That's like not seeing the difference between simply burning your cake and burning the house down in the process. Which failure would you prefer?
More like choosing to have your house burn down, wash away in a flood, buried in a rockslide, or just choosing to blow it up yourself.
ME3 has been dead and buried for 2 years now. What's not to be at peace about?
Also, the worst case scenario Control ending is the only true ending tbh.
More like choosing to have your house burn down, wash away in a flood, buried in a rockslide, or just choosing to blow it up yourself.
And some clear day you hopefully realize that you lost nothing, House was virtual; not a real thing.
Story would have ended either way.
More like choosing to have your house burn down, wash away in a flood, buried in a rockslide, or just choosing to blow it up yourself.
The visual evidence isn't lining up with your interpretation, even in the original ending.
The visual evidence isn't lining up with your interpretation, even in the original ending.
And in the process, destroyed an entire form of life, including a squadmate who had been loyal to Shepard for two games. And an entire species that chose to follow Shepard into battle.
Sorry, I don't see t hat as a "win" I see that as a forced tragedy because "feelz">all
Sorry, I don't see t hat as a "win" I see that as a forced tragedy because "feelz">all
The soldiers there see it as a "win" with their guns raised up, it's just a matter of perspective.
And in the process, destroyed an entire form of life, including a squadmate who had been loyal to Shepard for two games. And an entire species that chose to follow Shepard into battle.
Sorry, I don't see t hat as a "win" I see that as a forced tragedy because "feelz">all
The soldiers there see it as a "win" with their guns raised up, it's just a matter of perspective.
They didn't throw an entire species as well as an ally they have fought alongside under the bus
That's on you. The visual evidence disagrees, as does the ending decision in ME1 that also forces sacrificial tragedy for pure drama yet still constitutes a "win".
Yeah, I guess it's on me that I think how you win matters as much as the victory itself.
They didn't throw an entire species as well as an ally they have fought alongside under the bus
Yeah, I guess it's on me that I think how you win matters as much as the victory itself.
They weren't thrown under the bus. They were a strategic sacrifice whose death bought everyone else a future and ensured both victory and survival.
Yeah, that is a problem of yours.
How you win is never important so much as if you do. You deserve to lose (and I would laugh derisively at you and be a jerkass to you for such) if you threw away victory because you don't have the strength to win.
You have a severe problem of honor before reason.
More like choosing to have your house burn down, wash away in a flood, buried in a rockslide, or just choosing to blow it up yourself.
Yeah, I guess it's on me that I think how you win matters as much as the victory itself.
In this situation? Indeed, that is on you, since the Crucible didn't just build itself.
And again, you can't avoid the sacrifice of tens of thousands of lives in ME1's ending, no matter what. All based on the council being held hostage by the writer.
One good quote from Shepard comes to mind from the beginning of ME3.
"You're not responsible for the ones who die. You fight for the people still alive at the end."
iakus really needs to learn that his morality is only an inhibition and would damn everyone just so he can strut around and be 'honorable'.
They didn't throw an entire species as well as an ally they have fought alongside under the bus
Yeah, I guess it's on me that I think how you win matters as much as the victory itself.
Again, matter of perspective. If it eventually brings peace, which it seemed to - the "sacrifice" might be worth it in many people's eyes. I'm not advocating the action as the right one, but from what we were given, it might as well been the choice that "needed" to be made.
That's an idiotic metaphor for the ME3 situation. All you lose in both cases is one house. Surely you're not arguing that the level of destruction in Refuse and Destroy is identical, are you?
Edit: it's only "idiotic" if you were being serious. If it was just an attempt to avoid thinking about the issue any more... well played, sir.
You're starting to sound like you've lost all capacity for rational thought on this subject.
The level of destruction doesn't matter, because frankly, I don't want to visit the setting anymore based on these outcomes. I'm not massively, willing to crush anyone and everyone beneath my boot in the name of the "greater good"
And if you think I'm being irrational, you can always ignore my posts.
In this situation? Indeed, that is on you, since the Crucible didn't just build itself.
And again, you can't avoid the sacrifice of tens of thousands of lives in ME1's ending, no matter what. All based on the council being held hostage by the writer.
It might as well have built itself, for all the involvement Shepard had.
And ultimately it was Bioware's handwave that decided what it did.
And those who died in the end of ME1 died fighting the geth and Sovereign. They were aware, armed, and facing their enemy. The synthetics slaughtered in Destroy were shot in the back by Shepard, the one who was supposed to be helping them.
It might as well have built itself, for all the involvement Shepard had.
And ultimately it was Bioware's handwave that decided what it did.
And those who died in the end of ME1 died fighting the geth and Sovereign. They were aware, armed, and facing their enemy. The synthetics slaughtered in Destroy were shot in the back by Shepard, the one who was supposed to be helping them.
He wasn't supposed to be helping them.
He was supposed to be stopping the Reapers.
The Geth and EDI were more than aware of what was going on. And they agreed to join the fight anyway, knowing likely that it would end up in their death regardless. They died for the greater good. What about that do you not see? You're blinded by the tree that's in the way of the road.
The level of destruction doesn't matter, because frankly, I don't want to visit the setting anymore based on these outcomes. I'm not massively, willing to crush anyone and everyone beneath my boot in the name of the "greater good"
And if you think I'm being irrational, you can always ignore my posts.
Then that's your weakness.
Yes, I, in all of my capacity to work for the greater good, am far stronger than you are so long as you hold onto that belief that everything will be alright just because you're a good guy.
He wasn't supposed to be helping them.
He was supposed to be stopping the Reapers.
Yep, this.
I understand the frustration with the execution in regards to each choice, but I really doubt it was supposed to be "flawless" - everyone lives scenario - it's just too large scale to be seen as something that would of been better than what we already got, **** - it seems on par with what we have. Hey Shepard - you did PERFECT!
Yep, this.
I understand the frustration with the execution in regards to each choice, but I really doubt it was supposed to be "flawless" - everyone lives scenario - it's just too large scale to be seen as something that would of been better than what we already got, **** - it seems on par with what we have. Hey Shepard - you did PERFECT!
The one thing I wish they did was better write the ending now and characterize things about and what exactly is happening, as well as have Shepard be more skeptical of relevance of the problem. The writing itself in the execution was just absolutely shoddy.
Yep, this.
I understand the frustration with the execution in regards to each choice, but I really doubt it was supposed to be "flawless" - everyone lives scenario - it's just too large scale to be seen as something that would of been better than what we already got, **** - it seems on par with what we have. Hey Shepard - you did PERFECT!
ACtually, the "flawless, everyone lives" scenerio is clearly supposed to be Synthesis, which, for all my complaints about Destroy, is actually worse to me.
ACtually, the "flawless, everyone lives" scenerio is clearly supposed to be Synthesis, which, for all my complaints about Destroy, is actually worse to me.
Fair enough, as I don't see Synthesis as a flawless victory personally, but I can agree that it is worse for me as well.
Oh, there are plenty of observable flaws in Synthesis, if you actually look at it.
It might as well have built itself, for all the involvement Shepard had.
And ultimately it was Bioware's handwave that decided what it did.
Oh, there are plenty of observable flaws in Synthesis, if you actually look at it.
Indeed. I've compiled my own problems with Synthesis.
Personally, I view it as a sort of mass indoctrination that sort of goes along the lines of control, only this time, it's a permanent Reaper sort of control. Everyone is Reaperized and now adopted a Reaper view of themselves.
What flaws do you see in it?
Yes, they wrote the capabilities of the Crucible, and two of the three adhere perfectly fine to tech principles in the narrative (with the third one being entirely optional).
I do wonder how Control works with Shepard somehow being physically absorbed into the Citadel system.
I'd think it would work better if they left a corpse behind, sort of like in Assassin's Creed III where Desmond's body gets fried.
Retour en haut