808 réponses à ce sujet

[Stygian1]

Bill Casey wrote...

Destroy is the only Paragon choice...

Actually, they're all pretty much renegade--or at least a paragon bending to the Reapers' will. 

[Gammazero79]

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....

Thanks for your POV on the end. I was surprised to find that I agreed with a large majority of what you wrote and btw I can't speak for everyone else but I prefaced my first comment as "fan to fan" for a reason, I took it as just that. It's good to know there is someone at bioware who at least feels a little bit like I do about the endings. This has given me a substantial amount of hope that Bioware can and will listen to what there fans want in the extended cut dlc, maybe we will both get what we want when this is all said and done.

[Dean_the_Young]

Stygian1 wrote...

Umm the Collectors weren't argueably a race or even alive so.... no genocide.

Given what little we see when the Collector General is abandoned, still genoicde.

I mean really. Killing the Batarians was not optional, they were dead either way (also, look up genocide, no race or culture was destroyed).

The culture and population group of that colony system was destroyed.

Genocide doesn't have to be total to be genocide, or else most cases of it wouldn't be called such. Nor does the 'they'd die regardless' since all life eventually perishes.

The Heretics, my paragon Shepard didn't kill them.

You certainly did obliterate their culture.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 07 avril 2012 - 10:45 .

[Auralius Carolus]

M0keys wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

You guys and your bleeding hearts.

Even if you view AI as life forms, Shepard is doing what NO OTHER PERSON HAS BEEN ABLE TO and yet you still wish to judge him? You think the Reapers, or any other tyrannical forces out there, care about a sense of honor or morality? No, they don't- they use it against those of us that do.

Then we use our brains, since we're also smart and not just "bleeding hearts," and figure out a way to preserve life without giving in to the choices of a Reaper.

Mass Effect, as a series, is a test of our race, to see if we're strong enough to survive the challenges of evolution or what have you.

As far as I know, Mass Effect tells us we're going to fail.

But they didn't give you a choice besides that of a Reaper. Kill and be assured victory, or trust your enemy and hope all goes well. The only one that makes remote sense is the Destroy option, and in moments like that, it is your brain that may serve you best.

Aside from what you can reason, as a rule, never trust an enemy that has a will of steel and has shown no mercy for billions of years. There's no good reason to start now... unless...

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Collectors were Husks.

Irrelevant to being genoicde.

I have to disagree on this point.  As huskified Protheans the Collectors were arguably nothing more than biological machines.  They weren't really people.  And destroying them all would be little different than destroying any other enemy materiel.

IOW, since the Collectors weren't "geno-s", "cide-ing" them is no big deal.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Given what little we see when the Collector General is abandoned, still genoicde.

It turned around and twitched while a fire was rushing towards it.  Bugs do that.

Modifié par General User, 07 avril 2012 - 10:48 .

[M0keys]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

You guys and your bleeding hearts.

Even if you view AI as life forms, Shepard is doing what NO OTHER PERSON HAS BEEN ABLE TO and yet you still wish to judge him? You think the Reapers, or any other tyrannical forces out there, care about a sense of honor or morality? No, they don't- they use it against those of us that do.

Then we use our brains, since we're also smart and not just "bleeding hearts," and figure out a way to preserve life without giving in to the choices of a Reaper.

Mass Effect, as a series, is a test of our race, to see if we're strong enough to survive the challenges of evolution or what have you.

As far as I know, Mass Effect tells us we're going to fail.

But they didn't give you a choice besides that of a Reaper.

No, they didn't. The Starchild, a Reaper, created all the choices you were presented. They are not your solutions. They are Reaper solutions.

[Stygian1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Stygian1 wrote...

Umm the Collectors weren't argueably a race or even alive so.... no genocide.

Given what little we see when the Collector General is abandoned, still genoicde.

I mean really. Killing the Batarians was not optional, they were dead either way (also, look up genocide, no race or culture was destroyed).

The culture and population group of that colony system was destroyed.

Genocide doesn't have to be total to be genocide, or else most cases of it wouldn't be called such. Nor does the 'they'd die regardless' since all life eventually perishes.

The Heretics, my paragon Shepard didn't kill them.

You certainly did obliterate their culture.

I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.

The Collector General may have been sentient, but it is pretty aperant the drones were not. They had no culture, they were slaves to the reapers' will. 

The culture of that colony was the same as the other Batarian colonies, there's no reason to assume it was a unique culture gone from the face of the galaxy. Also, most genocides, while they don't succeed, are inentional. This one was obligatory. 

The heretics' entire basis for their culture was worshipping the Reapers--religion does not mean culture. My Shepard may have taken that single thing away from them--but only in the face of total annihlation. 

[M0keys]

The collector general wasn't sentient. The collectors were basically just zombies, and the "collector general" was Harbinger, who had taken control of the top of the "zombie authority chain."

[MakeMineMako]

M0keys wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

M0keys wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Chrillze wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

Your still all ignoring the fact killing the reapers is also Genocide! Just because they are one the other team doesn't make them any less of a "being" than the Geth!

You don't know what genocide means. It doesn't mean "killing every member of a race/species." It means killing them because they belong to that race/species. No one is killing the Reapers because they belong to the Reaper race. They are doing it because THE REAPERS ARE TRYING TO KILL US ALL.

nobody is killing the geth just because they are geth, they are killing the geth because that's the only way to destroy the reapers. 

Tell me something. If a gunman holds an innocent person hostage, do you consider it acceptable to shoot the hostage to kill the gunman?

No. Never. I might shoot the hostage in the leg, though, just to be cute and surprise the gunman enough to reveal himself and then take him out.

I'd pay for all medical bills for the hostage, of course.

Shooting them in the leg wouldn't topple the hostage, and your very likely to miss, causing the gunman to shoot you or the hostage or a bystander. You always go for the right shoulder. 

Hey, I'm not going into technically accurate specifics here. Shoot *hostage in random place that gets the killer to reveal himself* is the idea

As a former firearms instructor for my State's Correctional agency, I wouldn't in a million years qualify you jokers to carry a firearm in the line of duty.

[weltraumhamster89]

Siibi wrote...

Starbrat is lying, the Geth and EDI are fine.

[M0keys]

MakeMineMako wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

M0keys wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Chrillze wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

Your still all ignoring the fact killing the reapers is also Genocide! Just because they are one the other team doesn't make them any less of a "being" than the Geth!

You don't know what genocide means. It doesn't mean "killing every member of a race/species." It means killing them because they belong to that race/species. No one is killing the Reapers because they belong to the Reaper race. They are doing it because THE REAPERS ARE TRYING TO KILL US ALL.

nobody is killing the geth just because they are geth, they are killing the geth because that's the only way to destroy the reapers. 

Tell me something. If a gunman holds an innocent person hostage, do you consider it acceptable to shoot the hostage to kill the gunman?

No. Never. I might shoot the hostage in the leg, though, just to be cute and surprise the gunman enough to reveal himself and then take him out.

I'd pay for all medical bills for the hostage, of course.

Shooting them in the leg wouldn't topple the hostage, and your very likely to miss, causing the gunman to shoot you or the hostage or a bystander. You always go for the right shoulder. 

Hey, I'm not going into technically accurate specifics here. Shoot *hostage in random place that gets the killer to reveal himself* is the idea

As a former firearms instructor for my State's Correctional agency, I wouldn't in a million years qualify you jokers to carry a firearm in the line of duty.

Oooo..kay? 
I was just saying that I don't know the exact place to shoot a hostage in, and I'm not trying to claim authority in that sort of thing.

What an odd response...

[pharsti]

Its simple, they wanted a moral choice with even more impact, so, knowing some players would want Shepard to live, they made the only choice where she lives be the one where you have to wipe out another race. Making you weight your life against others, theres really nothing else to say on this matter.

Offcourse, you cant forget that, depending on how you played, you might have already wiped out the Geth, the Rachni and probably helped screw the Krogan a bit more. Some Shepards might not even see killing the Geth as genocide, since if they are alive or not is up to each individual.

[Allan Schumacher]

CronoDragoon wrote...

That's fine Allan, but what you are saying is that you are okay with the whole Tali/Legion thing being reduced to a reason to make you hesitate destroying the Reapers. In fact, being such a great part of ME2/3, it should have allowed you to refuse the choices presented to you or modify them. Destroy does not refuse the Catalyst's reasoning because that choice is not "Destroy the Reapers" it is "Destroy all Synthetic Life," which is still a decision basing itself upon the Catalyst's premises.

I don't consider it a reduction.  Based on the discussion that has gone on on the forums, it seems whether or not people do is a very personal and subjective thing.

For myself, Shepard displays that he's not 100% online with the Catalyst's reasoning when he says "Maybe" in response to The Catalyst's assertion that the peace won't last.


I am okay with the idea of refusing the choices presented to you, though I don't think people would have liked my outcome hahaha (This would have been my Reapers win outcome).

As for modifying the choices, I think there are times that it's good that people can't.  I think it would have cheapened Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifice if there was a way to actually save both, and I'm also think that it shouldn't have been possible to get through the Suicide Mission flawlessly.  I think once you can get through things flawlessly, it makes the choice less impactful, in my opinion.  I see the outcome of ME2 to be more of a reflection of "did you play well enough" as opposed to making tangible choices.  Different results because I "chose" not to fully experience all the content is less interesting to me.

I obviously have some leeway in this though, as I found brokering peace between the Quarians and Geth amazing.  Especially since I was thinking "Stop fighting you fools we have bigger fish to fry!" the whole time!!  Mixing up the player's ability to have ideal outcomes and to have to make choices can probably also be argued from a psychological perspective.


I guess it might be important to state that while I like choice, my preference is typically "mutually exclusive choice."  I love it when games tell me "You have two tasks, but choosing one means the other fails."  It adds replayability and makes those choices more significant in my mind.  Unfortunately mutual choice is pretty rare

[byarru]

It's not Ok
That's why we demand alive Shepard no matter the ending

[MakeMineMako]

tobito113 wrote...

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.

Therefore its not genocide. Because genocide implies you are trying to destroy a group of people forever...

I love how people argue semantics.

If you destroy the Geth, you are destroying sentient beings. The Geth are more than just their platforms.

You can't simply rebuild a dead mind or soul.

Organic or not, this is de facto genocide.

[DevilBeast]

M0keys wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Shadrach 88 wrote...

A race exterminated so that every other race in existence can be free. I'd call that a fair sacrifice.

What if the Starchild said the red ending would genocide mankind instead? Is that still okay?

Yes

Did you also sabotage the genophage, kill Mordin, kill Wrex, kill Samara, kill Samara's daughter and kill Legion to boost your EMS? 

I guess the renegade path exists for a reason

If saving thousands of different species across the galaxy, both those in the present and in the future, can be acheived by wiping out only one single species, then yes: I would go for that option too.

Modifié par DevilBeast, 07 avril 2012 - 11:02 .

[Kanon777]

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 conveniently don't mean that the Catalyst will be destroyed in the process? I think it's pretty obvious.

Dont forget that the choice that he tried to sell as the worse possible is the only one where he can be wrong about the results (Shepard CAN survive that ending)

[MakeMineMako]

M0keys wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

M0keys wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Chrillze wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

Your still all ignoring the fact killing the reapers is also Genocide! Just because they are one the other team doesn't make them any less of a "being" than the Geth!

You don't know what genocide means. It doesn't mean "killing every member of a race/species." It means killing them because they belong to that race/species. No one is killing the Reapers because they belong to the Reaper race. They are doing it because THE REAPERS ARE TRYING TO KILL US ALL.

nobody is killing the geth just because they are geth, they are killing the geth because that's the only way to destroy the reapers. 

Tell me something. If a gunman holds an innocent person hostage, do you consider it acceptable to shoot the hostage to kill the gunman?

No. Never. I might shoot the hostage in the leg, though, just to be cute and surprise the gunman enough to reveal himself and then take him out.

I'd pay for all medical bills for the hostage, of course.

Shooting them in the leg wouldn't topple the hostage, and your very likely to miss, causing the gunman to shoot you or the hostage or a bystander. You always go for the right shoulder. 

Hey, I'm not going into technically accurate specifics here. Shoot *hostage in random place that gets the killer to reveal himself* is the idea

As a former firearms instructor for my State's Correctional agency, I wouldn't in a million years qualify you jokers to carry a firearm in the line of duty.

Oooo..kay? 
I was just saying that I don't know the exact place to shoot a hostage in, and I'm not trying to claim authority in that sort of thing.

What an odd response...

My mistake. I must have quoted the wrong post.

[Foreste]

how is it Allan that you know exactly how i feel

[M0keys]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As for modifying the choices, I think there are times that it's good that people can't.  I think it would have cheapened Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifice if there was a way to actually save both, and I'm also think that it shouldn't have been possible to get through the Suicide Mission flawlessly.  I think once you can get through things flawlessly, it makes the choice less impactful, in my opinion.  I see the outcome of ME2 to be more of a reflection of "did you play well enough" as opposed to making tangible choices.  Different results because I "chose" not to fully experience all the content is less interesting to me.

I didn't have a problem with the choice of Kaiden/Ashley sacrifice. It was a good moment, and I felt immersed in the story. It gave me emotional satisfaction as a person who goes to experience stories.

But the whole War Assets thing gives the player the impression that they can save the galaxy in a way that will reduce the loss of life. So does the whole message of hope and uniting races and rejecting death and slavery, and winning when it seems to be fate to lose. So I think it's unfair to give that impression if it really has no impact on anything, especially if you worked really really hard to save everyone.

This was a pattern that existed in ME2 with the suicide mission. Work really hard and have common sense as a strategist? You're rewarded as a player because we're here to give you satisfaction for "winning." Good job.

To end it with choices that turn you into some kind of tyrant or killer... I think it's a sort of betrayal of the contract between storyteller and storytaker, especially when over the course of two and a half games, a very specific theme was established.

I'm okay with having an ending where the Reapers win. But that should just be a choice. Every player gets the ending they deserve, because they've been playing 5 years to get it. If you feel it's destiny to lose against the Reapers? You get to! if you feel it's up to the races of the galaxy to tell fate to get bent? You get to!

I believe if you're a designer and you go against that, you don't understand why the VAST majority of human beings spend money to be entertained.

That's just my opinion though!

Modifié par M0keys, 07 avril 2012 - 11:04 .

[Xion66]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't consider it a reduction.  Based on the discussion that has gone on on the forums, it seems whether or not people do is a very personal and subjective thing.

For myself, Shepard displays that he's not 100% online with the Catalyst's reasoning when he says "Maybe" in response to The Catalyst's assertion that the peace won't last.


I am okay with the idea of refusing the choices presented to you, though I don't think people would have liked my outcome hahaha (This would have been my Reapers win outcome).

As for modifying the choices, I think there are times that it's good that people can't.  I think it would have cheapened Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifice if there was a way to actually save both, and I'm also think that it shouldn't have been possible to get through the Suicide Mission flawlessly.  I think once you can get through things flawlessly, it makes the choice less impactful, in my opinion.  I see the outcome of ME2 to be more of a reflection of "did you play well enough" as opposed to making tangible choices.  Different results because I "chose" not to fully experience all the content is less interesting to me.

I obviously have some leeway in this though, as I found brokering peace between the Quarians and Geth amazing.  Especially since I was thinking "Stop fighting you fools we have bigger fish to fry!" the whole time!!  Mixing up the player's ability to have ideal outcomes and to have to make choices can probably also be argued from a psychological perspective.


I guess it might be important to state that while I like choice, my preference is typically "mutually exclusive choice."  I love it when games tell me "You have two tasks, but choosing one means the other fails."  It adds replayability and makes those choices more significant in my mind.  Unfortunately mutual choice is pretty rare

My biggest beef is how little a choice differs from another, without going into a highly speculative realm, and while I like to feel my sacrifices have a weight on them, I think it's cheap to have entire factions/crew wiped out/stranded just to try and make it feel like a bigger sacrifice, if my crew and the normandy was wiped out during battle I'd be ok with it, but through a really contrived plot deviced that you are forced into no matter what choice you make over the course of 3 games just feels like a weak attempt at drama/make the decision weight more. It's the forced/ rushed sacrifices that hurt the ending more.

An entire faction, the entire transportation system, civilization as you know it AND your crew, it all just seems so forced, compared to actual hard decisions like Virmire, Collector Base, Geth base, Tuchanka, if they wanted to forces us to sacrifice more they should have done it in-game, but instead we are forced so many ways of saving everyone and in the end, without any explanation or even going against logic, everything must go.

[Acidrain92]

Manton-X2 wrote...

If you take what glowboy says as truth then it goes way beyond that. We know that Shepard will die because he is part synthetic. From talks with EDI you find out that Shepard is completely human with implants (and none of those are in his brain). So, you can pretty easily extrapolate that if it's killing him because he has implants, then everyone with implants potentially dies along with the entire Geth race. That includes:

- Quarians (heavily modified with cybernetic implants)
- All biotics of every race (these implants tied directly into their nervous systems)
- All Asari (since all Asari are biotics)
- In fact, anyone with heavy implant modifications (which is the majority of the Citadel races)

But it doesn't stop there. In the majority of the galaxy where they don't even know these events are taking place people would be dropping dead. Such as a place at the tech level of , say, our current world. I'm guessing all those heart patients with pacemakers and artificial hearts are toast.

With one choice, hastily accepted, Shepard basically becomes the murderer of more people and races than any organic in the history of the universe - you're talking a death toll in the billions, if not trillions depending on how wide spread life is. Not exactly that hero legacy I was hoping for.

MX2

destroying all Artificially intelligent synthetic life does not mean killing people with cybernetic implanets =P

[Bill Casey]

No, they didn't. The Starchild, a Reaper, created all the choices you were presented. They are not your solutions. They are Reaper solutions.

Destroy All Reapers isn't a solution for the Reapers...
Not only does it wipe them out, it completely undermines their stated goal...

Starchild says synthetics will return and wipe out all organic life...

It's the only choice that tells Starchild he's completely full of crap...

It's anti-Reaper logic...
Reapers are synthetics who destroy organics to prevent them from creating synthetics to destroy organics...
Shepard is an organic who destroys synthetics to allow organics to create synthetics...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 07 avril 2012 - 11:06 .

[M0keys]

Bill Casey wrote...

No, they didn't. The Starchild, a Reaper, created all the choices you were presented. They are not your solutions. They are Reaper solutions.

Destroy All Reapers isn't a solution for the Reapers...
Not only does it wipe them out, it completely undermines their stated goal...

But it must be a Reaper solution because they created it. Unless the Reapers are secretly suicidal, but that wasn't covered, was it?

[QuarkZ26]

Girlfrakker69 wrote...

kidbd15 wrote...
Did you feel that the lack of dialogue with Starchild was disappointing?  With the Red ending, I would have liked to discuss the geth and quarians, and not have to take the Starchild at his word.  I mean, the lives of billions of people are at stake, my Shep would definitely want to ask at least a few more questions lol

Yep ... I would have loved to shove some logical dialogue down the spacekid's virtual throat ... and also tell this super-evolved AI one or two things about circular logic.

You can't really call it circular logic, although some people make it look like that.
Casper actually wants to preserve life in some way. Its (flawed) logic is that it's better to keep the less evolved species alive than risking ALL of them to disappear.

- Organics make synthetics, synthetics rebel and think organics are a threat, they kill everyone.

Response from Casper:
- Kill evolved species so they don't rebuild synthetics and let the primitive ones evolve, repeat.

Although i don't like the ending, it's actually a correct response. Where it's flawed is that it's based on speculations from Casper.
Someone said, the creator of the reapers might have witnessed that and that's why he thought this was still a better option to preserve life than risking its total anihilation.

Sure, you can argue that it might not happen based on the story between the Geth and the Quarians. But you can't say that it could never happen as well.

And there you have the logic of Casper, not a circular one (since its goal is not to destroy ALL life), but a speculative one. One that says "I could be as right as you"

Like i said i didn't like it, mainly because it doesn't fit with ME1 and 2, but it's wrong to say it's not logic (providing that you ignore the 2 first episodes of course)


And thanks Allan for an honest opinion (finally!)

Modifié par QuarkZ26, 07 avril 2012 - 11:29 .