472 réponses à ce sujet

[Eain]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Eain wrote...

Alright well then riddle me this: why does Control not also allow control of the Geth? Accepting the fact that neither the red nor blue endings are in fact space magic (I think that the only true qualifier for space magic is synthesis, as blue is just a visualisation of a control signal and red is just an explosion if you will), we have to ask ourselves why it is that the signal emitted by control is advanced enough to claim the fused-together minds of the species in Reaper hulls, and thus the Reaper code, but ignores the comparatively simple 1's and 0's of Geth programming.

If the red option is somehow harmful to anything that could be classified an AI, then why is the blue option not? Nevermind the fact that we're never given elaboration on how the energy waves work exactly, even if we focus just on the Geth being a victim of the red choice but not of the blue one, we're seeing a lack of consistency. That makes me feel the Geth's inclusion in red is arbitrary, and therefore yes, it could've just aswell been the Turians or Salarians or any other race.

The mechanism itself seems to be different.  The Red option needn't only be harmful to anything that could be classified as an AI.  If you have Low EMS, the destroy ending obliterates organics too (see: people getting disintegrated on Earth).  This is also indicated by the fact that Shepard's death is also dependant on the EMS score.

Just like how the mechanism for the synthesis affects different beings.


As for "why" the control ending doesn't affect the Geth, I have no good answer.

That makes some sense, I suppose. But indeed it still leaves control unexplained.

Still interested in your take on one particular hypothetical I posed, though: if we ever do create synthetic life and self-aware AI, how do you think they would feel about our (perhaps rudimentary) treatment of them in Mass Effect?

Modifié par Eain, 27 avril 2012 - 04:37 .

[XTR3M3]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's a challenge if you're wanting to make a full trilogy, for sure. I think the idea works better if you're not planning on making a sequel, or if you're using the setting in different ways for sequels (like Dragon Age)

I would think that any new ME universe game would not be able to run concurrently to what happened in the current trilogy and be successful. I just can't see how being anything other than Commander Shepard during the events of ME1 - ME3 would be popular. I can definitely see possibilities for stuff in the past like KOTOR did to the Star Wars universe or something after the ....ending.....of ME3 where a new PC rebuilds. The only problem with that is how are they going to top the reapers for an enemy? Anything less than a reaper threat would feel like just a side mission.

[stysiaq]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The mechanism itself seems to be different.  The Red option needn't only be harmful to anything that could be classified as an AI.  If you have Low EMS, the destroy ending obliterates organics too (see: people getting disintegrated on Earth).  This is also indicated by the fact that Shepard's death is also dependant on the EMS score.

Just like how the mechanism for the synthesis affects different beings.


As for "why" the control ending doesn't affect the Geth, I have no good answer.

For me the answer was given here already - to balance the choices in a simple way, which no one ever given too much of a thought. Red vs Blue is now Shepard possible survival & destroying Reapers vs saving the Geth without choosing Green.

If that's not the case (I dount that), the asymmetry between "Control Reapers" and "Destroy all the synthetic life" is another question without any answer.

as for the threads topic: Yes, I don't think that any choice is a viable one. I choose either the peak of stupidity in writing (Green), giving up the greatest achievement in game (Geth-Quarian peace), or let the Reapers escape without even knowing what "control" means (Blue). And each choice means surrendering core game themes to a lamest last-minute character ever.

[Zolt51]

Eain wrote...
Still interested in your take on one particular hypothetical I posed, though: if we ever do create synthetic life and self-aware AI, how do you think they would feel about our (perhaps rudimentary) treatment of them in Mass Effect?

Ok, that's pretty meta as a question. You've actually got my brains in a twist now. More of a twist. Whatever.

I guess they'd... laugh at it. At least if they did then they'd pass Turing test for sure.

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 04:42 .

[Aznable Char]

It just kind of bemuses me that something that betrays proper narrative structure to such a degree is defended as viable .

To be honest I replayed DA2 recently and gosh did I love that game mostly because the thematic elements were present throughout and the conflict of mage vs templar was both in DAO and very explicit in DA2 .

There was no magic panacea at the end of DA2 that somehow turned the themes around .

the problem was not in the lack of choices but that they were non-choices . They were an ending for a different game .

I'm honestly kind of disappointed that Allan chooses to defend such a betrayal of the thematic underpinning that ME had (e.g. [paraphrasing] "I'm just glad we can save the galaxy without killing a few species for once") . Unity , fraternity , peace , and the kind of enlightened humanism that says our technology and human spirit will overcome your little godlike status is betrayed by Shep being duped into a false pseudo religious philosophy of a conflict that was never addressed before .

So many people have already listed why the endings were bad and made excellent videos about it on the level of effective and good storytelling . This was not catharsis , this was betrayal .

I wish they'd gotten people who wrote the endings to DAO to write the Extended Cut .

[sammysoso]

Aznable Char wrote...



the problem was not in the lack of choices but that they were non-choices . They were an ending for a different game .

Correct, those endings belong to Deus Ex

[JustinS1985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I also think it hurts the story quality for sequels because it vastly limits what the devs can do with previous characters. My favorite dragon age character from the entire series was Alistair, but I've accepted he'll never be anything beyond a cameo because he was a possible death from DA:1. The only exception to this I've seen was Mass Effect 3 with Garrus and Tali, and even ME:3 did it with the rest of the ME2 squad. Each one had their own personal quest where you got to meet them and they would wave at you then disappear for the rest of the game. Those quests proceeded almost exactly the same regardless of whether or not that party member was there.

Instead of having everyone killable I'd like to have a few killable so that those who lived can still have a meaningful role in the future stories.

It's a challenge if you're wanting to make a full trilogy, for sure. I think the idea works better if you're not planning on making a sequel, or if you're using the setting in different ways for sequels (like Dragon Age)

Oh definately.  I don't envy the people having to write sequels to "choose your own adventure" stories.  I honestly loved that mass effect just gave the option to have Tali/Garrus not show up if they died in ME2.  I've wondered before on the merits of having a "canon" ending to each game, regardless of how yours ends (think shepard dies ending in ME2 - you see the ending but those decisions aren't imported into the next game.)  It definitely would cut down on people feeling that it is "their" character and their world, but it would also allow us to see the consequences of some major decisions that weren't ever followed up on (morrigans baby, the architect), as well as keep us from getting railroaded into certain decisions because that's where the story needs us to go to set up the sequel (hawke fleeing kirkwall/templar & circle war).  I may just read too much into things though, and I'm pretty sure I'm dropping waaaay too many dragon age references for the mass effect board lol.

[Allan Schumacher]

Eain wrote...

Still interested in your take on one particular hypothetical I posed, though: if we ever do create synthetic life and self-aware AI, how do you think they would feel about our (perhaps rudimentary) treatment of them in Mass Effect?

It's almost an impossible question to answer because I'm not sure what to expect from a genuine AI.

I'm not worried about an AI looking at it and raging at us, if that's what you're curious about.  If they are intelligent enough to assess that our treatment of them is rudimentary, then I'm even less concerned that they'll be bothered with it.

In the end it's still a work of fiction, and any hypothetical AI that gets mad would more likely be mad at the Catalyst rather than see it as a reflection of what humanity thinks about synthetics.  The smarter they get the less likely I think it would be an issue.

[Silpheed58]

Eain wrote...

Silpheed58 wrote...

3. Destroy is the only ending I can accept with the endings being as they are, there is too much openness. To quote the great Spock, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few." As much as I have come to endear EDI and the Geth, what the other two endings do and possible could mean for the galaxy is too high a price compared to the price of losing the latter. And if you think your a horrible person for sacrificing them in destroy, your a far more worse person if you do nothing.

This is great. Now I'm suddenly thinking of Leonard Nimoy as Sentinel Prime and how he had no problem sacrificing Earth to restore Cybertron, and said that exact same line to justify himself.

We could make a whole additional game about Destroy-Shep and what kind of villain he is. It would be about a synthetic species trying to find its place in the galaxy and then a human being comes along and wants to kill them all to save his own people.

A world for a world is one thing, and does not equate many vs. few.  In ME its almost countles vs. finite big difference.

[a.m.p]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I think it's a bit tricky to start reading toooo much into the writer's motivations.  I don't usually comment on them but I will go to bat for my colleagues and say that I do not believe that the endings were intended to come across as statements of condoning racism or genocide or anything like that.  I do think that the goal was to kind of make players think about the consequences of their actions though, and will also say that I think it reflects really well
on the fanbase that does feel that killing the Geth is too high of a cost, or that forcing evolution doesn't seem right, and all those things.

Now I'm probabl just being all dramatic here, but I sort of saw the choices provided at the end as striking me very similiarly to Legion's loyalty mission where it made me think about what I, Allan, really feel about the ramifications of those choices.  Very, very few games have ever made me reflect on the person I am like that.  Though this does open up the ending to critique because the idea of it being a roleplaying game is to allow the character to take on a role while allowing the player to distance himself from it somewhat.

Now I am curious. I have a feeling that there is a lot of disconnect between what the starchild was meant to be and what the audience percieved him to be. How do you, as a player and a Mass Effect fan interpret that character?

Do you feel it is a benevolent entity that is generally on our side and presents us with the three choices? Or is it an ancient mad AI, whose mistake we are supposed to rectify by activating the crucible and rebooting the galaxy? Or do you think it is the chief reaper with whom we are for whatever reason forced to make a deal?

Because the ending did make me think too. A lot of moments in Bioware games do make me think, that's why I play them. My general thought process this time went along these lines: here is my enemy who says a lot of nonsense and wants me to kill myself and destroy my civilization to solve this problem that I don't think is a problem. What would I do in that situation? I would not do what my enemy wants me to do. But I don't get the option to.

Modifié par a.m.p, 27 avril 2012 - 06:06 .

[Darth Spike]

I agree with the OP because the choices (or lake there of) with the catalyst are complete crap. I'd rather let the reapers win or the game to go unfinished then choose one of the crap endings BW gave us.

[Silpheed58]

Darth Spike wrote...

I agree with the OP because the choices (or lake there of) with the catalyst are complete crap. I'd rather let the reapers win or the game to go unfinished then choose one of the crap endings BW gave us.

Little girl: "But Mr. I dont want to die...
Shepard: "Too bad, ya lil brat! If the Geth die whats the point of saving anyone else!"

Modifié par Silpheed58, 27 avril 2012 - 07:04 .

[hippanda]

I think the problem with the endings as they stand is that they're currently weighted a little too far against "the ending you thought you wanted might have undesirable consequences, so please consider one of these alternatives" and too far toward "the ending you thought you wanted might have undesirable consequences, so please stare at the game in disgust before turning it off in a fit of rage."

I believe the reason why comes down to a simple cost/benefit analysis of each ending. I also believe this analysis explains why the developers' goals (dissuading people from overwhelmingly picking "destroy") ultimately failed (at least according to every poll I've seen on the topic, including the one in my signature) due to execution.

Control
Cost(s): Shepard dies + relays explode (but not as catastrophically as they do in synthesis or destroy)

Benefit(s): Citadel remains intact. Shepard controls the Reapers.
(Uncertainty: Or does s/he? I mean, s/he's dead, so how does s/he control the reapers? How do we even know if s/he's capable of maintaining control over the reapers for any meaningful length of time? There is a lot of uncertainty here after the realization that Shepard's will is not insurmountable (TIM forces him/her to shoot Anderson), but that's not necessarily a bad thing if some of the other questions surrounding this ending are answered).

Synthesis
Cost(s): Shepard dies + Reapers remain completely unchecked + relays & citadel explode

Benefit(s): Organics and synthetics merge and ascend to "the final evolution of life."
(Uncertainty: Ignoring for a moment that the statement "the final evolution of life" is nonsensical, we're still left wondering if said benefit is even a benefit at all. The only point of comparison we as the players have for this philosophy in action are the Reapers. They constantly refer to themselves as the final evolution of life, and we know that they are a "synthesis" of organic and synthetic parts, too, but from an outsider's perspective this does not seem to be a favorable condition - they appear to be technologically stagnant and culturally dead. Why would I ever want to choose this? There is also the moral ambiguity of the "solution" - forcing everyone in the galaxy to evolve against their will - but, like the ambiguity of control's long-term efficacy, I don't think this is a problem so long as the other concerns are addressed.

Destroy
Cost(s): Shepard dies (low EMS) + Geth die (& EDI?) + everyone on Earth dies (low EMS) + citadel & relays explode

Benefit(s): Shepard survives (high EMS). The reapers are destroyed.


You'll notice that there's no uncertainty revolving around the benefit(s) of the destroy ending (unlike control + synthesis). The only uncertainty that ending has is in one of its "cost(s)" (whether or not EDI is capable of surviving (is it a bug? is it just an internet rumor that took hold? who knows?)). This probably explains why, despite the developers' best efforts, "destroy" remains king (again, all polls I've seen have indicated that the overwhelming majority of respondents still picked the destroy ending despite the high "cost(s)" associated with it).

Now like I said, not all uncertainty is bad, and I don't think the distinction is even too difficult to make. Take the control ending, for example. Speculation concerning Shepard's ability to maintain control over the Reapers in the long-term is what I would consider "healthy speculation," but speculation concerning whether or not it even worked to begin with is pretty clearly "unhealthy speculation." The player has very real reasons to believe that the ending simply won't work at all (chiefly among them being the "Shepard is *dead*" revelation, but also including the fact that every dialogue Shepard had with TIM was completely dismissive of the idea).

This wouldn't even be that difficult to fix - simply remove the "you will die" line and give the control ending a high EMS "easter egg" scene like the destroy ending got. The purpose of the scene would be to convey to the player a sense of hope that Shepard really does still exist, at least in some form, and that s/he has at least a fighting chance of maintaining control.

Here's an example: the camera pans over a ruined Presidium and comes to rest on an Avina platform. The camera gets closer to the platform, and you hear the classic "Welcome to the Presidium. Allow m* to be y**r g* ---." The hologram cuts in and out toward the end, interchangeably replacing itself with an image of Shepard until Shepard's image takes hold. You see Shepard briefly look around before ultimately looking down at his/her hands (perhaps in despair, or perhaps merely evaluating the realities of his/her new condition). The hologram of Shepard cuts out, with Avina reappearing in its place.

The synthesis ending could be "fixed" through similar means. Basically, the player needs to know that this "merging of organic and synthetic life" is somehow fundamentally different from the Reapers' condition. Again, speculation about the moral ambiguity of the ending = "healthy," speculating as to whether you turned everyone in the galaxy into proto-reapers = "unhealthy."


For the purposes of this post, I didn't include the Normandy crash scene or the Catalyst as a character into my analysis. They don't really fit the cost/benefit structure, especially since they "happen" in all cases no matter what you do, but it's worth noting that these are very real (and large) sources of fan discontent. I also didn't include any mentioning of the "organic vs. synthetic // singularity" issue, which, again, most of the fans seem to have rejected (although, for the sake of completion, you could add resolving said "issue" under synthesis' "benefit(s)," while placing its lack of resolution under "cost(s)" for control + destroy).

Modifié par hippanda, 27 avril 2012 - 08:10 .

[Noelemahc]

Silpheed58 wrote...

Darth Spike wrote...

I agree with the OP because the choices (or lake there of) with the catalyst are complete crap. I'd rather let the reapers win or the game to go unfinished then choose one of the crap endings BW gave us.

Little girl: "But Mr. I dont want to die...
Shepard: "Too bad, ya lil brat! If the Geth die whats the point of saving anyone else!"

The sad part is, this would'a been a BETTER ending than what we have now. The ME3 ending suffers horribly from depersonalization, the exact kind against which Mordin advocated when he mentioned his nephew (can't provide direct quote off the top of my head; also it's been quoted to the death in almost every ending-related thread, you probably recalled it yourself by now). Shepard is making a decision in the here and now, sure. But that here and now is where the game ENDS. We don't get to experience how it affects ANYTHING. We get but a glimpse of our teammates, and there's nothing personal about what we see. They could be random bystanders a-la Surrogates ending, just there to make a crowd that does something that vaguely references what the hero has chosen (and because of Saren knows what, they only do that in Synthesis, as EDI has been reported as sighted alive and well after Destroy, which sorta negates its main drawback).

Now I am curious. I have a feeling that there is a lot of disconnect between what the starchild was meant to be and what the audience percieved him to be. How do you, as a player and a Mass Effect fan interpret that character?

I would like to know this also. If only because this will tell us, in a roundabout indirect way, whether the Dragon Age team will know to avoid such pitfalls in their future work.

I believe the reason why comes down to a simple cost/benefit analysis of each ending. I also believe this analysis explains why the developers' goals (dissuading people from overwhelmingly picking "destroy") ultimately failed (at least according to every poll I've seen on the topic, including the one in my signature) due to execution.

You've got a great breakdown there.

I believe that's what they were trying to tell us by Garrus's repeated monologues on the positive elements of being a cold calculating tyrant ("They get things done?" - "They can live with the consequences."), and the infuriatingly endless stream of "You cannot save everyone". Y U LET ME SAVE EVERYONE UNTIL THESSIA THEN?

The narrative is slightly broken in that regard -- you clearly CAN save everyone on Tuchanka, except for Victus Jr, and it was largely his own fault, you CAN save everyone on Rannoch, except for Legion, and that's a grim necessity that was very well handled. After that, the freedom and working towards a Golden Ending is tossed out the window in favour of a rising sense of grimdark that cannot be alleviated, reasoned with or stopped.  I mean, sure, it enhances the sensation that we're fighting a losing war, but it also serves to amalgamate your Shepard into a black-and-white situation. No matter what you do, you lose. There is no winning move.

London suffers from the same hopping-of-attitude issue. Like a kangaroo on a sugar rush, we get depression ("I can barely recognize it"), optimism ("Cain, woot! Die, Hades Cannon, die! DIE, BANSHEE, DIE!"), depression (the opressively gory medical things we are told, overhear and read in the FOB), optimism AND depression (the goodbye speeches), small bit of optimism (Shepard's rather bland speech) and then a rising train of depression that doesn't let up until the Stargazer. Because, seriously, out of the entire musical range of the Faunts, BioWare had to pick the MOST depressing instrumental song? Seriously?

Modifié par Noelemahc, 27 avril 2012 - 07:33 .

[brusher225]

I don't even want to talk to some nosensical, translucent, star kid who came from nowhere, much less be forced to pick any of his A,B, or C options that make no sense.

[Eain]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Eain wrote...

Still interested in your take on one particular hypothetical I posed, though: if we ever do create synthetic life and self-aware AI, how do you think they would feel about our (perhaps rudimentary) treatment of them in Mass Effect?

It's almost an impossible question to answer because I'm not sure what to expect from a genuine AI.

I'm not worried about an AI looking at it and raging at us, if that's what you're curious about.  If they are intelligent enough to assess that our treatment of them is rudimentary, then I'm even less concerned that they'll be bothered with it.

In the end it's still a work of fiction, and any hypothetical AI that gets mad would more likely be mad at the Catalyst rather than see it as a reflection of what humanity thinks about synthetics.  The smarter they get the less likely I think it would be an issue.

Interesting response. I think I agree with you though. The reason I asked was mostly because of the fact that I think that if you write sci-fi with this topic you have a sort of responsibility towards the future. Human ingenuity is boundless and we have a desire to explore to match. To me it's almost a given that there will one day be true AI walking about, even if we don't really know in what sort of incarnation. Right now it's still fiction, but I find it hard to believe that someone who's fascinated with the synthetic vs organic subject  would casually dismiss it as a fantasy that will never come to be. The fascination itself implies acknowledgement of a future existential struggle, if you get me.

I'm not really sure what point I was trying to make here, it's just a thought that fascinated me personally. Thanks for humouring me.

[hippanda]

a.m.p wrote...

A lot of moments in Bioware games do make me think, that's why I play them. My general thought process this time went along these lines: here is my enemy who says a lot of nonsense and wants me to kill myself and destroy my civilization to solve this problem that I don't think is a problem. What would I do in that situation? I would not do what my enemy wants me to do. But I don't get the option to.

Yeah, this.

I'm not sure if it's even possible to salvage that character. As the avatar of the Reapers, the player cannot trust the information it provides us, and yet that is exactly what Bioware set that character up to do - provide us with information about the Crucible. This just doesn't work at all on a fundamental level.

Modifié par hippanda, 27 avril 2012 - 08:24 .

[Allan Schumacher]

a.m.p wrote...

Now I am curious. I have a feeling that there is a lot of disconnect between what the starchild was meant to be and what the audience percieved him to be. How do you, as a player and a Mass Effect fan interpret that character?

Do you feel it is a benevolent entity that is generally on our side and presents us with the three choices? Or is it an ancient mad AI, whose mistake we are supposed to rectify by activating the crucible and rebooting the galaxy? Or do you think it is the chief reaper with whom we are for whatever reason forced to make a deal?

Because the ending did make me think too. A lot of moments in Bioware games do make me think, that's why I play them. My general thought process this time went along these lines: here is my enemy who says a lot of nonsense and wants me to kill myself and destroy my civilization to solve this problem that I don't think is a problem. What would I do in that situation? I would not do what my enemy wants me to do. But I don't get the option to.

I don't think the Catalyst is benevolent nor malevolent.  I feel the Catalyst is imperfect though, and for whatever reason it believes that there is an innate problem with respect to Synthetics and Organics, and it feels its solution is necessary to prevent the destruction of all life.  Why it feels this way we don't know, and unless the EC expands dialogue with it I doubt we will know.

I don't think he's a Reaper in the way that Sovereign or Harbinger are there.  I think he just the creator, and one that believes it knows best but ultimately is imperfect.  I think that Shepard's ability to survive, the variability of the Crucible's effectiveness based on EMS, and the resolution of the Geth-Quarian conflict are things that exist to help doubt the Catalyst.

I don't trust him though, and I am leery about Control and Synthesis as being traps.

[Noelemahc]

I don't think he's a Reaper in the way that Sovereign or Harbinger are there. I think he just the creator, and one that believes it knows best but ultimately is imperfect. I think that Shepard's ability to survive, the variability of the Crucible's effectiveness based on EMS, and the resolution of the Geth-Quarian conflict are things that exist to help doubt the Catalyst.

I don't trust him though, and I am leery about Control and Synthesis as being traps.

Well, at least we're on the same page as you are, apparently =)

I'm still sad that we don't get the option to even TRY to call him on his supposed infallibility, just as we don't get the option to TRY to talk down Han'Gerrel even if we didn't get the Para/Rene dialogue options at the resolution of Rannoch. We CAN TRY TO TALK MORDIN DOWN. Why can't we do it for the other situations which are only resolved/dealth with with words? What happened to the BioWare staple of :

"* I will do it, Masters.
* {Lie} I will do it, Masters.
* {Persuade} I will do it, Masters.
* {Intelligence} I know how to do it, Masters,"

Remember that one? Not an exact replica, but the point persists -- it feels somewhat that the company that made KotOR isn't the same one that made ME3. Which is sad, really. Would've helped set up the grimdark somewhat better if the futility of our actions bled into everything Shepard did, instead of surfacing in the initial doubts ("What if we just spend our last days pointlessly runnning around the galaxy?") and then hiding underwater until after Thessia?

In any case,

Why it feels this way we don't know, and unless the EC expands dialogue with it I doubt we will know.

Actually, I think it's best if we don't know. Any further attempts at rationalizing Reapers at this point will only make it worse. See where the initial attempt got us? Why couldn't they stay those unknowable malevolent machine gods? Why did they have to be turned into servants of a corrupt system which they themselves apparently cannot comprehend. It's almost as if they've formed a cargo cult around what little they recall of the Maker and their core programming, and the Catalyst is apparently OK with that. Which may have been a nice story direction... if it wasn't rampant speculation.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 27 avril 2012 - 08:56 .

[Silpheed58]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Now I am curious. I have a feeling that there is a lot of disconnect between what the starchild was meant to be and what the audience percieved him to be. How do you, as a player and a Mass Effect fan interpret that character?

Do you feel it is a benevolent entity that is generally on our side and presents us with the three choices? Or is it an ancient mad AI, whose mistake we are supposed to rectify by activating the crucible and rebooting the galaxy? Or do you think it is the chief reaper with whom we are for whatever reason forced to make a deal?

Because the ending did make me think too. A lot of moments in Bioware games do make me think, that's why I play them. My general thought process this time went along these lines: here is my enemy who says a lot of nonsense and wants me to kill myself and destroy my civilization to solve this problem that I don't think is a problem. What would I do in that situation? I would not do what my enemy wants me to do. But I don't get the option to.

I don't think the Catalyst is benevolent nor malevolent.  I feel the Catalyst is imperfect though, and for whatever reason it believes that there is an innate problem with respect to Synthetics and Organics, and it feels its solution is necessary to prevent the destruction of all life.  Why it feels this way we don't know, and unless the EC expands dialogue with it I doubt we will know.

I don't think he's a Reaper in the way that Sovereign or Harbinger are there.  I think he just the creator, and one that believes it knows best but ultimately is imperfect.  I think that Shepard's ability to survive, the variability of the Crucible's effectiveness based on EMS, and the resolution of the Geth-Quarian conflict are things that exist to help doubt the Catalyst.

I don't trust him though, and I am leery about Control and Synthesis as being traps.

ITS A TRAP!

instanttrap.com/

[Zolt51]

Silpheed58 wrote...

Little girl: "But Mr. I dont want to die...
Shepard: "Too bad, ya lil brat! If the Geth die whats the point of saving anyone else!"

I see what you did there....

approve of it, too!

[Zolt51]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I don't think the Catalyst is benevolent nor malevolent.  I feel the Catalyst is imperfect though, and for whatever reason it believes that there is an innate problem with respect to Synthetics and Organics, and it feels its solution is necessary to prevent the destruction of all life.  Why it feels this way we don't know, and unless the EC expands dialogue with it I doubt we will know.

 
We may not *know* for sure, but extrapolating is possible, without making wild guesses. He feels that way because... something made him feel that way. At some point in his past, I would venture, because if it was his future that would break causality. What that something is I can only infer, but.. synthetics might have something to do with it. Or is that too much speculation?

Allan Schumacher wrote... 
I don't trust him though, and I am leery about Control and Synthesis as being traps.

And right you are! He isn't your friend. Control isn't really a question of whether you trust the Catalyst though. More like whether you trust TIM... his intelligence, if not his motives I mean.

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 11:09 .

[Necrotron]

I totally understand you, OP, and I went the same route myself. In lieu of actually being able to play my Shepard the way I feel he should be able to, I went for option D, turn the game off.

Shepard has no reason to believe the catalyst, and I'm not willing to betray the soul of our species in order to 'win'.

Control is downright foolish, Shepard even says so himself a few lines before you reach the catalyst.

Synthesis is wrong on so many levels, and nothing Shepard set out to achieve at the start of the series. And again, why would I believe the creator of the Reapers again!?

Destroy requires Shepard to become genocidal. Some may argue that cost is justified. My Shepard would rather die with morals intact than sacrifice the entire Geth race for the 'greater good'.

A 4th option would be nice, I suppose, but still make for a pretty darn poor ending.

Modifié par Bathaius, 27 avril 2012 - 11:12 .

[Necrotron]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't trust him though, and I am leery about Control and Synthesis as being traps.

Indeed, which makes the extended cut so curious, because inevitably they have to show the end results of picking these options.

Modifié par Bathaius, 27 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[clos]

Personally, if I ever choose to replay ME3 at this point (not likely) if StarJar is still around I'm just turning off the game. After talking to Anderson and he dies I'm done. The game goes to the sh*tter after that.