249 réponses à ce sujet

[Merengues 1945]

I believe that the stargazer scene disprove your theory... it's supposed to be in the long-term future, maybe a cycle or more later and organics had proven the catalyst wrong... but there's a high price in this.

[DJBare]

Oakshire wrote...


Why do you need evidence?

I don't know, maybe because I'm about to decide the fate of an entire galaxy, just saying.

[Giggles_Manically]

Uhm....no.

No one can know the future, the Geth disprove the Reapers claim, and the ending is still BS.
Just like the OP's theory.

[Stygian1]

Dude. Dafuq are you talking about?

The theme of Synthetic vs organic was introduced in the last four minutes of a hundred hour series--with literally zero forshadowing. Regardless of what the writers' goal was, that was not the theme.

Secondly, there is no proof that synthetic life will always fight (much less destroy) organic life. Look at the Geth and the Quarians! Also, Synthesis is disgusting and racist while control implies that you die to control the Reapers (wut). Destroy is the only option to tell the Starchild he is an idiotic maniac with no purpose for existing, and that he's going to die. right here. right now.

Read a book.

[Kyuso]

OP, there are plenty of arguments that have been presented so far, but consider this:

Why the arbitrary 50,000 year timeline? If the goal is really the preservation of organic life, why eliminate the organics? Why not eliminate the synthetics or wait until organic life is really threatened by synthetics before harvesting? Surely you can agree that the Geth were hardly a threat to all organic life. Additionally, harvesting the organic life but leaving the advanced synthetic life intact would hardly do anything to remove the threat of advanced synthetic life.

It's just a very poorly designed and written ending. It's all well and good you're content to take this Starbrat at face value, but I can't accept something so blatantly illogical.

[N7 Banshee Bait]

d-boy15 wrote...


I see many people try to argue what is the best to protect their endings but the real thing is all ending suck!

Ok!  Then come up with an ending that doesn't suck that the fans will all agree on.  If you're so smart, what do you think the ending should be?  You won't be able to come up with a single thing because no matter what you say the fans will find a reason that it doesn't make sense.  

[ArchDuck]

Steelgrave wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I just love how this person keeps saying that not believing THE BAD GUYS is a bad thing.

I guess the people who thought Saruman and Emperor Palpatine were full of crap were doing it wrong too eh?

This person is saying that there is no way to end the trilogy because the fans won't believe anything!  And they'll argue with everything!  So WTF is Bioware supposed to do??? 

Even if Shepard destroys the Reapers & everybody lives happily ever, you think the fans will be satisfied? There has to be a point to the Reapers, a reason why they were created in the first place. If Shepard simply destroys them it will create a million questions.  Bioware tried to answer some of those questions but the fans won't accept any of them.

The Protheans don't know anything & the fans won't believe anything the "BAD GUYS" say.  Where does that leave us? What is Bioware suposed to do?

Oh I don't know, lets brain storm.

• Have peer review of the endings before releasing them
• Have the information about the choice be found out by crucible scientists or be given by another neutral or trusted source
• Have the catalyst be a simple VI or AI that is not the orginator/controller or whatever of the reapers but just a neutral third party that oversees the citadel
• Not have highly unethical ending choices
• Not have the endings destroy the setting
• Have the crucible weaken the Reapers and allow the galactic forces to be useful and important (focusing the story on the characters and people instead of magic tech)
• Have the crucible be programable instead of multiple choice (build your own end result)

Need more? I put this together in about 2 minutes.

[Ieldra]

OP, it's certainly refreshing to see someone who can take the ending as you do. I agree insofar in that's what the writers wanted to get across:

Destroy: do not believe the Catalyst and potentially risk future extinction at the hands of synthetics (the Catalyst can be wrong about that though. Extinction is not a certainty).

Control: keep your options open, keep the tools to keep the conflict in check in some way.

Synthesis: try to defuse this particular conflict permanently by combining organics and synthetics (though it's naive to think permanent peace will be the result).

The problem is that with the way it's phrased, the whole rationale makes little sense. If synthetics and organics are just two warring parties - Shepard has proven that peace is possible without the cycle and without the Synthesis. If they aren't, i.e. if the conflict is something special - this is insufficiently explained. That's why people can't simply accept it. And the Synthesis is explained in such a nonsensical way that it's hard to take seriously even if you like the basic idea like I do.

I like the final choice, but the execution is abysmal. And the side effects are depressive. That's why people don't want to accept things at face value. Explain the state of things so that it makes sense, and make the consequences less depressing, i.e. don't destroy the universe in all of the endings, and all will be well. I have some hope for the Extended Cut in that regard.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[nrcrane]

Steelgrave wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I just love how this person keeps saying that not believing THE BAD GUYS is a bad thing.

I guess the people who thought Saruman and Emperor Palpatine were full of crap were doing it wrong too eh?

This person is saying that there is no way to end the trilogy because the fans won't believe anything!  And they'll argue with everything!  So WTF is Bioware supposed to do??? 

Even if Shepard destroys the Reapers & everybody lives happily ever, you think the fans will be satisfied? There has to be a point to the Reapers, a reason why they were created in the first place, a reason why we invested hundreds of hours playing. If Shepard simply destroys them it will create a million questions.  Bioware tried to answer some of those questions but the fans won't accept any of them.

The Protheans don't know anything & the fans won't believe anything the "BAD GUYS" say.  Where does that leave us? What is Bioware suposed to do?

I think I am starting to see where you are coming from.  The catalyst says that the cycle must repeat and you believe him that it must be so, because he says so.  Now with the fans view of the ending, you say that because there is an ending that fans don't like it must mean that there can be no ending that will satisfy.

So, because something once was it must always be... well... I disagree

[pro5]

Were YOU listening?

Because, actually, he never explicitly says that choosing Destroy will wipe out all synthetic life. Nor does he clearly say that choosing Destroy will kill Shepard.

Child: I know you've thought about destroying us.
Child: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the geth.
Child: Even you are partially synthetic.
Shepard: But the reapers will be destroyed?
Child: Yes. But the peace won't last.
Child: Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back.
Shepard: Maybe.

Ohaeri wrote...

You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Are you likely to want? Well, no, but you do show the capabilities of killing all synthetics, since you're capable of killing the Reapers ("us"). Similarly, the child mentions that you are partially synthetic near to implying that choosing destroy will wipe out all synthetic life.

Putting these two statements in close proximity creates the strong impression that this choice will kill Shepard, but it never reiterates clearly what the exact effects of the beam will be, the way it does for other choices. ("You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have." "But the reapers will obey me?" "Yes." and for synthesis: "Everything you are will be absorbed and then sent out . . . the chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new . . . DNA.") The result is a statement that is essentially a quote out of context that plays on Shepard's fear of death and Shepard's loyalty to friends and allies.

It's worth noting that this is the only ending where Shepard lives, which proves that the Star Child's implication that all synthetics would be destroyed is a lie. Specifically, the Star Child is dissembling by omitting key facts--such as the fact that this choice will not kill you--and using technically true statements in close proximity to imply that they are related and true.

OP, no offense, but you're awful quick to trust *something* that:
a) admits to controlling the Reapers, the thing you've been fighting to the death for 3 games,
assumes the form and voice of a long dead kid - the same one who haunted Shepard in his nightmares and represented his guilt and inability to protect innocents from dying. Assuming such form clearly suggests this Reaper mastermind wants to emotionally manipulate Shepard. And it proves he's in your head - how else would he know about the kid and that "you've thought about destroying us" (note the word us).

[Dendio1]

Steelgrave wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Only if you believe that conflict between Organics and Synthetics is inevitable. And the only reason you have to believe that is the Catalyst told you it was.

And the fact that it happens over & over again in every cycle throughout time.  Javik's cycle had the same problem. And the one before that, and the onebefore that..  You have to be completely out of touch with reality to believe it won't happen again. An optimistic daydreamer that believes in fairytales & happy endings. In other words, a complete IDIOT!

Calling people idiots is out of line. You should feel bad

[Norrax]

blow it out your *** OP.

[Pockydon]

wright1978 wrote...

Should i believe a word that comes out of the mouth of an insane genocidal maniac? No thanks, listening to crazy people is silly. That's why we lock lunatics up rather than making them head of state.

This^

[desertwoman]

I chose destroy. I always figured the Reapers didn't want any organic to create a synthetic more powerful than they. Tis probably why they dismantled all the synthetic life forms after each cycle. I would've loved to see all the different synthetics created and probably assimalted into the Reaper code.

[Stygian1]

Steelgrave wrote...

d-boy15 wrote...


I see many people try to argue what is the best to protect their endings but the real thing is all ending suck!

Ok!  Then come up with an ending that doesn't suck that the fans will all agree on.  If you're so smart, what do you think the ending should be?  You won't be able to come up with a single thing because no matter what you say the fans will find a reason that it doesn't make sense.  

Ok, how about one where the crucible fires how it was intended and only kills the Reapers, no one teleports to Giligan's island, and everyone lives happily ever after. With the option of failing totally with low EMS. 

Done. A three year old could best your challenge. 

[ArchDuck]

Pockydon wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Should i believe a word that comes out of the mouth of an insane genocidal maniac? No thanks, listening to crazy people is silly. That's why we lock lunatics up rather than making them head of state.

This^

I would have said not allowing them free in society instead of locking them up. One implies some manner of public safety concern and possible treatment and the other punishment, at least to me.

[N7 Banshee Bait]

Stygian1 wrote...

Dude. Dafuq are you talking about?

The theme of Synthetic vs organic was introduced in the last four minutes of a hundred hour series 

Did you even play ME1? Did you hear anything Saren said? Did you hear anything Sovereign or Harbinger said? Did you hear anything Tali or Legion said? Did you hear anything Javik said about his cycle? Did you hear anything they said in the Collector base?  Did you hear anything EDI said?  Did you hear anything The Illusive Man said? 

The entire series is about synthetics vs organics.

[Kreid]

Stygian1 wrote...

Dude. Dafuq are you talking about?

The theme of Synthetic vs organic was introduced in the last four minutes of a hundred hour series--with literally zero forshadowing. Regardless of what the writers' goal was, that was not the theme.

I disagree, there are a lot of instances of organic vs synthetics throughout the series.

Shepard vs the Reapers
The rogue AI on the presidium
Hannibal VI/AI in luna
Killer VI's infected by a virus in ME2
Geth vs Quarians
EDI rebelling against Cerberus after Joker unshackles her
Project Overlord

And I'm sure there's some more around.

Mr.House wrote...

Bioware explained the motivation of the Reapers and it was horrible. They ruined the Reapers. They should have never explained it or who built them in the first place.

I don't think so, it's just that their reasons weren't specially good, had BioWare writters come up with a better reason people would've been om with knowing.

[Abreu Road]

That's their problem with the Yo Dawg explanation.

No matter what you choose, in this universe synthetics always will rise up against organics. Even on synthesis ending. Will an amalgam of synthetics and organics prevent synthetics to killing them? We are all organics, and yet, this fact did not prevent wars, killing and so many **** in human history. Synthesis would only create a new kind of species that eventually would be killed by synthetics.

[Stygian1]

Dendio1 wrote...

Steelgrave wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Only if you believe that conflict between Organics and Synthetics is inevitable. And the only reason you have to believe that is the Catalyst told you it was.

And the fact that it happens over & over again in every cycle throughout time.  Javik's cycle had the same problem. And the one before that, and the onebefore that..  You have to be completely out of touch with reality to believe it won't happen again. An optimistic daydreamer that believes in fairytales & happy endings. In other words, a complete IDIOT!

Calling people idiots is out of line. You should feel bad

Steelgrave is obviously flamemongering, though quite poorly. He also doesn't seem to grasp that we have no proof the synthetic uprisings have ever happened in any other cycle. BioWare even managed to destroy their own proof when they said the Reapers instigated the Synthetic uprising in the Prothean cycle.... 

[ArchDuck]

OP, if you care to make a rebuttal to my post on page 4 I would be happy to listen to your explanation as to why the Catalyst is not a liar and/or delusional.

[Ieldra]

@OP:

You asked for what would be better. This is what I posted in the "suggested changes" thread:

(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. And explain the rationale for the cycle better. The reasoning in the leaked script (the technological singularity as the primary problem) is rather convincing. Why not use that? As opposed to the current explanation, that actually makes some sense

(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.

[RShara]

No, the series is about organics vs organics, and everybody vs the Reapers.
As has been previously stated, Javik's war was due to HYBRIDS, NOT synthetics. And they were winning until the REAPERS took over the hybrids.
Tali and Legion become friends. Therefore, peace IS possible.

And here is a logical fallacy for you.

How do the Reapers KNOW that synthetics WILL wipe out all organic life? Obviously, it has NEVER HAPPENED before, otherwise the galactic races wouldn't be there. Therefore, there is no HISTORICAL PROOF that this will happen.

The Starkid is just blowing smoke.

[The Angry One]

Steelgrave wrote...

Stygian1 wrote...

Dude. Dafuq are you talking about?

The theme of Synthetic vs organic was introduced in the last four minutes of a hundred hour series 

Did you even play ME1? Did you hear anything Saren said? Did you hear anything Sovereign or Harbinger said? Did you hear anything Tali or Legion said? Did you hear anything Javik said about his cycle? Did you hear anything they said in the Collector base?  Did you hear anything EDI said?  Did you hear anything The Illusive Man said? 

The entire series is about synthetics vs organics.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of the B plot.

[Stygian1]

Creid-X wrote...

I disagree, there are a lot of instances of organic vs synthetics throughout the series.

Shepard vs the Reapers
The rogue AI on the presidium
Hannibal VI/AI in luna
Killer VI's infected by a virus in ME2
Geth vs Quarians
EDI rebelling against Cerberus after Joker unshackles her
Project Overlord

And I'm sure there's some more around.

None of these forshadowed to a larger Synthetic uprising.

Meanwhile, the Geth and Quarian arc devolved into the Quarians as the agressors, basicalyl ruining BioWare's primary forshadowing tool for the ending. Secondly, Shepard vs the Reapers does not count as they are the ones acting like they are solving the "problem."

Any VI arguement makes no sense as they aren't true AI's, just defective. EDI rebelled against cerberus to protect her ORGANIC crewmates (go figure). Never played Overlord, but wouldn't be surprised if the AI had some relation to reaper tech.