crucible. You know: In the war room you see the Duracell label on the thing, and as it's approaching Duracell is on the side of it and it has a copper top. Remember, it's always a matter of resources. And gotten sponsorship from Red Bull for the Grissom mission. You know when Jack has her students replenish their energy? They drink Red Bull. Show those cans. Paid advertising! More income = more resources.

 

But hey, we had visions. We saw a dead Anderson shooting the tube! But he might say if I was doing things the right way, "You can destroy all synthetic life if you want, including the Geth," which didn't apply in my case. Then we saw a dead Illusive Man grabbing the control rods! Then we saw this beam in the center: "There is another option." "And what is that?" "Add your energy to the Crucible." 

 

Say what? My energy? You've got this giant dark energy battery and my little pittance of energy is going to make a difference? You give me no vision. Instead you tell me: "Synthesis is the final stage of evolution. Organics blah blah blah. Synthetics learn through understanding."

 

And Shepard says "And there will be peace?"

"Releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy the mass relays. You have a difficult choice to make and little time."

 

Wait! I asked you a question. I asked you if there would be peace, and you didn't answer you little s***. Note that the little s*** doesn't answer that question in either the OE or the EC.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Oh, yes. You want me to add my energy to crucible willingly for your solution to work?

Well, **** you glow boy. 

[MSandt]

So Msandt is another rabid ending lover out to condemn anyone who doesn't share his view of the ending (including other pro-enders). It's rather distracting, and I think we all have the ideal that its rather old at this point. Seems like a Txgoldrush clone. Nobody is going to get anywhere talking with him, so I suggest no one indulges him or engages him.

 

Hah hah, so around here the only thing that's allowed is a circle jerk among those who hate the ending? Sorry to have crashed your party.

[MSandt]

That's the first time I've ever heard someone called a moron for asking questions. A realist would take the opportunity to gain as much information as possible and not accept a non-answer with no clarification to anything that's happening beyond a vague telling of what is based on the perspective of this entity. It goes against logic, reason, and the scientific method not to question this entity. I can will an improvement, by gaining better context and information on what I have available to me. Information does that. People are dying. That's what they're there for. I've got questions, and I don't just have the present to worry about, I have the future to worry about. If I'm going to make a choice, I'd like to gain the best context on what I can do, and what I will do. I don't believe the Catalyst is lying to me, but I don't believe we have the same perspective on the possibilities. 

 

Shepard was not in any kind of a position to "not accept a non-answer." She was alone, barely alive, facing a godlike entity. She was there because the starchild brought her there. She could make no demands. If she didn't like it, then, again, boohoo. (I didn't like it, but what was I supposed to do?)

About 90% of the questions by "von uber" that I quoted were about meaningless details. Shepard is watching her forces being obliterated all around her. She's not gonna waste her time talking about inconsequential details especially when one of the options the starchild presented her with is the very reason she got there in the first place.

[MSandt]

Poor storytelling.  Especially for a chocie-based game.

 

"No matter how much of a difference you made, it didn't make any difference"

 

 

We saw it after the fact.

 

As to the Starchild, you do realize it's the guiding intelligence of a fleet of alien entities with mind-control powers, right?

 

It's not poor storytelling: It's brilliant storytelling. The scene makes you feel weak and helpless, bitter and disappointed (with the circumstances). But you swallow it and finish the job.

 

As for Mass Effect being a "chocie-based game" [sic], the game always followed a general plot that was largely unaffected by your specific choices. The story of Mass Effect 2, for example, was not affected in any important kind of way whether you had many or a few coffins by the end of it. If ME3's story had branched out into a zillion different endings, it would have devalued the whole thing.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Hah hah, so around here the only thing that's allowed is a circle jerk among those who hate the ending? Sorry to have crashed your party.

 

I never said that. You did. I said that you're a person who's come here to attack everyone else (including other, much more reasonable and open-minded pro-enders) by applying a heavy handed interpretation of the ending and insulting those who don't agree with you. We already have people like that. We don't need any more. It's a joke position to begin with.

[MSandt]

I never said that. You did. I said that you're a person who's come here to attack everyone else (including other, much more reasonable and open-minded pro-enders) by applying a heavy handed interpretation of the ending and insulting those who don't agree with you. We already have people like that. We don't need any more. It's a joke position to begin with.

 

So simply by disagreeing with the overwhelming consensus (not of ME3 players in general though) I'm "attacking" people here? But the fact that you're now making me defend myself rather than my arguments does not consitute attacking me?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Shepard was not in any kind of a position to "not accept a non-answer." She was alone, barely alive, facing a godlike entity. She was there because the starchild brought her there. She could make no demands. If she didn't like it, then, again, boohoo. (I didn't like it, but what was I supposed to do?)

About 90% of the questions by "von uber" that I quoted were about meaningless details. Shepard is watching her forces being obliterated all around her. She's not gonna waste her time talking about inconsequential details especially when one of the options the starchild presented her with is the very reason she got there in the first place.

 

She was exactly in a position to ask whatever she needed to (or he, in my case). She could make any demands she wanted. It was a heavy handed, contrived forcing by the writers not to allow Shepard to question the authority of the Catalyst (hardly a godlike entity), or its solution, its perspective, or its problem. If all you're going to do is dismiss any other inspection for information and knowledge, then that speaks more about you than it does about those making the inquest. You've already demonstrated such by outright attacking and insulting any one who chose a different ending from you. Why should anyone here take you seriously?

 

I'm watching my forces being destroyed, yes. And I'm willing to keep watching them blow up. That's what they're there for. Fodder. They've served their purpose. The only thing left for them is to hold the Reapers back while I do what I need to do. Even if it means that they all die. Meanwhile, I need answers. I want information. And I want to know exactly what's going to happen when I activate the Crucible, not just the Catalyst's own perspective of it. I want context on its solution. I want context on its motivation. I want context on the consequences of my actions. I want to see what the basis for the future is that I'm going to make. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

So simply by disagreeing with the overwhelming consensus (not of ME3 players in general though) I'm "attacking" people here? But the fact that you're now making me defend myself rather than my arguments does not consitute attacking me?

 

I'll address your arguments in a later post. 

 

Yes, you have attacked people. You're calling people morons for choosing another ending besides Destroy, you're attacking people for not accepting the ending on a narrative or thematic level, and you're insulting people for views that you are against. I'm not telling you to defend yourself. I'm telling you to stop insulting and attacking other posters and being heavy handed over your views.

[Farangbaa]

She was exactly in a position to ask whatever she needed to (or he, in my case). She could make any demands she wanted. It was a heavy handed, contrived forcing by the writers not to allow Shepard to question the authority of the Catalyst (hardly a godlike entity), or its solution, its perspective, or its problem. If all you're going to do is dismiss any other inspection for information and knowledge, then that speaks more about you than it does about those making the inquest. You've already demonstrated such by outright attacking and insulting any one who chose a different ending from you. Why should anyone here take you seriously?

 

I'm watching my forces being destroyed, yes. And I'm willing to keep watching them blow up. That's what they're there for. Fodder. They've served their purpose. The only thing left for them is to hold the Reapers back while I do what I need to do. Even if it means that they all die. Meanwhile, I need answers. I want information. And I want to know exactly what's going to happen when I activate the Crucible, not just the Catalyst's own perspective of it. I want context on its solution. I want context on its motivation. I want context on the consequences of my actions. I want to see what the basis for the future is that I'm going to make. 

 

"oh well," the Catalyst will say, "if you want to know all these details I'll just let the cycle continue, have a good day"

[TheTurtle]

The story of Mass Effect 2, for example, was not affected in any important kind of way whether you had many or a few coffins by the end of it.

It did however effect ME3. That's like saying book five ended this way so it doesn't matter what effects it has on books 6&7. Mass Effect is a trilogy in which choices were supposed to matter through all 3 games. When viewing it's story you have to view it as a whole not as individual units.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's not poor storytelling: It's brilliant storytelling. The scene makes you feel weak and helpless, bitter and disappointed (with the circumstances). But you swallow it and finish the job.

 

As for Mass Effect being a "chocie-based game" [sic], the game always followed a general plot that was largely unaffected by your specific choices. The story of Mass Effect 2, for example, was not affected in any important kind of way whether you had many or a few coffins by the end of it. If ME3's story had branched out into a zillion different endings, it would have devalued the whole thing.

 

All of this can be summed up in one phrase:

 

In your opinion. 

 

I think it was poor storytelling. I think it was horrendous storytelling. I think it was incompetent storytelling. I disagree completely with your post. And I'm not wrong. Neither are you. That's the beauty of opinions. Mass Effect 3 would not have been devalued by its ending being branching to reflect player agency in their character and their characters impact on the story. It's devalued when the opposite happens, when the story's climax (in a choice based game) moves beyond the players ability to influence the narrative or reflect on it. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

"oh well," the Catalyst will say, "if you want to know all these details I'll just let the cycle continue, have a good day"

 

I don't think that's what the Catalyst would say. That's what you would say (mostly from what I suspect is sarcastic spite). He'd probably say something about my forces dying or being destroyed. I'd tell him to give me the details anyway. The Crucible is intact, and I haven't chosen to not activate it. Why would the Catalyst deactivate it because I want information?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Shepard was not in any kind of a position to "not accept a non-answer." She was alone, barely alive, facing a godlike entity. She was there because the starchild brought her there. She could make no demands. If she didn't like it, then, again, boohoo. (I didn't like it, but what was I supposed to do?)

About 90% of the questions by "von uber" that I quoted were about meaningless details. Shepard is watching her forces being obliterated all around her. She's not gonna waste her time talking about inconsequential details especially when one of the options the starchild presented her with is the very reason she got there in the first place.

 

Ya, I don't think Shepard has a problem with screwing around while people are dying. Especially since as was said previously everyone knows the score they are fighting so the correct decision can be made. Maybe Shepard should put a little more thought into the decision that will greatly effect the entire outcome of the galaxy, he isn't after all deciding what toppings he should put on his pizza.

 

There are very logical reasons why the Catalyst should not be believed. I mean, for example, one of the options it is telling Shepard to shoot at a fuel line, which has rarely in the history of complex machinery ever activated anything (instead it usually accomplishes the opposite, is the Crucible a Rube Goldberg machine?). Everything the Catalyst says is dubious or revolutionary, I guess there is an argument that Shepard was bleeding out or in a hurry, but that isn't a particularly good reason for why all common sense should be dropped. Like if the Catalyst acknowledges that its solution won't work any more (why again?) and it controls the Reapers why is it still executing the old solution? Why can't Shepard ask the reasonable question of why the Catalyst and the Reapers just can't return to dark space then and avoid the messy relay destruction?

[MSandt]

I'll address your arguments in a later post. 

 

Yes, you have attacked people. You're calling people morons for choosing another ending besides Destroy, you're attacking people for not accepting the ending on a narrative or thematic level, and you're insulting people for views that you are against. I'm not telling you to defend yourself. I'm telling you to stop insulting and attacking other posters and being heavy handed over your views.

 

Examples please. I did not call anyone a moron (unless you consider someone's virtual character a person). I characterized the non-destruct options as selfish, which they obviously are. This is a philosophical discussion about the morality of the different endings. If you wish to impose synthesis on trillions of beings, that's pure self-righteousness and fascism. This is exactly what the Nazis tried to do. Do you disagree? Or are you saying that making such a point should be off-limits here?

 

But congratulations for initiating this meta-discussion!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Examples please. I did not call anyone a moron (unless you consider someone's virtual character a person). I characterized the non-destruct options as selfish, which they obviously are. This is a philosophical discussion about the morality of the different endings. If you wish to impose synthesis on trillions of beings, that's pure self-righteousness and fascism. This is exactly what the Nazis tried to do. Do you disagree? Or are you saying that making such a point should be off-limits here?

 

But congratulations for initiating this meta-discussion!

 

I do indeed disagree. In fact, I'll ask why you have a problem with fascism and self-righteousness? Why are you defining people in different terms there? What is really off limits? Why is your morality more valid in interpreting the ending than anyone else? Do you think that the destruction towards an entire domain of life in Destroy is any more 'right' than the supposed fascist tendencies of control and synthesis?

 

You're being rather abrasive and dismissive towards my arguments for starters. And yes, calling people fascists for choosing an ending that appeals to them that you disagree with on your own selfish and self-centered perspective is rather insulting. As is inferring a PC who is, well, a PC under the control of the player being a moron. If I take as much agency as I think I do over my Shepard, then yes, you are calling me a moron.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Examples please. I did not call anyone a moron (unless you consider someone's virtual character a person). I characterized the non-destruct options as selfish, which they obviously are. This is a philosophical discussion about the morality of the different endings. If you wish to impose synthesis on trillions of beings, that's pure self-righteousness and fascism. This is exactly what the Nazis tried to do. Do you disagree? Or are you saying that making such a point should be off-limits here?

 

But congratulations for initiating this meta-discussion!

 

Destruction isn't much better as you are imposing genocide on an entire form of life...

 

Or what about Control, pre-EC Control allowed Shepard to activate the Crucible without the Relays or Crucible blowing up (which based on previous experience was a very bad thing) and allows Shepard to destroy the Reapers (fly them into the sun!) without sacrificing the Geth, which was much better than Destroy?

[MSandt]

All of this can be summed up in one phrase:
 
In your opinion.

Whose opinion did you think I was presenting? Why didn't you try to correct Iakus's post with the same thing? I'm drawing the conclusion that you think it's okay present opinions as facts so long as they're anti-ending.
 

Mass Effect 3 would not have been devalued by its ending being branching to reflect player agency in their character and their characters impact on the story. It's devalued when the opposite happens, when the story's climax (in a choice based game) moves beyond the players ability to influence the narrative or reflect on it.

First of all, you have tremendous influence over the ending as the four choices you're presented with are radically different.

Second, it'd have been extremely stupid if some earlier Mickey Mouse choice (say, killing Wrex) had played a role at the Crucible. It was too big of a moment to be affected by things like that. The earlier choices did affect the journey, however, and that's what should count.

Third, as I already said, the game may have had an element of choice but it never drastically altered the major storyline.

Bed time. See you tomorrow.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Whose opinion did you think I was presenting? Why didn't you try to correct Iakus's post with the same thing? I'm drawing the conclusion that you think it's okay present opinions as facts so long as they're anti-ending.
 

First of all, you have tremendous influence over the ending as the four choices you're presented with are radically different.

Second, it'd have been extremely stupid if some earlier Mickey Mouse choice (say, killing Wrex) had played a role at the Crucible. It was too big of a moment to be affected by things like that. The earlier choices did affect the journey, however, and that's what should count.

Third, as I already said, the game may have had an element of choice but it never drastically altered the major storyline.

Bed time. See you tomorrow.

 

You said it. Not me. I'm not saying a word about iakus' statement. Don't ascribe a point to me, and don't ascribe an opinion to me. I never said anything about what is a fact (beyond the subjective nature of these opinions and interpretations). All I've said about opinions is that they aren't facts. Me not making an argument against iakus statement does not invalidate my argument against you. Leave iakus out of it. I said nothing about iakus. Why are you talking about him? That's a red herring fallacy.

 

And why shouldn't they have any kind of effect? Why shouldn't say, bridging the gap between Geth and Quarian societies be brought up in the ending discussion? Why shouldn't I have more information or context on the Catalyst, his solutions, his perspective, and his mandate? Why is the journey so disconnected from the climax and ending? There's little connecting them. Why is that the case? I think that's absolutely rubbish storytelling.

[Mcfly616]

East to connect. Awesome storytelling.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

East to connect. Awesome storytelling.

 

I'm not seeing a connection. I'm seeing the concept for one work and it being patched together with various other works, like some kind of bizarre version of Frankenstein's Monster. Make an argument supporting your position.

[XXIceColdXX]

Yep felt like that too when I finished ME3, then I started to look deeper into it and found the IT theory, and that had me excited till the EC came out, then felt like WTF again.

I still wish for pretty much any varient of the IT theory to come into play ...

[voteDC]

A realist accepts the world for what it is, not what a fanboy would like it to be. It doesn't matter whether Shepard agrees with the starchild's logic: She's helplessly a victim of that logic and cannot change the situation. The universe functions as the starchild designed it.

 

(And of course no sane individual would believe the starchild is simply trying to deceive Shepard. If it were, why drag Shepard all the way up there? You think it gets off on it or something? And of course we did see the Crucible function exactly as expected.)

A realist would also know that the Reapers are known to lie and deceive. A realist would not trust its word.

Yes we know now that things worked out now but at that point in time there is no way a 'realist' would kill themselves. Why drag Shepard up there? Well Shepard was right next to that handy control panel.

You seem to be looking at those scenes with the knowledge of what comes after, not putting yourself in it with only the knowledge Shepard has at that point.

A realist Shepard at that point would not believe hologram kid.