Aller au contenu

Photo

my only issue with ME3 so far


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
150 réponses à ce sujet

#26
Kuseikos

Kuseikos
  • Members
  • 21 messages

Well..

so, I finished the game, and I don't see why I shouldn't like it. It's been great!

I have won the alliance of all the galaxy, cured the Krogan (for real), had the pleasure to see Zaeed dying, went on to devastate Cerberus's base, killed that freak Kai Leng or whatever his name, and finally managed to shoot a bullet straight between the eyes of that demented criminal TIM... I don't see what I shouldn't like.

I am not sure this was the original ending or the extended version, I suppose the latter, because I actually liked the ending. I don't know, I find it quite appropriate that after a game story based on the struggle between the extreme Other (synthetic life) and Us (Organics) the best solution would be the synthesys between the two. It's a theme that was also dealt with in Asimov's novels. So here we are, the galaxy was saved, wars disappeared, organics and synthetics will live happily ever after without cycles of destruction, and there will be peace at last. 

To hell with TIM and his powercrazed rants, I waited to shoot him for two games and finally I placed my bullet in his demented brains.

 

Shepard took the obvious decision of course: ultimate sacrifice to save the galaxy. And the galaxy was saved. It's been great.

 

Nothing more to add at this point: it's obvious the best game is still the first one, but the third one was amazing too. The only one I totally disliked was ME2, as I said before.

 

Great trilogy though. The 3rd game did a lot to correct the various mistakes of the 2nd. Mission accomplished. World saved. We can take a rest now.



#27
themikefest

themikefest
  • Members
  • 21 613 messages

I am not sure this was the original ending or the extended version, 

Did you have the memorial scene? If not, it was the original ending 



#28
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages

Wow. 

 

No actual thoughts into the ending? No reflection or deeper questions? No alternate perspectives?
 

Shoot, how I would love to live in the world of... well, you. 

 

You take things at face value... I'm still concerned people like that exist.



#29
Kuseikos

Kuseikos
  • Members
  • 21 messages

<quote>

Did you have the memorial scene? If not, it was the original ending 

</quote>

 

Yes, I had the memorial scene, so it's the extended cut.

Well if that's so, I wonder how the original ending was like. Because what I have seen looked pretty much the only possible way to make a fitting ending. I have heard the original ending was awful, but I thought the problem was like the ending wasn't appropriate or unsatisfying or unpleasant or something like that, and that Bioware created an extended version of the game to keep playing beyond the ending and reach a second, better ending. Apparently that was not the case. I assume the original ending was simply missing a few scenes. But I don't know how it was like and I guess I don't need to know. What I got is fair enough

 

As for our talkative friend God, I must say I sort of missed his shallow provocations and innuendoes, but you know, I am still wondering what makes him take everything so personally.

No I normally don't take things at face value, just to your knowledge.

Anyway, this ending is fitting. For three games we have been induced to wage war against AI. It seemed to be all about us against them. Organics on one side and synthetics on the other. I hated Cerberus much more than synthetics though. Not at first: at the beginning, during the first game, that obnoxious Saren took his well deserved dose of hatred. The Reapers then took his place. Then along came ME2 and Cerberus (quite a nasty presence already) was finally depicted as the criminal organization it actually is: the most hateful and repulsive characteristic of TIM and his bunch of criminals was their inherent racism and unacceptable belief that humanity should prevail over other species. Humanity is just one of the species of the galaxy, it needs to fit in the bigger picture and establish the right relationship with other species, who have exactly the same right to be in the galaxy and deserve exactly the same respect we owe to mankind. TIM and his terrorists would break just about any ethical rule just to push forward an intrinsically wrong end, which is promoting humanity at all costs, disregarding the needs and the rights of other species, and even using their own kin to perform the most disgusting experiments. In the end, it was obvious that such a powercrazed organization would think of controlling the Reapers, unsurprisingly to use them to promote their own interests in spite of those of other species. It was absolutely evident that the real evil was Cerberus. The Reapers were just machines went crazy, something we could deal with by destroying them and restoring the galactic balance.

But Cerberus: they were much worse than that. They were the futuristic version of Nazi belief that Germans come first. That anything is acceptable for the sake of your own good, or your race's good, which is mean, miserable and obtuse. Even without Reapers, imbeciles like TIM would always be there attempting to unbalance the beautiful equilibrium of diplomacy, compromise and peaceful life by conceiving evil plans whose only aim would be promoting their own small part of the picture. They are the space nazis. Priority one. After all, even the Prothean failed to stop the Reapers because a group among them reasoned much like Cerberus.

 

In ME3, Bioware does the right thing in explaining how Cerberus is actually despicable, and then turns the table with a coup that deserves commendation.

While we thought of the good old galaxy, the balance between organic species and the need to restore the status quo, they go one step further and make you think: look, it's all about diversity. It's not about Krogans, Turians and Salarians: they are different among themselves, true enough, but they aren't nearly as different as they differ from synthetics. Artificial life and Organic life is the ultimate distinction between "us" and "them". This story is about The Other. The relationship between different peoples of the world is reflected in the ultimate difficulty of relationship between organisms and machines. 

Peace would not last, organics and synthetics never fully understand each other: even if the Reapers stop it (and they must stop it, because killing is never a solution), there will still be struggle between the opposite parts. It's no longer a matter of different species: this is a matter of different life forms. True, Quarians making peace with the Geth would prove that fighting is not necessary, that compromise and mutual understanding is indeed possible. But perhaps what the Catalyst means is that even there, eventually, Quarian and Geth would start struggling again.

The only possible way out of this is mutual understanding, and this is possible through integration. This is how civilization works after all. No progress in civilization can be achieved without a process of constant inclusion of diversity in your group. Closed groups that promote their own interests don't live long. The only way to progress is through integration, understanding, contamination. 

So peace is only possible if the distinction between "us" and "them" disappears. Shepard gives her life to promote this fusion, this new culture that is the ultimate step in evolution. No more death, no more misunderstandings. This is the way to settle the matter once and for all.

 

I think Bioware taught a very good lesson here. I am not sure what the problem with the original ending was, but this is how things should go even here and now.

 

As for alternate endings, I haven't explored them yet. I will see, out of curiosity, what they are about. But I suspect that other endings can't be nearly as good as this one.

In fact, I understand the importance of giving alternatives in a role playing game. But this is not just a RPG, it's actually a fine story, and fine stories should teach something. I hope BioWare has found a way to uphold the essence of the morality of this game even in other endings.

I'll see and judge myself.

 

Bravo Bioware. Great game, despite you cheated me into playing for Nazis for a while. 



#30
Linkenski

Linkenski
  • Members
  • 3 452 messages
I'm sure I would've been less vehement had I not seen the original ending before extended cut... still, I would've probably still largely disliked the ending anyway. It feels kinda fitting on one hand but on the flipside it falls apart the way I see it.

#31
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages

As for our talkative friend God, I must say I sort of missed his shallow provocations and innuendoes, but you know, I am still wondering what makes him take everything so personally.

 

Why do I take things so personally?

 

Mainly because I identify so clearly with Cerberus and believe that you are patently incorrect in your characterization for them. 

 

I feel very strongly about this. The words you equate to call Cerberus are thus the words you equate to me. When you call Cerberus nazi's, in effect, you are calling me a nazi. When you call them the scum of the universe, you're calling me the scum of the universe. When you call them terrorists, you're calling me a terrorist. I fight *real* terrorists for a living. And trust me, Cerberus are not terrorists. So yeah, I take it seriously. It's bone-dead false.

 

As well, I don't like it when someone dismisses arguments based on feelings rather than facts. And you don't even consider a counter-argument or difference in view. It's arrogant of you, ignorant of you, and shows a complete lack of reflection on your judgement. You hold a holier-than-thou attitude where there is no room for interpretation: You are right, and anything else is wrong. In effect, I hold it as you saying you're better than me, and, I'll say that given the type of person I am, I really don't like that unless you can prove it.

 

If you want to actually debate this, feel free to PM me.

 

As well, your assessment of the ending and taking it at face value is rather strange. Yes, you are doing it:

 

For starters, there's no such thing as 'ultimate evolution'. Evolution has no path.


  • Valmar, chr0n0mancer et Madrarrrrr aiment ceci

#32
Valmar

Valmar
  • Members
  • 1 952 messages

Kuseikos we both clearly got VERY, VERY different intepretations from Cerberus.  Like, wow. That didn't describe them in ME2 to me in the slightest.

 

Also if you want to wonder what ME3's ending used to be like... Think of this: make your choice, see the beam of light hit the relays, Normandy crashes into planet. End. You've saw the original ending, nothing really changed with EC. EC just added, well, more content. Much like the name suggests it extends the content already there. Just picture shorter dialogue with the catalyst, no Normandy evac for your squad, less ship battles, no Hatckett/Edi/Shepard speech at the end... Just a flash of colors and Joker stepping off the Normandy.

 

Oh, and my personal favorite, before EC you also got a popup at the end of the game asking you to buy future DLC! Hoo-boy!



#33
MagicalMaster

MagicalMaster
  • Members
  • 2 003 messages

Y'know, I don't agree with God on many (most?) things regarding Ceberus, but I still think Kuseiko's priorties are so warped on many levels it's not even funny.  ME2 was clearly the best game of the three for me on multiple levels, followered by 95% of ME3, followed by ME1.  And that's with me not being happy about working with Cerberus too.  The fact that ME2 has the best end game sequence of any video game I've ever played certainly helps in that regard, I'll admit.


  • God aime ceci

#34
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages

Y'know, I don't agree with God on many (most?) things regarding Ceberus, but I still think Kuseiko's priorties are so warped on many levels it's not even funny.  ME2 was clearly the best game of the three for me on multiple levels, followered by 95% of ME3, followed by ME1.  And that's with me not being happy about working with Cerberus too.  The fact that ME2 has the best end game sequence of any video game I've ever played certainly helps in that regard, I'll admit.

 

A lot of people don't agree with me about Cerberus, I'll admit.

 

But I like to think I've been able to make a few people look at them in a slightly different light.

 

As you say, he really has his priorities warped in the game, and he seems to be completely un-receptive to any response from anyone.

 

I wonder why he even posts on here.



#35
MagicalMaster

MagicalMaster
  • Members
  • 2 003 messages

But I like to think I've been able to make a few people look at them in a slightly different light.

 

Perhaps.  I do find it strange you seem to insist they're not terrorists given they kidnapped, tortured, and murdered an Alliance military official who was investigating them.  Say the leadership of the Tea Party (or the Sierra Club) was doing some less than ethical things and a senator or general caught wind of it and started trying to figure out what was going on.  If that group then abducted, tortured, and killed the senator/general as a warning to leave them alone I don't see how that wouldn't be considered a terrorist act.

 

I mean, the usual definition of terrorism is non-governmental groups using violence to achievement political ends (which, yes, means the Founding Fathers were effectively terrorists in the eyes of the British).

 

That's not to say EVERYTHING Cerberus did was terrorism -- plenty of morally questionable experiments and such -- but I don't see how you can say they aren't included in the category of terrorists.  The Mass Effect wiki (which isn't technically official, I know) describes it as...

 

"Cerberus is a human-survivalist paramilitary group led by the enigmatic Illusive Man...Cerberus supports the principle that any methods of advancing humanity's ascension are entirely justified, including illegal or dangerous experimentation, terrorist activities, sabotage and assassination. Cerberus operatives accept that these methods are brutal, but believe history will vindicate them."

 

If a serum was developed that doubled human life spans and increased intelligence by 50% to boot...but had the minor side effect of killing 80% of people injected with it...Cerberus would start distributing it to as many people as they saw fit anyway in terms of the long term interest.  I'm not saying they'd instantly try to affect all of humanity...but the main reason they wouldn't is because losing 80% of the entire population all at once would severely weaken humanity militarily and politically and leave it vulnerable.


  • paramitch aime ceci

#36
Kuseikos

Kuseikos
  • Members
  • 21 messages

God, as you like to style yourself, if you knew me even slightly, you would know that it is extremely unlikely that I would call *you* a nazi without even knowing you, and regardless of what you think of Cerberus.

This is only a video-game, not real life, and I would recommend not taking it on such a personal level. Besides, I have a well known respect for soldiers, so don't even think I don't appreciate your RL job.

 

that much said, I would keep the discussion to the game and its story alone. And I agree with you MagicalMaster, that's exactly what Cerberus would do.



#37
themikefest

themikefest
  • Members
  • 21 613 messages

Will you be doing another trilogy run?

 

You never mentioned anything about the Geth/Quarian war and the asari not revealing the artifact until the last minute. Will you be posting any comments about those missions?



#38
MagicalMaster

MagicalMaster
  • Members
  • 2 003 messages

And I agree with you MagicalMaster, that's exactly what Cerberus would do.

 

Which, incidentally, does not mean ME2 automatically sucks.  I assume you've heard the phrase "The enemy of my enemy...?"  In an ideal situation you don't need to work with Cerberus against the Collectors.  But you weren't in an ideal situation.

 

If anything, think of WWII with the USA and the USSR on the "same" side against Germany/Italy/Japan.  Neither wanted to work with the other, both disliked each other and considered the other a threat...but there was a more pressing threat at that moment to work together against.



#39
Jenrais

Jenrais
  • Members
  • 192 messages

I have been playing ME3 and I find it clearly superior to ME2 in all respects. The story feels better, there are many side quests, I like the characters (I hate Vega, but then again I hated Kaidan too in ME1 - there always needs to be one I hate aboard). But... I think the data interface is worse now. 

In ME1 - ME2, you just had to open your diary to know what to do as you progressed through a mission. Now you risk to wander cluelessly searching for that one person you need to talk to or the item you need to recover, which is a subplot of a main quest that is not recorded anywhere...

Why did they do this?...

 

the one problem I had is when you said many side quests. Fetch quests were more like it. Think two or three sidequests actually had something substantial.



#40
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages
Perhaps.  I do find it strange you seem to insist they're not terrorists given they kidnapped, tortured, and murdered an Alliance military official who was investigating them.  Say the leadership of the Tea Party (or the Sierra Club) was doing some less than ethical things and a senator or general caught wind of it and started trying to figure out what was going on.  If that group then abducted, tortured, and killed the senator/general as a warning to leave them alone I don't see how that wouldn't be considered a terrorist act.

 

 

 

Then you'd have an incorrect definition of terrorism. The primary element of terrorism is fear. To monger or generate fear among a populace and coerce their government to concede to your demands.

 

Cerberus does not do that. 

 


I mean, the usual definition of terrorism is non-governmental groups using violence to achievement political ends (which, yes, means the Founding Fathers were effectively terrorists in the eyes of the British).

 

 

 

As I said, that's not terrorism. That's government violence. In the case of the founding fathers, that's secession and rebellion, not terrorism.

 

Your usual definition is incorrect.


That's not to say EVERYTHING Cerberus did was terrorism -- plenty of morally questionable experiments and such -- but I don't see how you can say they aren't included in the category of terrorists.  The Mass Effect wiki (which isn't technically official, I know) describes it as...

 

"Cerberus is a human-survivalist paramilitary group led by the enigmatic Illusive Man...Cerberus supports the principle that any methods of advancing humanity's ascension are entirely justified, including illegal or dangerous experimentation, terrorist activities, sabotage and assassination. Cerberus operatives accept that these methods are brutal, but believe history will vindicate them."

 

 

 

No, and I wouldn't even say anything of what they did was terrorism at all. 

 

By definition, what they do is akin to many non-governmental actors (and most governmental/state actors) use for ploys to advance an agenda. Unless you can give me an example of terrorism however, I maintain that they haven't used such methods. 

 

I accept and support their brutal methods if they produce usable and valuable results.

 

If a serum was developed that doubled human life spans and increased intelligence by 50% to boot...but had the minor side effect of killing 80% of people injected with it...Cerberus would start distributing it to as many people as they saw fit anyway in terms of the long term interest.  I'm not saying they'd instantly try to affect all of humanity...but the main reason they wouldn't is because losing 80% of the entire population all at once would severely weaken humanity militarily and politically and leave it vulnerable.

 

 

They'd find a more pliable way to create a more efficient solution while testing the results in a controlled population. If the produced positive results, then I'd support them continuing the program while searching for an more practical application to the serum.


  • Valmar aime ceci

#41
Valmar

Valmar
  • Members
  • 1 952 messages

IMO the Shadow Broker is more a terrorist than Cerberus. Ironically Cerberus work in the shadows more than the Shadow Broker.



#42
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages

God, as you like to style yourself, if you knew me even slightly, you would know that it is extremely unlikely that I would call *you* a nazi without even knowing you, and regardless of what you think of Cerberus.

This is only a video-game, not real life, and I would recommend not taking it on such a personal level. Besides, I have a well known respect for soldiers, so don't even think I don't appreciate your RL job.

 

that much said, I would keep the discussion to the game and its story alone. And I agree with you MagicalMaster, that's exactly what Cerberus would do.

 

By calling Cerberus nazi's, you are calling me one. I identify with groups and individuals like them and their methodology. And those groups certainly aren't nazi's, terrorists, or scum. So yes. You did call me a nazi. 

 

I do take it on a personal level. And I resent you for it. 

 

You refuse to engage with me on a discussion on Cerberus, and refuse to even try to gain any kind of alternate perspective, even for the sake of rational discussion. You don't address my statements, just tell me not to take it personally. As well, you seem to be having a fundamental disconnect and inability to discuss my comments.

 

As I said, I'd like to have a conversation with you on Cerberus and still extend an open invitation to a PM. I don't know why, since I feel I wouldn't get anywhere, but I'd like to try and get some kind of reception from an argument.



#43
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages

IMO the Shadow Broker is more a terrorist than Cerberus. Ironically Cerberus work in the shadows more than the Shadow Broker.

 

Indeed. 

 

There was no reason to bomb the trade center on Illium whatsoever.

 

The SB is more of a galactic gangster involved in state espionage and organized crime.

 

To me, the only group that really fits the title of terrorist would be the Batarian forces you run into, and some of the actions of the Terminus gangs.



#44
The Arbiter

The Arbiter
  • Members
  • 1 020 messages

http://www.vgcats.co...ages/120416.jpg

I'll just leave this here...

Haha I never laughed so hard



#45
Fixers0

Fixers0
  • Members
  • 4 434 messages

I'm confident that an Alliance or Citadel court would be able to convict Cerberus on charges of terrorism for their attacks of Benning, The Citadel and Aephus.

 

That being said though, I do realise that the charge terrorism is insuficient when it comes to holding Cerberus responsable for their atrocious actions. So, while a post-war trial may indeed decide to charge Cerberus with terrorism I think it would make more sense if they are charged with War Crimes, Crimes Agains Humanity and Crimes against Peace.



#46
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages

Benning was a rogue attack that also had the purpose of rounding up civilians. 

 

The Citadel was a political coup d'etat.

 

And Aepheus was a strike at a strategic Turian colony that was more akin to a tactical assault than terrorism.

 

That said, you could hand those charges out to just about anyone. Granted, I think Cerberus is going to be the scapegoat.

 

I don't personally believe that war crimes are a real thing. If the crimes against humanity have a benefit, as most of Cerberus' did, then I see it as something that shouldn't be punished. Crimes against peace is a joke crime to begin with. 



#47
DanishGambit

DanishGambit
  • Members
  • 51 messages

Benning was a rogue attack that also had the purpose of rounding up civilians. 

 

The Citadel was a political coup d'etat.

 

And Aepheus was a strike at a strategic Turian colony that was more akin to a tactical assault than terrorism.

 

That said, you could hand those charges out to just about anyone. Granted, I think Cerberus is going to be the scapegoat.

 

I don't personally believe that war crimes are a real. If the crimes against humanity have a benefit, as most of Cerberus' did, then I see it as something that shouldn't be punished. Crimes against peace is a joke crime to begin with. 

You're rolling into moral relativity now, a philosophy not shared by even the most primitive beasts and embraced by no civilized society...



#48
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages


You're rolling into moral relativity now, a philosophy not shared by even the most primitive beasts and embraced by no civilized society...

 

Actually, moral relativity is considered a refinement on the black and white principles of moral absolutism. Most people believe in absolutism because, frankly, they aren't smart enough to understand that their world-view is not THE worldview.

 

So yes, the more primitive you are, the less likely you are to understand or embrace the concept of moral relativism.

 

As well, I being a moral relativist does not mean that I do not have my own sense of right and wrong. 

 

You can acknowledge that a cultural or societal norm for morality is not universal or absolute, just the conduct you wish to adhere to.

 

This goes for both normative and descriptive relativism.

 

I myself am largely a utilitarian.


  • Esthlos aime ceci

#49
MagicalMaster

MagicalMaster
  • Members
  • 2 003 messages

Then you'd have an incorrect definition of terrorism. The primary element of terrorism is fear. To monger or generate fear among a populace and coerce their government to concede to your demands.

 

Cerberus does not do that.

 

How exactly was kidnapping and murdering an Alliance admiral *not* trying to cause fear and coerce a government?  "If you even think about investigating us, we'll make you disappear."

 

I mean, are you attempting to argue that the definition of terrorism here isn't valid?

 

As I said, that's not terrorism. That's government violence. In the case of the founding fathers, that's secession and rebellion, not terrorism.

 

Your usual definition is incorrect.

 

It's secession and rebellion from *our* viewpoint, terrorism from the British viewpoint.

 

They'd find a more pliable way to create a more efficient solution while testing the results in a controlled population. If the produced positive results, then I'd support them continuing the program while searching for an more practical application to the serum.

 

Are you trying to claim that if Cerberus believed that they could administer that serum WITHOUT the resulting loss in population resulting in military/political problems that they WOULDN'T use it?  Assume that attempts to produce a less lethal version all failed if it makes you feel better.  It's that or nothing.  It's a long term benefit with a short term cost.



#50
God

God
  • Members
  • 2 432 messages
How exactly was kidnapping and murdering an Alliance admiral *not* trying to cause fear and coerce a government?  "If you even think about investigating us, we'll make you disappear."

 

 

They weren't very public about it. Kahoku more or less fell off the grid. He was a whistle-blower that was stopped before he could really raise the alarm, so to speak. Cerberus wasn't out to send a message to the government, they were out to burn a loose end. They didn't send any videos to alliance HIGHCOM where they beheaded Kahoku. They didn't send any coercive or subversive messages or warnings. They simply took him out without anyone every really figuring it out sans Shepard. Had Shepard not investigated, no one would ever have found out anything. 

 

Hell, Kahoku's efforts and their being blocked imply that someone high up in the Chain of command was in on what was going on. 

 

 

I mean, are you attempting to argue that the definition of terrorism here isn't valid?

 

 

No, I'm saying that Cerberus does not meet all 3 criteria.

 

I think you're misinterpreting how the criteria is used. You are defined as a terrorist if you meet all of the criteria for international and domestic terrorism. As I've said before, the primary intent of terrorism is to coerce a population or government into meeting their demands through fear and violence. Cerberus is not trying to do this.

 

All of the criteria must be met before Cerberus can be labeled terrorists. That applies to international and domestic terrorism.

 

It's secession and rebellion from *our* viewpoint, terrorism from the British viewpoint.

 

 

I learned a lot of this under British system growing up. Not once did they label it terrorism. 

 

I'm not saying secession and rebellion to make it look good. I'm saying it because that's what it was. If anyone was defining it as terrorism, it is incorrect. Granted, I'd wager that some did call it that to provide extra justification for British actions to crush the Revolution.

 

Are you trying to claim that if Cerberus believed that they could administer that serum WITHOUT the resulting loss in population resulting in military/political problems that they WOULDN'T use it?  Assume that attempts to produce a less lethal version all failed if it makes you feel better.  It's that or nothing.  It's a long term benefit with a short term cost.

 

 

Nope. You're saying this buddy. Not me. I'm not going to have my words twisted. And I'm definitely not going to play to a stacked deck of an argument. You're limiting variables to a point where you're trying to corner my position.

 

I'm saying that Cerberus would use the serum in a controlled environment, and find a way to make the serum more efficient. If the results from the survivors was promising or positive (i.e. the increase in intellect or health or whatever was really what you're making it be), then yes, I'd look for ways to deploy it in less than reputable areas while increasing its survivability if possible. If I couldn't, as you seem to want me not to, then I'd use the serum anyway and restrict its deployment to undesirable elements of society.