255 réponses à ce sujet

[Obvakhi]

 

Arcadian Legend wrote...
We know for definite EDI and Shepad survived  

EDI surviving is not definite. There is a deleted scene that shows the two squadmates who went with you to the beam being killed. They took this out because they couldn't fix the part where your squadmates come out of the crashed Normandy(they would still walk out even if they were dead).

[antony1197]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

trembli0s wrote...

So we simply have more contradictions then  : 

The most distinguishing feature of quarian biology is their weak immune system, compounded by centuries of living in sterile environments. As a result, all quarians by necessity dress in highly sophisticated enviro-suits, to protect them from disease or infection if they are injured. Their suits can be compartmentalized in the event of a tear or similar breach to prevent the spread of contaminants (similar to a ship sealing off bulkheads in the event of a hull breach). Along with their suits quarians also have extensive cybernetic augmentations integrated into their bodies. 

Ah, but is a person with cybernetics a synthetic life form?

Considering the star brat called shepard partly sythetic yes, like it or not every species has members with upgrades, may they be small like for eyesight, or something keeping your lungs breathing or your heart pumping, so yeah i would say so.

[elarem]

I prefer Legion and the Geth to the Quarians (always loved robots probably due to Asimov's stories) but I will never choose any ending other than Destroy.

And yes I do realize that all those people that I have come to like will (probably) die on the Citadel if they didn't escape, but by that stage of the game I shouldn't let that affect the mission. Shepard's mission is to destroy the Reapers or die trying. Shepard accomplished the mission.

Why would s/he even trust the starbrat? It's a construct controlling the Reapers which has flawed logic and probably with a self-preservation protocol which overrides everything else! In other words it is economical with the truth, or even outright lies, to save itself - that's how I see it. Who really knows about the Geth or EDI? I don't, but neither it seems does Bioware, so we'll have to wait for the EC.

[OhoniX]

There are people actually satisfied with the endings as they are? If so we question their judgement

and we tend to question yours. The endings make perfect sense to anyone that cares to reason them out, and while they aren't "perfect" endings in the sense that everyone lives happily ever after, for an apocalyptic they are each generously positive endings (so long as your EMS is high enough that the Earth isn't destroyed) that certainly leave the galaxy in a positive and hopeful state.

[Eudaemonium]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sure. I've also seen some "control" people say they'll control the Reapers alright... they'll control them right into the center of a supernova, thus saving everyone AND destroying the Reapers AND leaving the Citadel and Mass Relays salvageable.

There are some cool and interesting ways of looking at all three possible choices, but I'm bothered by the game expecting you to look at a button labeled "Genocide" and push it thinking "meh, it probably doesn't actually genocide anyone." What do you say if you push it and it does? "Oops?" 

I need to sleep soon. Words are looking all swimmy now.

This is kind of an inherent problem with picking the Destroy ending, because even if it doesn't actually genocide the geth Shepard is still deciding that genociding the geth is an acceptable sacrifice to make. You are still deciding that genocide is acceptable, even if it doesn't necessarily result from your action. I'm kind of hoping that in the Extended Cut they clarify one way or the other in the conversation prior to the decision. Of course, you're still deciding to genocide the Reapers, and deciding that that is an acceptable action, so the issue doesn't really go away regardless. "Genociding people I like is wrong but genociding those I don't is totally okay" is a rather messed up morality, even if the ones you don't like are actively trying to kill you.

The whole 'control the Reapers and send them into a supernova' seems kinda like a cop-out, but it's equally plausible with the endings we have, since the level of control is an unknown factor.

Modifié par Eudaemonium, 12 avril 2012 - 10:17 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

OhoniX wrote...

There are people actually satisfied with the endings as they are? If so we question their judgement

and we tend to question yours. The endings make perfect sense to anyone that cares to reason them out, and while they aren't "perfect" endings in the sense that everyone lives happily ever after, for an apocalyptic they are each generously positive endings (so long as your EMS is high enough that the Earth isn't destroyed) that certainly leave the galaxy in a positive and hopeful state.

Sheesh. The endings do not make perfect sense to anyone who cares to reason them out. This is... this is the worst kind of argument.

Most of the people I know personally who are satisfied with the ending are more "casual" players of mass effect with less deep investment in the lore. I'm not saying this is a direct correlation, it's just what I've noticed in speaking to a few dozen non-forum-using-gamers.

It's interesting, because most of the sci-fi professionals I know think the endings are bad narratively. It's not just about "making sense," it's about fidelity to themes, it's about putting predestination endings on free-will storylines, it's about poor narrative transitions.

I will ask you a question though: as someone who thinks the endings make sense, do you believe everything the starchild says? If not, what do you choose to disbelieve?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2012 - 10:19 .

[DamonD7]

I disgree with the endings being perfect, and the notion that those that dislike them are not capable of or even try to have reasonable, intelligent thought.

However, yes, this is a big part of the thing that makes this all so tricky to handle for Bioware.

Some people DID like the ending(s). I didn't, boy I didn't, but I know others did and so a solution is needed that can satisfy some people without annoying another bunch. At worst, you'd be swapping one unsatisfied group for another.

Bioware's done some amazing things in the ME series, some amazing writing. I feel ME3's endings were a victim of time constraints and possibly (though I have nothing solid) limited internal communication, let's say. Give Bioware time and they do awesome stuff.

I hope the time they have for the Extended Cut lets them do that, and slight shifting of goalposts perhaps over certain things is not a problem in my book so long as it all makes sense.

Modifié par DamonD7, 12 avril 2012 - 10:22 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

DamonD7 wrote...

I disgree with the endings being perfect, and the notion that those that dislike them are not capable of or even try to have reasonable, intelligent thought.

However, yes, this is a big part of the thing that makes this all so tricky to handle for Bioware.

Some people DID like the ending(s). I didn't, boy I didn't, but I know others did and so a solution is needed that can satisfy some people without annoying another bunch. At worst, you'd be swapping one unsatisfied group for another.

Bioware's done some amazing things in the ME series, some amazing writing. I feel ME3's endings were a victim of time constraints and possibly (though I have nothing solid) limited internal communication, let's say. Give Bioware time and they do awesome stuff.

I hope the time they have for the Extended Cut lets them do that, and slight shifting of goalposts perhaps over certain things is not a problem in my book so long as it all makes sense.

I don't understand why adding an additional ending would ruin the existing endings for anyone, if they were left unchanged.

This is something that is constantly brought up... that changing the existing endings would alienate anyone who liked them. But then it's implied that adding another ending (a back door, a fourth option, a chrono-trigger-style NewGame+ option) would equally ruin things for people who like the current ending, and I completely can't understand that.

It reminds me of the people who said that making certain romance options available to both genders would ruin those romance options for them.

[Arcadian Legend]

Obvakhi wrote...

 

Arcadian Legend wrote...
We know for definite EDI and Shepad survived  

EDI surviving is not definite. There is a deleted scene that shows the two squadmates who went with you to the beam being killed. They took this out because they couldn't fix the part where your squadmates come out of the crashed Normandy(they would still walk out even if they were dead).

Ah, I wasn't aware of this.

Modifié par Arcadian Legend, 12 avril 2012 - 10:30 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Eudaemonium wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sure. I've also seen some "control" people say they'll control the Reapers alright... they'll control them right into the center of a supernova, thus saving everyone AND destroying the Reapers AND leaving the Citadel and Mass Relays salvageable.

There are some cool and interesting ways of looking at all three possible choices, but I'm bothered by the game expecting you to look at a button labeled "Genocide" and push it thinking "meh, it probably doesn't actually genocide anyone." What do you say if you push it and it does? "Oops?" 

I need to sleep soon. Words are looking all swimmy now.

This is kind of an inherent problem with picking the Destroy ending, because even if it doesn't actually genocide the geth Shepard is still deciding that genociding the geth is an acceptable sacrifice to make. You are still deciding that genocide is acceptable, even if it doesn't necessarily result from your action. I'm kind of hoping that in the Extended Cut they clarify one way or the other in the conversation prior to the decision. Of course, you're still deciding to genocide the Reapers, and deciding that that is an acceptable action, so the issue doesn't really go away regardless. "Genociding people I like is wrong but genociding those I don't is totally okay" is a rather messed up morality, even if the ones you don't like are actively trying to kill you.

The whole 'control the Reapers and send them into a supernova' seems kinda like a cop-out, but it's equally plausible with the endings we have, since the level of control is an unknown factor.

I agree that the "control the reapers to destroy them" thing seems like a cop-out, but it is the interpretation I got from the person I know in real life who liked the ending the best.

He's actually the only human I've encountered outside the internet who has used the word "like" in relation to the ending, rather than just saying it was OK or fine.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[darthnick427]

OhoniX wrote...

There are people actually satisfied with the endings as they are? If so we question their judgement

and we tend to question yours. The endings make perfect sense to anyone that cares to reason them out, and while they aren't "perfect" endings in the sense that everyone lives happily ever after, for an apocalyptic they are each generously positive endings (so long as your EMS is high enough that the Earth isn't destroyed) that certainly leave the galaxy in a positive and hopeful state.

no they really don't.....I'm willing accept starchild as much as I hate him. I'm willing to accept the space magic. Hell I'm even willing to accept Shepard dying in some endings. But the Normandy flying away from the battle for no reason and my crew MAGICALLY teleporting there and abondoning me when they would never abondon Shepard under any cricumstance and then getting stranded on a random planet?! WTF IS THAT CRAP!? 

[Chinirojo]

Silpheed58 wrote...

Could make an argument that the Geth and EDI are fine since Shepard lived.

Exactly!

[Eudaemonium]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I agree that the "control the reapers to destroy them" thing seems like a cop-out, but it is the interpretation I got from the person I know in real life who liked the ending the best.

He's actually the only human I've encountered outside the internet who has used the word "like" in relation to the ending, rather than just saying it was OK or fine.

I'm interested to see whether they add anything regarding this to the Extended Cut, either a confirmation ro refutation, or whether they just leave it as it is now, as a great unknown. But then, I'm interested to see exactly what they add or are planning to add to the EC in general.

"Is ME3 worth playing?"

"Yeah, but only if you have an internet connection and can get the better ending."

Rather than my current:

"Yes. But this is very important: There will be a scene with Anderson near teh end. You'll know it when you get to it. After this scene finishes you will be contacted by Admiral Hackett. At this point simply switch off your computer. Trust me, you will be happier for it."

[Kanon777]

MadCat221 wrote...

What we do know is that the Destroy ending casually kills off everyone we've been built up to care about on the Citadel when the space magic obliterates the place. What's the harm in throwing the Geth and EDI on top of that body pile?

The ward arms may or may not survive if they have independent life support power (definitely not if they go Earthward... and that would just cinch the deal and destroy Earth's life support capacity anyway, as if it wasn't wrecked from the Reapage and had its challenge of restoration massively compounded by mass relay destruction).

Aria?  Dead.
Conrad?  Dead.
Jenna?  Dead
Kelly?  Dead.
Aethyta?  Dead.
Ash's family?  Dead.
Blue Rose chick?  Dead.
Kolyat?  Dead.
Dr. Michel or Dr. Chakwas?  Dead.
Extra Grissom students you may have rescued?  Dead.
Commander Bailey?  Dead.
Councilors?  Dead.
Barla Von?  Dead.
Frenchman Refugee and Batarian Refugee?  Dead.
Teen girl refugee who isn't catching on that her parents aren't coming on the next transport?  Dead.
Batarian Preacher consoling the faith-shaken batarian refugees?  Dead.


Please continue my casualty list of people killed by Bioware's want to make big booms without any thought as to the ramifications.

This is not true, according to the PAX panel and Patrick Weekes,  everyone plot important on the citadel is still alive

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nyoka wrote...

It's almost funny how they're backtracking from their initial position in response to the fans' wrath. The galaxy was supposed to be a waste land after Mass Effect 3 because you know, dark is deep. Then, suddenly, you may be reunited with the Normandy crew. Then, somehow, the Geth survive the destruction of all synthetics. Then, everyone plot-important on the citadel is alive (never mind the non-important people, apparently Shepard wasn't fighting for them).

Next, they'll prove Penny Arcade right and say the Krogan made Shepard a cake

Shhhhhhh. If you mention it I might not get my cake.

Delicious delicious irradiated cake.

[DamonD7]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I don't understand why adding an additional ending would ruin the existing endings for anyone, if they were left unchanged.

This is something that is constantly brought up... that changing the existing endings would alienate anyone who liked them. But then it's implied that adding another ending (a back door, a fourth option, a chrono-trigger-style NewGame+ option) would equally ruin things for people who like the current ending, and I completely can't understand that.

It reminds me of the people who said that making certain romance options available to both genders would ruin those romance options for them.

Well I'm most certainly NOT in that group you mention at the end there.

If I thought they would do additional endings then I'd change my tune - it's my own personal choice after all, what I'd have liked, as I've mentioned before. I don't think that would ruin things in the slightest.

However, I'm working here within the framework that they've said they're not going to provide any extra endings like that, but 'clarify' the existing ones. Hopes of additional endings seem to be about zero, whether we like it or not.

So that's all I'm saying. In that framework, you have the tricky task of attempting to alter things enough to try to please the unsatisfied, without unsatisfying the pleased.

Modifié par DamonD7, 12 avril 2012 - 11:06 .

[Kanon777]

DamonD7 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I don't understand why adding an additional ending would ruin the existing endings for anyone, if they were left unchanged.

This is something that is constantly brought up... that changing the existing endings would alienate anyone who liked them. But then it's implied that adding another ending (a back door, a fourth option, a chrono-trigger-style NewGame+ option) would equally ruin things for people who like the current ending, and I completely can't understand that.

It reminds me of the people who said that making certain romance options available to both genders would ruin those romance options for them.

Well I'm most certainly NOT in that group you mention at the end there.

If I thought they would do additional endings then I'd change my tune - it's my own personal choice after all, what I'd have liked, as I've mentioned before. I don't think that would ruin things in the slightest.

However, I'm working here within the framework that they've said they're not going to provide any extra endings like that, but 'clarify' the existing ones. Hopes of additional endings seem to be about zero, whether we like it or not.

So that's all I'm saying. In that framework, you have the tricky task of attempting to alter things enough to try to please the unsatisfied, without unsatisfying the pleased.

What do you even mean by "aditional ending"?
Do you mean a complete retcon of the final mission after the raid on the Cerberus base?
Do you mean new color of explosion?
Do you mean more variation on how your choices trough ME1/2/3 affect the galaxy, even if it maintains the final RBG choices (like Geth surviving, relays being bebuilt quickly, normandy being rescued, races going back to their planets etc etc...)

Modifié par Kanon777, 12 avril 2012 - 11:41 .

[PsyrenY]

trembli0s wrote...

Unfortunately, we don't really have clarification on if Shepard lives. We have a vague ending scene that IMPLIES he might but I didn't expect an ending that was going to have me scrounging around for nitpicky answers.

Here's verbatim what he says: "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want, even you are partly synthetic"

That's a REALLY heavy implication that cybernetic implants are fair game for synthetic destructo-beams. While I can see why we would think he's wrong there's nothing that makes me NOT believe that he's not being truthful.

He explains synthesis and we see the results, he explains control and we get the result, now we choose destroy and we're supposed to believe he suddenly becomes a faulty narrator and he's flat-out wrong? 

Your appendix is part of you too, yet you can live without it. Same with one of your kidneys.

From ME2 and Miranda's audiologs, we know that synthetic bits were added to Shepard to speed his/her recovery - not because s/he would die without them. So no, I still see no reason why Destroy = 100% chance of death for Shepard.

[Harorrd]

geth, quarians, EDI, Biotics, Sheppard, Garrus, Krogan, Disabled people, All have implants and will die if you chose red

[edwards_77]

I honestly couldn't care less what "sci-fi professionals" have to say about the endings. At least in the context of my experience of the ending. I really liked it! That is my very valid opinion. I found it satisfying and the choices available to me made sense for my Shepard. Was it perfect? No. Nothing is ever perfect. Much of this hoopla is simple group psychology.

[Harorrd]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

trembli0s wrote...

So we simply have more contradictions then  : 

The most distinguishing feature of quarian biology is their weak immune system, compounded by centuries of living in sterile environments. As a result, all quarians by necessity dress in highly sophisticated enviro-suits, to protect them from disease or infection if they are injured. Their suits can be compartmentalized in the event of a tear or similar breach to prevent the spread of contaminants (similar to a ship sealing off bulkheads in the event of a hull breach). Along with their suits quarians also have extensive cybernetic augmentations integrated into their bodies. 

Ah, but is a person with cybernetics a synthetic life form?

Synthetic is combination of two or more parts, whether by design or by natural processes. Furthermore, it may imply being prepared or made artificaly in contrast to naturally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic

Yes you are a synthetic lifeform even if you are augmented with upgrades, like biotic amps, or quarian suitupgrades

[WindOverTuchanka]

Ack! Reformatting...
Erm, regarding SnakeStrike's post...

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

I am curious about whather or not the destroy ending really kills the geth. We know that shooting the tube will 'destroy all synthetics', but what exactly does that mean? Are we destroying all synthetic bodies? If that's the case, then the geth aren't really dead. 

Are we actually wiping out the geth programs themselves? If that's true then we are truly destroying the geth (and EDI), but the technical details of who that would work are limited solely to the realm of magic- not space magic, mind, but just regular warlock magic.

Thoughts on the topic? Would the destroy variation on the ending be more palatable if we all knew that picking that option wouldn't destroy the geth entirely, but rather would just seriously wound some and kill many others?

Well, it would for me. 

The Crucible burst has so many self-contradicting properties, that it's safe to assume it was somehow hybrid. So if it's part signal, it may target actual code and simply delete it, along with wiping memory cores. However, in the optimistic scenario, it only targets the Reaper code, not all code (since EDI can live and quantum communication works, and it requires programming). So I'll be assuming the optimistic scenario (if Extended Cut is pessimistic, they might as well be shooting themselves in the leg)

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

The key reason no-one picks destroy is because it means the end of the geth.

Huh, I thought a lot of people took 'destroy'?

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

Regardless, I can't see it being a case of 'the geth atually survive the red coloured ending'. If Bioware changes that, then we've got a free 'everyone wins and rainbows' ending, which carries its own demerits.

I can relate to this. The sheer rainbowness of 'retconned destroy' would make two other endings totally moot. They would have to bump them up a notch, too - making Control about personal power/domination, and making miracle technology in Synthesis freely available, but not violently enforced without consent (throw in freeing the Reapers from Starchild's control and the possibility of making peace with them, and I'm picking Synthesis). But that would be so much retconning I doubt they'll do it.

So I'd agree that 'destroy' should cripple most Geth. But to remove the negative taste of committing  total genocide, the possibility for them to be rebuilt/reactivated must remain.

Say, the Crucible only targets the Geth who are rewritten by Legion using Reaper code - it's primary function is to fight Reapers, after all, not synthetics (and the Starchild is just an ignorant little twerp who does not know... anything).

The asari councillor after Rannoch says there are pockets of Geth still controlled by the Reapers. Now, they are enemies, but that also means Legion did not reach them with his broadcast. They might be under Reaper control, yet not totally rewritten. So if the Crucible wipes the parts through which the reapers control them (the 'shackles'), they will deactivate. But their original, unaugmented Geth programs may lay dormant and could later be reactivated.

Ironically, this option would mean that if you side with the Quarians, more Geth would survive in the end (since they are not upgraded). Heh.

Arcadian Legend wrote...

We know for definite EDI and Shepad survived and there is surely bound to be some Geth somewhere in remote Geth stations outside the Mass Relay range. Remember we only saw a microscopic fraction of the Perseus Veil.

This could work too. It takes time to broadcast consensus state to all Geth everywhere. Legion's signal may not reach all stations due to comm relays being damaged, it's war after all. 

It's also possible that some Geth have distanced themselves from consensus by choice. We've already learned that there are Geth splinter groups, so there could be Heretic stations existing in relative autonomy, forming their own consensuses(?), perhaps from before ME1. Some of these Geth may be hostile to organics, some may be not. What's important here is that they will be untouched by the Reaper code. 

Actually, if they are far enough from the relays, they may not be touched by the Crucible's radiation at all, so they may survive regardless...

tl;dr There are theoretical possibilities that some Geth remain intact even if the signal blows most of them up in Destroy ending. And that is a good thing.

Modifié par WindOverTuchanka, 12 avril 2012 - 01:24 .

[NM_Che56]

Can't say for sure. Star Brat is the Reaper brain child. Can you really believe everything a Reaper tells you (or its master)?

Also, you see Shepard take a breath at the end. Star Child implies that Shepard will die if he choses destruction since he's part synthetic. Well, the end scene seems to belie that argument. So if Shepard is alive, then it's possible that EDI and the Geth are ok.

Won't know till summer...hopefully.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

trembli0s wrote...

So we simply have more contradictions then  : 

The most distinguishing feature of quarian biology is their weak immune system, compounded by centuries of living in sterile environments. As a result, all quarians by necessity dress in highly sophisticated enviro-suits, to protect them from disease or infection if they are injured. Their suits can be compartmentalized in the event of a tear or similar breach to prevent the spread of contaminants (similar to a ship sealing off bulkheads in the event of a hull breach). Along with their suits quarians also have extensive cybernetic augmentations integrated into their bodies. 

Ah, but is a person with cybernetics a synthetic life form?

What constitutes synthetic life? All Geth are is a platform with a few hundred more programmes than a VI. Would you consider a VI synthetic life? If so, all a VI is is a piece of technology with programs to run it. Which is all every single piece of technology in the ME universe is.

If you consider sentience in a machine synthetic life, then how would the beam detect sentience? If it only detected sentience, wouldn't that wipe out all life in the galaxy?

The only plausible way for the beam to work is if it only destroys reaper tech. This is not in any way hinted at, but it's the only explanation for how this beam actually works. But then SHepard still lives at the end despite having reaper tech. So does EDI, and she was supposed to be made of reaper tech.

Dear lord.