Terrorism isn't defined by suicide or bombings, though both are often used by terrorists. Terrorists are not member of a regular army involved in a war, as the Japanese were. Terrorism has political and social objectives more than military.
But military actions are done because of political and social objectives.
You're right. But we don't have to like it.
You are correct on that.
I'm not so sure it's about freedom. Perhaps about the illusion of freedom, or perhaps about finishing in a way that doesn't seem contradictory to the entire previous experience or in a way that doesn't just seem nonsensical. (It's good that at least some people got a better experience from it than that.) I've played games where I had no choice at all. In some of them there was just one ending. I've played games where that single ending was very dark. Either the hero died or it was heavily implied that they were not okay one way or another. Having finished the first Dead Space recently (hence my choice of gifs when talking monster design and the impression it gives), I can't say that was a cheery experience or cheery ending. Basically, everything falls apart for Isaac in the end - he's been through something horrifying, no way in hell he could ever be the same person after all of that, he might've got the job done but he's lost everything, has nothing to look forward to, and the ending leaves his fate very ambiguous (until you start the second game). It is horrible and depressive (and I love it that way). It felt satisfying (Made me feel like "Whoa!") and perfectly appropriate for what the (messed up) story (with messed up visuals) that screwed you over whenever it could screw you over set up. It made so much sense for that game. That's something I can't say about my ME3 experience. I think it's great that some people feel like it fits their experience, but the Catalyst was and still is such a giant WTF moment for me personally that I still kind of struggle to believe that actually happened, lol. Because to me it seems absurdly out of place and nonsensical in so many ways. And that's why I can't just go and enjoy it, even if I wanted to. (Believe me, I tried very hard the first time. I wanted to be happy with my playthrough like every other gamer would. I play to have fun and I'm not the kind of person to intentionally shoot myself in the foot like that. But my immersion was broken and I could do absolutely nothing about it.)
It's just not what you want from the ending. To prove to the kid that synthetics and organics can coexist, so he'll change his mind and only destroy the Reapers.
People have been fixated about this for years.
None of these games have or will ever give you the freedom to dictate the outcome on your own terms. It will always been a pick and choose from a list of predefined options that Bioware has laid out for you.
People have also talked about 'illusion of choice' on here as well. That's what many people feel that the shipped endings to Mass Effect 3 failed to maintain.
I play through Telltale's The Walking Dead fairly regularly, yet even though I know that it makes no difference I hammer the button to try and get Lee back up as hard as the first time I played.
What Telltale have done is maintain that illusion at the end of that game. Bioware failed to do that for Mass Effect 3.
And Bioware came up with a terrible list.
Your problem is this:
1. Bad solution
2. Bad solution
3. Bad solution
What you want
1. Bad solution
2. Bad solution
3. Good solution
But military actions are done because of political and social objectives.
Saw no evidence for that. There is no peer review or anything besides the Catalyst telling you that. He might be convinced it´s the truth, but actually there´s nothing showing us, that it´s not a runtime error or other bug.Acceptable losses.
Total extinction of 15-20 races every 50.000 years is better than total extinction of all organic life.
No they are not. They are both synthetic and organic.
from wikia: The Reapers are a highly-advanced machine race of synthetic-organic starships
A Reaper is essentially "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies" (Legion in ME2)
a. "his race of synthetics"
reapers are not synthetics. They are hybrids, created by harvesting organic races. Their mind, consciousness, "soul", is largely organic. They are not "ordinary" synthetcis: they are something more and something different, a primitive example of synthesis. To them, the "conflict rule" (synthtetics will always try to destroy organics) doesn't not apply.
He SAID that "Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy ALL organics." Plain and simple.
Advanced organic create synthetics -> synthetics rebel against creators -> synhtetics destroy all organics
How do you stop this?
Your problem is this:
1. Bad solution
2. Bad solution
3. Bad solution
What you want
1. Bad solution
2. Bad solution
3. Good solution
Incorrect.
What we got:
1. Nonsensical choice
2. Nonsensical choice
3. Fairly good choice (bad only if you care about synthetics)
4. Appropriate choice with terrible consequences
What we wanted:
1. Appropriate choice
2. Appropriate choice
3. Appropriate choice
And what I personally wanted:
4. Ability to TRY to persuade Catalyst of its faulty claim using Paragon/Renegade score. At least for us, the players, to see that Shepard can still think clearly. Even if the God Child can't be persuaded, the Catalyst has to present a strong evidence to persuade us to cooperate with him.
5. If I pick Refuse, I am betting that organics are strong enough to defeat the Reapers even without Crucible. Yes, I know the odds are against it but I need to see that my war assets matter at least a little bit.
Are you trying to draw the conclusion that all military action is terrorism?
There is a bit of truth in this assessment. Wars are terrible and quite often end in civillians dying. And they only happen because politicians (ordinary people have no saying in the matter) want something. Terrorism happens because...reasons. The only difference between military actions and terrorism is that in the former civillians are casualties and in the latter they are the target.
Your problem is this:
1. Bad solution
2. Bad solution
3. Bad solution
What you want
1. Bad solution
2. Bad solution
3. Good solution
No what I wanted was
1. Bad solution
2. Bad solution
3. Bad solution
4. Dark solution
5 Dark Solution
6. Dark solution
7. Good solution for some Shepards
8. Good solution for some Shepards
9. Good solution for some Shepards
10 Good solution for some Shepards
11 Good solution for some Shepards
12 Good solution for some Shepards
13 WTF goofy easter egg ending
14. Really dark no survivors ending
15. An ending that might be good or might be bad. You never know
I want lots of endings. I want good and bad endings. And ambivalent endings. I want endings where Shepard dies saving the galaxy. And I want endings where the galaxy pulls together and saves Shepard. I want endings where Shepard f*cks up and the Reapers win. And I want endings where Shepard can actually push back against the Reapers. I want endings where everything seems to be perfect. But with Shepard worried about what may come next.
Well you have to deal with what the game offers you. Not the ones you've listed here.
Problem is lots of people actually believe they, not Bioware created this story. It was their Shepard, not Bioware's, and they could end the game any way they wanted to.
Unfortunately, they have to face reality, instead of this fantasy that doesn't exist.
Mass Effect 1 had three ways to finish the story.
Mass Effect 2 had two ways to deal with the Collector base.
Mass Effect 3 had up to three ways (initially) to deal with the Reapers.
It was an illusion of choice on rails the whole time. I'm sorry to tell you, but you were never in control of anything. Bioware had the story set, and you just played it the way they intended it to be played.
No what I wanted was
1. Bad solution
2. Bad solution
3. Bad solution
4. Dark solution
5 Dark Solution
6. Dark solution
7. Good solution for some Shepards
8. Good solution for some Shepards
9. Good solution for some Shepards
10 Good solution for some Shepards
11 Good solution for some Shepards
12 Good solution for some Shepards
13 WTF goofy easter egg ending
14. Really dark no survivors ending
15. An ending that might be good or might be bad. You never know
I want lots of endings. I want good and bad endings. And ambivalent endings. I want endings where Shepard dies saving the galaxy. And I want endings where the galaxy pulls together and saves Shepard. I want endings where Shepard f*cks up and the Reapers win. And I want endings where Shepard can actually push back against the Reapers. I want endings where everything seems to be perfect. But with Shepard worried about what may come next.
Aww, but they promised sixteen.
Incorrect.
What we got:
1. Nonsensical choice
2. Nonsensical choice
3. Fairly good choice (bad only if you care about synthetics)
4. Appropriate choice with terrible consequences
What we wanted:
1. Appropriate choice
2. Appropriate choice
3. Appropriate choice
And what I personally wanted:
4. Ability to TRY to persuade Catalyst of its faulty claim using Paragon/Renegade score. At least for us, the players, to see that Shepard can still think clearly. Even if the God Child can't be persuaded, the Catalyst has to present a strong evidence to persuade us to cooperate with him.
5. If I pick Refuse, I am betting that organics are strong enough to defeat the Reapers even without Crucible. Yes, I know the odds are against it but I need to see that my war assets matter at least a little bit.
Personally, I'd rather go without a gatekeeper super obviously asking me to pick a door to finish the game. Certain somebody talked about how they wanted to prevent the game from being "so videogamey" (Bleh!) but then they basically ask you to choose an ending you want like one of those evening TV shows. "Dear player, do you wish to finish the game by going through the door A, B, C or D?" is basically what the Catalyst thing is...
There is a bit of truth in this assessment. Wars are terrible and quite often end in civilians dying. And they only happen because politicians (ordinary people have no saying in the matter) want something. Terrorism happens because...reasons. The only difference between military actions and terrorism is that in the former civilians are casualties and in the latter they are the target.
I have to disagree with this. Fundamentally, a nation's military exists to preserve its sovereignty and protect its civilians. When the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it wasn't because politicians wanted something (though you can quite easily argue that GWB was just looking for a reason to get Hussein) it was because civilians were attacked on home soil. The objective was to prevent any recurrence of such an attack, as well as to bring those responsible for the attack to justice.
There will always be civilian casualties in war (except for "the luckiest guy in Baghdad") but that doesn't mean that civilian casualties equals terrorism. And I would disagree that people have no say in the matter. That's why we have votes. We elect someone to represent us, and all I can do is hope that my representatives have better information than I do when making a choice to send soldiers into battle.
It's a difficult subject with pros and cons. It's just to me cons outweight the pros. Anyway, it's off-topic.
Are you trying to draw the conclusion that all military action is terrorism?
Based on the logic presented yes you could draw a conclusion that all military actions is terrorism. Because every military action boils down to do what I tell you to do or we will kill you.
How is the Allied involvement in the bombing of Dresden so drastically different then 9/11 attacks other then 9/11 resulted in less casualties and less damage?
Well you have to deal with what the game offers you. Not the ones you've listed here.
Problem is lots of people actually believe they, not Bioware created this story. It was their Shepard, not Bioware's, and they could end the game any way they wanted to.
Unfortunately, they have to face reality, instead of this fantasy that doesn't exist.
Yes, I have to deal with the fact that Bioware delivered a cr*p ending to fans who waited five years to get to the conclusion of their Shepards' stories.
Yes, I have to deal with the fact that Bioware delivered a cr*p ending to fans who waited five years to get to the conclusion of their Shepards' stories.
Realistically how ever it was never your character. In any game the developers create a story and let you interact how ever you want within that or any video game.
It was an illusion of choice on rails the whole time. I'm sorry to tell you, but you were never in control of anything. Bioware had the story set, and you just played it the way they intended it to be played.
True enough, but illusion of choice relies on the writer making the effort to hide the rails, or to justify them if they cannot be hidden. To make the choices they present the ones the audience will want to take. And if it fails, then it's the fault of the writer, not the audience. The audience has the choice, but the writer controls the story that leads to those choices, and the setting that surrounds them, and gives those choices meaning. As long as the choices offered fit the story and the setting, the illusion of choice holds on its own merit, not because the audience is obligated to maintain it.
And that is where the endings fail. Because the ending does not fit the setting, or the story. Because Bioware played the big reveal card too late in the day, too close to the end, having removed the player from the setting and the story.
Unfortunately, they have to face reality, instead of this fantasy that doesn't exist.
Would that include your opinion that the ME3 ending was good?
Mass Effect 1 had three ways to finish the story.
Mass Effect 2 had two ways to deal with the Collector base.
Mass Effect 3 had up to three ways (initially) to deal with the Reapers.
It was an illusion of choice on rails the whole time. I'm sorry to tell you, but you were never in control of anything. Bioware had the story set, and you just played it the way they intended it to be played.
So BioWare set it up to be crappy and not make sense and then be forced by the fans to release a free ending DLC that makes the ending not quite as bad due to the outrage? Huh, that's an interesting angle.
Anyway, sounds like a lot of BS, BioWare did not set up the story, they winged it and wrote themselves into a corner and tried to justify it.
True enough, but illusion of choice relies on the writer making the effort to hide the rails, or to justify them if they cannot be hidden. To make the choices they present the ones the audience will want to take. And if it fails, then it's the fault of the writer, not the audience. The audience has the choice, but the writer controls the story that leads to those choices, and the setting that surrounds them, and gives those choices meaning. As long as the choices offered fit the story and the setting, the illusion of choice holds on its own merit, not because the audience is obligated to maintain it.
And that is where the endings fail. Because the ending does not fit the setting, or the story. Because Bioware played the big reveal card too late in the day, too close to the end, having removed the player from the setting and the story.
But the endings do fit the settings and the story. Every ending that exists fits within the logic of Shepard and how he/she can be portrayed in the trilogy.
Would that include your opinion that the ME3 ending was good?
So BioWare set it up to be crappy and not make sense and then be forced by the fans to release a free ending DLC that makes the ending not quite as bad due to the outrage? Huh, that's an interesting angle.
Anyway, sounds like a lot of BS, BioWare did not set up the story, they winged it and wrote themselves into a corner and tried to justify it.
Yes, I rather enjoyed the original ending.
They didn't set up a crappy ending. That's your opinion that they did. The Extended Cut expands on the ending and provides closure.
Your last point can be chalked up to your personal expectations. You expected the ending to be good, and when it wasn't, the outrage ensued because Bioware writers didn't give enough freedom with your choices. Oh, I'm sorry, their choices.
True enough, but illusion of choice relies on the writer making the effort to hide the rails, or to justify them if they cannot be hidden. To make the choices they present the ones the audience will want to take. And if it fails, then it's the fault of the writer, not the audience. The audience has the choice, but the writer controls the story that leads to those choices, and the setting that surrounds them, and gives those choices meaning. As long as the choices offered fit the story and the setting, the illusion of choice holds on its own merit, not because the audience is obligated to maintain it.
And that is where the endings fail. Because the ending does not fit the setting, or the story. Because Bioware played the big reveal card too late in the day, too close to the end, having removed the player from the setting and the story.
The illusion does hold. The Reapers control and merge (synthesis) with their enemies. Or you can destroy them at a price. These choices are well documented throughout the series. You just chose to ignore it and hate the writers for not writing it how you want.
That's on you, not on them.
Plenty of people in this thread have pointed out why the ending and the choices fit the rest of the game. In that case, the writing isn't the problem
But the endings do fit the settings and the story. Every ending that exists fits within the logic of Shepard and how he/she can be portrayed in the trilogy.
I find them slightly disheartening myself, but, Natureguy85 has some links in his signature that will take you to some darn solid arguments as to how the endings are very disparate from the setting (universe) and story (especially some themes, and narrative discourse).
And I am someone who, albeit arguably naively, doesn't have flaming ire for the endings, but I fully acknowledge that there is very little logic to them, especially when you compare it to what has been portrayed previously in the trilogy.
I dl recommend checking out those links, I cant do justice to some of the well constructed arguments to your point presented in them.
But they aren't. I've seen this point argued many times and a lot of the time it is based around people missing things in the game. Usually subtle things or things BioWare failed to explore fully or explain in a more detailed way. And also their own perception and what they think should happen. As in there is a mod on PC that pretty much alters the entire ending to Shepard docking the Crucible being rescued and it destroying the Reapers. And players have stated they think it is a better ending because it is the ending they think should have happened. Since it didn't happen any other ending by comparison is bad to terrible.
This happens in a ton of different media and actually gets amusing after a while of seeing it. Seriously people raging about MoS and BvS DoJ are so caught up in the fact that Sups and Batman are not 100% copies from the comics they ignore the entire character arches and character development they get. Both aren't perfect movies but they get a ton more hate then deserved simply because people can't get past the fact the characters aren't 100% like they are in the comics.
I find them slightly disheartening myself, but, Natureguy85 has some links in his signature that will take you to some darn solid arguments as to how the endings are very disparate from the setting (universe) and story (especially some themes, and narrative discourse).
And I am someone who, albeit arguably naively, doesn't have flaming ire for the endings, but I fully acknowledge that there is very little logic to them, especially when you compare it to what has been portrayed previously in the trilogy.
I dl recommend checking out those links, I cant do justice to some of the well constructed arguments to your point presented in them.
Retour en haut