808 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

tobito113 wrote...

The geth have no "family, they were all there and they were all willing to die, thats a noble sacrifice

They were not willing to die as a race. That is murder and treason.

[CronoDragoon]

He's not dissing Americans. That is in fact the stated reason why we did it.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 07 avril 2012 - 10:00 .

[ScaredPeach]

Yep, the Japanese would have never given up.

I'm not referring to that, im saying something along the lines of if say the European front didnt go in our favor, would it be right to nuke capitals with dictators in them to stop immanent world domination?

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

All three endings are horrible, but Destroy is the least awful of the three. If you don't want the guilt of killing the geth, though, metagame and get Tali exiled and then side with her in the argument with Legion instead of using the persuade option. Then peace will be impossible, and the deaths of the geth will be on Gerrel's hands, not yours.

[M0keys]

The Angry One wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

But that doesn't make destroy the "best". It might look that way superficially, but it isn't
It's still a victory for the Reaper agenda, that the Reapers themselves are killed is largely irrelevant.

How is this a "victory" for the reapers if organics can rebuild the geth and any other synthetic that died? As long as there are organic civilizations, new synthetics can be created...

Saying that the Geth can die and be rebuilt is like saying a person can be killed, because their parents can conceive a sibling that will be exactly the same.

It's only sacrifice if you choose to do it yourself.
Forcing the sacrifice of others is not true sacrifice, it's using people as non-people; as a means to an end. And we've seen where that's lead in history.

Modifié par M0keys, 07 avril 2012 - 10:01 .

[Garlador]

Even IF Starkid lied... Shepard didn't know that and took the risk of committing genocide anyway.

That's not cool... and I STILL picked that as the 'least terrible' ending I could get.

[Shallyah]

tobito113 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

But that doesn't make destroy the "best". It might look that way superficially, but it isn't
It's still a victory for the Reaper agenda, that the Reapers themselves are killed is largely irrelevant.

How is this a "victory" for the reapers if organics can rebuild the geth and any other synthetic that died? As long as there are organic civilizations, new synthetics can be created...

New syntehtics can and WILL be created. That's the whole argument of the godchild to persuade you AGAINST choosing Destroy, that organics will eventually create synthetics again, and without Reapers to Harvest, the galaxy will be doomed.

Why doesn't he try to convince you so hard against taking the options that conveniently don't mean that the Catalyst will be destroyed in the process? I think it's pretty obvious.

As said before:

The story of Shepard is about proving wrong those who think themselves better. And this is the time to prove the godchild wrong by letting organic life take the reins of the galaxy once and for all, and striving for eternity.

If you don't believe that organics are capable, if you don't have faith in Shepard and his legacy, then you're a coward. Pick the Control ending, where you're basically told you'll become a god, I'm sure that's appealing. Or rape everyone's DNA without their consent if that'll make you feel better. Still a coward that never had faith in humankind or other organic life, and with your choices you sided with the Reapers in their reasoning.

Modifié par Shallyah, 07 avril 2012 - 10:01 .

[The Angry One]

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

All three endings are horrible, but Destroy is the least awful of the three. If you don't want the guilt of killing the geth, though, metagame and get Tali exiled and then side with her in the argument with Legion instead of using the persuade option. Then peace will be impossible, and the deaths of the geth will be on Gerrel's hands, not yours.

Crap solution is crap.

[Bl0dbathNBeyond]

I think a lot of people are a bit naive with the "peace with the Geth" idea in the first place. Just because the Quarians (who in my game were scared, backed into a corner, and beaten down with Shepard and Tali literally screaming at Han'Gerrel to stfu and STOP FIRING AND THE GETH WILL NEGOTIATE) accepted a conditional peace to a) get their homeworld back and to fight a war that needed everyone, organic or synthetic that could carry a gun to fight the reapers doesn't mean everything is all neat and tidy.

Remember - A.I. is flat-out banned under galactic law by the council races. People don't change their minds overnight, and people can be stupid. Plus, war makes strange bedfellows. I doubt the Allies would have been at Yalta had things looked a lot rosier for the Soviet Union OR Britain/America.

I'm also not saying that the Geth are doomed in the new galactic order either - it's just a cut-and-dry coexistence with the geth and organics.

[The Angry One]

Shallyah wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

But that doesn't make destroy the "best". It might look that way superficially, but it isn't
It's still a victory for the Reaper agenda, that the Reapers themselves are killed is largely irrelevant.

How is this a "victory" for the reapers if organics can rebuild the geth and any other synthetic that died? As long as there are organic civilizations, new synthetics can be created...

New syntehtics can and WILL be created. That's the whole argument of the godchild to persuade you AGAINST choosing Destroy, that organics will eventually create synthetics again, and without Reapers to Harvest, the galaxy will be doomed.

Why doesn't he try to convince you so hard against taking the options that conveniento don't mean that the Catalyst will be destroyed in the process? I think it's pretty obvious.

As said before:

The story of Shepard is about proving wrong those who think themselves better. And this is the time to prove the godchild wrong by letting organic life take the reins of the galaxy once and for all, and striving for eternity.

If you don't believe that organics are capable, if you don't have faith in Shepard and his legacy, then you're a coward. Pick the Control ending, where you're basically told you'll become a god, I'm sure that's appealing. Or rape everyone's DNA without their consent if that'll make you feel better. Still a coward that never had faith in humankind or other organic life, and with your choices you sided with the Reapers in their reasoning.

Why can't you prove the Catalyst wrong to it's face?
Answer that.

[CronoDragoon]

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

All three endings are horrible, but Destroy is the least awful of the three. If you don't want the guilt of killing the geth, though, metagame and get Tali exiled and then side with her in the argument with Legion instead of using the persuade option. Then peace will be impossible, and the deaths of the geth will be on Gerrel's hands, not yours.

I don't know. I tend to think that if you subscribe to a Paragon's thought-process then the chance that the Reapers will rebel against Shepard(Control) is morally preferable than the actual and intended destruction of the geth.

[Dandynermite]

The Angry One wrote...

Shallyah wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

But that doesn't make destroy the "best". It might look that way superficially, but it isn't
It's still a victory for the Reaper agenda, that the Reapers themselves are killed is largely irrelevant.

How is this a "victory" for the reapers if organics can rebuild the geth and any other synthetic that died? As long as there are organic civilizations, new synthetics can be created...

New syntehtics can and WILL be created. That's the whole argument of the godchild to persuade you AGAINST choosing Destroy, that organics will eventually create synthetics again, and without Reapers to Harvest, the galaxy will be doomed.

Why doesn't he try to convince you so hard against taking the options that conveniento don't mean that the Catalyst will be destroyed in the process? I think it's pretty obvious.

As said before:

The story of Shepard is about proving wrong those who think themselves better. And this is the time to prove the godchild wrong by letting organic life take the reins of the galaxy once and for all, and striving for eternity.

If you don't believe that organics are capable, if you don't have faith in Shepard and his legacy, then you're a coward. Pick the Control ending, where you're basically told you'll become a god, I'm sure that's appealing. Or rape everyone's DNA without their consent if that'll make you feel better. Still a coward that never had faith in humankind or other organic life, and with your choices you sided with the Reapers in their reasoning.

Why can't you prove the Catalyst wrong to it's face?
Answer that.

Space Magic. 

[M0keys]

Bl0dbathNBeyond wrote...

I think a lot of people are a bit naive with the "peace with the Geth" idea in the first place. Just because the Quarians (who in my game were scared, backed into a corner, and beaten down with Shepard and Tali literally screaming at Han'Gerrel to stfu and STOP FIRING AND THE GETH WILL NEGOTIATE) accepted a conditional peace to a) get their homeworld back and to fight a war that needed everyone, organic or synthetic that could carry a gun to fight the reapers doesn't mean everything is all neat and tidy.

Remember - A.I. is flat-out banned under galactic law by the council races. People don't change their minds overnight, and people can be stupid. Plus, war makes strange bedfellows. I doubt the Allies would have been at Yalta had things looked a lot rosier for the Soviet Union OR Britain/America.

I'm also not saying that the Geth are doomed in the new galactic order either - it's just not a cut-and-dry coexistence with the geth and organics.

I know it's not. But I've seen the best of both species, and I believe as Shepard they're worth fighting for.

[PsyrenY]

Reptilian Rob wrote...
You're focusing on one instance each, I'm looking at the far bigger picture with the entire series. Not saying you are wrong, a lot of what you said is spot on. But ME3 broke the entire "synthetics in harmony" motif.

Quite badly, I may add. 

I agree that starkid did a very, very poor job of supporting his assertions. Especially since this cycle showed that AI could not only work with organics, it could do so to stop the starkid himself.

But assuming you could not argue him down from his stance, the ending would not have meaningfully changed. You'd still have to make one of his three choices, because he holds the power. And if you pick Destroy, the next AI to be created would only have stories about how all the Geth were wiped out by organics. Who knows how it would react to that?

[Allan Schumacher]

Gammazero79 wrote...

So speaking fan to fan were you bothered by the ends at all? I mean honestly how did the rest of the end make sense to you? [not insulting I truly want to know] Joker running away, the scene on the garden planet, the fact that your war assets were little more than a number, the lack of explanation and options, ect..... 

Responding at the risk that my response somehow be interpreted as an "official" response....

As a show of good faith though, I'll share my thoughts.  It's important to note here that I finished the game probably around the 14th, so I had heard rumors about how bad the ending was so I went into it preparing for some awful stuff to happen, which made me innately more accepting of whatever it was I was about to see.


On the whole, I found the ending to be a let down compared to the rest of the game.  I think this is more of a reflection of how highly I thought of the rest of the game than anything else though.  Rannoch and Tuchanka were phenomenol, and the usage of the ME1 theme at those points brings me goosebumps just typing about it now.  So yeah, the ending wasn't up to the quality of the rest of the game.


I found the ending choices to be too inspired by the original Deus Ex, but I also didn't outright mind the scene on the Citadel, even if I found it strange and a Diabolus Ex Machina.  The thing for me was that the Crucible was a giant unknown, so it wasn't too difficult for me to accept that it might react in ways that I didn't expect or didn't necessarily want though, so the options presented to me weren't enough to remove my suspension of disbelief.  As a result I didn't mind the relays getting destroyed (I haven't played Arrival so I had no prior idea for what might happen when a relay is destroyed).


As for Joker, I didn't actually think much at the time as to WHY Joker was running, but I did find the garden planet scene confusing.  In retrospect, I wouldn't have included the stuff with the Normandy because I found it confusing.

With respect to explanation, I'm assuming you're referring to some type of closure?  I am not actually the type of person that needs all that much explanation of what happens after.  While there's definitely a part of me that would love to know what happens in the immediate aftermath, there's also a part of me that associates the game as being Shepard's story, and that part of me likes that I, as the game player, have to make my decision knowing that I'll not know the full implications of my decision, just like Shepard.  And I actually did enjoy wondering what happens to the galaxy and have had some fun discussions with some friends and co-workers about it.  I think the big thing here is whether or not you believe the galaxy is totally kaput (I don't.  And I'm saying that with no additional information and I don't want anyone to think that i'm hinting towards anything for the upcoming ending DLC or anything like that).


Regarding War Assets, after the game and reading some of the thoughts around the Net, I started to wonder if I misunderstood the real representation of the War Assets.  I think I am like a lot of other people, in that we saw War Assets as being a kickass military asset.  Though given the way the endings play out with lower war score, it seems there's more emphasis on the War Assets as a team building/protecting the crucible, as opposed to the ability to fight the reapers.  I would have loved to see situations on Earth that demonstrated my choices, such as fighting along Geth/Rachni, etc.  It's a shame that it didn't happen the way I had hoped.


As for "options," this is going to be a place where I likely differ in opinion from a lot of fans.  I've actually always considered Mass Effect's choices to be more superficial than a lot of other people, especially when concerning the key antagonist.  In the end my only option in ME1 is to defeat  Saren and Sovereign.  I can talk Saren down but ultimately still had to fight in in some capacity (I hated this actually... I would have loved to just talk Saren down and let that be the end of it).  ME2 has some interesting reactivity in whether or not parts of your squad survive, but to me the same ultimate ending happens, just with differences in who makes the end.  Only at the end are we presented with a choice and it doesn't have any effect on the ending for ME2.

So would I have loved more choice in ME3's ending?  Yes.  But I'd have also loved more choice in ME1 and ME2's ending, which I felt were sorely lacking.  So I hesitate to state that my disappointment with ME3's choice is a reflection of solely ME3's ending.  I think it was an issue with all 3 Mass Effect games.


Anyways, I am actually getting quite hungry and should go get some food.  I obviously don't respond too much but I'll try to make an effort to chime in later if people have any relevant comments.



EDIT: Wall of text crits you all for 9999....

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 07 avril 2012 - 10:03 .

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

The Angry One wrote...

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

All three endings are horrible, but Destroy is the least awful of the three. If you don't want the guilt of killing the geth, though, metagame and get Tali exiled and then side with her in the argument with Legion instead of using the persuade option. Then peace will be impossible, and the deaths of the geth will be on Gerrel's hands, not yours.

Crap solution is crap.

I agree it's far from optimal, but since they're not changing the endings, we (unfortunately) have to work with what we've got. I don't like it either, but at this point all we can do is make the most of a crappy situation.

Modifié par Mr. Big Pimpin, 07 avril 2012 - 10:05 .

[Village_Idiot]

The Angry One wrote...

Life will carry on, but that life is stunted and irrelevant.
Because society is destroyed and sent back to subsistence levels, history will be lost. Look at that senile old man telling a verbal story, where "the details have been lost".
The Catalyst has made sure that the circumstances that apparently required the Reapers to exist in the first place will happen again, because the remaining life in the galaxy has learned nothing and in 50,000 years when the Yahg Empire conquers all, they'll make AIs and treat them like garbage because they don't know any better.
At least according to the Catalyst's logic. He has won.

You miss my point. I'm arguing that Destroy is the most viable option, as per this thread's topic. The set of circumstances you describe would apparently occur regardless of ending chosen (so how precisely can I argue with this?) I'm not saying I like the implications, but seeing as these are the only three endings we've got for now, I'll work with them. Derailing this into an "all three endings don't matter" argument isn't necessary.

Modifié par Shadrach 88, 07 avril 2012 - 10:06 .

[Jacobcus]

Should of been a 4 ending where you can just destroy the Citadel, killing the Godchild seeing as he is a part of it and thus destroying the reapers. Either way it all turns into a primitive Universe once again and everyone will start eating each other to survive, in the end, who really wins with any of the 3 choices? The Reapers.

[Navasha]

For me, I didn't trust anything the "kid" was saying and he obviously didn't want me to choose the destroy ending... so that is clearly the one I chose. Seeing as EDI still walked off the ship, I felt pretty secure that the kid was lying and the geth were probably fine too.

[Dean_the_Young]

M0keys wrote...

Just wondering how Bioware thinks the player avatar commiting total genocide of an entire race of sentient, friendly beings is supposed to give us, as they said at PAX, satisfaction?

Who do they think their player base is? Genocide isn't cool

You've already done it a couple of times in Mass Effect. ME2 especially.

[M0keys]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Gammazero79 wrote...

So speaking fan to fan were you bothered by the ends at all? I mean honestly how did the rest of the end make sense to you? [not insulting I truly want to know] Joker running away, the scene on the garden planet, the fact that your war assets were little more than a number, the lack of explanation and options, ect..... 

Responding at the risk that my response somehow be interpreted as an "official" response....

As a show of good faith though, I'll share my thoughts.  It's important to note here that I finished the game probably around the 14th, so I had heard rumors about how bad the ending was so I went into it preparing for some awful stuff to happen, which made me innately more accepting of whatever it was I was about to see.


On the whole, I found the ending to be a let down compared to the rest of the game.  I think this is more of a reflection of how highly I thought of the rest of the game than anything else though.  Rannoch and Tuchanka were phenomenol, and the usage of the ME1 theme at those points brings me goosebumps just typing about it now.  So yeah, the ending wasn't up to the quality of the rest of the game.


I found the ending choices to be too inspired by the original Deus Ex, but I also didn't outright mind the scene on the Citadel, even if I found it strange and a Diabolus Ex Machina.  The thing for me was that the Crucible was a giant unknown, so it wasn't too difficult for me to accept that it might react in ways that I didn't expect or didn't necessarily want though, so the options presented to me weren't enough to remove my suspension of disbelief.  As a result I didn't mind the relays getting destroyed (I haven't played Arrival so I had no prior idea for what might happen when a relay is destroyed).


As for Joker, I didn't actually think much at the time as to WHY Joker was running, but I did find the garden planet scene confusing.  In retrospect, I wouldn't have included the stuff with the Normandy because I found it confusing.

With respect to explanation, I'm assuming you're referring to some type of closure?  I am not actually the type of person that needs all that much explanation of what happens after.  While there's definitely a part of me that would love to know what happens in the immediate aftermath, there's also a part of me that associates the game as being Shepard's story, and that part of me likes that I, as the game player, have to make my decision knowing that I'll not know the full implications of my decision, just like Shepard.  And I actually did enjoy wondering what happens to the galaxy and have had some fun discussions with some friends and co-workers about it.  I think the big thing here is whether or not you believe the galaxy is totally kaput (I don't.  And I'm saying that with no additional information and I don't want anyone to think that i'm hinting towards anything for the upcoming ending DLC or anything like that).


Regarding War Assets, after the game and reading some of the thoughts around the Net, I started to wonder if I misunderstood the real representation of the War Assets.  I think I am like a lot of other people, in that we saw War Assets as being a kickass military asset.  Though given the way the endings play out with lower war score, it seems there's more emphasis on the War Assets as a team building/protecting the crucible, as opposed to the ability to fight the reapers.  I would have loved to see situations on Earth that demonstrated my choices, such as fighting along Geth/Rachni, etc.  It's a shame that it didn't happen the way I had hoped.


As for "options," this is going to be a place where I likely differ in opinion from a lot of fans.  I've actually always considered Mass Effect's choices to be more superficial than a lot of other people, especially when concerning the key antagonist.  In the end my only option in ME1 is to defeat  Saren and Sovereign.  I can talk Saren down but ultimately still had to fight in in some capacity (I hated this actually... I would have loved to just talk Saren down and let that be the end of it).  ME2 has some interesting reactivity in whether or not parts of your squad survive, but to me the same ultimate ending happens, just with differences in who makes the end.  Only at the end are we presented with a choice and it doesn't have any effect on the ending for ME2.

So would I have loved more choice in ME3's ending?  Yes.  But I'd have also loved more choice in ME1 and ME2's ending, which I felt were sorely lacking.  So I hesitate to state that my disappointment with ME3's choice is a reflection of solely ME3's ending.  I think it was an issue with all 3 Mass Effect games.


Anyways, I am actually getting quite hungry and should go get some food.  I obviously don't respond too much but I'll try to make an effort to chime in later if people have any relevant comments.



EDIT: Wall of text crits you all for 9999....

Cool

Thanks for sharing your opinion! and don't worry, you've already explained yourself. We know it's not an official opinion, and we'll all fight for ya if someone makes a mistake in interpretation

[alienatedflea]

scrapmetals wrote...

The kid said Destroy would kill Shepard.

It didn't. So who's to say Destroy killed the Geth?

And many people have seen Edi step out of the Normandy when they chose Destroy. I wasn't one of them though. (Part of my reason for picking Destroy was to get rid of her anyway.)

The kid didnt say shepard would die if he chose destroy...he said that even shepard is partly synthetic...doesnt mean shepard would die...CLEARLY we see this at the end.  Genocide only applies to organics...Not synthetics...

[PsyrenY]

Note that even if EDI walking out in Destroy wasn't a mistake on Bioware's part, it doesn't actually prove anything. The Starkid mentioned the Geth being killed, but not specifically her.

EDIT: And no, Starkid did NOT say that Destroy would kill Shepard. He says Shepard "is PART synthetic." The only times he says Shepard absolutely will die are for Control and Synthesis, and even for the latter it is vague.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 07 avril 2012 - 10:09 .

[M0keys]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Just wondering how Bioware thinks the player avatar commiting total genocide of an entire race of sentient, friendly beings is supposed to give us, as they said at PAX, satisfaction?

Who do they think their player base is? Genocide isn't cool

You've already done it a couple of times in Mass Effect. ME2 especially.

...I... I did?

When?

[curufinwe03]

tobito113 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Strange Aeons wrote...
This is not the military, where each individual soldier consents with an oath to follow the legal orders of a superior officer knowing that they may be sent into a deadly situation.  The Geth never consented to anything like this.

Huuu... They do made an oath when they decide to join Shepard Hammer/Sword forces. Remember "Each of you has to be ready to give their life" Shepard is clear about it even in the ending.

Everyone there know the risk and know that they will probably end up dead at the end. If Destroy was humanity instead of geth I would have done it. It's still the only choice that make sense and do not destroy the logic of my main paragade shep.

I'm sure every Geth that chose to fight is willing to lay down their life to defeat the Reapers.
It does not follow that they would agree to all Geth everywhere being sacrificed, because Shepard won't even argue with the genocidal maniac throwing down an ultimatum.

A soldier who takes an oath to serve their country is not willing to include their family in that oath.

The geth have no "family, they were all there and they were all willing to die, thats a noble sacrifice

Maybe it's funny, but the extinction of a whole race seems to upset me more than others...
Despite my opinion on that , I still think destroy the best of the three given choices. Control is not convincing, a single human mind cannot control all reapers forever, not even a single one. After all, they are all "independent nations." Synthesis forcefully changes all DNA in the Galaxy in some kind of hybrid lifeform - just like the reapers. That doesn't sound like a victory to me either. The morale of the endings is just despicable.