171 réponses à ce sujet

[Turtlicious]

This one believes you have missed the point, The commander does not argue, and accepts the star child's logic as infallible. This one and many others have grown to resent that.

[Taleroth]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

It's like a burglar breaks into your house, and you ask him how to take the safety off your gun.

Uhh... you're holding it backwards. Yeah. That's how it works.

[Torrible]

This is what my Shepard thinks:

The reaper forces are overwhelming and the crucible has always been the 'all eggs in one basket' solution. If he does nothing, the Alliance will be defeated and Earth destroyed.

Now, the Catalyst offers him a chance to destroy the Reapers.

He sees a few possibilities:

1) The Catalyst is telling the truth. He can destroy the Reapers with the right-most option
2) The Catalyst is trolling him. The options are swapped. Destroy is actually Synthetic, Synthetic is actually Control and so on.
3) The Catalyst is lying. Whatever Shepard does is meaningless. The Catalyst is just a sadist who enjoys seeing someone's hope be built up and subsequently destroyed.

He is mentally and physically on the verge of collapse and doesn't see Indoctrination as a possibility. He sees this as a chance to destroy the Reapers (a hopeful gamble perhaps) while at the same time absolutely certain that doing nothing is tantamount to giving up.

Modifié par Torrible, 28 mars 2012 - 02:54 .

[Eyeshield21]

The Angry One wrote...

Would it listen? I don't know.
Would Shepard try? HELL YES.

seriously, bioware gotta answer soon.....

[beank]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...
Except you built the Crucible to kill him.  That's kind of a conflict of interest, don't you think?
It's like a burglar breaks into your house, and you ask him how to take the safety off your gun.

But that dosent mean that the Kid is not the ultimate athority on what he (it) himself (itself) does right?

It is a conflict of interest, but that would only exist if the Kid is living being (or AI equivilant). If it is just a VI then all it can do is warn you of the conciquences of your actions.

Or am I missing something?

Modifié par beank, 28 mars 2012 - 02:55 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Zenor wrote...
Now to me destroy is disagreeing with them. It pretty much says "We don't need you." Right? Sure there's a heavy price tag, the geth dying with them, but it allows us to start anew without the reapers doing their thing with their logic.

I'd say you're still agreeing with his logic in that one since you're wiping out all synthetics because the catalyst believes there can be no peace between organics and synthetics. His solution was to wipe out oragnics to prevent synthetics from being created. the destroy solution symply destroys all synthetics that currently exist , so different solution but derived from the same logic so you're still agreeing with him/it/whatever.

[Afrolash]

So the catalyst created the Reapers I am pretty sure he said that he controls them as well? If so we should simply destroy him and give them their free will back and see what they do.

On another note if he is their creator shouldn't they be rebelling against him? His own logic dictates the created will always rebel against their creator.

[Reofeir]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Zenor wrote...
Now to me destroy is disagreeing with them. It pretty much says "We don't need you." Right? Sure there's a heavy price tag, the geth dying with them, but it allows us to start anew without the reapers doing their thing with their logic.

I'd say you're still agreeing with his logic in that one since you're wiping out all synthetics because the catalyst believes there can be no peace between organics and synthetics. His solution was to wipe out oragnics to prevent synthetics from being created. the destroy solution symply destroys all synthetics that currently exist , so different solution but derived from the same logic so you're still agreeing with him/it/whatever.

How I think of it is : It could be considered a hard choice to make; but you're not agreeing with him. Because you know for a fact AI can be created after this...So the whole agreeing with him part can be removed if you put that into mind. One can also say that this choice is the best choice to disagree with the reapers by saying "remove you once and for all and let life take it's own cource". So you disagree with them by removing them. That's how I see it.

[Fruit of the Doom]

He uses his space wizardry to twist and confuse poor Shepard.

[Reofeir]

KustomDeluxe wrote...

Zenor wrote...

KustomDeluxe wrote...

Zenor wrote...

KustomDeluxe wrote...

This quote from ME2 about sums it up for me:
TIM: I made you Shephard! I brought you back from the dead!
Shephard:And I'm going to do what you brought me back to do. I'll fight and win this war without compromising the soul of our species.

Genocide (destroy), Forced "evolution" (Synthesis), and believing that the ends justify the means (control), compromise the soul of the species.

So, I'm a bit confused by this statement. The end justify the means, being control, compromises the soul of the species how? Expand on that one for me. I understand the destroy and Synthesis being a compromise, but the control I still don't.

My reasoning was that it was essentially throwing out morality to win because, in order to research the means to achieve that ending TIM had those creepy experiments on [insert-planet-I-forgot-here]. Plus it was caving into the wants of a guy who was indoctrinated, which seems...counterintuitive to say the least. We're accomplishing the GOAL of someone who was/is acknowledged to be an unwitting puppet of the bad guys!

Does that help at all?

Well, to be honest, TIM only knew about how to control people and sought to do this before us, yes. However, nothing I've done was "Required" in order to do that. The best option to save the krogan, and best result actually, did need you to keep malon's(spelling?) work to save eve. However we did our best to save the krogan using the knowledge of one man's mistakes to help everyone. 
So in *my* eyes, I don't see it as still throwing out morality. 

Yeah...I can understand that.

I guess my other big beef with it is the power it places in one person's hands. Obviously TIM would've used it to Destroy all humans aliens, whereas Shepherd...we dunnow, just have to assume he flew 'em out and didn't go all genocide-y on someone he didn't like. But the potential is there. Plus, alongside that we get allusions in the Illusive Man conversation that the Reapers can't be controlled (I think Shepherd even says exactly this in one of the dialog things, with variations depending on renegade/paragon) so that bugs me a bit...

I suppose Control is probably the "best" when it comes to not being monstrous directly, because good could come of it. But the logic behind that decision (I'll take all this power because good can come of it!) is disturbing and, arguably, what got TIM in such hot water. He was so busy focusing on the "good" the Reapers could do for humanity he got dragged into doing some horriffic things TO humanity.

Yeah, what he did was evil and Shepard could very well be dragged into doing what the reapers want to do. The thing is the choice is thinking that you CAN control them to save everyone. Now the only thing actually "evil" about this is that you think you can do something that someone else couldn't do, thinking you can never falter. Truthfully the "best" choice can be the destroy ending just becasue it removes any chance of the reapers backfiring on us again. However the best choice for everyone living without changing everything about them is Control, but you have to take the risk of well dying and possibly doing the reaper stuff all over again.

[Anxarcule]

Reposted from other threads:

I have a question. Would you guys be happy with just some new content being added after the current three endings? Because I don't think anything but the complete obliteration of the whole child-god scene would work for me.
I mean, it is an affront to logic. I tried to be funny about it here http://social.biowar...16/1033#9902933, but looking, for example, at the synthesis ending seriously:


- Shepard finds what looks like an AI in the middle of the Reaper controlled Citadel.

- Said AI confesses to commanding the Reapers. The same Reapers that have never been above deceit.

- Shepard is offered to sacrifice his life so that his "energy" is used to change the "DNA" of all organic and synthetic organisms in the Galaxy. I don't know about your Shepard, but this would have been a little bit beyond what mine would have considered feasible.

- Synthesis is presented as the ultimate solution because if everything is half organic and half synthetic (IE. the same) then there will be peace.
Really???? Humans kill humans, Turians kill Turians, Krogans kill Krogans, and on the synthetic side Geth kill Geth (possible outcome of Legion's loyalty mission in ME2 is wiping out the Heretics, at his behest mind you). How on earth is being spliced into an organic/synthetic abomination going to ensure peace?
On top of that, what is going to stop this new spliced races from eventually creating a new synthetic life form and ending up with the same problem.


So, to sum up, we have an untrustworthy child-thing asking Shepard to give his life in exchange for affecting the galaxy in a way that is incredibly hard to believe, in order to attain a promised peace that doesn't resist the most cursory analysis.

Shepard would have to be beyond gullible to just jump into that energy pillar, he would have to be plain stupid.


Similar analysis can be done to the control choice. I mean, what guarantee does Shepard have that anything beyond being burnt to ashes would come out of grabbing those very deadly looking handles.
I think a little bit more than a child's countenance is required to trust someone enough to give up your life in exchange for a promise.


While on the topic of sacrifice, another thing that really bothers me is that someone at BioWare decided to be moralizing but didn't bother to back it up with narrative. That is; they decided that wanting Shepard to live is "selfish" so it had to be done at the expense of the Geth and, more importantly, EDI.

In contrast, they provided the option of being selfless, killing Shepard but sparring his allies and friend. The problem with this, again, is that the need for Shepard to die is not framed by the narrative, what reason beyond the god-child's whim (Control) or the need for his "energy" (Synthesis) are given?

Kaidan/Ashley's death made sense, you could not save them both before the bomb went off. Mordin was the only one that could "get it right". Thane was already terminally ill when you first met him.

How can a company that managed to make these deaths work, think that it is acceptable to justify the need for Shepard's death with: "So sayeth the god-child"?


I hope that there is some ending DLC coming, but it better modify the game before we kill Marauder Shields because I can suspend my disbelief, but I find it hard to suspend logic to the degree that our current "god" demands.

Again, sorry for the rant/wall of text.

[Reofeir]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

beank wrote...

I looked at it like this:

The Crucible is the weapon to destroy the reapers.
The Kid is the instruction manual.

If the instruction manual is wrong, what hope is there of using the Crucible correctly?

It told me that Control would be preferable to destruction and I told it that it was wrong (the second time, the first time I picked Synth to fit with my Shepard's personality).

I also looked at it like this:

The Kid is giving me an explanation, and I am just waiting till he is done to give my rebuttal (selecting destroy).

But thats just what I was thinking....

Except you built the Crucible to kill him.  That's kind of a conflict of interest, don't you think?

It's like a burglar breaks into your house, and you ask him how to take the safety off your gun.

How starchild thinks that it was the best solution, so now he is given new "possibilties". If he is telling the truth, he is giving you these new options because his old plan was faltered. To A AI this might be something good, but to us it's something confusing on the terms of "Y U DO DAT". To be honest this is a different discussion on it's own. But it is intresting to talk about.

[wicked_being]

Shepard always says "there's got to be another way." This time he's like "oh okay..."
Totally killed it for me.

[Reofeir]

Anxarcule wrote...

Reposted from other threads:

I have a question. Would you guys be happy with just some new content being added after the current three endings? Because I don't think anything but the complete obliteration of the whole child-god scene would work for me.
I mean, it is an affront to logic. I tried to be funny about it here http://social.biowar...16/1033#9902933, but looking, for example, at the synthesis ending seriously:


- Shepard finds what looks like an AI in the middle of the Reaper controlled Citadel.

- Said AI confesses to commanding the Reapers. The same Reapers that have never been above deceit.
I Think he said he made them, not controlled them. Though I could be wrong.
- Shepard is offered to sacrifice his life so that his "energy" is used to change the "DNA" of all organic and synthetic organisms in the Galaxy. I don't know about your Shepard, but this would have been a little bit beyond what mine would have considered feasible.
Not arguing about what choice is right or wrong, I'm saying that you could disagree with him by choosing destroy. Choosing control took the plan of the illusive man, and synthesis WAS agreeing with the reapers. 
- Synthesis is presented as the ultimate solution because if everything is half organic and half synthetic (IE. the same) then there will be peace.
From how I understood it, it also had a second part of letting life rise up as well. To me it sounded more like letting them reach their "height" from what they understood, then preserve them and let the other races live on without the worry of extinction from the old race's mistakes.
Really???? Humans kill humans, Turians kill Turians, Krogans kill Krogans, and on the synthetic side Geth kill Geth (possible outcome of Legion's loyalty mission in ME2 is wiping out the Heretics, at his behest mind you). How on earth is being spliced into an organic/synthetic abomination going to ensure peace?
On top of that, what is going to stop this new spliced races from eventually creating a new synthetic life form and ending up with the same problem.
The thing is machines don't *need* us, so that they can destroy organics much easier without a consiance unlike normal races who might learnt o back down before exctinction.

So, to sum up, we have an untrustworthy child-thing asking Shepard to give his life in exchange for affecting the galaxy in a way that is incredibly hard to believe, in order to attain a promised peace that doesn't resist the most cursory analysis.

Shepard would have to be beyond gullible to just jump into that energy pillar, he would have to be plain stupid.


Similar analysis can be done to the control choice. I mean, what guarantee does Shepard have that anything beyond being burnt to ashes would come out of grabbing those very deadly looking handles.
I think a little bit more than a child's countenance is required to trust someone enough to give up your life in exchange for a promise.
At this point, in my opinion, anyone would try anything to stop the reapers.

While on the topic of sacrifice, another thing that really bothers me is that someone at BioWare decided to be moralizing but didn't bother to back it up with narrative. That is; they decided that wanting Shepard to live is "selfish" so it had to be done at the expense of the Geth and, more importantly, EDI.

In contrast, they provided the option of being selfless, killing Shepard but sparring his allies and friend. The problem with this, again, is that the need for Shepard to die is not framed by the narrative, what reason beyond the god-child's whim (Control) or the need for his "energy" (Synthesis) are given?

Kaidan/Ashley's death made sense, you could not save them both before the bomb went off. Mordin was the only one that could "get it right". Thane was already terminally ill when you first met him.

How can a company that managed to make these deaths work, think that it is acceptable to justify the need for Shepard's death with: "So sayeth the god-child"?


I hope that there is some ending DLC coming, but it better modify the game before we kill Marauder Shields because I can suspend my disbelief, but I find it hard to suspend logic to the degree that our current "god" demands.

Again, sorry for the rant/wall of text.

In bold is my responses to most of your things. I also like to note that: Yes we do have to take the word of our enemy. Wierd huh? However I think anyone of us at that situation would try whatever, risk everything, to stop the reapers. The hardest part of the ending is mostly "trusting" what he says. You don't trust what he says then? Just explode the whole citadel along with the reapers, removing all "risks". The only problem there is a tagged on "geth also die" part, which makes it a difficult choice. However you still disagree with them no matter what, just it's a very hard choice. 

[Anxarcule]

Zenor wrote...

Anxarcule wrote...

Reposted from other threads:

I have a question. Would you guys be happy with just some new content being added after the current three endings? Because I don't think anything but the complete obliteration of the whole child-god scene would work for me.
I mean, it is an affront to logic. I tried to be funny about it here http://social.biowar...16/1033#9902933, but looking, for example, at the synthesis ending seriously:


- Shepard finds what looks like an AI in the middle of the Reaper controlled Citadel.

- Said AI confesses to commanding the Reapers. The same Reapers that have never been above deceit.
I Think he said he made them, not controlled them. Though I could be wrong.
- Shepard is offered to sacrifice his life so that his "energy" is used to change the "DNA" of all organic and synthetic organisms in the Galaxy. I don't know about your Shepard, but this would have been a little bit beyond what mine would have considered feasible.
Not arguing about what choice is right or wrong, I'm saying that you could disagree with him by choosing destroy. Choosing control took the plan of the illusive man, and synthesis WAS agreeing with the reapers. 
- Synthesis is presented as the ultimate solution because if everything is half organic and half synthetic (IE. the same) then there will be peace.
From how I understood it, it also had a second part of letting life rise up as well. To me it sounded more like letting them reach their "height" from what they understood, then preserve them and let the other races live on without the worry of extinction from the old race's mistakes.
Really???? Humans kill humans, Turians kill Turians, Krogans kill Krogans, and on the synthetic side Geth kill Geth (possible outcome of Legion's loyalty mission in ME2 is wiping out the Heretics, at his behest mind you). How on earth is being spliced into an organic/synthetic abomination going to ensure peace?
On top of that, what is going to stop this new spliced races from eventually creating a new synthetic life form and ending up with the same problem.
The thing is machines don't *need* us, so that they can destroy organics much easier without a consiance unlike normal races who might learnt o back down before exctinction.

So, to sum up, we have an untrustworthy child-thing asking Shepard to give his life in exchange for affecting the galaxy in a way that is incredibly hard to believe, in order to attain a promised peace that doesn't resist the most cursory analysis.

Shepard would have to be beyond gullible to just jump into that energy pillar, he would have to be plain stupid.


Similar analysis can be done to the control choice. I mean, what guarantee does Shepard have that anything beyond being burnt to ashes would come out of grabbing those very deadly looking handles.
I think a little bit more than a child's countenance is required to trust someone enough to give up your life in exchange for a promise.
At this point, in my opinion, anyone would try anything to stop the reapers.

While on the topic of sacrifice, another thing that really bothers me is that someone at BioWare decided to be moralizing but didn't bother to back it up with narrative. That is; they decided that wanting Shepard to live is "selfish" so it had to be done at the expense of the Geth and, more importantly, EDI.

In contrast, they provided the option of being selfless, killing Shepard but sparring his allies and friend. The problem with this, again, is that the need for Shepard to die is not framed by the narrative, what reason beyond the god-child's whim (Control) or the need for his "energy" (Synthesis) are given?

Kaidan/Ashley's death made sense, you could not save them both before the bomb went off. Mordin was the only one that could "get it right". Thane was already terminally ill when you first met him.

How can a company that managed to make these deaths work, think that it is acceptable to justify the need for Shepard's death with: "So sayeth the god-child"?


I hope that there is some ending DLC coming, but it better modify the game before we kill Marauder Shields because I can suspend my disbelief, but I find it hard to suspend logic to the degree that our current "god" demands.

Again, sorry for the rant/wall of text.

In bold is my responses to most of your things. I also like to note that: Yes we do have to take the word of our enemy. Wierd huh? However I think anyone of us at that situation would try whatever, risk everything, to stop the reapers. The hardest part of the ending is mostly "trusting" what he says. You don't trust what he says then? Just explode the whole citadel along with the reapers, removing all "risks". The only problem there is a tagged on "geth also die" part, which makes it a difficult choice. However you still disagree with them no matter what, just it's a very hard choice. 

By the way, sorry for the part of the post that was unrelated to this topic, but it was a long day and I was too lazy to do anything beyond the copy pasta .

As far as doing anything it takes, I think that commiting suicide on your enemies' words is kind of pushing it. I mean, Shepard knows that he is the only one that made it into the Citadel (now that TIM and Anderson are dead). Just grabbing an electric wire or jumping into a pillar of light without first even looking around doesn't sound like what my Shepard would do.

Also, the fact that shooting a random piece of the Citadel will end up in the destruction of all synthetic life is dependent on the star child's words. For all Shepard knows, blowing up the Citadel would just accomplish blowing up the Citadel.

Modifié par Anxarcule, 28 mars 2012 - 03:37 .

[Reofeir]

Anxarcule wrote...

Zenor wrote...

Anxarcule wrote...

Reposted from other threads:

I have a question. Would you guys be happy with just some new content being added after the current three endings? Because I don't think anything but the complete obliteration of the whole child-god scene would work for me.
I mean, it is an affront to logic. I tried to be funny about it here http://social.biowar...16/1033#9902933, but looking, for example, at the synthesis ending seriously:


- Shepard finds what looks like an AI in the middle of the Reaper controlled Citadel.

- Said AI confesses to commanding the Reapers. The same Reapers that have never been above deceit.
I Think he said he made them, not controlled them. Though I could be wrong.
- Shepard is offered to sacrifice his life so that his "energy" is used to change the "DNA" of all organic and synthetic organisms in the Galaxy. I don't know about your Shepard, but this would have been a little bit beyond what mine would have considered feasible.
Not arguing about what choice is right or wrong, I'm saying that you could disagree with him by choosing destroy. Choosing control took the plan of the illusive man, and synthesis WAS agreeing with the reapers. 
- Synthesis is presented as the ultimate solution because if everything is half organic and half synthetic (IE. the same) then there will be peace.
From how I understood it, it also had a second part of letting life rise up as well. To me it sounded more like letting them reach their "height" from what they understood, then preserve them and let the other races live on without the worry of extinction from the old race's mistakes.
Really???? Humans kill humans, Turians kill Turians, Krogans kill Krogans, and on the synthetic side Geth kill Geth (possible outcome of Legion's loyalty mission in ME2 is wiping out the Heretics, at his behest mind you). How on earth is being spliced into an organic/synthetic abomination going to ensure peace?
On top of that, what is going to stop this new spliced races from eventually creating a new synthetic life form and ending up with the same problem.
The thing is machines don't *need* us, so that they can destroy organics much easier without a consiance unlike normal races who might learnt o back down before exctinction.

So, to sum up, we have an untrustworthy child-thing asking Shepard to give his life in exchange for affecting the galaxy in a way that is incredibly hard to believe, in order to attain a promised peace that doesn't resist the most cursory analysis.

Shepard would have to be beyond gullible to just jump into that energy pillar, he would have to be plain stupid.


Similar analysis can be done to the control choice. I mean, what guarantee does Shepard have that anything beyond being burnt to ashes would come out of grabbing those very deadly looking handles.
I think a little bit more than a child's countenance is required to trust someone enough to give up your life in exchange for a promise.
At this point, in my opinion, anyone would try anything to stop the reapers.

While on the topic of sacrifice, another thing that really bothers me is that someone at BioWare decided to be moralizing but didn't bother to back it up with narrative. That is; they decided that wanting Shepard to live is "selfish" so it had to be done at the expense of the Geth and, more importantly, EDI.

In contrast, they provided the option of being selfless, killing Shepard but sparring his allies and friend. The problem with this, again, is that the need for Shepard to die is not framed by the narrative, what reason beyond the god-child's whim (Control) or the need for his "energy" (Synthesis) are given?

Kaidan/Ashley's death made sense, you could not save them both before the bomb went off. Mordin was the only one that could "get it right". Thane was already terminally ill when you first met him.

How can a company that managed to make these deaths work, think that it is acceptable to justify the need for Shepard's death with: "So sayeth the god-child"?


I hope that there is some ending DLC coming, but it better modify the game before we kill Marauder Shields because I can suspend my disbelief, but I find it hard to suspend logic to the degree that our current "god" demands.

Again, sorry for the rant/wall of text.

In bold is my responses to most of your things. I also like to note that: Yes we do have to take the word of our enemy. Wierd huh? However I think anyone of us at that situation would try whatever, risk everything, to stop the reapers. The hardest part of the ending is mostly "trusting" what he says. You don't trust what he says then? Just explode the whole citadel along with the reapers, removing all "risks". The only problem there is a tagged on "geth also die" part, which makes it a difficult choice. However you still disagree with them no matter what, just it's a very hard choice. 

By the way, sorry for the part of the post that was unrelated to this topic, but it was a long day and I was too lazy to do anything beyond the copy pasta .

As far as doing anything it takes, I think that commiting suicide on your enemies' words is kind of pushing it. I mean, Shepard knows that he is the only one that made it into the Citadel (now that TIM and Anderson are dead). Just grabbing an electric wire or jumping into a pillar of light without first even looking around doesn't sound like what my Shepard would do.

Also, the fact that shooting a random piece of the Citadel will end up in the destruction of all synthetic life is dependent on the star child's words. For all Shepard knows, blowing up the Citadel would just accomplish blowing up the Citadel.

It's no problem.
Anyways, I can't debate what your shepard would do. I'm just suggesting that the destroy choice, to me, sounds like disagreeing. But you caught me on something though, yes we do have to still trust the kid on thinking that shooting that one part could just destroy part of the citadel. I guess the hardest thing of this is actually wondering if the kid is telling the *truth* of what things do. Of course are foresight now can tell us "yes it destroys them" but we don't know that on our first playthrough. Which probably makes this harder. So this, in specific, seems more of "DO you trust what he says" instead of "Do you agree what he says". Get what I mean? 

[Anxarcule]

I "agree" with you on that one .

Still, even if choosing R, G or B does not necessarily mean agreement on Shepard's part, I think it at least implies a very out of character capitulation.
There should have been a way of simply saying "I don't trust you" and looking for another option.

By this I do not mean to say that Shepard should have necessarily found another option, but just taking the child's words at face value felt really jarring and completely shattered my suspension of disbelief.

Then again, as far as this topic goes, yes, I don't think Shepard is agreeing, just surrendering.

Modifié par Anxarcule, 28 mars 2012 - 04:03 .

[Reofeir]

Anxarcule wrote...

I "agree" with you on that one .

Still, even if choosing R, G or B does not necesarily mean agreement on Shepard's part, I think it at least implies a very out of character capitulation.
There should have been a way of simply saying "I don't trust you" and looking for another option.

By this I do not mean to say that Shepard should have necesarily found another option, but just taking the child's words at face value felt really jarring and completely shattered my suspension of disbelief.

Then again, as far as this topic goes, yes, I don't think Shepard is agreeing, just surrendering.

I agree, there should of been a choice to say "you're wrong". I wasn't really wanting to say "There shouldn't be a choice because he would of said no", if I did then that's not what I intended. I just got confused on the fact on what we  saw wasn't really shepard agreeing with the reapers. Sure, it may be out of character for him to just do the three choices (though the only other choice I can see is letting the fleet fight the reapers and probably get killed no matter what...I mean they are the reapers.) but it wasn't a "I agree completely".

Though I do agree that it would of been nice to say "I don't trust you" or "You're wrong" and the kid just telling me I have to do it or all I did was for nothing and proving it by showing me earth once more or something.  

[CaliGuy033]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I think "agreeing with them" is short-hand for "he accepted without question that these options were the only ones possible."

Does that sound like your Shepard?

People keep saying "your Shepard" like he's a real person with the same level of complexity.  No matter how you play him, Shepard is the sum of a finite number of limited dialogue-wheel choices.   Let's stop pretending like the ending violated people's choice to craft a character from scratch.  No matter what you do, "your" Shepard can't stray very far from Bioware's baseline.

[Quietness]

What you didnt see was that during that lift ride up harby sneaks up and rips out shepard's spine and takes off before we are the wiser. The whole thing was very very sneaky.

[CavScout]

Why did Shep believe the AI/VI in ME1? Why did he just run off and jump into the Conduit? Why didn't he disagree and do it his own way?

[Ogrinash]

The irony is, your decisions are forced onto you throughout the entire series. Blue, red, and some silly questioning (which is written like a bad choose your own adventure, except the outcomes aren't that game changing when you can just reload).

[FemmeShep]

He does just go along with Starchild.

After Starchild gives him the three choices, he just blindly stumbles to one of the 3 choices. There is no dialogue for Shepard to question the Starchild and the choices he's been given. There is no option to get more information on why things have to be this way.

Personally, all 3 choices go against everything Shepard stood for. So I have an issue with him picking any of them. But that's for another argument all together.

[Taleroth]

CavScout wrote...

Why did Shep believe the AI/VI in ME1? Why did he just run off and jump into the Conduit? Why didn't he disagree and do it his own way?

Because the VI in ME1 wasn't a Reaper telling him he needed to die and destroy galactic civilization.

[FemmeShep]

Ogrinash wrote...

The irony is, your decisions are forced onto you throughout the entire series. Blue, red, and some silly questioning (which is written like a bad choose your own adventure, except the outcomes aren't that game changing when you can just reload).

Yes, but your choices up to that point reflected the scenario you were in. Or, if it was a new scenario all together, then you were making choices that would build on something else later on. 

The ending doesn't do any of this. So while I see where you are coming from (in terms of the entire series being build on set choices), this was the end link on the chain.

They should have had the actual choices be shaped by what you did prior (following the previous links in the chain). Instead it's just a new link all together, and your choices don't build another link either. It just ends. 

Modifié par FemmeShep, 28 mars 2012 - 04:15 .