1106 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Is submission not preferable to extinction?

I thought we answered that back in ME1?

[angol fear]

Is submission not preferable to extinction?

I thought we answered that back in ME1?

 

So you should have stopped at Mass Effect 1.

[Catastrophy]

They all go back to Valinor, which is Milky Way in English, I think.

[Seraphim24]

Is submission preferrable to Filet fish is the true question and the true path.

[Il Divo]

Is submission not preferable to extinction?

I thought we answered that back in ME1?

 

Depends on whether we consider that an answer. I submit that for your average Citadel-going family, they would in fact consider submission preferable to extinction. Personally, I think the "we'd rather all be extinct" stance is romanticized for anyone who is not extinct. Also taking into account that for anyone disliking the long-term submission options, Destroy is on the table. 

 

Edit: Though, I wouldn't even really call whatever Saren was at the end "submitting". Mass Effect 1 wasn't so much a case of whether it was better to submit, but more a case of could we submit even if we wanted to? Or would Sovereign murder us all as soon as we let the Reapers through? 

[KaiserShep]

"Survival" is not enough.   HEck, letting the Reapers win means we all "ascend" or whatever.

 

I want the galaxy to survive without becoming Reapers themselves.  Or adopting their own means.

 

People want a lot of things. The outcome of the reaper war simply denies it outright. Sucks, but such is ME life. 

 

In this case though, the insufficiency of survival would really just involve the individual, not the entire population of the galactic community. If Shepard is wracked with guilt (mine certainly wouldn't be), that's just on him/her. I'm sure the swaths of people still alive on Earth, Thessia, Palaven, Tuchanka and wherever else would be more than glad with straight up survival. 

[Natureguy85]

It was certainly enough for the galaxy at large. 

 

When the scale of the threat is galactic annihalation, even the ravaging of worlds/ deaths of companions doesn't quite capture that scope. Again, it's not ideal, but I suspect survival is more than enough for every organic being who just wants a chance to live their life in some capacity.  

 

This may be true, but it's hardly satisfying fiction for a viewer or player

 

 

Is submission not preferable to extinction?

I thought we answered that back in ME1?

 

Depends on whether we consider that an answer. I submit that for your average Citadel-going family, they would in fact consider submission preferable to extinction. Personally, I think the "we'd rather all be extinct" stance is romanticized and overly broad. Also taking into account that for anyone disliking the long-term submission options, Destroy is on the table. 

 

Edit: Though, I wouldn't even really call whatever Saren was at the end "submitting". 

 

The phrase is "Give me liberty or give me death!"

[Il Divo]

This may be true, but it's hardly satisfying fiction for a viewer or player

 

 

That's true. 

 

 

 

The phrase is "Give me liberty or give me death!"

 

 

I was thinking about that, actually. Granted, I am not an American History buff, but I think we'd need to make an alteration to the phrase. In Shepard's case, it's more like  "Give us all liberty or give us all death!". If the colonists knew 100% that the end result of their rebellion would have been their deaths and the deaths of every single person around them, I think rebellion would have been far less appealing, especially to all those who were negatively impacted by that decision. 

 

Unfortunately, this situation Shepard is in doesn't just have consequences for himself, but means that we all die as a result, if he decides not to use the Crucible/eat a bullet/etc. It's a collective bargaining type of deal where we all reap (no pun intended) the benefits and consequences of his choices. 

 

It's a bit like the issue Aang ran into at the conclusion of Avatar: The Last Airbender, where he was essentially weighing his personal morality against the lives of the entire world, before the writers gave him a way out of the situation (as an example). 

[fraggle]

One of my major beefs with The Starbrat's existence is that he took away your agency in saving the galaxy.  You basically saved the day on Starbrat's terms rather than your own.

 

Which is still a funny statement to me because this only happens because the Crucible docks. Without it the Catalyst conversation wouldn't have happened, without it there wouldn't have been any choices at all.

Yet many still hate on the Catalyst rather than on the Crucible which enabled the choices in the first place.

[KaiserShep]

I hate on the catalyst because it takes the form and sort of voice of a kid and kids ruin everything.

[Il Divo]

Now that's just demonstrably untrue. Jake Lloyd is all that redeemed Episode I: The Phantom Menace for many viewers.  

[Bfler]

Which is still a funny statement to me because this only happens because the Crucible docks. Without it the Catalyst conversation wouldn't have happened, without it there wouldn't have been any choices at all.

Yet many still hate on the Catalyst rather than on the Crucible which enabled the choices in the first place.

 

The choices could take place during conversation with TIM. Agree with him and try to control the Reapers or kill him and activate the Crucible, which could be an anti-Reaper weapon. Success or failure depends on your actions during the game. We would have control, destroy, defeat and it would spare us the nonsensical synthesis ending.

[Il Divo]

Which is still a funny statement to me because this only happens because the Crucible docks. Without it the Catalyst conversation wouldn't have happened, without it there wouldn't have been any choices at all.

Yet many still hate on the Catalyst rather than on the Crucible which enabled the choices in the first place.

 

 The big thing I think is that the Catalyst provides an actual outlet to hate on, since we actively interact with him and he's the one who introduces the Crucible. The Crucible by itself is an inanimate object, making active disdain kinda difficult/not as satisfying to complain about. The Catalyst is also the one who tries to frame those decisions into his moral scenario of Organics vs. Synthetics, which for many players didn't work. 

 

Personally, if they had removed Synthesis which is imo just straight up weird, focused more energy on exploring the Destroy vs. Control theme, I think the Crucible by itself could have been workable, or at least as workable as possible in the confines of ME2/3, which caused quite a few problems. 

[MelThorn]

Well, my first suggestion is to not make the game conclude in a third release. I know we might already be assuming that Andromeda will conclude at six because ME ended at three, but I would have liked to see Shepard's tale continue. I wasn't in any rush to leave The Milky Way. Of course, I knew that the conflict with the Reapers had to end eventually. There had to be some kind of ending to Shepard's journey, and to draw it out would have been tiring after a while.

 

If they do choose to conclude Andromeda at six instead of prolonging it further, then my suggestion is not to "make the ending happier," but to make it feel powerful and that you've accomplished a great deal. The Catalyst did not make me feel that way at the end of ME3. I felt the same disappointment at the end of Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

I think one of my all-time favorite game endings was Dragon Age: Origins, and the massive attack on Denerim with you trying to barge your way into the city with all of the forces and armies you've gathered throughout that game-- armies that you could call upon by blowing a horn, and they could come aid you in the fight. That felt so incredibly epic and amazing, because you could see all of your choices coming together to help you in the end. You felt not only powerful and that you had a huge influence over the other races, but you felt that sense of looming dread that a war is on, and you might not make it out of that war. That sense of dread really makes for an intense and immersive ending to a role playing journey.

 

Inquisition didn't have that intense feeling for me. And to be frank, ME3 started out feeling that way through the whole game with Shepard gathering assets and forces, but the end result wasn't satisfactory. And while all of that work pays off to give you a "not totally grim" ending, it still kind of went out with a whimper when you realized that it was ultimately connecting two Lego pieces together that would determine the end. It wasn't the worst ending ever-- I liked it better than Inquisition, really-- but it was still lacking in effectiveness.

 

I admit that during my first ME3 playthrough, I was expecting and envisioning the final home stretch of the game to take place during a huge Reaper attack on the Citadel with you and everyone on the Citadel, including your friends, blowing them away with the Crucible. I thought it'd be you deciding to risk your life to run to the Crucible's controls to activate it, or something similar. The attack on the Citadel was one of my favorite parts of ME1. They should have taken out that weird coup plot and exchanged it for a final battle on the Citadel with Reaper forces. After all, the Citadel is, needless to say, a huge part of the ME plot line. I would even stand for meeting the Catalyst if this all happened. 

 

Origins also gave you the choice to live or die with some consequences attached to each option. I also liked that. I enjoy the Mass Effect stories more, but the end of Origins just seemed right to me.

[Natureguy85]

 

 

That's true. 

 

 

 

 

I was thinking about that, actually. Granted, I am not an American History buff, but I think we'd need to make an alteration to the phrase. In Shepard's case, it's more like  "Give us all liberty or give us all death!". If the colonists knew 100% that the end result of their rebellion would have been their deaths and the deaths of every single person around them, I think rebellion would have been far less appealing, especially to all those who were negatively impacted by that decision. 

 

Unfortunately, this situation Shepard is in doesn't just have consequences for himself, but means that we all die as a result, if he decides not to use the Crucible/eat a bullet/etc. It's a collective bargaining type of deal where we all reap (no pun intended) the benefits and consequences of his choices. 

 

It's a bit like the issue Aang ran into at the conclusion of Avatar: The Last Airbender, where he was essentially weighing his personal morality against the lives of the entire world, before the writers gave him a way out of the situation (as an example). 

 

 

You're right, so we are forced to ask why Shepard is making this decision for everyone. However, I just realized the bigger question is actually this; Why is Shepard making this decision alone?

 

The entire series is about meeting people and making friends and allies. In every other major decision, you had two squadmates there giving you their thoughts. Sure, it was really just the game explaining your choices, but these were your closest team mates. Yet at the end, all characters but Shepard, who doesn't really have a character arc, are completely dropped from the narrative. Heck, the last scene before this still had two characters arguing in front of Shepard, even though it's not a choice scene.

 

Now there is something to be said for this, I suppose. It's like a student has been learning from a master and at the end, the master is gone and it's up to the student to implement what they've learned. However, like I said, Shepard doesn't have the character arc such a protagonist needs.

 

Also, while I suppose this really isn't at all different than Shepard having the same argument with Saren on Virmire, it feels very different. Maybe it's because the scale hadn't expanded and we knew who Saren was.

 

 

Which is still a funny statement to me because this only happens because the Crucible docks. Without it the Catalyst conversation wouldn't have happened, without it there wouldn't have been any choices at all.

Yet many still hate on the Catalyst rather than on the Crucible which enabled the choices in the first place.

 

Well the Crucible is just this big unknown until the Catalyst explains it. There's also a psychological effect. While I think it's a stretch to truly call the Catalyst a "character" because of its limited function, screen time, and depth, the fact that it takes a form of a person gives the mind or emotions something to focus on where the Crucible is a thing.

 

But why is it one or the other? I hate both and many do as well.

[KaiserShep]

Yeah the character drops are a problem. ME3 went even further than that by mismanaging their position in time and space by teleporting them all back to the Normandy, when they should've been on the ground fighting. I mean, Javik didn't seem the type that would just up and leave, and if Kaidan is alive, he outright abandoned his biotic squad.

[Ahglock]

Now that's just demonstrably untrue. Jake Lloyd is all that redeemed Episode I: The Phantom Menace for many viewers.

Now this is pod racing


Sorry he was almost jar jar bad because kids do ruin everything.

[KaiserShep]

Now this is pod racing
Sorry he was almost jar jar bad because kids do ruin everything.

But he can spin. That's a neat trick.

[Ahglock]

But he can spin. That's a neat trick.

The sarcasm is strong in this one.

[KaiserShep]

The sarcasm is strong in this one.

Sarcasm leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to lulz.

[Lady Artifice]

Is submission not preferable to extinction?

I thought we answered that back in ME1?

 

It was an uninformed answer at that point. As much as a lot of us don't like the reveal at the trilogy ending, it did radically change what we believed was the question. Besides that, Saren's wrongness was at his height not in his belief that submitting is better than dying in the general sense, but that it wasn't all the same in the case of the Reapers. For most individuals, to fall under their power means either complete loss of self, or something more immediate and horrific. 

[AlanC9]

Yeah; the problem with Saren's argument is that it was false on its own terms; the Reapers weren't offering what he thought they were offering.

It's also only half related to Synthesis in the first place. The synthetic upgrades are a thing, but the slavery isn't.

[Iakus]

 

 

That's true. 

 

It is absolutely true

 

 

 

I was thinking about that, actually. Granted, I am not an American History buff, but I think we'd need to make an alteration to the phrase. In Shepard's case, it's more like  "Give us all liberty or give us all death!". If the colonists knew 100% that the end result of their rebellion would have been their deaths and the deaths of every single person around them, I think rebellion would have been far less appealing, especially to all those who were negatively impacted by that decision.

 

THe phrase here is "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately"

 

 

 

Unfortunately, this situation Shepard is in doesn't just have consequences for himself, but means that we all die as a result, if he decides not to use the Crucible/eat a bullet/etc. It's a collective bargaining type of deal where we all reap (no pun intended) the benefits and consequences of his choices.
 

Which, as has been pointed out, Shepard has neither the right nor the qualifications to judge for the whole galaxy. organic and synthetic both.  

 

 

It's a bit like the issue Aang ran into at the conclusion of Avatar: The Last Airbender, where he was essentially weighing his personal morality against the lives of the entire world, before the writers gave him a way out of the situation (as an example).

I never watched THe Last AIrbender.  But I have seen A Man for All Seasons:

 

"Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?"

[KaiserShep]

It doesn't really matter who has the right to judge or whether no one does, because the decision has to be made regardless. It could be argued that inaction in the face of its consequences is immeasurably worse.

[Cheviot]

Yeah the character drops are a problem. ME3 went even further than that by mismanaging their position in time and space by teleporting them all back to the Normandy, when they should've been on the ground fighting. I mean, Javik didn't seem the type that would just up and leave, and if Kaidan is alive, he outright abandoned his biotic squad.

Most if not all ground troops would've been in transit to the Conduit anyway now it was secured but, before they arrived the retreat was sounded.