254 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Muhkida wrote...
What kind of stuff are you on?  We are all one race?  In our Earth, Asians =/= Hispanics.

 Fine, we are all humans with the same wants and needs. And we still kill each other like there's no tomorrow.
But lasting peace between different species of organics and more than that, lasting peace between organics and synthetics is possible? Please.

Either way, I'm sure some crazy but infamous Austrian-born German that left his mark in history around the 1930s-40s would've liked you.

Godwin's law.

You stake the claim that the Catalyst to be something omnipotent or perfect......watch the ending again.

The Star Child admits that whatever choice Shepard makes would prove the Catalyst's original solution to be wrong.

Not wrong. Simply not viable anymore.

Btw, saying synthesis is the final end of evolution in itself is a terrible contradiction.

True but it's still an improvement to the life that already exists.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Again, prove it. I've given a handful of other options in this thread alone.

The only one you've mentioned that's halfway plausible is "call Hackett"; we'll have to see if the EC addresses this (or your inability to do so.)

How is destroying the Presidium tower implausable? The Citadel is built to withstand tremendous attacks with it's outer hull, the tower does not look like it'd take concentraded fire from a few dreadnaughts.

[esideras]

I... don't know, guess the illusive man was right. *CLICK "REAPER OFF BUTTON"*

Dunno what happend still, but the only thing that makes sense is that someone with no idea of what they were doing were in charge. Simple as that. Remember Star Wars ep. 1 - 3?

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...
 Fine, we are all humans with the same wants and needs. And we still kill each other like there's no tomorrow.
But lasting peace between different species of organics and more than that, lasting peace between organics and synthetics is possible? Please.

Who is anyone to judge? Who is the Catalyst? The Citadel races have worked together for thousands of years.
The Geth deserve a chance. Continual appeals to the self-proclaimed authority of the Catalyst mean nothing.

True but it's still an improvement to the life that already exists.

No it isn't, it's a paradigm the Catalyst approves of, because the Catalyst is a psychopathic bigot. That's it.

[a.m.p]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You, as the player, from a metagaming perspective, can insist that there should be a fourth option, that the writers should have put one in. Shepard, from the in-word perspective, cannot, because he cannot control what options are available to him. Shepard isn't omnipotent, damn it.

I'm sorry, I just have to step in.

I as a player from a metagaming perspective, can assume that the options at the end of the game about stopping the reapers will stop  the reapers.

In-universe, for Shepard the only confirmation that these options will stop the cycle is the word of the being that started the cycle. And she's told she'd die in all three, so she won't even see the consequences of what she does.

How much blood do you need to lose to not see a problem with that?

[KingZayd]

MisterJB wrote...

Muhkida wrote...
What kind of stuff are you on?  We are all one race?  In our Earth, Asians =/= Hispanics.

 Fine, we are all humans with the same wants and needs. And we still kill each other like there's no tomorrow.
But lasting peace between different species of organics and more than that, lasting peace between organics and synthetics is possible? Please.

Either way, I'm sure some crazy but infamous Austrian-born German that left his mark in history around the 1930s-40s would've liked you.

Godwin's law.

You stake the claim that the Catalyst to be something omnipotent or perfect......watch the ending again.

The Star Child admits that whatever choice Shepard makes would prove the Catalyst's original solution to be wrong.

Not wrong. Simply not viable anymore.

Btw, saying synthesis is the final end of evolution in itself is a terrible contradiction.

True but it's still an improvement to the life that already exists.

Why not? Shepard failed. There was no reason to bring him upstairs. We keep hearing how a conventional means victory was impossible. 

Also synthesis is an improvement? tell that to saren and all those people that were turned into husks.

Modifié par KingZayd, 19 avril 2012 - 08:53 .

[BattleVisor]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...
How is destroying the Presidium tower implausable? The Citadel is built to withstand tremendous attacks with it's outer hull, the tower does not look like it'd take concentraded fire from a few dreadnaughts.

You have a handgun, not a dreadnought - and even if you can reach Hackett from Starkid's room, you have no guarantee that blowing up the tower will take the kid out, or even if doing so will have any effect on the Reapers at all.

The Angry One wrote...

The Geth deserve a chance.

I agree, which is why I would never pick Destroy.

The Angry One wrote...
Continual appeals to the self-proclaimed authority of the Catalyst mean nothing.

Unfortunately, he may not deserve the power he wields - but the fact that he wields it is evident. You don't have to like it.

[Ieldra]

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

There could be, but THERE ARE NOT. That's the reality of the thing.

How do you know? Because starbaby tells you? Why do you trust this proven liar to tell you the truth?

All right, that's meta-reasoning. The in-world perspective is that you have limited time to explore different possibilities. If you had a horde of scientists you might be able to recalibrate the Crucible, but you haven't. If you wait too long you lose. The situation tells you "Either we lose or I take one of the three options". 

In the end, it's in the hand of the writers to present us with options. And it is only a failure if you, the player, can come up with plausible options while Shepard can't. That was the situation at the end of ME2. Why the hell couldn't we give the Reaper IFF to the Council or the Alliance and let THEM have the base? An obvious solution many would have preferred, right. Here it is different. I'm sure you don't have a better option at hand. You just wish for a better option. There is no obligation for reality to conform to your wishes.

Call Hackett. Explore the Crucible. Do anything.
If it comes down to it, warn the fleet that the Crucible is a Reaper trap. Attempt to destroy the Presidium tower and perhaps that will destroy the Catalyst and confuse the Reapers. ANYTHING.

And what if the result was "You lose! The Reapers win"? Would you be satisfied? Because that's what's implied by the setup: You can try anything of course, but reality does not have to conform to your wish that "anything else" will work.

This is Mass Effect, not an existential trip into the inevitability of failure.

Let there be a way to avoid destroying the relays in one of the options, and the ending setup won't feel like a failure any more - then you can weigh the survival of galactic civilization against other benefits, and what you sacrifice is your choice. I have hopes for the EC in that regard. The relay destruction is an arbitrary side effect, it fits the Destroy option but it's unnecessary as a forced result of all the options. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 avril 2012 - 08:58 .

[General User]

I'm also on the "what makes the Catalyst worth listening to?" train.

It picked up on a "problem" that doesn't really exist and used the most horrific methods possible to implement a "solution" that doesn't actually solve anything at all.

Modifié par General User, 19 avril 2012 - 08:56 .

[MisterJB]

KingZayd wrote...
Also synthesis is an improvement? tell that to saren and all those people that were turned into husks.

Oh, for the love of... you can't compare the two.
Husks was subjugation of organics by synthetics.
Synthesis is a symbiotic relationship between organics and synthetics.

[KingZayd]

BattleVisor wrote...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

This was one of my first thoughts.. what if all three choices were traps? After all, who makes a machine that is activated only when a tube is shot at? Nobody considered a button? Along with the "You have choice, more than you know" thing, that made me reload the game and spent ages searching desperately for the 4th option. That's another sign that the starchild is a damned liar.

Modifié par KingZayd, 19 avril 2012 - 08:57 .

[Mr.House]

The Shepard in the ending is not my Shepard, as she would not act like that at all. That is Biowares stupid Shepard who gives up and accepts Starbrats solutions. I don't liek that Shepard, she looks like Fiona, but she does not act like her at all.

Modifié par Mr.House, 19 avril 2012 - 09:00 .

[NoUserNameHere]

balmyrian wrote...

Shepard is broken at that point. There is no more "Shepard", just a soldier.

This much is made extensively clear in the writing and the entire game foreshadows that point where "too much is too much", even for Shepard. We get a much more emotional characters who's going through a lot more inner struggle while sticking to the "I'm just a soldier" line.

Now is it the toll of War or is it both War and struggle against indoctrination? Who knows. Same result either way.

I didn't like the ending either, but I feel that a bit too many people have been made obstuse and pigheaded by the ending debacle.

The problem I have with this is that, while some Shepard's could be 'broken,' not all Shepards would.

Let's look at a pure Paragon and pure Renegade Shep -- and with the 2 dialog options in every conversation, the game wants you to go pure Paragon or Renegade: 

A pure Paragon, played through all three games, is a being of pure principle A pure Renegade runs on pure willpower. It's their one note, really. These characters break when they die, or when the player decides they snap. This is why they resist Morinth's mind control when other, more ballanced Sheps blindly start following along with her words.

To have them get broken by the image of one kid they saw at a distance, then had two lines of dialog with later before seeing their transport get roasted is pure railroading. Not storyline railroading, as in 'you have to work with Cerberus, because this is where the game's conflict stems from.' This is telling the player how they feel, which just doesn't work.

Modifié par NoUserNameHere, 19 avril 2012 - 08:57 .

[PsyrenY]

a.m.p wrote...


In-universe, for Shepard the only confirmation that these options will stop the cycle is the word of the being that started the cycle. And she's told she'd die in all three, so she won't even see the consequences of what she does.

How much blood do you need to lose to not see a problem with that?

Enough to realize that you have no choice?

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here it is different. I'm sure you don't have a better option at hand. You just wish for a better option. There is no obligation for reality to conform to your wishes.

Again, this. Ieldra's right on the money.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

You have a handgun, not a dreadnought - and even if you can reach Hackett from Starkid's room,

It's not a room, it's the underside of the tower. No I don't know how you're breathing without any visible mass effect fields.

you have no guarantee that blowing up the tower will take the kid out, or even if doing so will have any effect on the Reapers at all.

There's no guarantee, but look at it from an in-universe perspective, there's no guarantee any options the Reaper king gives will actually work. From Shepard's perspective it's *all* a gamble, and my Shepard would rather gamble on her own and her allies' abilities and not the word of Space Hitler.

Unfortunately, he may not deserve the power he wields - but the fact that he wields it is evident. You don't have to like it.

I don't question his power, I question his wisdom.

[wright1978]

MisterJB wrote...

Synthesis is a symbiotic relationship between organics and synthetics.

You mean the collectors. Lobotomised protheans, that's a fun solution.

Edit: Apologies KingZayd

Modifié par wright1978, 19 avril 2012 - 09:05 .

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

All right, that's meta-reasoning. The in-world perspective is that you have limited time to explore different possibilities. If you had a horde of scientists you might be able to recalibrate the Crucible, but you haven't. If you wait too long you lose. The situation tells you "Either we lose or I take one of the three options". 

Shepard doesn't know that. The only one claiming there's a need to hurry is, again, the Catalyst.
So call Hackett. See if something can be worked out.

In the end, it's in the hand of the writers to present us with options. And it is only a failure if you, the player, can come up with plausible options while Shepard can't. That was the situation at the end of ME2. Why the hell couldn't we give the Reaper IFF to the Council or the Alliance and let THEM have the base? An obvious solution many would have preferred, right. Here it is different. I'm sure you don't have a better option at hand. You just wish for a better option. There is no obligation for reality to conform to your wishes.

That's easy, because Cerberus already had copies of the IFF and were about to reach the base. You see images of their ships jumping in moments after the suicide mission. See, Mass Effect 2, for all it's convolution, has proper explanations for things.

And what if the result was "You lose! The Reapers win"? Would you be satisfied? Because that's what's implied by the setup: You can try anything of course, but reality does not have to conform to your wish that "anything else" will work.

I don't believe we were losing. Not with max EMS. I think there could be a chance for multiple scenarios to play out.
They don't, due to awful writing railroading us into following this psychopath.

Let there be a way to avoid destroying the relays in one of the options, and the ending setup won't feel like a failure any more - then you can weight the survival of galactic civilization against other benefits, and what you sacrifice is your choice. I have hopes for the EC in that regard. The relay destruction is an arbitrary side effect, unnecessary as a forced result of all the options. 

I need more than that. I need my Shepard to stand up and find a way to defeat the Reapers, not work for them.

[a.m.p]

MisterJB wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
Also synthesis is an improvement? tell that to saren and all those people that were turned into husks.

Oh, for the love of... you can't compare the two.
Husks was subjugation of organics by synthetics.
Synthesis is a symbiotic relationship between organics and synthetics.

Again - says the catalyst.
We and Shepard don't have any idea what synthesis is. In fact it directly contradicts everyting Shepard knows about their universe and the closest thing resembling it that they know of are, yes, husks. And it's offered by the entity that controls the reapers. Hell, if the catalys was the crucible AI that at least said it had nothing to do with the reapers - then we could maybe start considering his options.

[Vox Draco]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I'm sorry, but THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS! That this is the Catalyst's opinion has no bearing on the matter. Someone's opinion doesn't change reality, your insistence that there must be another option just because you don't trust the entity that presents them to you is naive. Sometimes, reality is at it seems.

Shepard may ask a million times and distrust the Catalyst all he wants, he may shoot at the Catalyst a million times, it is all irrelevant if there are really no other options.

And here is one onf the main complaints about the entire ending...the missing fourth option. It's neither our nor Shepard's fault that the obvious fourth option wasn't implemented, Bioware is to blame...They simply deny US and Shepard this option, the one option I am sure almost EVERYONE would choose...maybe that's the reason why they left it out...

So easy, really...Shepard listens to all what the Kid has to say, nods with feigned interest, smiles at Kiddy like you would when in the same room as a psychopathic mass-murderer...and...then she calls Hackett (the radio still works after all), tells him that she needs a quick pick-up (success based on high EMS) and that the fleet should forget about the crucible and concentrate fire on the citadel instead, because the one controling the reapers is on board...or in fact IS the citadel? Ah who cares...

Shep barely escapes, the kid looks puzzled one last time, the citadel and the AI blows up, the Reapers as well, and so the galaxy and Shepard's INTEGRITY (a fine word!) as a galactic hero would be still intact...

Now THAT would be the way for Shepard to solve this problem!

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
Also synthesis is an improvement? tell that to saren and all those people that were turned into husks.

Oh, for the love of... you can't compare the two.
Husks was subjugation of organics by synthetics.
Synthesis is a symbiotic relationship between organics and synthetics.

"The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither!"

Do I have to say who said this...?

[KingZayd]

Modifié par KingZayd, 19 avril 2012 - 09:07 .

[KingKhan03]

ME1- Destroy the Reapers.
ME2- Destroy the Reapers.
ME3- Synthesis, or Control the Reapears. lol whut?

[macrocarl]

Shep was real tired, bleeding out, hadn't had a wink of good sleep and was whacked out because of this.

[N7Infernox]

Optimystic_X wrote...

a.m.p wrote...


In-universe, for Shepard the only confirmation that these options will stop the cycle is the word of the being that started the cycle. And she's told she'd die in all three, so she won't even see the consequences of what she does.

How much blood do you need to lose to not see a problem with that?

Enough to realize that you have no choice?

you're forgetting choice #4 --- let Shepard die of blood loss. The straightforward "Reapers win" ending we never got.