356 réponses à ce sujet

[Kilshrek]

lillitheris wrote...

Hm, I hope they didn't intend that. I think that would be probably the most disrespectful thing I can imagine

They probably didn't, I don't know. But it's like having Varric telling Cassandra about us, Hawke.

Making that connection is easier than connecting the very vague dots that bridge Shepard's story and Stargazer.

Vigil_N7 wrote...

I like it, primarily because you put emphasis on making sure all three endings keep their integrity and aren't validated by one ending being the happily ever after one, which is something I see here a lot unfortunately.

Then how is playing a game different to reading a book? If they're all going to end the same, why bother doing anything differently from what you've done before? That is not the purpose of a game. At least a game like this.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 12 avril 2012 - 07:33 .

[Doctor Uburian]

lillitheris wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

I meant that Shepard's story wasn't directly controlled by us, as in, we're not Shepard. We're Shepard through Stargazer.

Hm, I hope they didn't intend that. I think that would be probably the most disrespectful thing I can imagine

The stargazer scene is absolutelly disrespectful.

By introducing a point  on the game where all the characters for wich we cared about are aparently dead, automatically negates the entire history. (We all now that we are going to die some day, but it's not good to remember that each second of our life)

¨The better is yet to come¨ That's how it should have ended.

Modifié par Doctor Uburian, 12 avril 2012 - 07:43 .

[lillitheris]

Doctor Uburian wrote...

The stargazer scene is absolutelly disrespectful.

By introducing a point  on the game where all the characters for wich we cared about are aparently dead, automatically negates the entire history. (We all now that we are going to die some day, but it's not good to remember that each second of our life)

I don't think it's bad in itself; it's just that we don't have the dots to connect from here to there. So, provided we get that closure and clarification, and some kind of a bearing on where and when the Stargazer actually is, it can work.

But I still think my Shepard survives-idea for it is the best thing ever

[lillitheris]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

I like it, primarily because you put emphasis on making sure all three endings keep their integrity and aren't validated by one ending being the happily ever after one, which is something I see here a lot unfortunately.

Thank you kindly!

Yes, I think there's some logic to all, and each can be made to work – although Synthesis could really use some exposition. That can happen in the closure section too, of course. If you were to take the Normandy thing as a dream sequence of some kind, it'd solve a few problems: first and foremost, you could get rid of the immediate transformation of everything.

I keep thinking about the Normandy bits and I'm kind of concerned that they'll spend tons of time and resources trying to come up with an explanation for it, as well as getting constrained by its implications rather than just writing it out as a hallucination. So I can only dearly hope that either someone there has the same idea, or this post actually stays up long enough for someone to steal it

Modifié par lillitheris, 12 avril 2012 - 09:51 .

[adroidmortox]

Really like your ideas- think you've done a great job of showing with just one or two extra scenes/lines of dialogue you can make the current endings work fine.

[lillitheris]

adroidmortox wrote...

Really like your ideas- think you've done a great job of showing with just one or two extra scenes/lines of dialogue you can make the current endings work fine.

Thanks! Yeah…it makes it look even more the shame that (I think) they ran out of time. It might even have ended up palatable with another 3-6 months' work.

A little exposition, a little epilogue, and lots of optionally blue babies will go a long way

You have anything you wan to see in particular, or to add?

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 avril 2012 - 01:32 .

[Thracecius]

lillitheris wrote...

The Normandy seems the biggest problem for most. I think it should be scrapped as a real event (although I do have a suggestion for that too). There's two ways this could work:

• The Normandy's crash is actually Shepard's final thought before death/transformation/unconsciousness. So worried about their fate that (s)he dreams them surviving, fleeing what from inside the citadel seems like a giant inferno of destruction. The actual fate of the squad TBDetermined. This ties in nicely because the world they land on looks like Aite, a place Shepard's been to.
• Joker's final thoughts before death or unconsciousness, having gotten too close to the Crucible in an effort to get Shepard out and trying, in desperation, to get into FTL to escape the explosion. Doesn't work quite as great.
• (If the Normandy crash must be a real event, you'll need to explain satisfactorily how the team got on board, and why they're in good health. It's also absolutely imperative that they be rescued eventually, preferrably by the tireless efforts of Shepard – or alternately if the Sol relay is destroyed, someone else could rescue the Normandy, and they then Sol.)

I thought about this a little more, and I think that it's actually less feasible to hash the Normandy's finale as a dream for Shepard than it is to try and bracket the scene with surrounding context to make it a real event (and don't they say that final moments are of memories, not imagination?). Considering that no one really knew what the Crucible was capable of doing, I think it's reasonable to postulate that Joker rounded up some of the squadmates in an effort to help Shepard on the Citadel, or to extract him/her before the thing blew up. Joker has already pulled off similarly narrow escapes before (Virmire, Memnosyne, and the Collector Base to name a few), so I can definitely see him, a practical man in a desperate situation, making the attempt and then, assuming failure, trying to outrun the blast in order to live another day. His loyalty has never been in question, but he's done crazy things because of Shepard's commands rather than on his own initiative, and if you think back to the Collector attack on the Normandy, his response followed more of a "live to fight another day" mindset than a "fight to the bitter end" one.

How do you put that scene in context? To be honest, I'm not really sure at the present, but I know that if BioWare couldn't do it then this community could.

Oh, and as aside, I don't think the planet depicted in the Normandy crash scene was Aite (no rings), but I'm open to the possibility lacking further information. If it is though, they'd better hope they get offworld (or die) before that moon crashes into the planet.

lillitheris wrote... 
Then there's the Stargazer. I think that in the Synthesis and Control endings, it could be a real event.

• Synthesis: “The Shepherd” could be a quasi-religious mythical character, prominent in their teachings. (Should be left as the last scene, after the other closure stuff.)
• Control: Shepard is an actual Shepherd – kind of like Sovereign. An entity that guards the flock that is the galaxy. Has become less and less involved in affairs – without forgetting the core function – as time goes by, after everyone we know is gone.

A friend and I have been discussing Mass Effect since the first game, and we agreed that BioWare intentionally chose the name 'Shepard' for a reason - as the embodiment of a galactic sheperd protecting its flock (all sentient life) from danger. Now I've seen the video interview with Casey about how and why they picked the name (a worthwhile watch), and he didn't really spell out that particular theory, but the contextual framework is present and it's not hard for one to come to that conclusion. That being said, any history that related such an incomprehensibly titanic battle of forces, without access to a more accurate record than oral tradition, would necessarily pick a central figure to hang the story upon as the driving force of what essentially would have become a myth.

I just assumed that by accepting control of the Reapers that Shepard would either be merging with the existing AI (annoying ghost boy), or he/she'd be replacing it - more or less as a personality upgrade, rather like a Legion to the Geth type of situation. Presumably, once everything is under Shepard's control, the Reapers would leave the galaxy and hibernate as before, thus leaving him/her with nothing left to do but be a silent sentinel. Not a glorious ending, but it's certainly the type of thankless task that we are used to seeing Shepard undertake.

Modifié par Thracecius, 13 avril 2012 - 09:20 .

[lillitheris]

Thracecius wrote...

I thought about this a little more, and I think that it's actually less feasible to hash the Normandy's finale as a dream for Shepard than it is to try and bracket the scene with surrounding context to make it a real event (and don't they say that final moments are of memories, not imagination?). Considering that no one really knew what the Crucible was capable of doing, I think it's reasonable to postulate that Joker rounded up some of the squadmates in an effort to help Shepard on the Citadel, or to extract him/her before the thing blew up. Joker has already pulled off similarly narrow escapes before (Virmire, Memnosyne, and the Collector Base to name a few), so I can definitely see him, a practical man in a desperate situation, making the attempt and then, assuming failure, trying to outrun the blast in order to live another day. His loyalty has never been in question, but he's done crazy things because of Shepard's commands rather than on his own initiative, and if you think back to the Collector attack on the Normandy, his response followed more of a "live to fight another day" mindset than a "fight to the bitter end" one.

How do you put that scene in context? To be honest, I'm not really sure at the present, but I know that if BioWare couldn't do it then this community could.

While I agree with the first paragraph, the second one is the key.

I think that players have been SO upset about the scene that explaining it satisfactorily will take a huge amount of effort that could desperately be used elsewhere.

Is it ideal to make it just a dream scene? Absolutely not…but I think it's plausible, and most importantly, it resolves SO many other problems with the ending, that it'd be crazy not to use it

If it feels too implausible to be Shepard's, upon further thought, it might actually work fine as Joker's. I was a little concerned about the implication of Joker dreaming the synthesis electronics (Shepard would know this firsthand even though the actual transformation would be a product of imagination)…but I think it's also plausible that while Joker's knocked out, he's at some level aware of the synthesis taking place in his body and his mind is filling in the blanks with imagery corresponding to e.g. the partially cyborgized Cerberus people, Saren, and so on.

So, this could just be Joker flying the Normandy – with ONLY the crew that is easily explainable – and getting knocked out before the planet scene.

Oh, and as aside, I don't think the planet depicted in the Normandy crash scene was Aite (no rings), but I'm open to the possibility lacking further information. If it is though, they'd better hope they get offworld (or die) before that moon crashes into the planet.

Good point, I didn't recall them. Plus there're those dragon things. I suppose I mean it mainly just as a shorthand: it could easily be a composite of Shepard's planetary visits rather than a real place.

That being said, any history that related such an incomprehensibly titanic battle of forces, without access to a more accurate record than oral tradition, would necessarily pick a central figure to hang the story upon as the driving force of what essentially would have become a myth.

Yep. My main concern with this is only that as things stand, the scene is so detached from anything we know that it works against itself.

We need to know why Shepard's become mythical. Why did they forget? Was it that long ago? Or are these just descendants of unfortunate survivors stranded on some planet? Psychologically it's very unsatisfying without context.

Is it because there's actually some quasi-religious (there must be a better word?) aspect – like becoming the force of Synthesis – to Shepard? This would actually transform Shepard into “The Shepherd” pretty quickly, in a matter of maybe even decades rather than millennia.

In all other options, the timeframe is necessarily very long, so additional closure is needed. I think that “The Shepherd” is kind of unacceptable for any ending where Shepard lived; it just doesn't make sense (hence my suggestion – which I still love

In the Control case…

I just assumed that by accepting control of the Reapers that Shepard would either be merging with the existing AI (annoying ghost boy), or he/she'd be replacing it - more or less as a personality upgrade, rather like a Legion to the Geth type of situation.

Definitely a possibility – although I think it would be unsatisfying for probably too many. We've seen the distinct AI personalities already, so our brains are telling us that basically Shepard can become an AI him/herself. Having Shepard 95 still be able to at least on some level communicate with the ones left behind in fleshy form would mollify some of the loss; and then gradually losing interest in human affairs as friends die off in the centuries to come would balance it out on the other side. This would, I think, leave the perfect setting for a distant-future story about the now-distant force that still stands at vigil.

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[lillitheris]

Added the notes from the above explanation to the OP.

[Wulfram]

The main problem with Control is that Bioware basically spends the rest of the game telling us that Control is bad.  Makes it hard for it to be a satisfying ending. Though I go with it as the endings currently stand, just as a tool to destroy the Reapers without killing the Geth.

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[lillitheris]

Wulfram wrote...

The main problem with Control is that Bioware basically spends the rest of the game telling us that Control is bad.  Makes it hard for it to be a satisfying ending. Though I go with it as the endings currently stand, just as a tool to destroy the Reapers without killing the Geth.

That's a good point, although I think I'd soften that statement: I think it's obvious that Control is first and foremost a deceptive concept – we see it used to hide and further indoctrination – and secondly a rather dangerous concept even when it's a real possibility.

It requires a special kind of a person to have any chance of making it work – TIM wasn't it, but maybe our Shepard is? (This is, incidentally, also why I don't think Control is just Shepard becoming a set of program parameters…that'd be trivial to just do without any catalyst. I think it must be inferred that an actual active AI, a persona, is needed.)

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 avril 2012 - 11:43 .

[Apathy1989]

 Oh please let it be so.

[Ieldra]

OP, I do not agree.

Your high-EMS version of Destroy has no significant downsides, and that's not acceptable when the other two options still have to deal with the destruction of the relays.

Also, I think it is very much in the spirit of the Destroy ending that the relays are in fact completely gone, while in Control they're not. Synthesis being, as usual, the odd one out. I see an attempt to make the Destroy option even more desirable, at the expense of the other options, and that's exactly what we do NOT need. That Shepard lives is already a huge incentive. The possible disadvantages further down the line, as indicated by your paragraph about sacrifice, are things people don't feel.

I agree with your basic sacrifice scenario in the first post, but the side effects of each of the options, especially regarding the relays, should be more balanced.

Here's what I wrote in the "suggested changes" thread a few weeks back, and I still stand by it:

(2) Restrict the destruction of the relays to the Destroy ending and don't let the Destroy ending kill all synthetics.
There should be one decision that's based on "Destroy all this Reaper stuff because it limits us". But we shouldn't be forced to buy into that rationale. I'd remove the killing of all synthetics for balance because the destruction of the relays is bad enough, even if its good.
That way, Destroy would be the perfect ending for those who believe Reaper technology limits the galaxy even without the Reapers present. Control would preserve the status quo minus the Reaper threat, being the perfect ending for those who want to save galactic civilization and don't believe in the rationale for Destroy. Synthesis would still be the only ending that aims for a solution to the main problem if you believe the Catalyst, but it has enough questions attached to it that it won't ever be perceived as the best ending by a majority of players, in spite of its symbolism of "making the ultimate sacrifice in order to make peace".

As a sidenote, this would also remove the feeling that all the "Earth is OK" endings are almost identical. Well, they're not if you think about it, but the destruction of the relays has such a great impact that it  overshadows everything else. To compare this with the endings of Deux Ex (1): The final choice suggests a parallel between Destroy and New Dark Age, Control and Illuminati, Helios Merge and Synthesis. I like that. But the destruction of the relays makes them feel like three variants of New Dark Age.

(2a) Make it abundantly clear which endings destroy the relays and which don't
This is an adjunct to (2) above and meaningless without it. I noticed that the Control ending is already ambiguous about the fate of the relays. If you only see that ending, you will conclude they are destroyed, but if you compare it with others, you might conclude they're still intact or at least not completely destroyed. I suspect this was made intentionally ambigious as to preserve the "end of an age" theme for most players while giving hardcore fans who notice the discrepancy a way out. But as many people have said before, ambiguousness and closure are mutually exclusive for aspects that affect the shape of the universe as a common ground for our imagination. You may leave Miranda's fate open and players will start to make their own stories. You may not leave the fate of the relays open since that removes that common ground. Speculation is nice, but speculation in a vaccuum is like flying blind. Not fun.

(2b) Alternatively, make the destruction of the relays dependent on EMS
Either for all endings, or for Control and Synthesis. This would be a good one for the 3750 threshold. A reasoning can easily be found. It makes no less sense than the presence of the Synthesis as an option being dependent on EMS.

(3) Make it possible to challenge the starchild's reasoning.
We may still be forced into one of the choices, I would even accept something cheap like "I cannot make it end. I exist to guard the Cycle" as an answer. But Shepard not being able to challenge it appears out of character.

(4) For the Synthesis ending, go back to the line from the leaked script
Where it says. "We synthetic will become more like you, and organics will become more like us." I am willing to live with things that defy science, but notions like "the final evolution of life" and hybrid DNA defy not just science but logic. There is no "final evoluton fo life". As long as life goes on, it changes. And the defining difference between organics and synthetics is that the former are self-grown and the latter constructed. "Synthetics with DNA" is an oxymoron. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be organics regardless of their biochemistry. The phrasing from the leaked script is very vague, but at least I can try to fill it with something that makes sense. As is it, I need to throw the existing phrasing away first.

(5) Let the Normandy crash on Earth in the "Earth is OK" endings.
Fleeing the scene at that time is so grossly out of character for Joker that it defies comprehension how anyone could've ever thought that a good idea. Also it would mitigate the problem of the team members being present.
This would also solve another problem: As opposed to what was probably intended, the Normandy scene at the end does not feel hopeful. It does not feel like "It's the dawn of a new age unburdened by the ballast of the past". Instead, it feels as if Shepard's final choice has done as much bad as good, that Civilization has taken a big step back into the stone age, and I haven't even started on the unfortunate implications. Also, more techno-progressivist players like me feel greatly offended by being caught in a luddite's dream with no choice in the matter, and insulted by the notion that this is a good end.

(6) Provide an epilogue for "Earth is OK/the relays are destroyed" scenarios.
The scenes we're given are hopeful if Earth is destroyed. But otherwise, the destruction of the relays robs players of the closure achieved by playing the game to this point. We need to see - within the limits of the plausible - that all is well with the galaxy before we can let Shepard go.

(7) Think about removing the framing epilogue
I don't mind it as such. it's a nice reminder that as SF fans, we project our hopes out to the stars. But it practically requires the destruction of the relays to make sense. I can imagine my way out of that conundrum, but a lost colony that knows about Shepard's legend in a scenario where galactic civilization has been preserved is a stretch.

(8) Put the real LI in Shepard's after-the-choice flashback instead of Liara
That's self-explanatory. Shepard not thinking of their loved one in the last moments? How did anyone think that could ever be acceptable.

(9) Make it so that 8000 TMS can be reached in SP alone.
Currently that's not possible (I'm sure someone would've found out how by now). You promised it would be. Stand by it.

(10) Either make a high EMS "Shepard can survive or come back" hint for all options of the final choice, or for none.
That players' choices are made on whether Shepard can survive is not as it should be. I could live with a "none" setup, but for Shepard's sacrifice to be valid, she only needs to be willing. A gentler fate might hint that she can come back. Well, perhaps that should be left to headcanon, but I feel myself treated unfairly because I don't like the Destroy ending. My Shepards all die (headcanon to the rescue) because they choose Control or Synthesis and I won't compromise my stance for Shepard's survival.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 avril 2012 - 12:16 .

[lillitheris]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

OP, I do not agree.[/quote]

Thank you for the considered response! You make good points, I'll try to respond the best I can. I might have to return to flesh out my answers later on.

[quote]Your high-EMS version of Destroy has no significant downsides, and that's not acceptable when the other two options still have to deal with the destruction of the relays.[/quote]
I disagree slightly about downsides, more on that further down.

The relay destruction is a very complicated matter because it goes way beyond meta. Essentially it'll depend on what BioWare wants to do with the franchise. We've had very strong hints that the relays in fact aren't destroyed (and if they are, we have to put Arrival back on the table). I only see three viable scenarios where the series can be left:

1. Relays are completely destroyed in ALL options;
2. Relays are not destroyed in ANY options;
3. Relays are rendered temporarily inoperational, either some or all of them, and in some or all options.

I have absolutely no objection to leaving the relays intact in Control (and/or/but not Synthesis). In that case, breaking them completely in Destroy would cause problems for consolidating them in the future. I actually shied away from mentioning it at all, but I'll add an explicit note about this. Edit: added to OP.

[quote]Also, I think it is very much in the spirit of the Destroy ending that the relays are in fact completely gone, while in Control they're not. Synthesis being, as usual, the odd one out. I see an attempt to make the Destroy option even more desirable, at the expense of the other options, and that's exactly what we do NOT need. That Shepard lives is already a huge incentive. The possible disadvantages further down the line, as indicated by your paragraph about sacrifice, are things people don't feel.[/quote]

I see where you're coming from although – and I'll have to try to argument this better later on – I don't think Destroy is much out of balance…nor do I think the endings need to be completely balanced. Also, mind, when I say high EMS, I mean the kind of high that means you've only made one or two missteps throughout ME/ME2/ME3. You have to have the geth and quarians, the krogan and the salarians and so on. (I don't want to attach a number because the EMS/GR multiplayer thing that's still unresolved.)

I suppose that would be my main gist: this sacrifice is very clearly a choice between the intangible (a safer future for future generations, less interspecies conflict, broad horizons and so on) and the visceral (immediate future, Shepard's immediate circle of people, but with trouble on the horizon – hell, maybe the krogan will try smashing the salarians next week).


[quote](2) Restrict the destruction of the relays to the Destroy ending and don't let the Destroy ending kill all synthetics.
There should be one decision that's based on "Destroy all this Reaper stuff because it limits us". But we shouldn't be forced to buy into that rationale. I'd remove the killing of all synthetics for balance because the destruction of the relays is bad enough, even if its good. [/quote]

It doesn't kill all synthetics. It destroys reaper tech (which has been incorporated by, chiefly, geth). To me, it makes perfect logical sense that the same pulse would cause trouble to them, too, unless modulated (enter EMS).

[quote](2a) Make it abundantly clear which endings destroy the relays and which don't

…  But as many people have said before, ambiguousness and closure are mutually exclusive for aspects that affect the shape of the universe as a common ground for our imagination. You may leave Miranda's fate open and players will start to make their own stories. You may not leave the fate of the relays open since that removes that common ground. Speculation is nice, but speculation in a vaccuum is like flying blind. Not fun.[/quote]

Agreed, including rationale.

[quote](2b) Alternatively, make the destruction of the relays dependent on EMS
Either for all endings, or for Control and Synthesis. This would be a good one for the 3750 threshold. A reasoning can easily be found. It makes no less sense than the presence of the Synthesis as an option being dependent on EMS.[/quote]

Seems fine.

[quote](3) Make it possible to challenge the starchild's reasoning.
We may still be forced into one of the choices, I would even accept something cheap like "I cannot make it end. I exist to guard the Cycle" as an answer. But Shepard not being able to challenge it appears out of character.[/quote]

Agreed. As I think I said, I don't think there're any options but to 1. pick one of RGB; 2. wait until the fleets get destroyed and you lose; or 3. go on a rampage inside the Citadel and probably cause Destory to happen anyway. Still, the option must be there.

Also, I've mentioned the data dump. I think it's absolutely necessary for Shepard to even entertain trusting the Catalyst.

[quote](4) For the Synthesis ending, go back to the line from the leaked script
Where it says. "We synthetic will become more like you, and organics will become more like us."[/quote]

Agreed, and I think the Normandy situation needs to be addressed. The insta-transformation makes no sense.

[quote](5) Let the Normandy crash on Earth in the "Earth is OK" endings.
Fleeing the scene at that time is so grossly out of character for Joker that it defies comprehension how anyone could've ever thought that a good idea. Also it would mitigate the problem of the team members being present. [/quote]

Here, I must admit preference to my “it's all a hallucination” proposal. Not only does it solve the insta-Synthesis problem, but also removes the need to explain the escape and how the Normandy got at least 12 hours of FTL/relay travel away. How do you feel about it?

[quote]This would also solve another problem: As opposed to what was probably intended, the Normandy scene at the end does not feel hopeful. It does not feel like "It's the dawn of a new age unburdened by the ballast of the past". Instead, it feels as if Shepard's final choice has done as much bad as good, that Civilization has taken a big step back into the stone age, and I haven't even started on the unfortunate implications. Also, more techno-progressivist players like me feel greatly offended by being caught in a luddite's dream with no choice in the matter, and insulted by the notion that this is a good end.[/quote]

This was well put, agree completely.

[quote](6) Provide an epilogue for "Earth is OK/the relays are destroyed" scenarios.[/quote]

Agreed. I listed the things that I think need to be shown in the epilogues. Is there anything missing (or extra)?

[quote](7) Think about removing the framing epilogue[/quote][/quote]

I think my Stargazer plans are also reasonable. How did you feel about those, any concerns?

[quote](10) Either make a high EMS "Shepard can survive or come back" hint for all options of the final choice, or for none. [/quote]

This is where I disagree with you most. This is, of course, mainly a philosophical difference and I don't think either of us is more “correct” about the issue, but I think that my three options balance the immediate and the distant pretty well. The distant-thinking solution, Synthesis, can't leave an immediate result, Shepard living (and vice versa, Destruction must face an uncertain future). Control balances these two.

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[lillitheris]

Updated the OP to reflect notes about relay destruction from above.

[kalasaurus]

Bumped.  I agree with the points you laid out.  I don't like the twist the ending took with the reason for the reapers (especially because I made peace between the geth and the quarians), but my biggest issue with the game was the overall lack of closure and clarity.

I don't think that destroy should kill all synthetic life too, unless it's somehow explained that the red light effectively destroys all reaper tech and doesn't specifically target synthetic life along with the reapers.  I understand the need for a moral balance- many of the players who were turned off by the idea of genocide against the geth would not have an issue with killing all the reapers.  It just felt like the writers tacked that on only to make destroy less desirable.

Destroying just the reapers can be a sacrifice too.  The StarChild describes the reapers as the guardians of peace in the galaxy.  Without the reapers, Shepard could very well doom the galaxy to repeat itself without the reaper intervention.  Does Shepard think that the peace he established to unify the galaxy can stay or be repeated in the future?  Does Shepard value the free will of organics and synthetics and think that they don't need the reapers to protect them from their own destruction?  It could still be the "renegade" option without using the geth as collateral damage- Shepard symbolically kills a god figure that's "protected" organics in a way that we perceive as immoral (but could be acting for the greater good).

As for the Normandy scene, it was a horrible way to give closure to the squadmates that we've cared about for three games.  If it were a stand-alone game, I'd still have an issue with it.  But in this case, they gave a colossal "meh" to the people that Shepard (and we through her) care about greatly.  Oh look, they're not dead- be happy!  It just made no sense to their characters, and this needs to be explained.  For characters that the writers put such care into creating (moreso than any other video game I've seen), they need better closure.  They need to stay on Earth and fight- either find Shepard in the end or mourn her death.

[Alexius]

I actually like this a lot. There's no "happily ever after" ending and yet the options presented give the player something to hope for, regardless of whether they chose one or another, and give more sense of closure.

I too have issues with the Normandy scene and I can see why the "it's a dream" explanation could be used in some scenarios. The other parts of the ending, like the child, make more sense (regardless of whether I liked them or not). The Normandy leaving, simply put, cannot be explained as it is now. However, I would only resort to that excuse if there was absolutely no other, better, explanation for it.

Kudos to you on this. It's by far one of the most interesting suggestions I've read and it gives me hope that BioWare can change our perception of the ending if they explain it some more.

[lillitheris]

Added some clarification on the “immediate problems” that the Destroy option leaves the universe with.

…

Thanks to you two, I'll try to respond to you in more detail in a bit.

[Kilshrek]

Hey OP, I still suggest that the relays shut down forever even with high EMS, as per the Reaper EMP suggestion earlier.

And a way of working around the Shepard, EDI and Geth side is that they are not fully Reapers, nor are they 100% Reaper tech. So any damage done to them is minimal at best, fixable at worst.

edit : wording

Modifié par Kilshrek, 13 avril 2012 - 03:21 .

[lillitheris]

Kilshrek wrote...

Hey OP, I still suggest that the relays shut down forever even with high EMS, as per the Reaper EMP suggestion earlier.

I won't rule it out, although I think it's sufficient dramatic tension to just put them out of commission temporarily, or Charon completely (this also opens better DLC options – I really wouldn't be too concerned about e.g. Omega before beating the reapers, for example)!

BUT in the context that the immediate circle is the most important, it'd still be acceptable since all your friends are still in Sol. RIGHT, JOKER?! If they insisted that the Normandy did factually land who knows where, and the relays are unrepairable? That'd be pretty grimdark.

And a way of working around the Shepard, EDI and Geth side is that they are not fully Reapers, nor are they 100% Reaper tech. So any damage done to them is minimal at best, fixable at worst.

Well, the damage can vary. I'm definitely open for both no/little damage (high EMS?) and completely borked (low EMS).

It'd be an interesting choice if you had to pick either the geth and EDI, or the relays. (I'm going to rule that Shepard and the quarians have so little reliance on any reaper tech that they'll be OK in all but ultra-low-EMS scenarios).

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 avril 2012 - 03:27 .

[sp0ck 06]

Wulfram wrote...

The main problem with Control is that Bioware basically spends the rest of the game telling us that Control is bad.  Makes it hard for it to be a satisfying ending. Though I go with it as the endings currently stand, just as a tool to destroy the Reapers without killing the Geth.

Not quite.  If your Shep chose to keep the Collector base, well Control is basically a logical extension of that line of thinking.  Its certainly feasible to be fighting Cerberus because YOU need to be the one to deploy the Crucible (and they're indoctrinated), but ultimately agree with TIM that the Reapers' strength needs to be utilized, not destroyed.

[Wulfram]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Not quite.  If your Shep chose to keep the Collector base, well Control is basically a logical extension of that line of thinking.  Its certainly feasible to be fighting Cerberus because YOU need to be the one to deploy the Crucible (and they're indoctrinated), but ultimately agree with TIM that the Reapers' strength needs to be utilized, not destroyed.

I find it difficult to reconcile that with a lot of Shepard's dialogue - I don't really think you can avoid disagreeing with TIM's plans for Control, though I might have missed it I suppose.

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 avril 2012 - 03:36 .

[sp0ck 06]

Wulfram wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Not quite.  If your Shep chose to keep the Collector base, well Control is basically a logical extension of that line of thinking.  Its certainly feasible to be fighting Cerberus because YOU need to be the one to deploy the Crucible (and they're indoctrinated), but ultimately agree with TIM that the Reapers' strength needs to be utilized, not destroyed.

I find it difficult to reconcile that with a lot of Shepard's dialogue - I don't really think you can avoid disagreeing with TIM's plans for Control, though I might have missed it I suppose.

You disagree with him mostly, but that's before you know what the Crucible and Catalyst actual are capable of.  

[Kilshrek]

lillitheris wrote...


I won't rule it out, although I think it's sufficient dramatic tension to just put them out of commission temporarily, or Charon completely (this also opens better DLC options – I really wouldn't be too concerned about e.g. Omega before beating the reapers, for example)!

BUT in the context that the immediate circle is the most important, it'd still be acceptable since all your friends are still in Sol. RIGHT, JOKER?! If they insisted that the Normandy did factually land who knows where, and the relays are unrepairable? That'd be pretty grimdark.

Yeah, but the thing is so long as the relays themselves aren't busted into a million pieces, they can be reverse engineered and all that. And that's also why the Normandy crash scene, should be a dream as you state earlier. Assuming all goes well, the Normandy is still with Sword, and the ground crew don't chicken out and run like a startled rat with Joker to the arse end of nowhere.

lillitheris wrote...
Well, the damage can vary. I'm definitely open for both no/little damage (high EMS?) and completely borked (low EMS).

It'd be an interesting choice if you had to pick either the geth and EDI, or the relays. (I'm going to rule that Shepard and the quarians have so little reliance on any reaper tech that they'll be OK in all but ultra-low-EMS scenarios).

I don't know about Shepard, wasn't there bits and pieces of Reaper tech in rebuilt Shepard? The Geth themselves have very little actual Reaper technology in them, it seems more that they incorporated Reaper code. Code being intangible, shouldn't be affected by the hardware EMP bit. Of course, modulation, like you mentioned earlier.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 13 avril 2012 - 03:55 .

[lillitheris]

Kilshrek wrote...

Yeah, but the thing is so long as the relays themselves aren't busted into a million pieces, they can be reverse engineered and all that. And that's also why the Normandy crash scene, should be a dream as you state earlier. Assuming all goes well, the Normandy is still with Sword, and the ground crew don't chicken out and run like a startled rat with Joker to the arse end of nowhere.

Well, they might be able to engineer them…but the problem is that it'll take a long time (and lots of resources) in the first place and everybody will be hampered by no relays. Little to no exchange of info, no resources outside systems.

I don't know about Shepard, wasn't there bits and pieces of Reaper tech in rebuilt Shepard? The Geth themselves have very little actual Reaper technology in them, it seems more that they incorporated Reaper code. Code being intangible, shouldn't be affected by the hardware EMP bit. Of course, modulation, like you mentioned earlier.

I don't think it's stated anywhere that Shepard's cybernetics are Reaper-origin/improved (in fact, it'd probably have caused problems at various points if they were – you've seen how their nanotech tends to replicate). The wiki also has no mention of it.

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 avril 2012 - 04:30 .