178 réponses à ce sujet

[magnuskn]

Sorry, but I won't subject the galaxy to another Reaper invasion if a few thousand years. They need to go. Sorry for the Geth, but the other races which won't be wiped out then are good enough for me.

[jijeebo]

Mizar_Panzar wrote...

I have heard rumors that you can STILL see EDI and joker hugging after choosing destroy.

So whatever the the ghost says about geths and other synthetics being wiped out is a complete lie, the same way as he painted Anderson as 'renegade' and TIM as 'paragon'.

I hate that stupid kid... If I ever replay the final mission I am SO giving it a hindsight bullet or two in the face, nobody lies to my Shep and gets away with it, yo.

[Eckswhyzed]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Indeed, I felt quite similarly to you - that's why I picked the synthesis ending. After interacting with Legion, the Geth and EDI all this time, and seeing them achieve true personhood (and displaying true humanity), I thought it would be a terrible thing to throw that away. They proved to me that there was no need for division and that we are not inherently superior or more special by virtue of our biology.

THIS. Transhumanism FTW!

Also, in synthesis with the green mass relay explosions, wasn't that just the energy of the Crucible converting everything and not destroying it like in Arrival? I'm not exactly sure what's going on with that. Blowing up every star system with a relay in it is a bit of a bummer.

[Marta Rio II]

Mizar_Panzar wrote...

I have heard rumors that you can STILL see EDI and joker hugging after choosing destroy.

So whatever the the ghost says about geths and other synthetics being wiped out is a complete lie, the same way as he painted Anderson as 'renegade' and TIM as 'paragon'.

I picked destroy.  EDI definitely doesn't get out of the Normandy at the end.  She ded.

[GroverA125]

AlphaDormante wrote...

Destroying some so that many can live. It's extremely unfortunate, but I would have done the same thing if it were any species other than the geth.

Controlling the Reapers and merging synthetics and organics are both "flying blind" decisions. There are far too many unknown variables or consequences involved in both; we get pretty much no explanation for what will happen when we choose those things. At least with Destroy, we know that the organic/synthetic conflict might persist, but it's not a static event. Peace achieved between the geth and quarians proves this.

Basically, they're all awful decisions to make with the tiny amount of information we have, but I view Destroy as the "safest" one.

And, in essence, can't the geth be recreated? I'm not sure whether destroy actually kills them (and how the hell it does it. It makes little sense) but if the quarians could actually survive on Rannoch long enough to get machines up and running, then they could use what they know and make them again. Of course, they still would have the issue that there is no method of getting any outside help at all, since there's no relays.

No matter how you look at it, all the options are terrible ones. Destroy kills off the reapers for good, but also kills off another innocent race. Control changes very little, and does the same as Destroy, except the geth survive (everyone still dies from overpopulation, like the Drell should have) but with the reapers still alive, and making everyone both organic and synthetic is equally bad since people can still create synthetics, not removing the issue anyway. All three options end up with everyone buggered equally as much.

[DnVill]

Not to mention all the unknown primitive lifeforms that live in a system with an unactivated mass relay.

booom! collateral damage.

[Milvushina]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The destruction of the relays (which doesn't happen in Control) is bad enough, but the real sticking point is this:

For three games, we've been confronted with questions about the nature of synthetic life. We've seen the rogue "VI" on Luna post "Help me" in binary code. We've met Legion and EDI and we can say with conviction that synthetics can be people. Now in ME3, if you broker peace between the quarians and the geth, the geth gain individuality, and Legion sacrifices his life for the species. Thus, a new species is formed, synthetics in the image of organics, having attained personhood. It is a species in its infancy, all the potential for its future as yet unrealized. 

Seeing this is an awe-inspiring experience. If you value intelligent life and its diversity at all, it is a sublime moment, a small island of hope in the horrors of a galactic war. And as opposed to the genophage cure, there are no lingering doubts about bad consequences down the road, since the geth have proven by their actions past and present that they're not naturally aggressive. 

If you choose Destroy, you also destroy all synthetic life including the geth, destroying all that potential and making a lie of that sublime moment when Legion spoke of himself as "I". You are destroying the future of a newborn species, the same Shepard accuses the Catalyst of if you choose the Paragon responses, only worse, because this new species has had no time at all. 

And don't tell me it doesn't actually happen. If you choose Destroy, EDI will not appear in the ending scenes. Synthetics being destroyed is well in line with the theme of the Destroy ending and supported by dialogue and visual evidence.

Taking this option makes me feel as if I just killed a child. 

I picked destroy.  I felt really, really bad, especially after what I learned about EDI in the Cerberus base and seeing Legion's transformation.  I didn't get synthesis, control was tempting.  But in the end I was confused, I didn't know if Shepard was being tricked, and following the footsteps of TIM just seemed so wrong.  Shepard might have been "special".  Saren believed he was, too.  So did TIM.  Destroy ending was rough, but felt like the lesser evil.

Then again, maybe my Shepard was a stubborn jerk who couldn't think outside of the box she'd been in for the whole journey.

[its the beast]

Jaredh wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

If you choose Destroy, you also destroy all synthetic life including the geth, destroying all that potential and making a lie of that sublime moment when Legion spoke of himself as "I". You are destroying the future of a newborn species, the same Shepard accuses the Catalyst of if you choose the Paragon responses, only worse, because this new species has had no time at all. 

I see it this way.
If you talked the Geth and Quarians into peace und seeing Legion speak of himself as "I" you showed this "Godchild" that his logic is flawed. That there can be peace between organics and synthetics. Even if they are extinct now it shows that not all synthetics will kill their organic creators.

exactly! for a "god" child he sure is fairly stupid 

[Freckle Face]

 It annoys me that destroying the reapers destroys all synthetic life. You just KNOW that the only reason the writers did that is because they felt some sort of sacrifice was needed, because destroy is the obviously appealing choice (reapers = dead, shepard = alive, what's not to like?). You can't tell me that the creator of the reapers can't just destroy them, and only them. <_<

Edit: Oops guess this thread was pretty dead... my bad 

Modifié par Freckle Face, 08 avril 2012 - 02:17 .

[XRelakX]

I pick control..now i can control the reapers..and now i will make cycles about picking the sexy aliens races around each 24hr and who is not sexy gets to clean the floor and such..

Seems legit.

[Landamskarn]

edit:  Didn't realize someone bumped a dead thread. 

Modifié par Landamskarn, 08 avril 2012 - 02:24 .

[Apollo-XL5]

Indoctrinated

Harbinger has assumed direct control!

[Shaun2406]

To all people saying 'controlling the reapers is wrong'... It IS possible to just control them and fly them all into the sun, resulting in a 'destroy' ending without the death of EDI and the Geth...

The only thing is Shepard can't survive this...

So the question then, is 'are you selfish enough to murder a friend and commit genocide just so you can live'...

[Meltemph]

Destroy is the only one that makes sense though. Control... "You will die, you will lose everything you have" WTF does that mean? If I'm dead and lose everything I am how do I control the reapers? Is it just a go away thing? Seriously, the control ending had so many questions behind it, it's silly.

As for synthesis... Ya, the idea behind it is so stupid, in terms of making sense, that I cant bring myself to even encourage that kind of D&D magic.

Destroy, has TONS of issues with it, but has less questions then the rest.

[o Ventus]

Throwing this out there.

EDI can survive "destroy", and Shepard can gasp for breath -- only on "destroy", in spite of his synthetic bits (Which the catalyst himself points out).

[chevyguy87]

The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult.

-Winston Churchill
 
In war it may be necessary to take life in order to ensure future existence is possible. Look at the atomic bombs dropped to end WW2. Was it necessary to prevent hundreds of thousands of additional casualties? Yes it was. It may not have been a pretty solution but it indeed was necessary to succeed.

With that being said in any future playthroughs I do I will always choose destroy because in war casualties are inevitable to acheive success.

Modifié par chevyguy87, 08 avril 2012 - 02:48 .

[blitzing bear]

Well Saren wanted synthesis, so you killed him. Illusive man wanted control...so you killed him. So if you choose either one of those, its a bit hypocritical don't you think?

[felipejiraya]

Necromancy right here.

[Raiil]

I chose control as the least ethically horrifying of three very disturbing options.


I can never pick destroy. The second I heard that it would kill all synthetics, it became an non-issue for me. To sanction mass murder of an entire species- synthetic or otherwise- is anathema to me and my Shepard. I would never pick an ending that allowed me to destroy all asari, or turians, or krogan, etc.


I'm curious as to how many pro-destroyers would pick the destroy option if it meant killing every last human in the galaxy. You know, 'acceptable collateral damage' and all that.

[o Ventus]

Valentia X wrote...

I chose control as the least ethically horrifying of three very disturbing options.


I can never pick destroy. The second I heard that it would kill all synthetics, it became an non-issue for me. To sanction mass murder of an entire species- synthetic or otherwise- is anathema to me and my Shepard. I would never pick an ending that allowed me to destroy all asari, or turians, or krogan, etc.


I'm curious as to how many pro-destroyers would pick the destroy option if it meant killing every last human in the galaxy. You know, 'acceptable collateral damage' and all that.

The geth can be recreated. The quarians still exist after all.

Humans can't. Don't ever use that weak-ass argument again, please.

[Virginian]

Legion specifically showed that the geth conciously chose not to destroy their creators at the conclusion of The Morning War, because they 'feared' the potential deadly consequences to their own survival. That to me proved the geth were sentient and worthy of life more so than what accord to them after getting the reaper code making them true AI.

I chose destroy only becuase I wanted to see who would walk off the ship but my default choice is always what will keep the geth & EDI alive.

chevyguy87 wrote...

The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult.

-Winston Churchill
 
In
war it may be necessary to take life in order to ensure future
existence is possible. Look at the atomic bombs dropped to end WW2. Was
it necessary to prevent hundreds of thousands of additional casualties?
Yes it was. It may not have been a pretty solution but it indeed was
necessary to succeed.

With that being said in any future
playthroughs I do I will always choose destroy because in war casualties
are inevitable to acheive success.

Don't use such weak & pathetic arguments. Committing genocide is never acceptable no matter what.

Atomic bombs in WW2 didn't end destroy all humans in the universe of a specific ethnicity, it wiped out cities, gave people cancer, and made land uninhabitable for a long time. It is nowhere near compatable to wiping out an entire species.

Modifié par Virginian, 08 avril 2012 - 03:06 .

[nicksmi56]

Destroy is basically saying "Hey Catalyst! You're right! Organics and synthetics can never coexist"

[Raiil]

o Ventus wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

I chose control as the least ethically horrifying of three very disturbing options.


I can never pick destroy. The second I heard that it would kill all synthetics, it became an non-issue for me. To sanction mass murder of an entire species- synthetic or otherwise- is anathema to me and my Shepard. I would never pick an ending that allowed me to destroy all asari, or turians, or krogan, etc.


I'm curious as to how many pro-destroyers would pick the destroy option if it meant killing every last human in the galaxy. You know, 'acceptable collateral damage' and all that.

The geth can be recreated. The quarians still exist after all.

Humans can't. Don't ever use that weak-ass argument again, please.

If you can't say anything nice...

Actually, you can't 'bring them back'. Not as the sentient, self-determining machines with individual personalities as they are now. They make a point of this with Legion; after he sacrifices himself, another Geth comes to speak to you, and when you ask if it's Legion, it reponds that Legion is gone and can't come back after his sacrifice. 

The Geth arose from from a section of routine VI programs that interfaced, then rose to sentience through what is essentially digital evolution. If you choose to destroy the geth, you effectively wipe out that entire synthetic race. You may be able to reprogram a new series of VI that eventually gain sentience in the same fashion, but that doesn't make them the same, no more than raising a new child in the fashion of the old makes them the same child. EDI is built from cannibalised reaper parts- she is not, however, a reaper herself.  There may be memories that can be brought up, but no reborn 'geth' that you would have made would be a survivor of the Morning War; it would be, at best, a facsimile of what used to be, and not an actual geth itself.


The crux of the argument is whether one believes that the geth are individuals with 'souls', unique personalities and true sentience. If you don't, then the 'rebuilding the geth' option probably sounds nice. If you do happen to believe it, then the destroy option is an act of genocide as henious as if you chose to destroy an organic race. 

[kalasaurus]

I picked destroy, but it wasn't a choice I was exactly happy about. They all sucked, but in different ways. All compromise your morals in some way.

[Lookout1390]

Control = Shepard dies, relays blow up, Reapers still exist = You lose
Synthesis = Shepard dies, relays blow up, Reapers still exist = You lose
Destroy = Shepard dies, relays blow up, Reapers die = You sort of win

Though to be honest, I don't think any of the endings was a 'victory' for Shepard.