1042 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

The new Prime refers to itself as an "I", not a "We". That's not the Geth.

If you side with the geth, the thing will say "because of you, we are a people". hahahaha. That's as funny as the what-the-crap evac scene and synthesis.

[themikefest]

If you think that claiming it isn't genocide gives you any kind of moral ground to stand on, you're mistaken.

It isn't genocide. If you don't like that I don't call it genocide, that's your problem. Deal with it.

[straykat]

I think the saddest thing when it comes to this topic is...

 

You could be a generous person, not steal, not cheat, not murder, and myriads of other decent things.,,

 

But if you played Mass Effect 3 in a way that is disagreeable to someone, you're the equivalent of Pol Pot. 

 

 

.... how I long to be 9 years old, playing Mario Bros, and jumping on toadstool heads without hearing weird accusations like this.

[UpUpAway]

Yeah, dude... since when did it become Fact that AI is so much like life that we toss around words like genocide so easily.

 

Fun's fun, but geez. Hudson himself said he created the game merely to pose questions. Not to dispense answers. That's up to you. None of us know ****... because it doesn't exist yet.

 

Like 10X... and it's worth repeating on most of the threads here.

[DanishViking]

[KaiserShep]

If you side with the geth, the thing will say "because of you, we are a people". hahahaha. That's as funny as the what-the-crap evac scene and synthesis.

 

 

I don't know if the writers really thought about this. I mean, are they a race we could consider on a similar or equal level of organics or not? If they're people now, does that mean they weren't people before? If so, why should I care if I kill them before they're people? 

[UpUpAway]

I think the saddest thing when it comes to this topic is...

 

You could be a generous person, not steal, not cheat, not murder, and myriads of other decent things.,,

 

But if you played Mass Effect 3 in a way that is disagreeable to someone, you're the equivalent of Pol Pot. 

 

 

.... how I long to be 9 years old, playing Mario Bros, and jumping on toadstool heads without hearing weird accusations like this.

 

It's OK to think of killing the geth as genocide and it's equally OK to not think of it as genocide... so, I think everyone needs to go back into their corners and cool off.

 

As you said, Kat - Bioware wrote the game just to ask questions... not to dispense answers.  The technique they frequently resorted to in that regard was to "hint" at both polar opposite answers all the time.  It's not necessarily the best of writing techniques because, as we can see, it seems to cause a lot of heated arguments here on BSN.  Hopefully, ME:A will not be written in such an inherently divisive sort of way.

[TheJediSaint]

It's OK to think of killing the geth as genocide and it's equally OK to not think of it as genocide... so, I think everyone needs to go back into their corners and cool off.

 

As you said, Kat - Bioware wrote the game just to ask questions... not to dispense answers.  The technique they frequently resorted to in that regard was to "hint" at both polar opposite answers all the time.  It's not necessarily the best of writing techniques because, as we can see, it seems to cause a lot of heated arguments here on BSN.  Hopefully, ME:A will not be written in such an inherently divisive sort of way.

 

Bioware might claim that their intent with Mass Effect was to ask questions, but then they introduced a new character in the last ten minutes who did nothing but answer questions. 

 

I find that a bit incongruous.

[straykat]

Bioware might claim that their intent with Mass Effect was to ask questions, but then they introduced a new character in the last ten minutes who did nothing but answer questions. 

 

I find that a bit incongruous.

 

True, but to me... it kind of comes off as over-confidence. I think it's perfectly valid to defy him, rather than taking all of his "answers" as gospel.

 

Destroy kind of reminds of this...

 

[TheJediSaint]

True, but to me... it kind of comes off as over-confidence. I think it's perfectly valid to defy him, rather than taking all of his "answers" as gospel.

 

Destroy kind of reminds of this...

 

 

Except Bioware treats the answers as gospel, that's pretty evident when Leviathan and Extended Cut are taken into account.

 

My biggest issue with Destroy is the transparent attempt to make it less appealing than the other endings primary colors by having it take out EDI and the Geth along with the Reapers, even though it's repeated several times through out the series that the Geth were nothing like the Reapers.

 

That being said, have a like for the Total Recall clip.

[UpUpAway]

Bioware might claim that their intent with Mass Effect was to ask questions, but then they introduced a new character in the last ten minutes who did nothing but answer questions. 

 

I find that a bit incongruous.

 

Starchild did not answer the question of whether or not killing the geth could be considered by some to be genocide... did not even answer the question as to whether or not synthesis could also be considered a form of genocide.  Starchild laid out the choices available to the player... what choice the player makes depends on how they have been interpreting the "hints" presenting in the game... and "hints" in both directions are presented in the game.  That said, the writers were not able to project a completely unbiased viewpoint... they are, after all, only human and they had opinions on the matters themselves.  This is a pitfall of that sort of writing style.

 

There is also a very strong bias on this forum about what starchild represented that basically goes about "snuffing out" any alternative interpretation people come with... and then strong arguments ensue... it's a pattern that has been repeated time and time again over the last 4 years here.  That pattern IS what has to stop.  It is equally OK to interpret Starchild as not being the epitome of all that evil as it is to interpret him as being the epitome of evil.  People have very different opinions on this and we just have to stop tearing each other apart over it.  In the end, regardless of what you may or may not consider to be "genocide" - we ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT PIXELS in this case (it is a VIDEO game, after all).  Conversely, when it comes to trashing Bioware and each other... we are talking about real people.

[straykat]

Except Bioware treats the answers as gospel, that's pretty evident when Leviathan and Extended Cut are taken into account.

 

My biggest issue with Destroy is the transparent attempt to make it less appealing than the other endings primary colors by having it take out EDI and the Geth along with the Reapers, even though it's repeated several times through out the series that the Geth were nothing like the Reapers.

 

That being said, have a like for the Total Recall clip.

 

How so? All Leviathan told me was the Catalyst's creators were tyrants.. and they only created an AI because they needed slaves. "Tribute does not come from a dead race". I think that was the line. There's gotta be something screwy in your core programming if this is where you come from. And ever since, the Catalyst hasn't given any other civilization a chance to be anything else. It just bases itself off of outdated assumptions of masters/slaves, along with AI slaves. What the **** does it even know about life? I think it's the job of the present cycle to assert something else. Perhaps all the choices accomplish this too, so I wouldn't say it's just destroy.

[TheJediSaint]

Starchild did not answer the question of whether or not killing the geth could be considered by some to be genocide... did not even answer the question as to whether or not synthesis could also be considered a form of genocide.  Starchild laid out the choices available to the player... what choice the player makes depends on how they have been interpreting the "hints" presenting in the game... and "hints" in both directions are presented in the game.  That said, the writers were not able to project a completely unbiased viewpoint... they are, after all, only human and they had opinions on the matters themselves.  This is a pitfall of that sort of writing style.

 

There is also a very strong bias on this forum about what starchild represented that basically goes about "snuffing out" any alternative interpretation people come with... and then strong arguments ensue... it's a pattern that has been repeated time and time again over the last 4 years here.  That pattern IS what has to stop.  It is equally OK to interpret Starchild as not being the epitome of all that evil as it is to interpret him as being the epitome of evil.  People have very different opinions on this and we just have to stop tearing each other apart over it.

 

I don't take issue with the morality. I take issue with the narrative. The starchild was poorly recived not due to bias, but due to poor presentation. 

[straykat]

I don't take issue with the morality. I take issue with the narrative. The starchild was poorly recived not due to bias, but due to poor presentation. 

 

Fair enough. I think it was bit wordy with the Q and A thing, if that's what you mean by presentation.

 

At that point though, I originally just wanted to get things over with. The worst presentation was priority earth. The ending was kind of welcomed.

[TheJediSaint]

Fair enough. I think it was bit wordy with the Q and A thing, if that's what you mean by presentation.

 

At that point though, I originally just wanted to get things over with. The worst presentation was priority earth. The ending was kind of welcomed.

 

Priority Earth could've used the Starchild's word budget.

[Laughing_Man]

No, the virus didn't alter the original heretics; the heretics were planning to release a virus to alter the true geth.

 

 

Well, a "logical" Shepard would choose whichever side gave more war assets.

 

Nazara meets the Geth, and has a discussion with them about what they would like to do when they grow up.

Mysteriously, not long after the discussion a strange phenomenon occurs - the Geth consensus splits into two factions.

 

Keep in mind, this is not how the Geth think. This is not who they originally are. This is not how the Geth solve issues or have "debates".

 

Personally I find the change in their "thinking" rather suspicious.

That is to say, I suspect that this was the due to Nazara implanting the prototype to the virus of ME2 into the Geth consensus.

 

 

In regards to the "Logical Shepard" and his probable choice:

"War assets" are worthless if they are unreliable or might be used against you, that was the whole point after all.

 

How can you trust a synthetic faction that uses logic based around Reaper code?

And since when are Reapers in the habit of giving free gifts?

[UpUpAway]

I don't take issue with the morality. I take issue with the narrative. The starchild was poorly recived not due to bias, but due to poor presentation. 

 

Personally, if I were Bioware, I would have ended the game with Anderson and Shepard both dying after they sat down and said "we did it"... leaving each and every one of us to "write" our own conclusions as to what happened after that and leaving it completely to our own imaginations as to what the Crucible might have actually done.  This, of course, would mean that there would never be any possibility of any sequel without declaring an absolute "canon" ending... but then Bioware would have had the freedom to do that since, at that point, whatever "canon" they wrote would be theirs and theirs alone and any endings we wrote in our own minds would just be altogether our own... and we'd all have to be more accepting of the fact that "our choice" of ending it could be completely at odds with Bioware's choice.

 

I could get into a lengthy argument with you about Starchild... but I just won't take the bait anymore.

[Laughing_Man]

I could get into a lengthy argument with you about Starchild...

 

That's just the thing, I could too, in the opposite direction.

 

You can try to handwave things and find excuses, but the bottom line is that the thing wasn't very well thought out, and apparently was kept as a secret and wasn't reviewed by anyone who might have been able to point out the flaws.

[TheJediSaint]

Personally, if I were Bioware, I would have ended the game with Anderson and Shepard both dying after they sat down and said "we did it"... leaving each and every one of us to "write" our own conclusions as to what happened after that and leaving it completely to our own imaginations as to what the Crucible might have actually done.  This, of course, would mean that there would never be any possibility of any sequel without declaring an absolute "canon" ending... but then Bioware would have had the freedom to do that since, at that point, whatever "canon" they wrote would be theirs and theirs alone and any endings we wrote in our own minds would just be altogether our own... and we'd all have to be more accepting of the fact that "our choice" of ending it could be completely at odds with Bioware's choice.

 

I could get into a lengthy argument with you about Starchild... but I just won't take the bait anymore.

 

First, ME3 would've been a much better game if they cut to credits after the confrontation with TIM. We needed less ending, not more.

 

Second, I'm not trying to bait you into debating over the starchild. If you think the starchild worked, that's find.

 

I, however, think the starchild is the result of amateurish storytelling on the part of Bioware. 

[iM3GTR]

Starchild did not answer the question of whether or not killing the geth could be considered by some to be genocide... did not even answer the question as to whether or not synthesis could also be considered a form of genocide. Starchild laid out the choices available to the player... what choice the player makes depends on how they have been interpreting the "hints" presenting in the game... and "hints" in both directions are presented in the game. That said, the writers were not able to project a completely unbiased viewpoint... they are, after all, only human and they had opinions on the matters themselves. This is a pitfall of that sort of writing style.

I can imagine the conversation:

Shepard: But wouldn't that be genocide if I killed the Geth?
Catalyst: Meh, probably. You'll get used to it after the seventy-third thousandth time.

[dreamgazer]

That's just the thing, I could too, in the opposite direction.

You can try to handwave things and find excuses, but the bottom line is that the thing wasn't very well thought out, and apparently was kept as a secret and wasn't reviewed by anyone who might have been able to point out the flaws.

Except, you know, the people who worked on assembling it and who watched the thing get built.

The notion that Walters and Hudson somehow snuck in the ending is hogwash.

[Laughing_Man]

The notion that Walters and Hudson somehow snuck in the ending is hogwash.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

[TheJediSaint]

Except, you know, the people who worked on assembling it and who watched the thing get built.

The notion that Walters and Hudson somehow snuck in the ending is hogwash.

 

Agreed. It's pure internet hearsay trying to justify spitting vitriol at one or two people.

 

There only one party that deserves the blame for ME3's ending

[Monk]

I think it was more like "lulz You do what we say because EA says so. Yeah." I get the sense there was rushing involved towards the end so polishing couldn't happen at its normal speed. And when there's rushing and the manager's up top want the product now, there's not much can be done but keep your irritation down to a minimum and get the work done. I bet there were slewsss of bugs written against the endings, but those won't ever see the light of day.

[UpUpAway]

That's just the thing, I could too, in the opposite direction.

 

You can try to handwave things and find excuses, but the bottom line is that the thing wasn't very well thought out, and apparently was kept as a secret and wasn't reviewed by anyone who might have been able to point out the flaws.

 

Trust me... I could get into a lengthy argument on Starchild in EITHER direction... That's the point... there are "hints" written into the game in both ways.  I have playedd into it's "morality" in one direction one day and done just the opposite the next.  The bias on these boards, however, is quite clear... anyone who comes here suggesting that the Synthesis ending is OK gets torn apart almost immediately.

 

In anything I've said above, have I said that it was "well thought out?" - Don't think so.  The whole thing was headed for an "out of control" ending from the get go... no individual soldier would ever have the power to decide the fate of an entire galaxy.  No organization would ever put that sort of responsibility on a single individual in the first place.  The whole thing is flawed from the first lines.  "That's the only kind of individual who can protect the galaxy." - is an unreasonable premise from the word go.