255 réponses à ce sujet

[DJBare]

acidic-ph0 wrote...

DJBare wrote...
There is a reaper win, people just don't recognize it as such "Synthesis"

Ah, good point!

An easy point to reach when you consider what the Reapers ultimate goal has been throughout the series.

[shepard1038]

@Eudaemonium
I agree. I felt bad about killing the geth and edi. If the destroy ending doesn't kill the geth and edi and fixes and explains some plot holes then it could satisfy some fans and become the best and most chosed ending of all three.Its bad enough have the relays exploding.

Modifié par shepard1038, 12 avril 2012 - 07:33 .

[Bill Casey]

DJBare wrote...

An easy point to reach when you consider what the Reapers ultimate goal has been throughout the series.

...protecting us from the Geth?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 avril 2012 - 07:33 .

[FlamingBoy]

yeah probably

but lets not pretend that we understand the ending, because no one can, and trying to make sense of it is doomed to failure

[fle6isnow]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

tufy1 wrote...

See, I went the exact opposite direction. My very first reaction is "wait, who are you to tell US what we should do? What happened to freedom of choice? I've just proven you're wrong a couple of missions ago and have Geth and Quarians fighting against the Reapers together, yet you're telling me that peace is a lie? HELL NO!"

I then first tried shooting the kid, then going back to the elevator and when I realized there really is no different way out of it, I tried all three different endings through reloads. Then I closed the game shocked at what the hell just happened and couldn't sleep that evening, afraid that the huge questionmark above my head might fall down and kill me.

It's partly why I went with the Destroy ending.  Not only do I wipe out the Reapers (my goal from the end of ME1), but in doing so I remove the Reaper influence and grant our cycle the opportunity to prove him wrong.  It sucked to have to (maybe? haha) sacrifice the Geth to do so, but the other options had me wary and I felt that if the Geth and Quarians could make peace, the Catalyst's assertion was flawed.

That said, I think an option to refuse the Catalyst's options would have been great.  Though the nihilist in me would have probably had the Reapers win in that case haha.  I actually don't mind the idea of being presented a genuine "no-win" situation and find that idea actually quite interesting (obviously I can see other don't >.>).  I just feel that the execution was a let down.

Allan, you're like my brain twin. I just find myself nodding along whenever I read your posts, lol. I too loved the no-win scenario at the end, and IF an option were to be added, I would add the refuse but Reapers win scenario. But I guess that's because I love my tragic operas.

Modifié par fle6isnow, 12 avril 2012 - 07:36 .

[DJBare]

Bill Casey wrote...

DJBare wrote...

An easy point to reach when you consider what the Reapers ultimate goal has been throughout the series.

...protecting us from the Geth?

No, accession, this way they prevent the the risk of war between organics and synthetics, every being in the galaxy is now essentially a reaper.

[DJBare]

forsaken gamer wrote...
The goal of the Reapers was to prevent organic extinction, right?  If that's true, then the Reapers don't win with the synthesis option, because synthesis wipes out organic life.

Look at my last post, and no I do not agree with accession in this way because it's not by choice, choosing that option is saying "screw what the rest of the galaxy wants"

[Bill Casey]

None of the three choices actually fix the alledged problem of synthetics wiping out all organics...

Destroy doesn't stop organics from making synthetics, Control just makes the Reapers leave, and Synthesis doesn't prevent organic/synthetic hybrids from creating synthetics...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 avril 2012 - 07:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think the destroy ending is supposed to fix the problem of synthetics wiping out all organics.

[Ironhandjustice]

I prefer to think we could have a different vision.

I've developed the Nazara Theory, that is intended to:

-Destroy reapers
-Be reapers paragon and let humanity live in change, but everyone else die.
-Become a reaper.

[Bill Casey]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think the destroy ending is supposed to fix the problem of synthetics wiping out all organics.

Then why is the Catalyst helping me?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 avril 2012 - 07:45 .

[Eudaemonium]

Arppis wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...

Patrick Weekes suggested on twitter recently that we'd get a definitive answer on EDI and the Geth with high EMS Destroy in the Extended Cut. I mean, as things stand with the current ending I think it's fair to assume that they could, but we'll get a set answer later.

I hope they go for 'yes'. I kinda feel like total-relay destruction/galactic dark age/ruined homeworlds is bad enough punishment .

Tech doesn't go down, nor does the buildings that are still standing, don't think it's dark-ages.

Yeah, sorry. I was thinking 'dark age' in the way that with the relays gone technology would be set back. I didn't literally mean it would be the 'dark ages' but that it would be a massive setback in galactic technology and travel time that could lead to a lot of suffering. Destroy seems to leave the galaxy in the worst situation technologically, and I tended to think that was punishment enough without needing the geth to die.

[DJBare]

Bill Casey wrote...

None of the three choices actually fix the problem of synthetics wiping out all organics...

Destroy doesn't stop organics from making synthetics, Control just makes the Reapers leave, and Synthesis doesn't prevent organic/synthetic hybrids from creating synthetics...

Unless of course you accept the statement "ALL organic and synthetic life is merged"; what are reapers again?

[Meltemph]

DJBare wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...
The goal of the Reapers was to prevent organic extinction, right?  If that's true, then the Reapers don't win with the synthesis option, because synthesis wipes out organic life.

Look at my last post, and no I do not agree with accession in this way because it's not by choice, choosing that option is saying "screw what the rest of the galaxy wants"

Not to mention synthesis doesnt even fix the green goobers theoretical problem from still being a theoretical problem. >.>

Unless it is trying to say that this new dna will no longer desire to create and improve upon and that the only reason wars exist is racism.  
 

[Siran]

I too went for the destroy ending. For one thing, I really wanted to see those suckers burn. The Reapers that is. For what they have done in all those cycles. Plus, I figured, it was the smallest sacrifice to make - the control-option was too alluring, given that Saren and TIM failed at controlling the Reapers - why should I be able to? Throughout ME the general theme was, that you can't control them. And since Snynthesis meant I would force a way of life on the whole galaxy, meaning changing everyone without their consent, I chose the lesser evil be destroying only one (or two if you count the Reapers) species. Plus EDI, but, since she is present as a software on the ship my guess was she could still be rebuild, the code and blueprints must still be there (as with the Geth perhaps)

Modifié par Siran, 12 avril 2012 - 08:42 .

[Grasich]

Would just like to point out that we're given false information many many times throughout ME1 ME2 and ME3. This isn't a story where everything you hear is true.

[DJBare]

forsaken gamer wrote...
That is the means to accomplish the goal.  The goal itself is to prevent organic extinction.  With Synthesis, organics go extinct.  Therefore the goal is not achieved.

The ultimate goal is accession, it does not matter whether or not you agree with that goal, it's "their" goal.

Starbrat: we take advanced organic races and ascend them *camera pans to view a reaper*; synthesis is an advanced version of reapers, ergo they win.

[UrgentArchengel]

Starkid is just over exaggerating it. I am sure that with a really high EMS, the crucible just wipes the Reapers out, sparing the Geth, at least consciously.

[Ashii6]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think the destroy ending is supposed to fix the problem of synthetics wiping out all organics.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that ' red ending ' fixed a problem with the Reapers.

[MoZedK]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

trembli0s wrote...

If the case is that the StarChild is flat-out wrong, why should we believe anything that he says? Why trust him at all?

I think there's a difference between being flat out wrong, and it just being a mistake.  You bring up an interesting point because as I played through the sequence I found myself inherently distrusting of him, but not to the point where I flat out refused to believe what he was telling us entirely.

I don't have a problem with a faulty narrator archetype but that opens up a whole can of worms for the other options:

Control - Silly human, you just killed yourself for no reason, and we will raze the galaxy anyway.

LOL.  Reading this, I probably found myself believing the general idea behind the Catalyst's explanations, simply because my mind required it.  Not a good reason but it's my reason.

Well after seeing the ending several times, and playing with the idea that it some form of IDT.
Lets see the IDT starts after the beem, well not entirely. He is having what we would call granate shock or something like that, we have seen signs in his dream we now see.

Well he cant be on the ground and then have an effect on the repears. That fact is stated in the Legion hack thing.
So he is now beeing Indoctinated in a wake state after a grenate shock. And he walks in the teleporter beam, that can exist in the laws you made in the game.

If we now assume that Harbinger has taken a big interrest in Shepard then he now knows that he is strong willed, and trying to hack him (of shepards value to all). To hack his mind he sends him to a pod like the one in Legion uses, but do not have him to help now.

Ned the IDT can roam with the theory. And harbinger uses hard ways of ID. But it can go to ways like showned with the legion guest.
Now he hacks the reaper hive minde harbinger. and gets to the starkid aka harbinger.

Now what he says is something to trick you.
Why do I not belive that this is a person other the harbinger. well here comes, he is the catalyst so he is the station, well he cant be if he is so "hell bendt" on killing us he would have opened the citadel back in ME1 to get the others in.
So here he is lying , and why should he now start telling the truth.
The destroy ending is good, why well he says it kills the reapers and all synth. Well that simply cant be in the laws of the world that is created, this is harbingers way to not choose that way.

To explain the all of my theory I need to go in great detail with it. though I am making my first ever youtube video. But there are still holes but they can a bit easyer be filled.

So flat wrong is a hard word but bugged filled is a better word for it.

[Elyiia]

EDI walks out in the destroy option. EDI uses more Reaper technology than the Geth do. Seems logical to me that if EDI can survive the Geth can.

[pikey1969]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think the destroy ending is supposed to fix the problem of synthetics wiping out all organics.

It's not as if the other choices really 'fix' the problem either.

The control ending I guess does in a way, in that it seems all too probable that the cycle will eventually continue. Can you REALLY trust Shepard, or whatever left of him/her essemce that was integrated to hold on to his/her very human/biased sentiments and sit there for eternity? I wouldn't trust any being with that kind of responsibility except pretty much God, nevermind some space soldier, no matter how heroic/charismatic/'good' he was.

The synthesis option is just atrocious too. I am not referring to the 'space magic' aspect of it either. On moral grounds it's incredibly dubious. Not to mention it feels like a half-baked solution from a daydream of a sci-fi nerd (albeit a popular 'solution' if history of all these movies/games that also employ it is of any indication), to a problem that is scientifically unknowable, and forcing that on the entire galaxy at a very CORE level for every individual is just... urgh.

The destroy ending at least offers a modicum of hope for the 'current' generation of the galaxy. The galaxy is at least given a shot at writing its own future, and reaching its own version of 'technological singularity' that doesn't neccessarily have to be the same as the one catalyst obviously witness or had been through (chaos). Even if it was to eventually reach technological singularity that also turned out to be simply one of 'chaos', it was at least given the attempt/choice to try and avoid the same fate that the catalyst had once reached/witnessed.

Here's a little analogy. When the whole Retake thing took off and a lot of fans were saying the whole ME series became pointless because of the ending, I heard a lot of my friends/people say, the crappy endings didn't matter to them as much, because the journey was still great, and that still made playing the series worthwhile for them. It was about journey, not the destination. I think that same school of philosophy is appropriate here. The journey is as equally important as the outcome for the galaxy, especially when the outcome isn't set in stone like the ME3 endings were for the 'retake' fans.

Modifié par pikey1969, 12 avril 2012 - 08:47 .

[UrgentArchengel]

The Starchild is not infallible. He is just as not perfect as all of us. The fact we can prove the son of a b**** wrong proves that he is fallible. He is not some god or all knowing deity. He is just a VI/AI that thought it be fun to look like a dead kid and thats it. He says that he controls the Reapers. I think they are quite sentient, just doing his overall bidding their own way. Basically, take the brats words with a grain of salt.