325 réponses à ce sujet

[Harbinger of Hope]

I really do envy the people who can over-look the glaring plot-holes and make up there own interpretation for it. And please, don't start that whole "It an art-form, deal with it). Because, yes, it is an art-form, but you don't look at every art-form the same. You wouldn't look at a painting the way you would a film would you? So why are people treating the end of this game like some abstract painting? "Well, see, the catalyst represents humans hatred and the reapers are like our guns..."

[deathscythe517]

And he's proving the point I made on page 3. :/ Good job.

[WarBaby2]

This game, and many others, is not ART... it's entertainment!

Know the Journey? That's art...

[Leonia]

It inspired a great deal of thought for me, trying to rationalise the Destroy choice and thinking deeply about order, chaos, and the meaning of existence. Haven't thought this hard about a game since the ending of Xenosaga 3 (where the player is denied any form of choice whatsoever). Really enjoying these sort of discussion threads lately, rather impressed with the amount of civility going on for the most part.

[krthomps1]

WarBaby2 wrote...

Also... the problem with games as an art form is: If you draw a picture or write a book, you do it for an audience, not together with it. The whole concept of (RP)games is that you give the player choice and move the story along those choices... that's what BW has heavily advertised the game too.

With the endings BW "provided" (forced), they took that away! Simple as that... and you can go and call it high art all you want, the players still feel betrayed, period.

I think any other way of ending it wouldn't have made sense in the scheme of things, and it couldn't have provided a meaningful ending to what had been established. 
The reapers (and catalyst) were a truly god-like existential threat.  Their nature involved issues far, far bigger than the future of the current alien civilizations.  The resolution had to be equally massive in scope--it had to be equally existential.  I think the choices offered could never have been influenced by our "petty" decisions made thus far.  Those consequences clearly belonged in the world of combat, tactics, personalities, relationships, ect.  In other words, stuff on our simpler "organic" level of thinking.  And we did see these consequences throughout the entire game. 
When the scale inevitably became something fitting to machine-gods, our choices become something else accordingly. 

[lasertank]

Harbinger of Hope wrote...

I really do envy the people who can over-look the glaring plot-holes and make up there own interpretation for it. And please, don't start that whole "It an art-form, deal with it). Because, yes, it is an art-form, but you don't look at every art-form the same. You wouldn't look at a painting the way you would a film would you? So why are people treating the end of this game like some abstract painting? "Well, see, the catalyst represents humans hatred and the reapers are like our guns..."

Totally agreed. If I have to make up things then it's a bad story. LOTR does not do this. Star Wars does not do this. Star Trek does not do this. Why should Mass Effect do this. Just BAD.

[Baronesa]

Biotic Sage wrote...

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

How is that believe and assertion different than the one presented by the Dalatras? Did you also faked the cure for the genophage because the Krogan MAY become a danger later? or the Rachni?

Anyway... the point is, if we cannot buy this premise, that is the foundation for the Catalyst's reasons and the options given, how can we pick any of those options? I'm glad that for you those reasons work, but that is the main problem I have with it. If I cannot be convinced/accepts the singularity explanation, how can I consider the 3 options valid, if all 3 depend on you accepting this explanation?

[realpokerjedi]

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

deathscythe517 wrote...

Qutayba wrote...

Bioticsage, I'd agree that there is a certain logic to the endings. The notion of the technological singularity, synthetic AI's surpassing of organic life, makes a lot of sense, and it's been an ongoing idea in the series. At a philosophical level, the final choices are not completely from left field.

The problem is that most of Shepard's key choices are not philosophical, but personal. Take the genophage: you might be inclined to consider the philosophical problems of the issue, but for many, the deciding factor is your experience with Wrex and Grunt. Your loyalty to them might override any other considerations. It's what makes the choice hard. The Salarian argument makes sense, on a logical level, but it might not make sense on an emotional level.

The final decisions presented by the Catalyst make some kind of sense on an abstract level. It's high conceptual science-fiction. But it's utterly divorced from the personal. I went with the green ending, because I couldn't bear to destroy the geth with the red path after all I'd been through. The blue ending seemed to validate TIM's agenda, and I couldn't bear that. But both the red and green endings seemed to validate the logic of the Reapers - synthetic and organic CANNOT live together in peace, and so you must enslave, destroy, or homogenize.

It felt that no matter what you choose, you have to surrender to the enemy's logic. For me it wasn't about Shepard living or dying: the game prepared you for Shepard's death, in my opinion. But to give in to their logic felt like a defeat: you have to acquiesce to the hostility of the universe and the impossibility of inter-species/racial harmony. On top of that, the galactic unity that you've worked so hard to build is shattered into isolated star systems no longer connected by the relays. And let's not even get to the likelihood that many star systems are annihilated from the relay explosions (you can see the explosions from OUTSIDE the galaxy, for gods' sake). It just feels like a colossal defeat even in the best of endings.

It doesn't make sense though, surrendering to the Catalyst's logic is WHY most of us are pissed off, paragon Shepard would likely use a paradox to make the thing self terminate and renegade Shepard would do what he always does when the Reapers are involved: shoot things. If the Catalyst were able to present any form of proof on its part MAYBE there wouldn't be such a backlash but as it stands it did not present proof, we are railroaded into agreeing with it despite the evidence WE have gathered from first hand experience over the course of three ****ing long and mostly enjoyable games that AIs don't seek out and attack organics, nearly all the instances of synthetic violence were self defense and the few instances that weren't were  the result Catalyst's solution were the ones responsible for spurring them into violence (Sovereign and the geth).

This is why the ending feels forced, feels wrong, and doesn't fit the tone. At best the man-or-machine thing was a side plot at worst it was barely a footnote, the story has always been about the consequences of your actions brought about what you do via the evidence you have on hand. You can play as an idealist or a cynical realist. In the end that is completely thrown out the window and this is why we're upset.

I don't know why people who support the ending feel the need to butt heads with the many people who don't but more often than not it's the ones who think Bioware didn't do anything wrong in choosing such endings that tend to hold themselves with a smug sense of superiority, which, unsurprisingly annoys people. When you ignore all the well thought out points and only respond to things to - in essence - shout and point "see! see! they're all just unintelligent! they don't get it! and they're just a bunch of violent rabble!" It's the same tactic that news networks use to paint protestors in a negative light to make the cop's job of unjustly breaking up the protest that much easier.

I don't know what your damage is, Biotic Sage, but many people have responded in clear logical and reasonable posts why the endings don't fit with the universe and yet you only seem concerned with arguing with people who do not do such or reaffirming your own ego. I can't tell you to leave, I won't tell you to shut up, but I can say I can see the game you're playing and it's the reason why people get pissed at you.

Perfectly said.
To be fair I think Biotic Sage is just emarking on a journey of denial and rationalization.
So the franchise isn't ruined for him.
I wish I could do that as well, but there is no way I ever could.
I think I speak for all of the let down fans by saying, we wished we could have loved the endings too.
That we want to love the endings just not the ones we got.
We do not want to hate this game.
We do not want to be shattered by the climax of it.
We just wanted to love this game, and see it wraped up with respect and to enjoy it.
Those of us who are uninspired by the endings never wanted to sling hate towards this game.

Well for me, I don't hate the endings, sure they could be touched up a bit.  But its nothing for me to spit on the entire franchise for.  And I'm not in denial.  I respect your opinion on it bro, and I understand some peoples frustration to an extent, some is too far though.  I understand the full scope of the endings, from the entire franchise point of view.  Books, Novels, not just the Games...  Which I'm afraid I don't think most ppl do...  And I'm inclinded to agree with Biotic Sage more.

That is your right and I respect it.
Glad you like the endings and I wish I did.
I can't wait to see where the majority is on this.
Personally I expect a "Sorry we can't please everyone" speech from Bioware.

[Biotic Sage]

Baronesa wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

How is that believe and assertion different than the one presented by the Dalatras? Did you also faked the cure for the genophage because the Krogan MAY become a danger later? or the Rachni?

Anyway... the point is, if we cannot buy this premise, that is the foundation for the Catalyst's reasons and the options given, how can we pick any of those options? I'm glad that for you those reasons work, but that is the main problem I have with it. If I cannot be convinced/accepts the singularity explanation, how can I consider the 3 options valid, if all 3 depend on you accepting this explanation?

No, no.  I don't think we have to buy the Catalyst's premise is my point.  That's why the endings are beautiful to me.  

Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.

Control - Implies that you don't know what to think about the Catalyst's premise.  The Reapers will be around anyway, just in case some Reaping needs to be done, so it's the "safe" option if you aren't sure.  I considered it "unsafe" because I don't want Reapers around anymore, period.

Synthesis - Implies that you accept the Catalyst's premise and that in order to get out of the fatalistic doom of synthetics rising up we need to create a new paradigm for life in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 12:11 .

[Harbinger of Hope]

realpokerjedi wrote...

RE2_Apocalypse wrote...

realpokerjedi wrote...

deathscythe517 wrote...

Qutayba wrote...

Bioticsage, I'd agree that there is a certain logic to the endings. The notion of the technological singularity, synthetic AI's surpassing of organic life, makes a lot of sense, and it's been an ongoing idea in the series. At a philosophical level, the final choices are not completely from left field.

The problem is that most of Shepard's key choices are not philosophical, but personal. Take the genophage: you might be inclined to consider the philosophical problems of the issue, but for many, the deciding factor is your experience with Wrex and Grunt. Your loyalty to them might override any other considerations. It's what makes the choice hard. The Salarian argument makes sense, on a logical level, but it might not make sense on an emotional level.

The final decisions presented by the Catalyst make some kind of sense on an abstract level. It's high conceptual science-fiction. But it's utterly divorced from the personal. I went with the green ending, because I couldn't bear to destroy the geth with the red path after all I'd been through. The blue ending seemed to validate TIM's agenda, and I couldn't bear that. But both the red and green endings seemed to validate the logic of the Reapers - synthetic and organic CANNOT live together in peace, and so you must enslave, destroy, or homogenize.

It felt that no matter what you choose, you have to surrender to the enemy's logic. For me it wasn't about Shepard living or dying: the game prepared you for Shepard's death, in my opinion. But to give in to their logic felt like a defeat: you have to acquiesce to the hostility of the universe and the impossibility of inter-species/racial harmony. On top of that, the galactic unity that you've worked so hard to build is shattered into isolated star systems no longer connected by the relays. And let's not even get to the likelihood that many star systems are annihilated from the relay explosions (you can see the explosions from OUTSIDE the galaxy, for gods' sake). It just feels like a colossal defeat even in the best of endings.

It doesn't make sense though, surrendering to the Catalyst's logic is WHY most of us are pissed off, paragon Shepard would likely use a paradox to make the thing self terminate and renegade Shepard would do what he always does when the Reapers are involved: shoot things. If the Catalyst were able to present any form of proof on its part MAYBE there wouldn't be such a backlash but as it stands it did not present proof, we are railroaded into agreeing with it despite the evidence WE have gathered from first hand experience over the course of three ****ing long and mostly enjoyable games that AIs don't seek out and attack organics, nearly all the instances of synthetic violence were self defense and the few instances that weren't were  the result Catalyst's solution were the ones responsible for spurring them into violence (Sovereign and the geth).

This is why the ending feels forced, feels wrong, and doesn't fit the tone. At best the man-or-machine thing was a side plot at worst it was barely a footnote, the story has always been about the consequences of your actions brought about what you do via the evidence you have on hand. You can play as an idealist or a cynical realist. In the end that is completely thrown out the window and this is why we're upset.

I don't know why people who support the ending feel the need to butt heads with the many people who don't but more often than not it's the ones who think Bioware didn't do anything wrong in choosing such endings that tend to hold themselves with a smug sense of superiority, which, unsurprisingly annoys people. When you ignore all the well thought out points and only respond to things to - in essence - shout and point "see! see! they're all just unintelligent! they don't get it! and they're just a bunch of violent rabble!" It's the same tactic that news networks use to paint protestors in a negative light to make the cop's job of unjustly breaking up the protest that much easier.

I don't know what your damage is, Biotic Sage, but many people have responded in clear logical and reasonable posts why the endings don't fit with the universe and yet you only seem concerned with arguing with people who do not do such or reaffirming your own ego. I can't tell you to leave, I won't tell you to shut up, but I can say I can see the game you're playing and it's the reason why people get pissed at you.

Perfectly said.
To be fair I think Biotic Sage is just emarking on a journey of denial and rationalization.
So the franchise isn't ruined for him.
I wish I could do that as well, but there is no way I ever could.
I think I speak for all of the let down fans by saying, we wished we could have loved the endings too.
That we want to love the endings just not the ones we got.
We do not want to hate this game.
We do not want to be shattered by the climax of it.
We just wanted to love this game, and see it wraped up with respect and to enjoy it.
Those of us who are uninspired by the endings never wanted to sling hate towards this game.

Well for me, I don't hate the endings, sure they could be touched up a bit.  But its nothing for me to spit on the entire franchise for.  And I'm not in denial.  I respect your opinion on it bro, and I understand some peoples frustration to an extent, some is too far though.  I understand the full scope of the endings, from the entire franchise point of view.  Books, Novels, not just the Games...  Which I'm afraid I don't think most ppl do...  And I'm inclinded to agree with Biotic Sage more.

That is your right and I respect it.
Glad you like the endings and I wish I did.
I can't wait to see where the majority is on this.
Personally I expect a "Sorry we can't please everyone" speech from Bioware.

Oh if I get that I will defiently never buy another EA/BioWare title again.

[WarBaby2]

krthomps1 wrote...
When the scale inevitably became something fitting to machine-gods, our choices become something else accordingly. 

Then the story as a whole failed... and if it was planed like that (which it wasn't, 'cause BW already explained they made most of the details up as they went along), it already failed from the beginning.

I've been writing RPG adventures and storytelling stories for over a decade now, and players hate NOTHING more then takling away their freedom of choice in the last minute, renderin everything they done meaningless in the end... believe me.

Modifié par WarBaby2, 11 mars 2012 - 12:13 .

[Harbinger of Hope]

Biotic Sage wrote...

No, no.  I don't think we have to buy the Catalyst's premise is my point.  That's why the endings are beautiful to me.  

Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.

Control - Implies that you don't know what to think about the Catalyst's premise.  The Reapers will be around anyway, just in case, so it's the "safe" option if you aren't sure.  I considered it "unsafe" because I don't want Reapers around anymore, period.

Synthesis - Implies that you accept the Catalyst's premise and that in order to get out of the fatalistic doom of synthetics rising up we need to create a new paradigm for life in the Milky Way Galaxy.

It's just poor writing if you only imply things.

Modifié par Harbinger of Hope, 11 mars 2012 - 12:12 .

[Biotic Sage]

Harbinger of Hope wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

No, no.  I don't think we have to buy the Catalyst's premise is my point.  That's why the endings are beautiful to me.  

Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.

Control - Implies that you don't know what to think about the Catalyst's premise.  The Reapers will be around anyway, just in case, so it's the "safe" option if you aren't sure.  I considered it "unsafe" because I don't want Reapers around anymore, period.

Synthesis - Implies that you accept the Catalyst's premise and that in order to get out of the fatalistic doom of synthetics rising up we need to create a new paradigm for life in the Milky Way Galaxy.

It's just poor writing if you only imply things.

Actually implications are usually the mark of good writers.  When I read a book whose author has to explicitly spell things out I usually end up rolling my eyes.

We know that Khalisah al-Jilani likes implications

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 12:16 .

[realpokerjedi]

deathscythe517 wrote...

And he's proving the point I made on page 3. :/ Good job.

Indeed.

In so many words his argument for the endings is this...

"Letting go of a epic franchise is hard when it ends."

It's almost like he really believes any endings would have caused this reaction.
No way I'd buy into that, that very same way I won't be buying stocks for ass cakes flavor techonology.

Modifié par realpokerjedi, 11 mars 2012 - 12:16 .

[Leonia]

Poor writing is BSN synonym for "I don't get it so it must be the writer's fault"

[WarBaby2]

Biotic Sage wrote...
Actually implications are usually the mark of good writers.  When I read a book whose author has to explicitly spell things out I usually end up rolling my eyes.

Hey, I agree... but this is no book... it's an interactive(!) entertainment medium.

By the way, implications CAN be the mark of a good writer... but they often aren't.

Modifié par WarBaby2, 11 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[Biotic Sage]

WarBaby2 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
Actually implications are usually the mark of good writers.  When I read a book whose author has to explicitly spell things out I usually end up rolling my eyes.

Hey, I agree... but this is no book... it's an interactive(!) entertainment medium.

I mispoke.  I think implications are the mark of good storytelling in all mediums.  I think that's a universal rule of good storytelling.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[realpokerjedi]

leonia42 wrote...

Poor writing is BSN synonym for "I don't get it so it must be the writer's fault"

Yep that's what Fans of "The Village" said.

[WarBaby2]

realpokerjedi wrote...

Yep that's what Fans of "The Village" said.

Exactly.^^

[Zhuinden]

Biotic Sage wrote...
No, no.  I don't think we have to buy the Catalyst's premise is my point.  That's why the endings are beautiful to me.  

Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.

But by choosing the Destroy option, don't you actually just make all you've done for the Quarians and Geths to be void? The sacrifice of Legion has been for nothing, as the Geth cease to exist as a whole, and you're also murdering EDI who has learned how to live. I think it's heartless to do so.

Modifié par Zhuinden, 11 mars 2012 - 12:19 .

[Biotic Sage]

realpokerjedi wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Poor writing is BSN synonym for "I don't get it so it must be the writer's fault"

Yep that's what Fans of "The Village" said.

Hey I love the Village!  What a deep and moving piece of cinema!

.........

Haha kidding.  Just to put your mind at ease I hate The Village, The Happening, and Avatar: The Last Airbender with a disgust, with a passion, and with disbelief that something could be that terrible.  Respectively.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 12:22 .

[Biotic Sage]

Zhuinden wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
No, no.  I don't think we have to buy the Catalyst's premise is my point.  That's why the endings are beautiful to me.  

Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.

But by choosing the Destroy option, don't you actually just make all you've done for the Quarians and Geths to be void? The sacrifice of Legion has been for nothing, as the Geth cease to exist as a whole, and you're also murdering EDI who has learned how to live. I think it's heartless to do so.

That's why it's such a hard choice, and one I anguished over.  I don't want to destroy the Geth, but the other options to me are worse.  It was a real Sophie's choice.  I chose sacrificing the Geth in order to permanently get rid of the Reapers.  Hopefully the Quarians will pass down what they've learned about how to treat synthetics and their sacrifice won't be in vain.  That's the sad part of that ending.

But I like me some hard choices.  I thought it was the first truly ambiguous, hard decision in the series actually.  One that goes beyond "light side/dark side" or "paragon/renegade" or any of the binaries.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 12:23 .

[krthomps1]

I think the fact that we were given three very difficult, very intellectual (for lack of a better term) choices, rather than the emotional reflexive ones we were somewhat accustomed to, is great. It really shook us out of our element, made us ponder the scale and the stakes involved.
I think there has always been a subtext within Mass Effect's story of our own subjective perspectives, in contrast with cold, hard reality. Though our relationships and emotional cues have provided a lot of the plot of Mass Effect, it always came down to the fact that they were arbitrary. They provide meaning and value to us, but reality has primacy. In the end, we had to put aside our "leanings" and really think about what was the most appropriate action (and maybe even ask ourselves, "how do we know?").
I think that just the fact that we are raising these kinds of issues here is proof that Bioware has really accomplished something here.

[realpokerjedi]

WarBaby2 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
Actually implications are usually the mark of good writers.  When I read a book whose author has to explicitly spell things out I usually end up rolling my eyes.

Hey, I agree... but this is no book... it's an interactive(!) entertainment medium.

By the way, implications CAN be the mark of a good writer... but they often aren't.

I think if the Mass Effect universe only existed in novels, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Exactly as you say it's interactive entertainment and I believe the general standards of endings must be different.
In the case of  the games, Heavy Rain and LA Noire.
They managed to pull off intelligent endings with elegance.
Some are arguing the point that the endings are deep and you are foolish somehow if you don't like them.
Yet they are thinking of the series as a novel, rather than Interactive entertainment.
They already changed the game to appeal to action junkies and the non RPG crowd.
So the endings make even less sense in the scope of all that.

Modifié par realpokerjedi, 11 mars 2012 - 12:26 .

[Leonia]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Zhuinden wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
No, no.  I don't think we have to buy the Catalyst's premise is my point.  That's why the endings are beautiful to me.  

Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.

But by choosing the Destroy option, don't you actually just make all you've done for the Quarians and Geths to be void? The sacrifice of Legion has been for nothing, as the Geth cease to exist as a whole, and you're also murdering EDI who has learned how to live. I think it's heartless to do so.

That's why it's such a hard choice, and one I anguished over.  I don't want to destroy the Geth, but the other options to me are worse.  It was a real Sophie's choice.  I chose sacrificing the Geth in order to permanently get rid of the Reapers.  Hopefully the Quarians will pass down what they've learned about how to treat synthetics and their sacrifice won't be in vain.  That's the sad part of that ending.

But I like me some hard choices.  I thought it was the first truly ambiguous, hard decision in the series actually.  One that goes beyond "light side/dark side" or "paragon/renegade" or any of the binaries.

Yep and it certainly keeps with the theme of sacrifice. AI can be remade, eventually. When make any of these choices you have to think about the longterm implications.