[009]
Anfauglith
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, \\\'\\\'everywhere\\\'\\\', when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. And yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, \\\'\\\'everywhere\\\'\\\', when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. And yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, \\\'\\\'everywhere\\\'\\\', when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. And yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
[down] Vandal spotted.
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, \\\'\\\'everywhere\\\'\\\', when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. And yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
[down] Vandal spotted.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, \\\'\\\'everywhere\\\'\\\', when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. And yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, \\\'\\\'everywhere\\\'\\\', when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. And yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, \\\'\\\'everywhere\\\'\\\', when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, \\\'\\\'everywhere\\\'\\\', when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying. We can only judge Shepard for all the different dialogue options and such.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is just not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue. When did I say Shepard agrees with the Catalyst? I\\\'m speaking about themes in the storytelling, not about Shepard\\\'s ideals.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before, but the endings do not even give you time to dwell on the issues..
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before.
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
You agreeing with it or not has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before.
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"The Catalyst\\\'s belief that that is so does not make it objective fact or imply that you\\\'re meant to agree with it. \\\"
You agreeing with it has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before.
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
You agreeing with it has nothing to do with the issue. Shepard makes no comment about the Catalyst\\\'s motivations, and the game does not say anything (not even subtle) about it. This is enough to shift the themes, otherwise the game would have lampshaded the dissonance between the Catalyst\\\'s motivation and what happened before.
\\\"No, the Catalyst does not. The Catalyst even tells Shepard that Destroy would not be a lasting solution. It introduces the choice by saying that it knows Shepard sought to destroy the Reapers. Control has no impact on the balance of organic and synthetic life. \\\"
[[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 I invite you to reread this]]
This is not subjective, you are simply wrong on this. I proved you wrong using the dialogue of the game as a source. Why do you keep bringing this up again and again, in the forums, in the comment sections of the reviews, here, etc, when the game is clearly proving you wrong?
\\\"Then how do you know that Shepard is agreeing with the Catalyst? The only thing Shepard voices concern for is peace, stopping the Reapers. \\\"
Shepard is not complaining about it. He just goes, makes a choice, and the game ends. The game does not dwell on the issue.
\\\"Ah yes, how silly of me to \\\"roleplay\\\" in an RPG. \\\"
You misunderstand. Again. Yes, you are roleplaying, and we do not trope your roleplaying. We trope the storytelling of the game, that means, the game itself, independent of your roleplaying.
----
\\\"There\\\'s another angle that should be considered (a person I was discussing the endings with in a multiplayer match had this opinion). You may not view any of the options you\\\'re given as perfect solutions to the Reapers, but you just don\\\'t have any other options. You can choose Destroy, Control, Synthesis... or you can forfeit everything that you\\\'ve worked for, making all of the work on the Crucible a complete waste and throwing away an opportunity to stop the Reapers once and for all. Thinking that the only options you have don\\\'t fit the themes does not make the ending a Broken Aesop. If anything, it reinforces the theme of victory through sacrifice: what price is salvation of organic life worth?\\\"
You are commiting the mistake of placing the story above the storytelling. \\\'\\\'The writers of the game wrote the scene to be that way.\\\'\\\' Shepard has no other choice because the writers wanted him not to have any, and this does not have anything to do with the themes of the series. Yes, victory through sacrifice was one of the main themes, and the only one the ending left intact.
