Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Mass Effect] Operation Beachhead Next Weekend. Fun in the sun? MARK SPOILERS

11819212324100

Posts

  • milathmilath Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    evilthecat wrote: »
    Orca wrote: »
    evilthecat wrote: »
    The thing is people that claim to enjoy "doing something for the sake of doing it" are full of .. fecal matter.
    At some level they're investing effort into something and feeling great about the result.
    If the result is undesirable or not worth the projected amount of effort required to get there then people will simply not engage in that behaviour.
    This is why people are likely still playing the multiplayer but not doing their 18th SP playthrough.

    Well...most people feel the way you do. A minority feel the milath does. I feel the way he does! Bad opinions ftw. But I've had to acknowledge that this is very much the minority opinion here. I still don't understand your point of view, but that's ok--I'm pretty sure you don't understand mine. :)

    You should not equate what I say with what I personally believe or support.
    I was trying to explain the obvious to milath.

    I understand where you're coming from, but (and this bit *is* my personal opinion) saying you enjoyed the process is bs. the process can be broken up into smaller tasks with effort and results and despite what you may claim your satisfaction with the game in this respect is based on these smaller results and not the process leading up to the "ending" ending that the others have their grievances with (the two being congruent but not identical).

    Sure. I got my emotional payoff on Rannoch, on Thessia, and on Tuchanka.

    I even got my payoff on Earth.

    Even on the Citadel.

    ...it's just the last 5 minutes I didn't get any payoff for, but I can live with that.

    evilthecat wrote: »
    Additionally, I'm finding this "special snowflake" thing you have going on to be annoying and detestable. stop it.

    It's simply a counter to EVERYBODY HATES THE ENDING.

    Well...no. Not everybody does. Yeah, it's flawed, but it doesn't ruin everything. Hell, some people have even liked it. They're the true bad opinion brigade--but whatever. There's no accounting for taste. I know my taste is awful.

    Thanks, Orca. You explained this better than I did.

    For my part, I wasn't trying to tell anyone their opinion was wrong. I was simply asking why the last 5 mins would make the other 40-50 or whatever hrs unplayable to some folks.

    Despite the vitriol, evilkitty there answered it for me. The reward is the ending to some people. That didn't really occur to me since I've always been one to enjoy an experience based on the process rather than the payoff. It's a completely valid opinion and I apologize if I opened a can of worms for some people.

    Dropping it now.

    So.. how about that multiplayer, eh? :)

    steam_sig.png
    "No.. I was wrong. This must be what going mad feels like."

  • WybornWyborn GET EQUIPPED Registered User regular
    When it comes to big targets, for human Vanguards: you can fight that Atlas, probably, and you can beat a few Brutes. It is your solemn duty to kill every Ravager you see.

    Generally you will want to go for the mid-level mobs more, so your teammates don't have to worry about Pyros and Hunters and Marauders.

    Do not screw with Geth Primes. They do not give a shit about your Nova.

    dN0T6ur.png
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.
    Destroy: What does synthetic mean in this case? If Shepard counts as partly synthetic, what else counts as synthetic? The child says "most of the technology you rely on" in low-score endings. What does that mean?

    Control: How does it work. Will Shepard become a Reaper, will his consciousness just be uploaded, etc? Can Shepard just fly the Reapers into the sun or force them to do work? In the ending, it just looks like the Reapers just fly off.

    I think they really intended the player to think about the "synthetics will always try to destroy all organics" argument and think about the endings mainly in terms of that.
    Score low enough, and "most of the technology you rely on" seems to include the Earth's atmosphere. Still, if someone was playing as a hard-ass, ends justify the means renegade, then I could see how Destroy would count as a satisfactory button to press. The wrapping around that button is still a mess though.

  • BobbleBobble Registered User regular
    Dragkonias wrote: »
    Also, another tip for Vanguard. I feel that a lot of people tend to get stuck on the "big" targets.

    Really, just leave the big stuff to your teammates while you clean up the little guys and keep them off the rest of your team. I only bother helping with the big guys when I've got nothing better to do.

    Also, try to stay generally close to your teammates and don't run off too far(unless you don't really care if you die that round then just go nuts).

    That's how I generally vanguard.

    This also applies to melee Krogan Sentinels. You are great for cleaning up husks/cannibals, which triggers your rage, and now you can kill that Pyro (on silver) in 2 heavy melees and a quick headbutt. You can dance with the big boys if you like, but that's generally a very dangerous game.

  • NeliNeli Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.

    Funnily enough, the green ending isn't totally out of left field.
    Saren was the one who said that a mix of organic and synthetic was "the next step in our evolution" and that it was some kind of perfect form.

    Which is part of what contributes to it being an awful ending.

    The Reapers also say this, it's kind of what they are doing
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.
    Destroy: What does synthetic mean in this case? If Shepard counts as partly synthetic, what else counts as synthetic? The child says "most of the technology you rely on" in low-score endings. What does that mean?

    Control: How does it work. Will Shepard become a Reaper, will his consciousness just be uploaded, etc? Can Shepard just fly the Reapers into the sun or force them to do work? In the ending, it just looks like the Reapers just fly off.

    I think they really intended the player to think about the "synthetics will always try to destroy all organics" argument and think about the endings mainly in terms of that.
    Score low enough, and "most of the technology you rely on" seems to include the Earth's atmosphere. Still, if someone was playing as a hard-ass, ends justify the means renegade, then I could see how Destroy would count as a satisfactory button to press. The wrapping around that button is still a mess though.

    Shepard
    lives, we don't see any Geth die and EDI can walk out of the Normandy at the end of the Destroy ending. If we take these events into consideration the Starchild was full of shit :D

    vhgb4m.jpg
    I have stared into Satan's asshole, and it fucking winked at me.
    [/size]
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.
    Destroy: What does synthetic mean in this case? If Shepard counts as partly synthetic, what else counts as synthetic? The child says "most of the technology you rely on" in low-score endings. What does that mean?

    Control: How does it work. Will Shepard become a Reaper, will his consciousness just be uploaded, etc? Can Shepard just fly the Reapers into the sun or force them to do work? In the ending, it just looks like the Reapers just fly off.

    I think they really intended the player to think about the "synthetics will always try to destroy all organics" argument and think about the endings mainly in terms of that.
    Score low enough, and "most of the technology you rely on" seems to include the Earth's atmosphere. Still, if someone was playing as a hard-ass, ends justify the means renegade, then I could see how Destroy would count as a satisfactory button to press. The wrapping around that button is still a mess though.

    Hey, I played as 90% Paragon
    And I still think, given the choices, Destroy is the 'nicest' ending. Synthesis is turning everyone into some kind of hybrid without even knowing if that's really better, and without asking their permission. I mean just think of all the terrible permutations that can come from that... what if, after synthesis, ants become self aware and self replicating, utterly destroy earth and then start slowly eating the population because there's nothing else for them to eat? I mean you don't know that's how it works, but that's because you don't know how it works, period. It's really a terrible choice. Control is to risk becoming the reapers yourself. Destroy is really the only option for me. And I'd still think Destroy was the best option, even if I knew it would kill every life in the Sol system.

    Cambiata on
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Orca wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Well one thing I would be curious to see, is if (very improbably) Bioware came out and said, "You know what? The writing of that ending was completely weak. I don't know what we were thinking. We're going to take a few months just to write a stellar ending and then we'll release it as free DLC. If you like the original ending, we won't make it a forced update, so you only get the alternate ending if you want it." I wonder how many people among those who 'like' the ending would actually not download that ending.

    I would love to see it happen--but given even the vague statements they've made publicly along with what Juc has said about how difficult it is to futz with things like the ending I would put it at lottery odds...

    Oh yeah, that is certainly not happening. I just meant, if it were possible, would the smug gaming critics actually refuse to play it? Of ir they played it, and it was better than the original, would they refuse to aknowledge it as better? "Well I suppose that's more satisfying or whatever, but it's so predictable! Nothing predictable is good."

    I'm going to walk a dangerous path, since I'll be attributing motivations to people I don't know and haven't talked to, but...

    I'm going to guess that it's more a matter of principle, and of wanting to see games viewed as Serious Business, err, art. In the high art form, not the commercial form.

    Gaming is still young, comparatively. It hasn't had its Citizen Kane (if it has, anyone care to name the game and why?). There are awards for games, but no one pays attention to them, because they aren't relevant. There's almost no proper criticism of games; instead, we get reviews that make only a minimal effort to place things within the wider context of gaming and society and analyze how and why the devices they use work or don't work. The devices games use to have an emotional impact, to tell a story, to interact with the viewer are still very much in flux (though they have settled down considerably over the last 10 years for the newer genres; the control scheme for platformers was fixed back in the days of the NES).

    So here's this game that does almost everything right, despite technical problems (quest logs, camera and head animation bugs, the occasional geometry bug...) and ends on a completely incongruous note. If it's high art, you don't change it. If it's commercial art, you do what you have to do to make sure people buy it, and will buy the next thing you put out.

    It's that tension I've talked about previously...

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.
    Destroy: What does synthetic mean in this case? If Shepard counts as partly synthetic, what else counts as synthetic? The child says "most of the technology you rely on" in low-score endings. What does that mean?

    Control: How does it work. Will Shepard become a Reaper, will his consciousness just be uploaded, etc? Can Shepard just fly the Reapers into the sun or force them to do work? In the ending, it just looks like the Reapers just fly off.

    I think they really intended the player to think about the "synthetics will always try to destroy all organics" argument and think about the endings mainly in terms of that.
    Score low enough, and "most of the technology you rely on" seems to include the Earth's atmosphere. Still, if someone was playing as a hard-ass, ends justify the means renegade, then I could see how Destroy would count as a satisfactory button to press. The wrapping around that button is still a mess though.

    Hey, I played as 90% Paragon
    And I still think, given the choices, Destroy is the 'nicest' ending. Synthesis is turning everyone into some kind of hybrid without even knowing if that's really better, and without asking their permission. I mean just think of all the terrible permutations that can come from that... what if, after synthesis, ants become self aware and self replicating, utterly destroy earth and then start slowly eating the population because there's nothing else for them to eat? I mean you don't know that's how it works, but that's because you don't know how it works, period. It's really a terrible choice. Control is to risk becoming the reapers yourself. Destroy is really the only option for me. And I'd still think Destroy was the best option, even if I knew it would kill every life in the Sol system.
    The child outright said that you could control them without ending up like TIM. We don't have any reason to think the super-intelligent god child is lying to us. If he wanted to lie, he just would have said that the control option totally turned the Reapers into ice cream.

  • WybornWyborn GET EQUIPPED Registered User regular
    I still wonder if
    the Crucible might be some sort of trap. It's one weapon design passed down for millions of years which the Reapers somehow haven't wiped off the map in thousands of cycles, it's never fully completed, and when it is completed there's nothing keeping the Reapers from destroying it except them choosing to hang back.

    And it is called the Crucible, which in this case probably means somehting like The Trial

    dN0T6ur.png
  • NeliNeli Registered User regular
    I thought
    Control was going to be the obvious Renegade option and Destroy would be a fairly standard Paragon ending.

    Control is technically a better option since the Geth/EDI lives but it opens up the possibility of the Reapers returning someday. While Destruction sacrifices a lot but is a lot more final.

    vhgb4m.jpg
    I have stared into Satan's asshole, and it fucking winked at me.
    [/size]
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Hey, I played as 90% Paragon
    And I still think, given the choices, Destroy is the 'nicest' ending. Synthesis is turning everyone into some kind of hybrid without even knowing if that's really better, and without asking their permission. I mean just think of all the terrible permutations that can come from that... what if, after synthesis, ants become self aware and self replicating, utterly destroy earth and then start slowly eating the population because there's nothing else for them to eat? I mean you don't know that's how it works, but that's because you don't know how it works, period. It's really a terrible choice. Control is to risk becoming the reapers yourself. Destroy is really the only option for me. And I'd still think Destroy was the best option, even if I knew it would kill every life in the Sol system.
    My biggest problem with Synthesis is that it's simply a large-scale version of the Normandy crash. It makes no sense. I don't even care about the possibility of what comes afterward because I cannot see any way for it to work in the Mass Effect universe. Green light somehow melds organic and synthetic life of all kinds? Wut?

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    So can I be that guy and say that I really don't want games to become high art, in the sense of critics and stupid award shows and stuff? I play games for entertainment. Call me a brute or a neanderthal, but when I sit down to play a game, I'm really generally not looking to be "spoken to". Maybe this is why I don't really get in to games like Flower and Journey, which are amazing as art pieces...but never hooked me as games.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.
    Destroy: What does synthetic mean in this case? If Shepard counts as partly synthetic, what else counts as synthetic? The child says "most of the technology you rely on" in low-score endings. What does that mean?

    Control: How does it work. Will Shepard become a Reaper, will his consciousness just be uploaded, etc? Can Shepard just fly the Reapers into the sun or force them to do work? In the ending, it just looks like the Reapers just fly off.

    I think they really intended the player to think about the "synthetics will always try to destroy all organics" argument and think about the endings mainly in terms of that.
    Score low enough, and "most of the technology you rely on" seems to include the Earth's atmosphere. Still, if someone was playing as a hard-ass, ends justify the means renegade, then I could see how Destroy would count as a satisfactory button to press. The wrapping around that button is still a mess though.

    I hate these ending debate things but I have to point something out;
    The dimensions of the Citadel are as follows (according to the wikia)

    Total Length (Open): 44.7km
    Diameter (Open): 12.8km
    Gross Weight: 7.11 billion metric tons

    In order for the Citadel to be able to sustain an orbit above London, it would be moving at a speed of about 28k kph... assuming low orbit. That's several billion chunks of flaming metal falling onto the Earth in the Synthesis and Destroy endings, since these endings show explosions that would pretty much destroy the citadel. That said, the only ending that doesn't result in the destruction of Earth is TIM's choice... o_o




    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.
    Destroy: What does synthetic mean in this case? If Shepard counts as partly synthetic, what else counts as synthetic? The child says "most of the technology you rely on" in low-score endings. What does that mean?

    Control: How does it work. Will Shepard become a Reaper, will his consciousness just be uploaded, etc? Can Shepard just fly the Reapers into the sun or force them to do work? In the ending, it just looks like the Reapers just fly off.

    I think they really intended the player to think about the "synthetics will always try to destroy all organics" argument and think about the endings mainly in terms of that.
    Score low enough, and "most of the technology you rely on" seems to include the Earth's atmosphere. Still, if someone was playing as a hard-ass, ends justify the means renegade, then I could see how Destroy would count as a satisfactory button to press. The wrapping around that button is still a mess though.

    Hey, I played as 90% Paragon
    And I still think, given the choices, Destroy is the 'nicest' ending. Synthesis is turning everyone into some kind of hybrid without even knowing if that's really better, and without asking their permission. I mean just think of all the terrible permutations that can come from that... what if, after synthesis, ants become self aware and self replicating, utterly destroy earth and then start slowly eating the population because there's nothing else for them to eat? I mean you don't know that's how it works, but that's because you don't know how it works, period. It's really a terrible choice. Control is to risk becoming the reapers yourself. Destroy is really the only option for me. And I'd still think Destroy was the best option, even if I knew it would kill every life in the Sol system.
    The child outright said that you could control them without ending up like TIM. We don't have any reason to think the super-intelligent god child is lying to us. If he wanted to lie, he just would have said that the control option totally turned the Reapers into ice cream.

    Uh, nope, he didn't say anything like that.
    It said that you couldn't use control if you were indoctrinated.

    It didn't say anything about how your perspective might change if you had the shared memories and all the overwhelming voices of the Reapers as part of your consciousness. If you don't think something like that would change you, possible corrupt you in ways you can't imagine, then I don't know what to say to you.

  • DalantiaDalantia Registered User regular
    Neli wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.

    Funnily enough, the green ending isn't totally out of left field.
    Saren was the one who said that a mix of organic and synthetic was "the next step in our evolution" and that it was some kind of perfect form.

    Which is part of what contributes to it being an awful ending.

    The Reapers also say this, it's kind of what they are doing
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.
    Destroy: What does synthetic mean in this case? If Shepard counts as partly synthetic, what else counts as synthetic? The child says "most of the technology you rely on" in low-score endings. What does that mean?

    Control: How does it work. Will Shepard become a Reaper, will his consciousness just be uploaded, etc? Can Shepard just fly the Reapers into the sun or force them to do work? In the ending, it just looks like the Reapers just fly off.

    I think they really intended the player to think about the "synthetics will always try to destroy all organics" argument and think about the endings mainly in terms of that.
    Score low enough, and "most of the technology you rely on" seems to include the Earth's atmosphere. Still, if someone was playing as a hard-ass, ends justify the means renegade, then I could see how Destroy would count as a satisfactory button to press. The wrapping around that button is still a mess though.

    Shepard
    lives, we don't see any Geth die and EDI can walk out of the Normandy at the end of the Destroy ending. If we take these events into consideration the Starchild was full of shit :D
    At this point, I'm convinced that EDI leaving the Normandy after a Destroy ending is some kind of wrong cinematic bug, after doing it at 7k ems and not seeing it for myself.

    steam_sig.png
    DS Friend code: 3840-6605-3406
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    So can I be that guy and say that I really don't want games to become high art, in the sense of critics and stupid award shows and stuff? I play games for entertainment. Call me a brute or a neanderthal, but when I sit down to play a game, I'm really generally not looking to be "spoken to". Maybe this is why I don't really get in to games like Flower and Journey, which are amazing as art pieces...but never hooked me as games.

    Films are accepted as serious (art) business now, and you can still watch Michael Bay movies. So...

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    People totally changed high art all the time. Paintings were changed when the person who owned it wanted to add shit. Editing music is practically an art form itself. It was common for plays to be changed and is still done in order to update plays.
    The textual problem can, however, become rather complicated. Modern scholarship now believes Shakespeare to have modified his plays through the years, sometimes leading to two existing versions of one play. To provide a modern text in such cases, editors must face the choice between the original first version and the later, revised, usually more theatrical version. In the past editors have resolved this problem by conflating the texts to provide what they believe to be a superior Ur-text, but critics now argue that to provide a conflated text would run contrary to Shakespeare's intentions. In King Lear for example, two independent versions, each with their own textual integrity, exist in the Quarto and the Folio versions. Shakespeare's changes here extend from the merely local to the structural. Hence the Oxford Shakespeare, published in 1986 (second edition 2005), provides two different versions of the play, each with respectable authority. The problem exists with at least four other Shakespearian plays (Henry IV, part 1, Hamlet, Troilus and Cressida, and Othello).

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Neli wrote: »
    I thought
    Control was going to be the obvious Renegade option and Destroy would be a fairly standard Paragon ending.

    Control is technically a better option since the Geth/EDI lives but it opens up the possibility of the Reapers returning someday. While Destruction sacrifices a lot but is a lot more final.
    Control really shouldn't do that considering Shepard can just make one sacrifice and murder them all.

  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    yeah I have no clue where this idea that art can't be modified comes from

    paBaVtZ.jpg
  • NeliNeli Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote:
    The child outright said that you could control them without ending up like TIM. We don't have any reason to think the super-intelligent god child is lying to us. If he wanted to lie, he just would have said that the control option totally turned the Reapers into ice cream.

    I don't think the
    child says anything of the sort. He says that TIM never could have controlled the Reapers because they (the child) already controlled him. Then he states that the Reapers will be controlled by you but you'll lose everything you have and die. It's very ambigious if it's actually a positive thing in the long run.

    vhgb4m.jpg
    I have stared into Satan's asshole, and it fucking winked at me.
    [/size]
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Orca wrote: »
    So here's this game that does almost everything right, despite technical problems (quest logs, camera and head animation bugs, the occasional geometry bug...) and ends on a completely incongruous note. If it's high art, you don't change it. If it's commercial art, you do what you have to do to make sure people buy it, and will buy the next thing you put out.

    It's that tension I've talked about previously...

    I think that that argument from critics - that if you change it, it's no longer art - is the biggest roadsign that it's the critics who are the "immature" part of video game art. In that they don't understand (or don't acknowledge) that all art goes through change, it's a natural part of the process and not inherently destructive.

    A friend of mine recently pointed out that Dicken's changed the ending to Great Expectations. To quote his tweets:
    He changed the ending of his classic, Great Expectations, in the very recent year of 1861.
    Because at the end of that book, even Dickens realized that the "everything blows and there's no resolution" ending didn't work.
    Reactionary idiots forget that all art is art. Maybe this is just my perspective as a writer. My story has changed thousands of times.
    "I have put in as pretty a little piece of writing as I could, and I have no doubt the story will be more acceptable through the alteration.
    "Upon the whole I think it is for the better." That's in Dickens' words.
    I think anyone who does art can agree that most ideas age like wine, becoming more complex the more time you have to sit with it.
    I've had a lot of ideas that I thought were great in the moment, that did not stand the test of time. That's not a criticism of my skillset.

    Cambiata on
  • NeliNeli Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Couscous wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    I thought
    Control was going to be the obvious Renegade option and Destroy would be a fairly standard Paragon ending.

    Control is technically a better option since the Geth/EDI lives but it opens up the possibility of the Reapers returning someday. While Destruction sacrifices a lot but is a lot more final.
    Control really shouldn't do that considering Shepard can just make one sacrifice and murder them all.

    Yeah,
    but the Renegade might see the value in keeping an armada of Reapers around in the aftermath of the Apocalypse, just like the Renegade choice in ME2 was also to side with the ideology of TIM and keep the collector base around. Paragon would never do this.

    I mean it's pretty damned obvious too. We see TIM in the little control cinematic the ghostchild shows to explain what the different choices do, and Anderson in the Destroy cinematic. Two very clear pointers towards Renegade and Paragon respectively, I thought.

    Neli on
    vhgb4m.jpg
    I have stared into Satan's asshole, and it fucking winked at me.
    [/size]
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Neli wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    I thought
    Control was going to be the obvious Renegade option and Destroy would be a fairly standard Paragon ending.

    Control is technically a better option since the Geth/EDI lives but it opens up the possibility of the Reapers returning someday. While Destruction sacrifices a lot but is a lot more final.
    Control really shouldn't do that considering Shepard can just make one sacrifice and murder them all.

    Yeah,
    but he might see the value in keeping an armada of Reapers around, just like the Renegade choice in ME2 was to keep the collector base around. Paragon would never do this

    Not really.
    Despite their world destroying tendencies, the Reapers were alive. Consciously bringing about the destruction of an ancient race is not a paragon decision by any means... especially when there exists an option that keeps every party alive.

    The extending of mercy, even to an enemy, is something well within the definition of the paragon virtue or w/e.

    tastydonuts on
    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • ElbasunuElbasunu Registered User regular
    Oh my god.

    This is just like MYST.

    Except Atrus isn't here to help me make the right call...

    g1xfUKU.png?10zfegkyoor3b.png
    Steam ID: Obos Vent: Obos
  • Phoenix138Phoenix138 ArizonaRegistered User regular
    Gyral wrote: »
    Kai Leng wouldn't have been so bad if most of us didn't immediately think "Grey Fox was a better cyborg ninja".

    I kept thinking about the cyborg ninja from Robocop 3. Didn't help matters any.

  • NeliNeli Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Neli wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    I thought
    Control was going to be the obvious Renegade option and Destroy would be a fairly standard Paragon ending.

    Control is technically a better option since the Geth/EDI lives but it opens up the possibility of the Reapers returning someday. While Destruction sacrifices a lot but is a lot more final.
    Control really shouldn't do that considering Shepard can just make one sacrifice and murder them all.

    Yeah,
    but he might see the value in keeping an armada of Reapers around, just like the Renegade choice in ME2 was to keep the collector base around. Paragon would never do this

    Not really.
    Despite their world destroying tendencies, the Reapers were alive. Consciously bringing about the destruction of an ancient race is not a paragon decision by any means... especially when there exists an option that keeps every party alive.

    The extending of mercy, even to an enemy, is something well within the definition of the paragon virtue or w/e.

    They were the enemy. That's like saying that the Paragon choice to wipe out all the collectors in ME2 was not Paragon at all. But hey, guess what, it was.
    In ME2 the Paragon option is to blow up the base and every collector on it but sacrifice the potential gifts the base could give. The renegade option was to kill every collector on the base but save the technology. It's almost a direct paralell to ME3's destroy and control endings man.

    Neli on
    vhgb4m.jpg
    I have stared into Satan's asshole, and it fucking winked at me.
    [/size]
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    And in the ME1 and ME2 endings, you had the means to understand the possible consequences of the choices you made - in ME3 they're so confusing that you're not even sure what it is that you're doing

    Only
    Synthesis is confusing and it was the first time we got a third choice in an ending for a mass effect game. It was basically the "wild card" choice so of course it was going to be a little wild. The Child does say exactly what it will do as well...Problem isn't that the choice isn't outlined, the problem is the choice itself. It wasn't a satisfying choice.

    The other two endings, "control" and "destruction" are fairly damn clear to me, though certain things like having EDI walk out of Normandy during the Destroy ending and stuff really makes a mess of everything. :whistle:
    Distruction is a perfectly good renegade ending option. The Reapers are destroyed no matter the cost (Geth and EDI). The other two wander off into 'huh?' land. Control is too risky from a trope standpoint, plus TIM thought it was a good idea, so that is a huge strike against choosing it. And of course Synthesis is right out of left field.
    Destroy: What does synthetic mean in this case? If Shepard counts as partly synthetic, what else counts as synthetic? The child says "most of the technology you rely on" in low-score endings. What does that mean?

    Control: How does it work. Will Shepard become a Reaper, will his consciousness just be uploaded, etc? Can Shepard just fly the Reapers into the sun or force them to do work? In the ending, it just looks like the Reapers just fly off.

    I think they really intended the player to think about the "synthetics will always try to destroy all organics" argument and think about the endings mainly in terms of that.
    Score low enough, and "most of the technology you rely on" seems to include the Earth's atmosphere. Still, if someone was playing as a hard-ass, ends justify the means renegade, then I could see how Destroy would count as a satisfactory button to press. The wrapping around that button is still a mess though.

    Hey, I played as 90% Paragon
    And I still think, given the choices, Destroy is the 'nicest' ending. Synthesis is turning everyone into some kind of hybrid without even knowing if that's really better, and without asking their permission. I mean just think of all the terrible permutations that can come from that... what if, after synthesis, ants become self aware and self replicating, utterly destroy earth and then start slowly eating the population because there's nothing else for them to eat? I mean you don't know that's how it works, but that's because you don't know how it works, period. It's really a terrible choice. Control is to risk becoming the reapers yourself. Destroy is really the only option for me. And I'd still think Destroy was the best option, even if I knew it would kill every life in the Sol system.
    The child outright said that you could control them without ending up like TIM. We don't have any reason to think the super-intelligent god child is lying to us. If he wanted to lie, he just would have said that the control option totally turned the Reapers into ice cream.

    Uh, nope, he didn't say anything like that.
    It said that you couldn't use control if you were indoctrinated.

    It didn't say anything about how your perspective might change if you had the shared memories and all the overwhelming voices of the Reapers as part of your consciousness. If you don't think something like that would change you, possible corrupt you in ways you can't imagine, then I don't know what to say to you.
    Does it say that is how it works?

  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    It's just more signs of an immature medium.

    Makes you wonder where we'll be in 20 years or so. It was ~60 years between the first "film" and Citizen Kane (just to go with my previous example), and it still made significant innovations in cinematography.

    I think we'll hit ~the 60 year mark in another 10 years...

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
  • milk ducksmilk ducks Registered User regular
    Fish and I played a Silver game against the Geth on Dagger just now, and both of our pubbies dropped out in the first or second round. So, can two Human Engineers (levels 14 and 18) duo Silver? As it turns out, yeah.

  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    Neli wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    I thought
    Control was going to be the obvious Renegade option and Destroy would be a fairly standard Paragon ending.

    Control is technically a better option since the Geth/EDI lives but it opens up the possibility of the Reapers returning someday. While Destruction sacrifices a lot but is a lot more final.
    Control really shouldn't do that considering Shepard can just make one sacrifice and murder them all.

    Yeah,
    but he might see the value in keeping an armada of Reapers around, just like the Renegade choice in ME2 was to keep the collector base around. Paragon would never do this

    Not really.
    Despite their world destroying tendencies, the Reapers were alive. Consciously bringing about the destruction of an ancient race is not a paragon decision by any means... especially when there exists an option that keeps every party alive.

    The extending of mercy, even to an enemy, is something well within the definition of the paragon virtue or w/e.

    They were the enemy. That's like saying that the Paragon choice to wipe out all the collectors in ME2 was not paragon at all. But hey, guess what, it was.
    The collectors are just the Prothean version of Husks. The reapers were sentient beings. The choice in ME2 was between giving the base and all its tech to Cerberus, a known terrorist organization who would use it for only humanity's benefit, or destroying it and chancing that the galaxy would figure something out. But of course that decision was made largely irrelevant, but eh.

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Ending spoilers
    What does he even mean by dieing and losing everything?

  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    What's the difference between the end of Mass Effect and the Gospel According to Mark? One has an ending too sacred to be changed, while the other is part of the Bible.



    So, single player topic that has nothing to do with the endings: it's hilarious that Shepard is still a Commander.

    Don't get me wrong, I understand why Shepard is a Commander at the start of the game. Shepard is new as a Commander in ME1, and dies in ME2 and effectively leaves the military, and then spends the bridge between ME2 and ME3 in a cell. In ME2, rank didn't matter - no one on the Normandy was in active Alliance service, so they just followed the leader. In ME3, the situation gets slightly funny.
    In Mass Effect 3, Shepard's crew includes:
    -A Quarian Admiral.
    -A Turian that outranks Generals, and is high enough in the succession that he really does not want to discuss the topic.
    -A Prothean war leader, implied to be at least Shepard's rank, and who has a lifetime of experience fighting the Reapers.
    -The Shadow Broker.
    -If Kaidan is alive, he straight-up outranks Shepard within the same military organization, and takes Shepard's orders anyways.
    All of them do what Shepard tells them to do.

    Shepard is also treated as an equal (potentially) by the leaders of the Turians, Quarians and Krogan, is treated as an equal by the Council members (they seem to be making requests, not giving orders), and reports directly to the man who's assumed overall control of all Terran military and civilian forces off of Earth. In the final battle, Shepard gives orders to the forward elements of the space fleet. Rank is not simply not relevant to "Commander" Shepard, and absolutely no one treats Shepard like a Commander.

    I'm a little surprised that I didn't notice anyone in-game mentioning it at any point, either to try to pull rank on Shepard or Shepard asking why they're taking Shepard's orders when they outrank Shepard. Or at least a small ceremony just before the last mission, where Shepard gets promoted to Admiral/General.

    Shadowhope on
    Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Commander Shepard is Commander Shepard's title.

    And it is enough to outrank every sapient being in the galaxy.

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Commander Shepard is Commander Shepard's title.

    And it is enough to outrank every sapient being in the galaxy.

    Exactly. I'm just slightly disappointed that it was never addressed directly.

    Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
  • NeliNeli Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Neli wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Neli wrote: »
    I thought
    Control was going to be the obvious Renegade option and Destroy would be a fairly standard Paragon ending.

    Control is technically a better option since the Geth/EDI lives but it opens up the possibility of the Reapers returning someday. While Destruction sacrifices a lot but is a lot more final.
    Control really shouldn't do that considering Shepard can just make one sacrifice and murder them all.

    Yeah,
    but he might see the value in keeping an armada of Reapers around, just like the Renegade choice in ME2 was to keep the collector base around. Paragon would never do this

    Not really.
    Despite their world destroying tendencies, the Reapers were alive. Consciously bringing about the destruction of an ancient race is not a paragon decision by any means... especially when there exists an option that keeps every party alive.

    The extending of mercy, even to an enemy, is something well within the definition of the paragon virtue or w/e.

    They were the enemy. That's like saying that the Paragon choice to wipe out all the collectors in ME2 was not paragon at all. But hey, guess what, it was.
    The collectors are just the Prothean version of Husks. The reapers were sentient beings. The choice in ME2 was between giving the base and all its tech to Cerberus, a known terrorist organization who would use it for only humanity's benefit, or destroying it and chancing that the galaxy would figure something out. But of course that decision was made largely irrelevant, but eh.
    Sentient beings who had wiped out trillions, no scratch that, uncalculable amounts of people. Sovereign and Harbinger make it very clear that they're not your buddy nor can they ever co-exist with you willingly. You also kill "sentient enemies" constantly like the Thorian and every mercenary in the galaxy. Since when did you get the impression that Paragon Shepard is some altruistic hero who never kills sentient creatures? He kills people in droves if they are his enemy, and the Reapers were most definitely that. You're not making much sense here or we just have very different views on what Paragon means.

    Also, the way the collector looks sad at the end of ME2 indicates that they were indeed sentient :)

    Neli on
    vhgb4m.jpg
    I have stared into Satan's asshole, and it fucking winked at me.
    [/size]
  • BobbleBobble Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Commander Shepard is Commander Shepard's title.

    And it is enough to outrank every sapient being in the galaxy.

    Shepard-Commander, actually. Once it's in the database, it's such a hassle to change it.

    But yeah, amusing point, Shadow.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    So do human biotics count as partly synthetic?

  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    One day, all recruits will aspire to become rank Commander Shepard

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    I also wish Kaidan tried to pull rank on you and you could renegade interrupt him into shape

    even Ashley is the same rank as you

    but hey, this is a world where Anderson jumped from Captain to Admiral just for punching Udina

    paBaVtZ.jpg
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    One day, all recruits will aspire to become rank Commander Shepard

    what about Rear Admiral Hannah Shepard

    paBaVtZ.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.