216 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

I agree with osbornep that Synthesis was supposed to be the ideal solution, at least originally. If it wasn't so bizarre I might have agreed, since I have no moral qualms about enacting it.

[AlanC9]

 

But are you sure you aren't massively?  He made some very similar accusations shortly before he dropped off the radar.

 

This would require PortugueseFausto (& previous handles) to have always been a Massively sock-puppet, since the two of them have participated in threads simultaneously. And liked each others' posts, FWIW. More likely they just agree with each other. It's been known to happen.

[AlanC9]

As for the rest..
 

Fortunately, the ME universe isn't reality.  And when it sudden;y punishes you for a play style it encouraged across three games, I tend to get a little upset.

I've got some sympathy for this. ME did often seem to be a series about avoiding having to make the hard choices rather than actually making them. Sometimes I suspect the devs didn't realize that they abandoned the vision expressed in the Distress Call trailer long before release.

Except for Virmire, of course. And I suppose having to work with terrorists doesn't count either because... nah, I got nothing.
 

And please do not preach to me about what morals I should and should not have.  And i'll do you the same courtesy.

If you talk about your morals, why shouldn't they be discussed the same way any other proposition can be discussed?

[wolfhowwl]

This would require PortugueseFausto (& previous handles) to have always been a Massively sock-puppet, since the two of them have participated in threads simultaneously. And liked each others' posts, FWIW. More likely they just agree with each other. It's been known to happen.

Stranger things have happened on this forum.

Many people here thought that Bob and David were the same person but it turned out they were both just drawing water from the same well.

[CronoDragoon]

Stranger things have happened on this forum.

Many people here thought that Bob and David were the same person but it turned out they were both just drawing water from the same well.

 

Sarcasm, or did I miss something about Bob not being David?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

If you talk about your morals, why shouldn't they be discussed the same way any other proposition can be discussed?

 

More to the point, why express them as being irreconcilable with the ending if you don't expect someone to come up and criticize your morals for it.

 

This was never me attacking him personally. I'm attacking his philosophy. There's a difference.

 

I'm not Massively. I know of him. Alright dude. Harsh and definitely liked to troll people a bit, but he had his moments of fairness. Granted, he's a rabid anti-Ashley guy. Not that I like her much either.

[Jorji Costava]

Sarcasm, or did I miss something about Bob not being David?

 

Whenever Bob From Accounting would be confronted with the evidence that he was in fact the same person as David, he would simply respond by saying "We all draw water from the same well."

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

@os, I'll have to get back to you in the other thread (or this one, whichever it was).

[JasonShepard]

 

Look at iakus signature for example. I think that's a bunch of useless cockamamey and not worth being catered too. It's just decrying anything that doesn't give them warm or happy fuzzies.

 

As for my sig, well, Pterry would be sad to hear you disagree, I guess.  

 

I also disagree with Iakus' signature, but for a different reason. Pterry was talking about a fairy tale. Mass Effect is not, and has never claimed to be, a fairy tale.

 

I like and dislike various different aspects of ME3's ending. I very much like the general theme of Paragon Control - self-sacrifice for the greater good, everyone gets out alive (except Shepard), relatively quick rebuild of the galaxy, that sort of stuff. I dislike Synthesis for throwing away any sense of a scientific basis. I like the moral quandary of Destroy being the safest option, but also the one that sacrifices some of your closest allies. I'm fairly indifferent towards the Catalyst itself.

 

So... no, for me, the ending of ME3 didn't wreck the series. I have my disappointments (no Harbinger boss-fight) and I have stuff I like (that memorial scene is brilliantly bittersweet). And I'm happy to leave it at that.

[Iakus]

I've got some sympathy for this. ME did often seem to be a series about avoiding having to make the hard choices rather than actually making them. Sometimes I suspect the devs didn't realize that they abandoned the vision expressed in the Distress Call trailer long before release.

Except for Virmire, of course. And I suppose having to work with terrorists doesn't count either because... nah, I got nothing.
 

Except Shepard can also be (potentially) a complete psychopath and get little more than a few stern words as a result.  Heck, barring exploiting the paragon/renegade meter, Mass Effect has always encouraged you to go "all in" one way or another.

 

Then the Catalyst basically punishes anyone who doesn't actively roleplay a Death Seeker.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The thing about the ending was "Releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy the mass relays." It didn't matter what you chose. That was in the original ending. Then people started saying "Wait, in Control, there's a short clip missing in the video that shows the relay blowing up, so in Control they don't blow up." They quickly backtracked on this and called them "damaged." Why? What was the entire purpose of Arrival? It was to show you what happens when a mass relay is destroyed. So the original ending left people with nothing but questions. Questions like: Did I just nuke the galaxy? Is anyone even alive?

 

Shepard may have survived, but for what purpose? The galaxy was a wasteland, not just from the reapers, but from the destruction of the mass relays.

 

Really, we didn't deserve that.

 

Four months passed before there was a partial resolution with the extended cut. No need to go into this further. IMO they gave it a half-assed resolution.

 

There are sufficient logic breaks in the story line from the beginning as it is, and the cringe worthy lines like "I will not sacrifice the soul of my species...." So why not have a whopper of a logic break at the end?

[Iakus]

 

 

I also disagree with Iakus' signature, but for a different reason. Pterry was talking about a fairy tale. Mass Effect is not, and has never claimed to be, a fairy tale.

 

 

The point of the signature is that it sums up very well my belief in Earn Your Happy Ending  If you put enough work into a game, go in properly prepared, make the right decisions, and you should be rewarded with a good outcome.  Something ME3 denied us.  You can go in with two, three times the required EMS and still come out a faceless torso and all synthetics slaughtered.  This is an aspect of the backlash that Bioware largely ignored.

 

Not that the other half, the sheer ludicrous nature of the Catalyst's logic  and the space magic of the Crucible in general came off any better.  but at least they made a weak, token effort to handwave that.

 

 

More to the point, why express them as being irreconcilable with the ending if you don't expect someone to come up and criticize your morals for it.

 

This was never me attacking him personally. I'm attacking his philosophy. There's a difference.

 

 I actually didn't express that.  I did say that the endings failed on many levels, including ethically.  And it's true.  That "Genocide.  Slavery.  Violation.  Still feel like a hero?" gif still makes the rounds to this day.  I'm not the only one with a problem with these endings.  So don't think I'm unique.  

 

Interestingly, there's generally little debate over assertions that the endings fail logically or narratively.  Wonder why...

 

But now that I have expressed that, go ahead and call me weak, pathetic, a coward.  Heck, call me evil if that's your thing.  I'm all for giving people options.  Even options I disagree with. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Except Shepard can also be (potentially) a complete psychopath and get little more than a few stern words as a result.  Heck, barring exploiting the paragon/renegade meter, Mass Effect has always encouraged you to go "all in" one way or another.

 

Then the Catalyst basically punishes anyone who doesn't actively roleplay a Death Seeker.

 

My Shepard certainly isn't a death-seeker, and I don't feel the Catalyst actively punishes anyone. You hold the cards here (the Crucible), not him. He's just telling you what it does, and presenting his purpose.

 

Whether you choose to act for that purpose or for your own goals is up to you entirely. Despite the inability to really argue with the Catalyst over the relevance of its mission, you aren't explicitly forced to accept it either.

[dreamgazer]

Fairytales don't typically challenge the audience to consider the positives of outright genocide and offer it as an executable option, force a rigid Sophie's Choice moment between two trusted squadmates, and only allow the defeat of the bad guy after choosing whether to throw tens of thousands of either humans or aliens---and the figureheads of the galactic government---under the bus.  That's the first game, folks.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The point of the signature is that it sums up very well my belief in Earn Your Happy Ending  If you put enough work into a game, go in properly prepared, make the right decisions, and you should be rewarded with a good outcome.  Something ME3 denied us.  You can go in with two, three times the required EMS and still come out a faceless torso and all synthetics slaughtered.  This is an aspect of the backlash that Bioware largely ignored.

 

Not that the other half, the sheer ludicrous nature of the Catalyst's logic  and the space magic of the Crucible in general came off any better.  but at least they made a weak, token effort to handwave that.

 

 

 I actually didn't express that.  I did say that the endings failed on many levels, including ethically.  And it's true.  That "Genocide.  Slavery.  Violation.  Still feel like a hero?" gif still makes the rounds to this day.  I'm not the only one with a problem with these endings.  So don't think I'm unique.  

 

Interestingly, there's generally little debate over assertions that the endings fail logically or narratively.  Wonder why...

 

But now that I have expressed that, go ahead and call me weak, pathetic, a coward.  Heck, call me evil if that's your thing.  I'm all for giving people options.  Even options I disagree with. 

 

1) Problem is that none of that has anything to do with the Crucible's functionality. And nothing you do is going to bulk up your force is going to beat the Reapers in the long run. The Crucible was designed to be a power source to manipulate the Mass Relays and the Citadel to create an energy wave that was ostensibly created to target all synthetic life. No amount of preparation, decision-making, or hard work is going to change that. You got your reward for all that. Was it portrayed badly (narratively and executionally)? Absolutely. But was the reward there? Absolutely. That reward was enough resources to protect the Crucible and ensure that it functions properly. Which it does.

 

2) There really isn't much wrong with the Catalyst's logic. It has a point. And despite how and what it may really know, it has a programmed mandate to uphold. Hence why it informs you of its mission as a factor that it hopes that you will take into consideration when making the decision, and what it perceives to be the perfect outcome. Ultimately, the choice belongs to Shepard, to you, on what to do and why you do it. And yes, the Crucible does require a lot of space magic. That's an executional flaw, not a narrative or thematic one.

 

3) It's categorically impossible for the ending to objectively fail on moral or ethical grounds. So it's false. And that gif is incorrect, because each of those is a subjective term applied to endings that aren't meant to be categorized in that way. It's essentially a massive strawman misrepresentation of the ending. It's dismissed for good reason. And, yes, many people feel that way about the ending. It's what I view as a flaw of human nature; emotional distress and 'moral' outrage trumps a lot of rational, reasonable argument. Most don't like the ending for no other reason than that they aren't the 'good' guy that they want to be.

 

4) Why bother? You've already shown the self-awareness to conscientiously label yourself as such, even if it's a mocking format. You've my job for me. Instead, I'd ask why you feel the way you do about your morality and ethics. I don't need to have a response.

[CronoDragoon]

 I actually didn't express that.  I did say that the endings failed on many levels, including ethically.  And it's true.  That "Genocide.  Slavery.  Violation.  Still feel like a hero?" gif still makes the rounds to this day.

 

And it's still fundamentally stupid. Even more stupid than the yo dawg meme.

 

ME3's endings don't fail ethically. They present an ethical dilemma. My issues with Destroy reside in the "narrative consistency" department. Control can be interpreted many ways besides slavery. And I have no ethical qualms about Synthesis, given the alternative of total annihilation.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Destroy? The Geth are gone by that time. Upload the reaper code, Legion (or Geth VI)? Are you nuts?

 

Control? Yeah, like I want to become a slushie, and leave those things alive.

 

Synthesis? Spread my "essence?" I may have learned one thing in Mass Effect, and that is to deny the Reapers my essence. We'll achieve trans-humanism, trans-whatever speciesism in our own way, thank you.

[Iakus]

And it's still fundamentally stupid. Even more stupid than the yo dawg meme.

 

ME3's endings don't fail ethically. They present an ethical dilemma. My issues with Destroy reside in the "narrative consistency" department. Control can be interpreted many ways besides slavery. And I have no ethical qualms about Synthesis, given the alternative of total annihilation.

If enough people dislike the ending for that reason, then yeah, it failed ethically.  It presented an ethical dilemma which a number of peple clearly found repugnant. 

 

You may be okay with it.  Nothing wrong with that.  There are many reasons to dislike the ending, after all.  But it is a problem for other people.  And painting smiley faces on them or saying "it was that or total annihilation" doesn't suddenly make them okay.  I'm not big on playing "Saw: the RPG"

[wright1978]

THe endings fail on many, many levels.  Logically, philosophically, narratively, ethically, take your pick.

 

As for my sig, well, Pterry would be sad to hear you disagree, I guess.  

 

But have you played the Mass Effect trilogy?  It is absolultely filled with people calling you a "hero". Heck one of Miranda's first lines in ME2 is "S/He's a hero.  A bloody icon"  In ME3 the Alliance brass is literally begging Shepard to save them (just before they get wiped out)  Hackett gives a big speech to Shepard about how he or she is a hero.  Major Coates tells Shepard how knowing the Commander is leading them is giving them hope.  

 

So, yeah.  I kinda expected the option to not have to sell my soul to the Reapers in order to "win"  Heck, spare the geth and EDI, and I could live with the breath scene as a "reward" for a high EMS.  

 

MEHEM is far from perfect.  The only way a truly "good" ending could come about is by seriously rewriting ME3, likely ME2, and possibly ME1 as well.  But if I must have a nonsensical ending, I'd rather have an upbeat nonsensical ending and a pointlessly tragic one.  

 

Sadly, the Bioware writers disagree.

 

Note i said "upbeat" not happy.  With billions dead and a galaxy in ruins, a truly happy ending is never in the cards.

 

Yep as far as i'm concerned endings are a trainwreck, in every manner possible.

Mehem is by no means perfect but given the very limited tools at the disposal of a modder it was a miraculous achievement to produce something that was halfway workable and rewarding  from the mess at hand. I always consider the name mehem funny, because as you say the galaxy is in ruins, billions are dead etc no matter what.

[Iakus]

Yep as far as i'm concerned endings are a trainwreck, in every manner possible.

Mehem is by no means perfect but given the very limited tools at the disposal of a modder it was a miraculous achievement to produce something that was halfway workable and rewarding  from the mess at hand. I always consider the name mehem funny, because as you say the galaxy is in ruins, billions are dead etc no matter what.

 

And, of course, the latest version of MEHEM has a Low EMS version, which, well, isn't exactly a happy ending by any definition.

[CronoDragoon]

If enough people dislike the ending for that reason, then yeah, it failed ethically.  It presented an ethical dilemma which a number of peple clearly found repugnant.

 

I'm not going to buy the argumentum ad populum there. The point of an ethical dilemma is that no choice is preferable.

 

I will say that they definitely misread the degree to which their audience actually wanted to be challenged by a choice. Many people just want to steamroll through the universe doing whatever they want. And hey, why not when the first 2.9 games did this 95% of the time?

[Iakus]

I'm not going to buy the argumentum ad populum there. The point of an ethical dilemma is that no choice is preferable.

 

I will say that they definitely misread the degree to which their audience actually wanted to be challenged by a choice. Many people just want to steamroll through the universe doing whatever they want. And hey, why not when the first 2.9 games did this 95% of the time?

I think you're exagerating with the "steamroll" term.  But I do think you're right that they misread the audience.  The changes wrought by the Crucible are simply too big, too extreme, too questionable.  And yet are unavoidable thanks to "pick a color or the galaxy dies"

[dreamgazer]

Pick an outcome, not pick a color.  Hard to take those comments seriously when they both trivialize and inflate the ending decision's impact. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

If enough people dislike the ending for that reason, then yeah, it failed ethically.  It presented an ethical dilemma which a number of peple clearly found repugnant. 

 

You may be okay with it.  Nothing wrong with that.  There are many reasons to dislike the ending, after all.  But it is a problem for other people.  And painting smiley faces on them or saying "it was that or total annihilation" doesn't suddenly make them okay.  I'm not big on playing "Saw: the RPG"

 

That's how most ethical dilemma's work. You have a difficult decision without a clear-cut easy answer. That's not a failure of ethics and morality. That's just people getting upset because the game is being hard on them for once.

 

Actually, it does make it ok and acceptable. Is that total annihilation preferable all so you get to maintain your ethical integrity? Nobody would agree with that. "Sorry little Jimmy, I can't save you because doing so would mean I have to do something that is bad." It's hopelessly naive. Javik really needs to school you. Listen to him. He speaks truth.

[dreamgazer]

Again, ME1, the first game of this trilogy, touches on the idea of genocide having positive merits and not committing genocide having possible repercussions.