inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,275
AnDromedary
4,446
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Jul 27, 2021 21:17:45 GMT
Here is a question though, which I'd really like an answer to: If the reapers are individual entities with their own thoughts, who are just "told what to do by a single ruler" (aka the catalyst) and if - as starkid tells us - they represent the preserved species they were made from (whatever that is supposed to mean exactly), how come there has not yet been a reaper revolt against the catalyst? We know for certain that the Leviathans oppose the actions of the catalyst and yet, the reaper made from them (Harbinger) is all in with the plan. All the other reapers would be made from species that were harvested (mostly against their will, I'd imagine), who must have seen horrors similar to what we see happen in ME3 and yet, their reapers are down with reaping.
I can see only two possible answers: Either the catalyst actually controls them completely, in which case I pity the reapers. They must feel like Captain Picard did when he was assimilated by the Borg, being witness to countless horrors for eternity without the opportunity to do anything against it. Or they are really not representing the race they came from at all anymore and upon their creation are brainwashed into believing in the catalyst's ideas and his plan, in which case the catalyst is basically just lying to Shepard about this whole thing. One third option is of course, that after being transformed into a reaper, that "race consciousness" (or whatever it is a reaper is exactly internally) gains such a vast new perspective on their own (without active brainwashing by the catalyst), that the catalyst's plan suddenly does make sense on it's own and they fall in line.
Now, in the first case, my (usual/main) Shepard wouldn't want to be the next slave master, s/he'd rather see the reapers themselves destroyed than being the next one subjugating their free will for eternity (apparently just "freeing" the individual reapers is not an option here for some reason). In the second case, the catalyst is simply not trustworthy enough to go along with any of his ideas (except destroy as that basically just ends the whole thing, so might as well try that one). In the third case, it would stand to reason that if Shepard/the Shepard AI upon the control transformation gained a similar level of understanding, the catalyst plan should now make sense to him/her as well and the harvest would just continue. However, since that doesn't happen in the control ending, we can kinda dismiss the third case anyway and if we wouldn't, well that would be a pretty crazy ending (would be kinda cool though IMO  ).
Either way, from (my) Shepard's perspective, control is not really a viable option. But please, I am honestly interested to know how you'd explain how the reapers - if we assume their individuality is somehow maintained - are kept "on policy" by the catalyst.
K would also "pity the reapers"; but there is no guaranteed that, eventually, the Reaper could revolt against the Catalyst. They didn't write in a schism... but one could exist for all we know. Perhaps that is why the Catalyst only thought the Crucible plans had been eradicated... maybe there is a traitor somewhere among the Reaper ranks. Even if they are "brainwashed' does not make them a "hive mind" or all of one mind. Brainwashed captives (Stockholm's syndrome) are still people... we don't just "kill them all" without trying to bring them back. How are slave populations kept as slaves... They are and have always been individual people with minds of their own yet, within many civilizations throughout history, slavery has been maintained.
Shepard does not have to wield the "control" option to "subjugate" the Reapers. He/she can control them "how he/she sees fit." Again, that's a line right out of the game. The player is deciding here what "control" represents to them. We don't live in a society where no one exerts any measure of "control" over our lives. There are several levels of law and government in a democratic society. It doesn't make us slaves... but we are not free to do just as we want either.
As I've said many times... ALL the endings have a place and deserve to go forward as part of the canon... but destroy advocates want to also destroy all the other endings and remove them from the canon.
Another thing I came across while doing the Geth Dreadnought mission... The Reapers can't control the geth... Legion says that clearly, but the geth joined with the Reapers voluntarily because they were attacked by the quarians. Had the quarians not attacked them, Legion says that joining with the Reapers "would have been unnecessary." So, what Mike Gamble is quoted as saying above is represented in the game. The Catalyst can't control the geth, so Shepard can't control the geth. The Catalyst can only pass on the same degree of power has he holds. He can control the Reapers, so he can pass that control over to Shepard... to use as Shepard sees fit to use it.
If you don't consider the Reapers to actually be sentient... i.e. devoid of free well... then rewriting the AI that controls them is absolute. They'll forever follow Shepard's directive to stop harvesting organics... and you've saved a billion years of advanced technical knowledge as acquired by every civilization from the dawn of the galaxy.
Ok, the idea that there was a revolt goes very far into head canon territory (which is fine) but it really doesn't answer the question: "Why would ANY reaper go along with the catalyst after being processed if their sentience is really representing the races that were absolutely opposed to everything the catalyst stands for (including Harbinger)?" You compare the reapers to slaves yourself now but slaves are usually kept in line by force. Same for the "Stockholm Syndrome", first you need to keep a hostage by force. Yet, the only means of force the catalyst seems to have are the reapers themselves. So how does that work then?
As for subjugation: The control epilogue very much implies that the Shepard AI does impose their stance on the galaxy (as you wrote yourself above, depending on paragon/renegade). The images imply that s/he does this by "using" the reapers. There is no indication whatsoever that the reapers are left to their own devices by the Shep AI, quite the contrary.
Oh and by the way, I do not advocate for removing anything from canon. At least not on the basis of the endings themselves. Destroy is just the only option my Shepard would be able to choose as the alternatives all involve actions on his part which go against everything he fought for and believes in (see here for a more thorough explanation why if you are interested).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2021 13:54:09 GMT
K would also "pity the reapers"; but there is no guaranteed that, eventually, the Reaper could revolt against the Catalyst. They didn't write in a schism... but one could exist for all we know. Perhaps that is why the Catalyst only thought the Crucible plans had been eradicated... maybe there is a traitor somewhere among the Reaper ranks. Even if they are "brainwashed' does not make them a "hive mind" or all of one mind. Brainwashed captives (Stockholm's syndrome) are still people... we don't just "kill them all" without trying to bring them back. How are slave populations kept as slaves... They are and have always been individual people with minds of their own yet, within many civilizations throughout history, slavery has been maintained.
Shepard does not have to wield the "control" option to "subjugate" the Reapers. He/she can control them "how he/she sees fit." Again, that's a line right out of the game. The player is deciding here what "control" represents to them. We don't live in a society where no one exerts any measure of "control" over our lives. There are several levels of law and government in a democratic society. It doesn't make us slaves... but we are not free to do just as we want either.
As I've said many times... ALL the endings have a place and deserve to go forward as part of the canon... but destroy advocates want to also destroy all the other endings and remove them from the canon.
Another thing I came across while doing the Geth Dreadnought mission... The Reapers can't control the geth... Legion says that clearly, but the geth joined with the Reapers voluntarily because they were attacked by the quarians. Had the quarians not attacked them, Legion says that joining with the Reapers "would have been unnecessary." So, what Mike Gamble is quoted as saying above is represented in the game. The Catalyst can't control the geth, so Shepard can't control the geth. The Catalyst can only pass on the same degree of power has he holds. He can control the Reapers, so he can pass that control over to Shepard... to use as Shepard sees fit to use it.
If you don't consider the Reapers to actually be sentient... i.e. devoid of free well... then rewriting the AI that controls them is absolute. They'll forever follow Shepard's directive to stop harvesting organics... and you've saved a billion years of advanced technical knowledge as acquired by every civilization from the dawn of the galaxy.
Ok, the idea that there was a revolt goes very far into head canon territory (which is fine) but it really doesn't answer the question: "Why would ANY reaper go along with the catalyst after being processed if their sentience is really representing the races that were absolutely opposed to everything the catalyst stands for (including Harbinger)?" You compare the reapers to slaves yourself now but slaves are usually kept in line by force. Same for the "Stockholm Syndrome", first you need to keep a hostage by force. Yet, the only means of force the catalyst seems to have are the reapers themselves. So how does that work then?
As for subjugation: The control epilogue very much implies that the Shepard AI does impose their stance on the galaxy (as you wrote yourself above, depending on paragon/renegade). The images imply that s/he does this by "using" the reapers. There is no indication whatsoever that the reapers are left to their own devices by the Shep AI, quite the contrary.
Oh and by the way, I do not advocate for removing anything from canon. At least not on the basis of the endings themselves. Destroy is just the only option my Shepard would be able to choose as the alternatives all involve actions on his part which go against everything he fought for and believes in (see here for a more thorough explanation why if you are interested). Different civilizations throughout history have different values. Some of them likely did believe, as the Protheans did, in subjugating every other species in the galaxy and those that didn't go alone with it, were destroyed utterly. However, if the Reapers are sentient and, as we are clearly told, encompass the essence of each previous civilization (and this information doesn't come from the Catalyst alone, but also from Leviathan and even Sovereign since he used the "we are EACH a nation" description)... then there were also very likely civilizations that held values similar to the current Milky Way species... which we are told are based on sharing power and still retaining independence (from Liara's conversation with Javik). As Mordin said... likely outliers... still worth saving.
If you believe truly that all Reapers have to thinnk exactly alike... then you are saying they are not sentient at all... VI's... but destroying a VI is not necessary either since Shepard's control of them as VI's would be absolute. Replace the AI that controls them absolutely and you have a totally differently programmed VI that would be a threat to no one. If you believe they are sentient, then there is a risk... but then there are very likely outliers who don't think exactly like every other Reaper... they are then more like people... and committing massive genocide is a war crime.
Again, the game shows us also that destroy is not likely to work... not likely to succeed in eliminating every single Reaper even though that is the clear intent of it.
Control is also the less harmful option for the Milky Way species because they have progressed beyond the "predicted synthetic revolt phase" with the geth. They have sentient synthetics who are now working cooperatively with their creators after having revolted... and who showed even more compassion than some of their creators by letting them the quarians go at the end of the MOrning War (which ended that war until the quarians attacked them)... unlike Gerrel who continues to destroy the geth dreadnought despite the potential collateral damage of killing Shepard, Tali and his/her other squad mate. This progress in synthetic development is tragically lost if destroy is chosen... condemning the species to go through it all again... because they will soon create new synthetics... because that sort of tech is useful and people want to make their lives better.
I assure you... I've thought it through very carefully... and I'll never pick destroy again. It's not the "best" ending regardless if Shepard lives or dies. It sets the galaxy back, denies the quarians the choice to work with the geth to strengthen their immune systems, betrays the geth and EDI who are allies. Control does none of that... and ultimately, when it's safe (after Shepard has determined the individual nature of the Reapers), Shepard can choose to either liberate them entirely or, if not sentient, shut them down peacefully... or whatever else "he/she sees fit" to do with them. The total cost is one life... his/her own.
If Shepard wants to use "not trusting the ctalyst" as an excuse for wiping out a sentient race... he/she is free to do so... but it make Shepard the worst war criminal in galactic history. Intentionally wiping out a sentient race IS genocide... and there is not getting around that for "destroy" advocates. As I said, I'm in favor of ALL endings (including destroy) being left as part of the canon. Going forward from a destroy ending, therefore, should mean the Shepard is held up as being the 'worst war criminal" in galactic history. The consequence (tech setbacks) of losing billions of years of civilization in the galaxy should be shown and the recreation of another "reaper" as a flawed "solution" to the same problem of synthetics rebelling against their creators should also be shown... not the happy days, Shepard lives picture "destroy" advocates keep wanting to paint for themselves... forcing Bioware, in effect, into suggesting that wiping out a sentient species is a "good" thing... IF Bioware does that... I won't buy another product from them, period.
Submission IS preferable to extinction every time... because inherent it in is the future chance of gain freedom. The Protheans put their faith in their own VI's (Vigil and Vendetta) and, in so doing, enabled the Milky Way species to have a "chance" at survival and even managed to have one of their own survive into the next cycle.
How does Shepard "impose" his stance on the galaxy as a whole? He/she controls only the Reapers directly, not any of the organics and not any of the the other synthetics. If, say, as the Reapers stop firing, the organics behave like Gerrel and keep attacking, the Reapers would get wiped out. Shepard couldn't stop that from happening. The ending slides show, however, that the Milky Way organics don't keep firing but instead celebrate as the Reapers retreat from the various planets. The Reapers are then shown helping rebuild, but nothing is said as to whether Shepard imposes that or whether further "discussions" with Reapers who are now under Shepard's control cause the organics to voluntarily (of their own free will) opt to accept the help of the Reapers... just as the some of the quarians volunteered to allow geth to upload into their sutis after the end of the geth/quarian war. You're imagining an "imposition" in what I've been saying. Shepard gains control of the Reapers only BECAUSE that is the only thing the Catalyst actually controlled. The Catalyst cannot pass on power that he never had.
Yes, he controls the Reapers themselves, but we don't know whether he/she needed to "force" them to help rebuild. We don't know even if every Reaper is helping or whether we are seeing Reaper volunteers. After Legion's upload, the geth volunteer to help the quarians out of respect for Legion's memory. It could have been a similar thing with the Reapers and Shepard. Those details are simply left up to the player's imagination... and, because you favor destroy, you'll imagine details that support your decision... and I, likewise, will imagine details that support mine. My Shepard is a Commander and the military is "not a democracy." He issues orders to his squad and crew all the time... that doesn't mean the he abuses them, subjugates them, or uses them as slaves. He leads them instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11521
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2021 14:32:18 GMT
Again, the game shows us also that destroy is not likely to work... not likely to succeed in eliminating every single Reaper even though that is the clear intent of it. I would like to know exactly where the game shows us these things. This is not what the game tells us, so I am confused. ETA: the game tells us even if we choose destroy, eventually the conflict will return. It does not say at all this would be because one Reaper survived to start the new revolution. Please explain. |
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Nov 26, 2024 12:38:10 GMT
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 29, 2021 12:57:21 GMT
I would like to know exactly where the game shows us these things. This is not what the game tells us, so I am confused. You're right. I do believe it's possible x number could have avoided being destroyed. Look at the scorched earth ending. You see Hackett on his ship. He will die because his ship has no power leading to him and crew running out of food and air. Now look at the one Alliance soldier seen picking up the helmet. How did he survive? In the scene, the player sees the humans being vaporized by the red wave. Was the guy underground when the red wave passed by? Could the same be said about the reapers and uglies? I would say yes. On Rannoch, that destroyer was hidden in that underground bunker. If it was closed up, would the red wave destroy the destroyer? What about darkspace? Is there any evidence all reapers were in the Milky Way destroyed? The player knows there's another relay in darkspace the reapers used to go back and forth. It's possible there's a giant space station as well housing more reapers that the galaxy may not know about. Of course there's no way to know if the red wave reached that far out. What about refuse? The teller tells the little one that they fought a terrible war so we wouldn't have to. I guess that means they used the crucible before the reapers showed up. Meaning the red wave did reach darkspace. The above could aplly to the green and blue. If reapers were able to avoid the red wave, then they could avoid the green and blue wave as well. This is one of the things why I believe a sequel to ME3 could happen. ME4 would be about traveling to darkspace to make sure the reapers are no longer a threat, and that they were all destroyed. It's a idea I've had for a long time. I also posted an idea for a trailer that could be used.  Yep. Thing says the chaos will return. In other words it's trying to convince Shepard not to choose the red. Forget about dumb, dumb. Choose the red. Whatever conflict/chaos arises, the galaxy will deal with it. The reapers were never needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 13:46:35 GMT
Again, the game shows us also that destroy is not likely to work... not likely to succeed in eliminating every single Reaper even though that is the clear intent of it. I would like to know exactly where the game shows us these things. This is not what the game tells us, so I am confused. ETA: the game tells us even if we choose destroy, eventually the conflict will return. It does not say at all this would be because one Reaper survived to start the new revolution. Please explain. The game tells us 1) that the Protheans tried to wipe out the Rachni after they uplifted them to use as shock troops (conversation with Javik aboard the Normandy); 2) The game tells us the Krogan tried to eliminate the Rachni 3) Shepard can also try to eliminate the Rachni... Yet, in all instances, rachni appear in ME3... and even if Shepard kills the Breeder queen, ravagers still appear right through to the very end of the game. The game clearly tells you that trying to eliminate every single member of the species doesn't work.
Furthermore, the Reapers tried to eliminate the Protheans completely... and failed on at least two accounts - Javik and the Ilos scientists.
If the "it's we versus us" thinking fears that one Reaper surviving is a threat (as was expressed by colfoley upthread, then the only logical conclusion is that Destroy will not remove the threat posed by the Reapers since it is highly likely that one or more would survive the attempt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11521
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 13:57:04 GMT
Yeah, you didn't really read the fine print on the Crucible. This is the first time it has ever been completed, btw, and it was never previously used. It has one fucking job, and it is not a humanoid prone to error.
Edit:
"The Reapers". We have dismissed this claim. It was the "Intelligence" that controlled these Leviathan husks.... how many Leviathan were killed to make Harbinger? How much goo went into that massive jerk? The Reapers are not a race of creatures ffs, they are the dead husks of a nearly dead species. The Leviathan IMO should be killed next, now that the Reapers are gone... they will use their power again, and are already corrupted by it. But that's another story.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 29, 2021 14:21:19 GMT
I would like to know exactly where the game shows us these things. This is not what the game tells us, so I am confused. ETA: the game tells us even if we choose destroy, eventually the conflict will return. It does not say at all this would be because one Reaper survived to start the new revolution. Please explain. The game tells us 1) that the Protheans tried to wipe out the Rachni after they uplifted them to use as shock troops (conversation with Javik aboard the Normandy); 2) The game tells us the Krogan tried to eliminate the Rachni 3) Shepard can also try to eliminate the Rachni... Yet, in all instances, rachni appear in ME3... and even if Shepard kills the Breeder queen, ravagers still appear right through to the very end of the game. The game clearly tells you that trying to eliminate every single member of the species doesn't work.
Well, that and ultimately your choices don't matter...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 14:23:22 GMT
Yeah, you didn't really read the fine print on the Crucible. This is the first time it has ever been completed, btw, and it was never previously used. It has one fucking job, and it is not a humanoid prone to error. Edit: "The Reapers". We have dismissed this claim. It was the "Intelligence" that controlled these Leviathan husks.... how many Leviathan were killed to make Harbinger? How much goo went into that massive jerk? The Reapers are not a race of creatures ffs, they are the dead husks of a nearly dead species. The Leviathan IMO should be killed next, now that the Reapers are gone... they will use their power again, and are already corrupted by it. But that's another story. The Catalyst also says that it's "mostly intact" - The Crucible isn't 100% "completed" Also, the Reapers tried to wipe out Leviathan.. and failed. There were survivors who ultimately killed some Reapers and have now vowed to make them pay their tribute in blood. Destroying every last member of a species is, the game tells us repeatedly, highly unlikely. Far more likely that you create a more avowed enemy who will ultimately recover from your attempt and go to war with you sometime in the future.
The fact remains... replacing the regime/leadership/control mechanism is the more acceptable solution to ending a war than genocide in the eyes of the UN... and if Bioware ever suggests that Destroy is the 'good" choice in the game, they, as a company, will be reflecting an "opinion' that I completely disagree with on moral grounds. You all can do what you like, but IF that happens, I will not ever buy another Bioware product... and no amount of argument here will change my mind.
I have also clearly answered your question for the zillionth time... which was where, in the game, we are told that destroy will likely not work. It will not likely destroy every Reaper. If having Reapers remaining in the galaxy is the nature of the threat, then destroy will not remove the threat. Changing the mechanism that controls them... will... either by inserting a "Good Shepard AI" to control them or by Synthesizing them with the organic population. All endings deserve to remain as part of the canon. None are perfect... because 'we" as humans have yet to find a perfect resolution to war.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11521
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 15:56:55 GMT
Sigh.
We'll never be on the same page regarding this topic; our arguments are unconvincing to each other @upyetagain.
This is ok with me. I'll stop trying to convince you otherwise.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 29, 2021 16:30:59 GMT
The fact remains... replacing the regime/leadership/control mechanism is the more acceptable solution to ending a war than genocide in the eyes of the UN... and if Bioware ever suggests that Destroy is the 'good" choice in the game, they, as a company, will be reflecting an "opinion' that I completely disagree with on moral grounds. You all can do what you like, but IF that happens, I will not ever buy another Bioware product... and no amount of argument here will change my mind.
So you DO have an idea on how much I hate ALL the endings!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 18:08:43 GMT
The fact remains... replacing the regime/leadership/control mechanism is the more acceptable solution to ending a war than genocide in the eyes of the UN... and if Bioware ever suggests that Destroy is the 'good" choice in the game, they, as a company, will be reflecting an "opinion' that I completely disagree with on moral grounds. You all can do what you like, but IF that happens, I will not ever buy another Bioware product... and no amount of argument here will change my mind.
So you DO have an idea on how much I hate ALL the endings! I've always recognized that you dislike all the endings. Using a "Happy Ending" mod just doesn't fix that... but eliminating 2 out of 3 of them (thereby declaring destroy the "best" ending) doesn't fix that either. The endings are, I believe, all meant to be unsatisfying and, quite frankly, horrible. That's the statement, I believe, Bioware wanted to make... that there's no "good" way to end a war. If they stick to that... I'm OK with it. If they declare that annihilating one's enemies totally is the "best" way to end a war... I'm forever and deeply opposed to that... and that's my personal and final position on it.
My preference has always been that they stay now in Andromeda... and build that story into a better one overall... but there are a number of "fans" here who simply don't want to allow them to do that.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 29, 2021 18:16:31 GMT
So you DO have an idea on how much I hate ALL the endings! I've always recognized that you dislike all the endings. Using a "Happy Ending" mod just doesn't fix that... but eliminating 2 out of 3 of them (thereby declaring destroy the "best" ending) doesn't fix that either. The endings are, I believe, all meant to be unsatisfying and, quite frankly, horrible. That's the statement, I believe, Bioware wanted to make... that there's no "good" way to end a war. If they stick to that... I'm OK with it. If they declare that annihilating one's enemies totally is the "best" way to end a war... I'm forever and deeply opposed to that... and that's my personal and final position on it.
My preference has always been that they stay now in Andromeda... and build that story into a better one overall... but there are a number of "fans" here who simply don't want to allow them to do that.
A Happy Ending mod doesn't fix it, true. But a benefit of it is it removes the worst of the stupid. It completely removes Starbrat and his moronic explanations of "chaos" and such which should rally only reinforce the Reapers are just broken machines. If the endings were deliberately designed to be horrible, then I guess they wee a resounding success. But it also shows Mac and Casey don't know sh*t about how 'art" works. Artists who can't sell their art become starving artists. I get the whole Arthur Wellesley: "Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won" except, they ALREADY did the whole "planets devastated, millions dead, oh look here's a ghostly dead child Shepard can't help but dream about" beating us over the head bit throughout the entire freaking game. They didn't need to add "the only way you can end this war is through genocide, slavery or eugenics" This is a shooter/rpg meant to be escapist entertainment. Is it too much to ask for a little I dunno ESCAPISM in our video games? For our entertainment to be entertaining? I was willing to accept a soft reboot and relocation to Andromeda. But that game showed they really have no idea what to do with the Mass Effect franchise, or what they had with the trilogy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11521
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 18:17:14 GMT
The endings are, I believe, all meant to be unsatisfying and, quite frankly, horrible. That's the statement, I believe, Bioware wanted to make... that there's no "good" way to end a war. If they stick to that... I'm OK with it. I am not. But that's because I prefer fantasy to reality, sadly. War has never solved anything, and yet it never stops. I play videogames to escape the grimdark of our current timeline. We live in a world with far greater crimes than Shepard's, everyday. They could have made a better point if the only way to get the happy ending was for Shepard to make the heroic sacrifice and really become the damned Space Jesus they turned him into in ME2. Shep dies, everyone else gets a happy ending. Shep lives, you get three shades of shit like we have now. |
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,275
AnDromedary
4,446
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Jul 29, 2021 18:25:17 GMT
So you DO have an idea on how much I hate ALL the endings! I've always recognized that you dislike all the endings. Using a "Happy Ending" mod just doesn't fix that... but eliminating 2 out of 3 of them (thereby declaring destroy the "best" ending) doesn't fix that either. The endings are, I believe, all meant to be unsatisfying and, quite frankly, horrible. That's the statement, I believe, Bioware wanted to make... that there's no "good" way to end a war. If they stick to that... I'm OK with it. If they declare that annihilating one's enemies totally is the "best" way to end a war... I'm forever and deeply opposed to that... and that's my personal and final position on it.
My preference has always been that they stay now in Andromeda... and build that story into a better one overall... but there are a number of "fans" here who simply don't want to allow them to do that.
After ME3 came out back in March 2012, I'd have agreed with you completely on the assumption that BW wanted to convy that there is not good way to end the war. That really seemed to be their intention at that time.
But haven't they already greatly undermined this idea with the EC, where the epilogues show all the "happy things" about each of the endings while completely sweeping the negative aspects which all three ending have under the rug? If BW wanted to tell us that no matter what you choose, there is always a cost to ending the conflict, where is the slide that shows a trash heap full of millions of geth platforms? Where is the slide that shows Shepard controlled reapers enforcing the peace? Where is the slide where a group of anti-technologists tare at their own green eyes? Instead, we get Hackett, ensuring us that we will "rebuild what was lost", we get the Shepard AI ensuring us that they will benevolently "watch over the ones that live on", we get EDI, telling us that we are all in for a bright and wonderful future.
That is what I find most irritating about the endings. Because you are absolutely correct, with each choice Shepard commits a horrific amoral act. Yet the consequences that BW chose to show us in the epilogue are all feel-good happy ending kinda stuff. That is already a very disturbing message as far as I am concerned.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,647
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,647
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 29, 2021 18:28:28 GMT
The endings are, I believe, all meant to be unsatisfying and, quite frankly, horrible. That's the statement, I believe, Bioware wanted to make... that there's no "good" way to end a war. If they stick to that... I'm OK with it. I am not. But that's because I prefer fantasy to reality, sadly. War has never solved anything, and yet it never stops. I play videogames to escape the grimdark of our current timeline. We live in a world with far greater crimes than Shepard's, everyday. They could have made a better point if the only way to get the happy ending was for Shepard to make the heroic sacrifice and really become the damned Space Jesus they turned him into in ME2. Shep dies, everyone else gets a happy ending. Shep lives, you get three shades of shit like we have now. I think there should have been outcomes which would have Shepard either live or die, and not connect it to the "good" or "bad" endings. So while yeah there could be a "golden outcome" where Shepard lives happily ever after in a shiny peaceful galaxy (may a really hard to get ending) or survive in a more dinged-up galaxy. Or die to ensure the shiny happy galaxy. Or survive in a ruined hellscape of his/her own making... Hmm, maybe a situation where Shepard's sacrifice could be a last minute substantial increase in War Assets in determining the ending? Anyway, Shepard's (lack of) survival is certainly NOT the only aspect of what makes the ending suck. It's certainly a large part, but not the only thing. Maybe not even the biggest. Just the most visible.
|
|
jrpN7
N3
Pro vobis omne periculum.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 785 Likes: 2,089
inherit
2941
0
2,089
jrpN7
Pro vobis omne periculum.
785
January 2017
jrpn7
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by jrpN7 on Jul 29, 2021 19:27:18 GMT
So would the chance to choose between these outcomes satisfy most people?
Fate of Shepard: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Reapers- indoctrination).
Fate of Reapers: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard).
Fate of organics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers).
Fate of synthetics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers).
How many different outcomes is that- in the thousands? Do you all think keeping everyone alive, but killing the reapers would be the ideal happy ending?
|
|
FiendishlyInventive
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
XBL Gamertag: BlueMarsalis79
Posts: 466 Likes: 704
inherit
11686
0
Nov 25, 2024 12:10:31 GMT
704
FiendishlyInventive
466
Sept 28, 2020 6:41:23 GMT
September 2020
fiendishlyinventive
https://i.imgur.com/rVwKOll.jpg
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
BlueMarsalis79
|
Post by FiendishlyInventive on Jul 29, 2021 20:28:11 GMT
Das Malefitz
Immoral action.
|
|
mannyray
N3
Played Anthem finally. So... yeah.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
XBL Gamertag: Drycake3000
Posts: 635 Likes: 722
inherit
9095
0
Oct 21, 2024 10:36:46 GMT
722
mannyray
Played Anthem finally. So... yeah.
635
Jul 27, 2017 17:23:42 GMT
July 2017
mannyray
Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Drycake3000
|
Post by mannyray on Jul 30, 2021 3:26:56 GMT
So would the chance to choose between these outcomes satisfy most people? Fate of Shepard: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Reapers- indoctrination). Fate of Reapers: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard). Fate of organics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers). Fate of synthetics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers). How many different outcomes is that- in the thousands? Do you all think keeping everyone alive, but killing the reapers would be the ideal happy ending? For some the only "good writing" ending is Shepard partying and going balls deep in Liara or the romantic interest of their choice. Anything more complex than that has triggered far too many, as this thread can attest. For everyone here who's been having interesting discussions on the ethics of any given choices there's a couple more who cry they didn't get the hookers and blow ending.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Nov 17, 2024 22:23:52 GMT
31,578
Hanako Ikezawa
22,991
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 30, 2021 4:24:50 GMT
So would the chance to choose between these outcomes satisfy most people? Fate of Shepard: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Reapers- indoctrination). Fate of Reapers: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard). Fate of organics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers). Fate of synthetics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers). How many different outcomes is that- in the thousands? Do you all think keeping everyone alive, but killing the reapers would be the ideal happy ending? 81 |
|
inherit
401
0
1
44,686
DragonKingReborn
21,636
August 2016
dragonkingreborn
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/1myVt9D.jpg
DragonKingReborn
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
887
590
|
Post by DragonKingReborn on Jul 30, 2021 4:26:59 GMT
So would the chance to choose between these outcomes satisfy most people? Fate of Shepard: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Reapers- indoctrination). Fate of Reapers: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard). Fate of organics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers). Fate of synthetics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers). How many different outcomes is that- in the thousands? Do you all think keeping everyone alive, but killing the reapers would be the ideal happy ending? For some the only "good writing" ending is Shepard partying and going balls deep in Liara or the romantic interest of their choice. Anything more complex than that has triggered far too many, as this thread can attest. For everyone here who's been having interesting discussions on the ethics of any given choices there's a couple more who cry they didn't get the hookers and blow ending. I should try this game out.
|
|
inherit
2754
0
6,018
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,312
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Jul 30, 2021 5:38:35 GMT
For some the only "good writing" ending is Shepard partying and going balls deep in Liara or the romantic interest of their choice. Anything more complex than that has triggered far too many, as this thread can attest. For everyone here who's been having interesting discussions on the ethics of any given choices there's a couple more who cry they didn't get the hookers and blow ending. I should try this game out. You can have the blow, I'll take the hookers. 😉😋 |
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Nov 26, 2024 12:38:10 GMT
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 30, 2021 13:40:48 GMT
Another ah yes, the happy ending. I got my happy ending when the reapers were destroyed. Didn't matter if ems is this low or that high. So go out there and celebrate galaxy. There won't be anymore reaper interference.   |
|
jrpN7
N3
Pro vobis omne periculum.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 785 Likes: 2,089
inherit
2941
0
2,089
jrpN7
Pro vobis omne periculum.
785
January 2017
jrpn7
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by jrpN7 on Jul 30, 2021 16:53:36 GMT
So would the chance to choose between these outcomes satisfy most people? Fate of Shepard: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Reapers- indoctrination). Fate of Reapers: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard). Fate of organics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers). Fate of synthetics: Alive, dead, or controlled (by Shepard or Reapers). How many different outcomes is that- in the thousands? Do you all think keeping everyone alive, but killing the reapers would be the ideal happy ending? 81 Touche. Forgot to mention I was also thinking romances and other decisions like curing the genophage, saving/sacrificing the council etc. 81 different endings would still be quite the feat, and if none of those 81 made people happy then nothing would I'd wager. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11521
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:35:58 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 17:12:59 GMT
Touche. Forgot to mention I was also thinking romances and other decisions like curing the genophage, saving/sacrificing the council etc. 81 different endings would still be quite the feat, and if none of those 81 made people happy then nothing would I'd wager. This is where they fell into their own trap, and failed to find a creative solution to it. They created a world where "choices matter". Then they created an endgame that trashed your decisions made over three games, in a minute, and presented finally with "THE ONLY CHOICES THAT MATTER". I am not a professional writer, but I understand the method a professional writer would use to get themselves out of this mess. There needs to be a distillation of choices made, so that the ending has less possible outcomes. To do this properly would take skill. They needed to turn those 81 outcomes into 9, and then yes do the extra work of making 9 legitimate endings. Instead of one horseshit ending. |
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,275
AnDromedary
4,446
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Jul 30, 2021 18:01:43 GMT
Touche. Forgot to mention I was also thinking romances and other decisions like curing the genophage, saving/sacrificing the council etc. 81 different endings would still be quite the feat, and if none of those 81 made people happy then nothing would I'd wager. This is where they fell into their own trap, and failed to find a creative solution to it. They created a world where "choices matter". Then they created an endgame that trashed your decisions made over three games, in a minute, and presented finally with "THE ONLY CHOICES THAT MATTER". I am not a professional writer, but I understand the method a professional writer would use to get themselves out of this mess. There needs to be a distillation of choices made, so that the ending has less possible outcomes. To do this properly would take skill. They needed to turn those 81 outcomes into 9, and then yes do the extra work of making 9 legitimate endings. Instead of one horseshit ending. I don't even think that is necessarily needed to be honest.
After all, they had the same conundrum to deal with in Dragon Age. Yet there, I feel they did much better than in ME. Take Dragon Age: Origins for example. Sure, it's just one game but you still make heaps of decisions. What happens to the elves and werewolves, Andraste's ashes, the mages, the dwarves, etc. Yet there as well, you basically have to choose between 3 ending options which determine the bulk of the outcome (smaller issues are resolved in slides, much like they are in ME3CE's slides). Yet, in my multiple playthroughs of DA:O, I can always find a resolution that fits my playthrough and leaves me satisfied with the outcome.
I believe this is because the three endings in DA:O (1. self sacrifice, 2. sacrifice another or 3. the potential "deal with the devil" option) offer a range of moral stances the protagonist can take and then present them with appropriate consequences that befit your character. My noble warrior sacrificed himself and received an appropriate heroes funeral. I went out of the game with a smile even though my character died because it was perfect for him. My more selfish and somewhat scheming Rogue had Allistair kill the arch demon and became king himself, my righteous ruthless dwarf had Loghain sacrifice himself for penance, my human-hating and somewhat cynical elf went with Morrigan's idea.
You see, in DA:O I have all these possibilities to express different characters in those different endings and yet, except for minor variations, there are basically also only three choices. They just cover a wider range of tones. This is IMO where the Mass Effect 3 ending fails the most: Not so much in not covering all those decisions but rather in not covering all the tonalities the journey can have, depending on your choices. Shepard can be a ruthless hardhearted SOB, he can be practical or he can be a classic hero. Hell, he can even be a bit of a weak minded person if you never choose a persuade option. Yet in the end, Shepard will always get reduced to a morally very dark and tragic figure and that simply does not cover the range of the possible previous stories.
That disconnect, to me is THE main problem with the ending (but by far not the only one of course).
|
|
).
