So maybe I should do a nonimport run and turn chocies off so I can figure out how I was doing it wrong.
Because clearly my Shepard wasn't Mac Walters'
I'll start taking this complaint a bit more seriously when you can show me a ME1 protagonist whose last name wasn't Shepard, who wasn't of the Alliance Navy, who didn't jump in front of the beacon on Eden Prime, who decided not to become a Spectre, who chose somebody else to die on Virmire other than Kaidan or Ashley, and so on.
Ladies and gentlemen, the reductio ad absurdum in action.
Ladies and gentlemen, the reductio ad absurdum in action.
Thanks for giving an example with your comment
Ladies and gentlemen, the reductio ad absurdum in action.
I don't buy the Saren/Synthesis parallel. Saren's plan seemed to be that organics would receive Synthetic upgrades, but the Reapers would still return to the galaxy and rule as dictators - organics would keep their lives by being "useful" to the Reapers. Personally, I thought back in ME1 that Sovereign was likely lying to Saren and planned to kill or harvest him once he outlived his usefulness, and had no intention of letting spacefaring organics live. That isn't what happens in Synthesis according to the EC - the organics and the Reapers seem to be cooperating, without one group or the other having a clear upper hand.
In light of ME3, *maybe* the Catalyst would have directed the Reapers to give Saren's plan a chance, but it's not hard to imagine that enough organics would simply refuse to go along that the Catalyst would decide it's doomed to fail and order them to finish the harvest.
Thanks for giving an example with your comment
"I'm stuck with the name 'Shepard' therefore I shouldn't have a say in my characters' ultimate fate" is pretty ridiculous.
"I'm stuck with the name 'Shepard' therefore I shouldn't have a say in my characters' ultimate fate" is pretty ridiculous.
The truth in action. Shepard and his/her actions have been on the rails from the beginning, sir.
Rails which could be diverted. At least until the end.
I don't buy the Saren/Synthesis parallel. Saren's plan seemed to be that organics would receive Synthetic upgrades, but the Reapers would still return to the galaxy and rule as dictators - organics would keep their lives by being "useful" to the Reapers. Personally, I thought back in ME1 that Sovereign was likely lying to Saren and planned to kill or harvest him once he outlived his usefulness, and had no intention of letting spacefaring organics live. That isn't what happens in Synthesis according to the EC - the organics and the Reapers seem to be cooperating, without one group or the other having a clear upper hand.
In light of ME3, *maybe* the Catalyst would have directed the Reapers to give Saren's plan a chance, but it's not hard to imagine that enough organics would simply refuse to go along that the Catalyst would decide it's doomed to fail and order them to finish the harvest.
THe Reapers were lying/indoctrinating Saren. But the conclusions he came to are frighteningly close to the description of Synthesis. Which makes you either wonder about the honesty of the Catalyst, or whether any of the writers actually paid atention to ME1.
"I'm stuck with the name 'Shepard' therefore I shouldn't have a say in my characters' ultimate fate" is pretty ridiculous.
No, complaining about being railroaded through the ending when the whole trilogy was made that way, that's what is ridiculous
If that were the only thing I listed, I might agree.
How does anything you've listed compare to death/screwing with the entire freaking galaxy.
It's not even apples and oranges. It's grapes and watermelons.
No, complaining about being railroaded through the ending when the whole trilogy was made that way, that's what is ridiculous
That's the complaint of ME3 in general. Choices we have been waiting years to finally mean something were rendered trivial if not outright meaningless.
I am sure this is a debate that will long outlast the dead horse but I did want to point out one thing and that is it is all about your opinion. For me there is a good ending and that is the one that leaves the reapers dead and I agreed with Hacket that it had to be done no matter the cost. Sure it made me sad to know that killing them cost me the Geth and EDI and probably my Shep's life but the threat was ended and our future is now truly ours.
My choice wouldn't have changed even if I was told it would be all of humanity that would die instead of the geth but then again I am able to see outside the box and consider what is in the best interest of all and not a single group. I don't fear death and I can accept it as long as giving up my life is not in vain.
That's the complaint of ME3 in general. Choices we have been waiting years to finally mean something were rendered trivial if not outright meaningless.
Sure, some of them did not have huge impact that one might expect. But so did the choices of ME1 in ME2. Heck, the game didn't even acknowledge your choice of the human councilor
How does anything you've listed compare to death/screwing with the entire freaking galaxy.
It's not even apples and oranges. It's grapes and watermelons.
Shepard could've died at the beginning of ME1 in that moment of sacrifice with the beacon. You "screw" with the galaxy at the end of ME1 through your council choice. And Shepard can, indeed, live in ME3's ending!
It relates because Shepard is a largely-defined character with a set path and definite restrictions. Because no, you can't divert those rails.
It's your Shepard, not your Commander.
Sure, some of them did not have huge impact that one might expect. But so did the choices of ME1 in ME2. Heck, the game didn't even acknowledge your choice of the human councilor
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The choices of ME1, ME2, and ME3 amounted to virrtually nothing.
Until ME3 was released, there was always the promise that it's just being delayed, that they can go nuts with the divergence later, but for now it would cause too much of a headache. But it never appeared.
And Mac takes pride in not even allowing choice in Shepard's ultimate fate! Like Shepard is nothing but a character on a tv show we have no input in! An extra groin kick on top of an ultimately disappointing conclusion,
Shepard could've died at the beginning of ME1 in that moment of sacrifice with the beacon. You "screw" with the galaxy at the end of ME1 through your council choice. And Shepard can, indeed, live in ME3's ending!
It relates because Shepard is a largely-defined character with a set path and definite restrictions. Because no, you can't divert those rails.
It's your Shepard, not your Commander.
No:
SHepard can die at the start of Mass Effect. Just turn off the game. He stroked out on Eden Prime. What do you want to play next?
Shepard's choice of Councilor affect the politics of a government that oversees less than one percent of the explored galaxy. ME3's final chcoie affects the status of the entire galaxy. All spacefaring life everywhere. Maybe all life period.
I will state, once again, that it's an easter egg. One that people desperately cling to because it's the least sucky outcome for them.
There are always restrictions in a computer game. But not allowing the player to have a say in that character's ultimate fate is unusually restricitve. Especially when you keep touting how much choice supposedly matters.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The choices of ME1, ME2, and ME3 amounted to virrtually nothing.
Until ME3 was released, there was always the promise that it's just being delayed, that they can go nuts with the divergence later, but for now it would cause too much of a headache. But it never appeared.
And Mac takes pride in not even allowing choice in Shepard's ultimate fate! Like Shepard is nothing but a character on a tv show we have no input in! An extra groin kick on top of an ultimately disappointing conclusion,
I'm not buying this "promise" you mention. If the human councilor is Udina and not Anderson due to Shepard's damaged memory in ME2, it will be late for an explanation in ME3. Remember Conrad's claims about you shoving a gun in his face? And an attempt to fix it in ME3?
In ME1 and ME2 your character makes a lot of meaningless choices on a galactic scale and they all play out in some way. Saving Maelon's data impacts the cure research in ME3, activating Legion counts for geth/quarian peace, sparing Rana Thanoptis costs you war assets etc.
The only choice I agree with you on being rendered pointless is the rachni queen situation. Killing the rachni should've removed the corresponding mission from ME3, period.
SHepard can die at the start of Mass Effect. Just turn off the game. He stroked out on Eden Prime. What do you want to play next?
Doesn't change the potential of Shepard's action in that moment. Death was a very real possibility as a result of low risk management, and it wasn't the player's choice.
Shepard's choice of Councilor affect the politics of a government that oversees less than one percent of the explored galaxy. ME3's final chcoie affects the status of the entire galaxy. All spacefaring life everywhere. Maybe all life period.
Shepard's council choice changes the way the galaxy perceives humanity.
But yes, the final choice in the entire trilogy and the end of the Reaper threat was much larger in scope.
I will state, once again, that it's an easter egg. One that people desperately cling to because it's the least sucky outcome for them.
A canonical "easter egg" that confirms Shepard's survival.
There are always restrictions in a computer game. But not allowing the player to have a say in that character's ultimate fate is unusually restricitve. Especially when you keep touting how much choice supposedly matters.
Happens all the time in games, even those with choices, and it happened to a degree to Commander Shepard of the Alliance Navy.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The choices of ME1, ME2, and ME3 amounted to virrtually nothing.
Until ME3 was released, there was always the promise that it's just being delayed, that they can go nuts with the divergence later, but for now it would cause too much of a headache. But it never appeared.
ME3 can actually look quite different based on your choices throughout ME1 and ME2.
The only thing that still bugs me is that shepard jumped through time right at the end of ME into june of 2000.
Apologies in advance for length.
I don't know, I think there's a good ending. It's just my opinion, but I liked synthesis. I'm not saying it was executed all that logically, but I think the implications make it one of the stronger endings in any game I've played. Admittedly, I am a bit biased because I am getting my degree in Sociology, so implications like those involved in synthesis REALLY excite my passion for the subject. (I actually wrote a paper in my undergrad based on this)
Synthesis for me represented the only true escape from the "human condition." Look at our world today; it's hateful, cynical, often uneducated, and often brutal. That these qualities exist even in Mass Effect's far future societies tells how prevalent they STILL are. Now imagine an outcome (in a game, I know, but this is that passion of mine) that could produce not just a world, but a UNIVERSE without racism, sexism, age prejudice, sexual-orientation prejudice, class prejudice, and all the other shortcomings present in EVERY societal existence! A universe with not only the collected knowledge of every species we have ever known, but also of the billions that we haven't! The barriers between superiority and inferiority truly vanish for the first time, and the potential of EVERY individual transcends all precedence! The way is open for true objectivity, access to an unending reservoir of knowledge, and the founding of a true Utopia on a galaxy wide scale! Think of how inconceivable these ideals are if you try to reconcile them in our society today. Achieving these outcomes was what made me hobble my Shep for that green beam.
I didn't like the other solutions for a couple reasons. First, Destroy reminded me of the ending in Assassin's Creed III. Yes, I destroy the Reapers, but there's still no hope for lasting change in such a solution. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound; history will continue to simply repeat itself. Sooner or later organics would make more synthetics and repeat the same Terminator cycle we always see. The social implications don't change very much either, and would likely only get worse with the scarce resources (We gain no new knowledge to repair mass relays. No more relays = no more trade.)
I think Control is the least moral of all the options. It skips ALL notion of elected officials or any sense of self-government or self-determination. Grand Master Shepard elevates his/her self and gets to make completely arbitrary decisions with the most powerful military force in the galaxy on a whim. There's ZERO influence from any sort of democratic process from ANY species, and the galaxy gets to bow down and smile. I don't see what authority he/she has to turn the galaxy into a perpetual dictatorship. A human who's species has been spacefaring for a couple decades gets to now dictate to civilizations who have been spaceflight-capable cultures for thousands of years???
I completely understand the strong argument as to what moral authority Shepard has to re-write others on a genetic level. However, as I see it, it is the "least morally wrong" choice of all the options. To choose destroy is to (eventually) sentence the galaxy to more conflict between organics & synthetics. Every death caused from such conflict is in a way on Shepard's head for failing to advance societies past such conflicts right there and then. I've said my piece on control, and I just think that for the benefits synthesis grants, the moral downside is outweighed by the greater good. I think synthesis's moral dilemma also show the cost a society would have to pay in order to achieve a perfection that we cannot know in our present forms, and that's a deep concept I don't see echoed in the other endings.
The only thing that still bugs me is that shepard jumped through time right at the end of ME into june of 2000.
Are you sure it wasn't 1982?
http://en.wikipedia....undation's_Edge
You are right, I loved the different endings that shipped with the book.
THe Reapers were lying/indoctrinating Saren. But the conclusions he came to are frighteningly close to the description of Synthesis. Which makes you either wonder about the honesty of the Catalyst, or whether any of the writers actually paid atention to ME1.
Isn't the role of the Reapers a pretty significant difference, though? Nothing in the Catalyst's description of the possibility or in EDI's narration - and she is clearly speaking at least partly of events that have already happened, not just speculating about the future - suggests that they have any more authority than anyone else in the post-Synthesis galaxy. Saren's dialogue on Virmire and the Citadel says pretty explicitly that the Reapers will still be the ones calling all the shots, even if they did let him carry out his plan to "upgrade" organics. Granted, I think it was around 3:30 a.m. when I first got to the end of ME3, but I didn't even think of Saren when the Catalyst proposed the Synthesis option.
If anything, Saren's conclusions are probably closer to TIM's - both of them believe that openly opposing the Reapers is certain to fail, they just disagree on what to do about it (capitulate in Saren's case, and try to control them in TIM's).
THe Reapers were lying/indoctrinating Saren. But the conclusions he came to are frighteningly close to the description of Synthesis. Which makes you either wonder about the honesty of the Catalyst, or whether any of the writers actually paid atention to ME1.
I've never really understood this viewpoint. To me, Saren's desire was to submit to the reapers; surrender, not merge. He may have believed he was going to be their chosen spokesturian, but that was the indoctrination at work. In reality he was no better than those politicians on Earth that the reapers were using to pacify the population. In the end, he was just like a reaperfied Cerberus mook, not much more than a husk.
Retour en haut
