897 réponses à ce sujet

[Kunari801]

nuculerman wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
Since the problems of synthesis can't be resolved, they're trying to say the geth and EDI don't die so paragons can pick destruction and feel a little better about it.

Which destroys the whole point of the ending.  That would be removing the one aspect of the ending that's even remotely interesting (the fact it's a difficult choice, and we can have these debates about it). 

I'd like to see "Destroy" split up too, with high enough EMS you can choose to kill the Reapers and yourself (Thus saving the Geth & EDI) or sacrifice the Geth & EDI to save yourself.   Sacrifice will still need to be made.  

The issue is they'd need to make that clear in the ending dialogue with starchild, which they've made pretty clear they have no intention of doing.  So all we're getting is a group of cutscenes, one of which will be "just kidding!  Actually destroy was the right choice and starChild lied to you!  Please love us again!"

If they were to rewrite the ending dialogue, I'd agree with your proposal.  Especially with a LI, killing yourself to save the Geth/EDI wouldn't be a straightforward choice, even for non selfish versions of Shepard.   

They said yesterday they, or at least hinted, are going to do more VO work so I hope they change Star-Brat.  He is illogical right now at least make his arguments sensical.    To be honest, my Shepard was prepared (even though I had a LI) to sacrifice himself to save those he loved and cared about to save their hope and their dreams.  

"...Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender..." 

I believe the ending(s) were designed to give the players a hard choice and provoke an emotional response.  What BW gave us killed our hope and our dreams.  


We're left with an ending that feels unsatisfying and provides very little closure with the characters we've grown to know and even love.  

Modifié par Kunari801, 26 avril 2012 - 10:13 .

[nuculerman]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Why do we need a differcult choice,  to show the cost of the war ... really I can do  that easily.  Billions are dead, Billions more in displaced refugees, huge supply shortages, a break down of the law and order due  riots and supply shortages.   Pirates would have a field day, the Ecomony is shambles. the list could go on. 

The Relays nor  sacrificing the Geth or EDI are needed to  show the cost of the Reaper War.    None of  the choices present  get across the  cost of the anything in any meaningful way. 

Because the ending is awful.  It's slightly less awful because the choice is difficult.  Ideally, the whole ending should be changed.  Given that it won't...

If the one change they make is "everyone lives in Destroy," I will lose even more faith in Bioware.  It will show they don't care about fans at all, they just want to keep making money.  It'd be an obvious attempt to please the people complaining the loudest in the hopes it means they'll buy Bioware products again.  It will also show they have absolutely no pride in their work, which adimittedly, they've more or less already shown.

[Mylia Stenetch]

IanPolaris wrote...
We don't even know that.  By picking Synthesis (assuming starbrat is telling the truth mind you), you have just unshacked genocidal machines with no control and no means of control whatsoever.  There is nothing to stop them from wiping everything out and Starbrat never says they won't.

-Polaris

I worded that wrong, I am sorry, all you know as a character (since you die) is that you saved the cycle, this is your last moments thinking. We do not know anything after this, it could be applied to EVERY ENDING. 

[Gill Kaiser]

nuculerman wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
Since the problems of synthesis can't be resolved, they're trying to say the geth and EDI don't die so paragons can pick destruction and feel a little better about it.

Which destroys the whole point of the ending.  That would be removing the one aspect of the ending that's even remotely interesting (the fact it's a difficult choice, and we can have these debates about it). 

But it's difficult choice for an arbitrary reason. There was no reason they had to make Destroy kill the Geth and EDI, or even Shepard. They just tacked it on there. The whole ending is slapped together without any rhyme or reason.

[Velocithon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

fainmaca wrote...

Also, believeing Synthesis would solve anything is just naive. So what if there's 'just life'? We're all 'just Humans' on this planet, but we sure find enough to confront each other about. Unless you forcibly control everyone through this ending, there's no way to guarantee that it ends in peace.

People justify worse to help "save the world". There is no guarantee in any ending that there will peace. The only thing we know is we stopped the reaper invasion for this cycle.

We don't even know that.  By picking Synthesis (assuming starbrat is telling the truth mind you), you have just unshacked genocidal machines with no control and no means of control whatsoever.  There is nothing to stop them from wiping everything out and Starbrat never says they won't.

-Polaris

That's a big problem too.

And who says they'll obey you if choose Control? Sure the little git says so. But again, you JUST met it. You have NO idea what its motivations are. You know nothing about it and didn't ask it anything!

Given how Shepard completely disintegrates when choosing it (while also turning into what looks like an indoctrinated husk), we have no idea what happens! He could've been lied to and simply indoctrinated! The Reapers might have retreated because Shepard was finally "taken care of". We never see Shepard control them. We never actually see what happens to the Reapers after they fly off. Where do they go? WHAT THE **** HAPPENS?

It's just so god awful the more I think about it the madder I get.

[nitefyre410]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
Since the problems of synthesis can't be resolved, they're trying to say the geth and EDI don't die so paragons can pick destruction and feel a little better about it.

Which destroys the whole point of the ending.  That would be removing the one aspect of the ending that's even remotely interesting (the fact it's a difficult choice, and we can have these debates about it). 

But it's difficult choice for an arbitrary reason. There was no reason they had to make Destroy kill the Geth and EDI, or even Shepard. They just tacked it on there. The whole ending is slapped together without any rhyme or reason.

 

^ exactly  

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

anorling wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Seryl wrote...

Both options are wrong. Were I put in that postion, the only moral thing
to do would be to abstain. It is not for me, or anybody else, to make
that choice.

This.  Though I posted I would push the button, that was under the assumption one thing or the other was going to happen.

And as someone else jokingly pointed out, we do have a moral choice.  Turn the game off, and pretend our Shepard's answer to "which 3" was simply "no."  However, as it's a game, and I want to finish it, I chose one of the three.

I did just that. Turn the game off. I've never finished it. And I don't think I ever will. Stopped after Cronos Station. I would however choose destroy if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to finish the game.

Quit game after Anderson dies and I use "Head Canon"

If your audience must head canon Bioware please be aware that you have failed in the speculation department. You have FAILED to provide information to speculate upon.

Perhaps BW intended for the "Synthesis" choice to mean that the player is choosing to synthesize their head canon with canon to create their own ending.

[Taboo]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
Since the problems of synthesis can't be resolved, they're trying to say the geth and EDI don't die so paragons can pick destruction and feel a little better about it.

Which destroys the whole point of the ending.  That would be removing the one aspect of the ending that's even remotely interesting (the fact it's a difficult choice, and we can have these debates about it). 

But it's difficult choice for an arbitrary reason. There was no reason they had to make Destroy kill the Geth and EDI, or even Shepard. They just tacked it on there. The whole ending is slapped together without any rhyme or reason.

 

^ exactly  

Tacked on is a good word. They didn't cause speculation.........they caused something else entirely.

God. Cimino didn't even have this much of a mess with Heaven's Gate.

[Skull Bearer]

nuculerman wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Why do we need a differcult choice,  to show the cost of the war ... really I can do  that easily.  Billions are dead, Billions more in displaced refugees, huge supply shortages, a break down of the law and order due  riots and supply shortages.   Pirates would have a field day, the Ecomony is shambles. the list could go on. 

The Relays nor  sacrificing the Geth or EDI are needed to  show the cost of the Reaper War.    None of  the choices present  get across the  cost of the anything in any meaningful way. 

Because the ending is awful.  It's slightly less awful because the choice is difficult.  Ideally, the whole ending should be changed.  Given that it won't...

If the one change they make is "everyone lives in Destroy," I will lose even more faith in Bioware.  It will show they don't care about fans at all, they just want to keep making money.  It'd be an obvious attempt to please the people complaining the loudest in the hopes it means they'll buy Bioware products again.  It will also show they have absolutely no pride in their work, which adimittedly, they've more or less already shown.

The problem with the sacrifices at the end it that they're all so arbitrary. There is not reason to sacrifice the Geth or EDI or even the Mass Relays, other than because the Reaperkid says so. Contrast with the Virmire choice or the Batarian Relay, where it's made very clear you have no choice through actions and evidence. As it is, it just looks like the Reaperkid is enjoying one last moment of spite at the galaxy's expense.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
Since the problems of synthesis can't be resolved, they're trying to say the geth and EDI don't die so paragons can pick destruction and feel a little better about it.

Which destroys the whole point of the ending.  That would be removing the one aspect of the ending that's even remotely interesting (the fact it's a difficult choice, and we can have these debates about it). 

But it's difficult choice for an arbitrary reason. There was no reason they had to make Destroy kill the Geth and EDI, or even Shepard. They just tacked it on there. The whole ending is slapped together without any rhyme or reason.

To me they needed to say here, there is a chance of Geth lose, lose of EDI, and you. Make it something on the idea to question properly, thus tying that you need high War Assests to avoid this. It would of put some concequence in there without being blantantly dumbed down. Also forgot this part, you would refute that point since you should be able to see it as a lie with good insight.

Modifié par Mylia Stenetch, 26 avril 2012 - 10:08 .

[nitefyre410]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

*snip* 

Perhaps BW intended for the "Synthesis" choice to mean that the player is choosing to synthesize their head canon with canon to create their own ending.

 

Put those emergency induction ports back...  Tali needs those  

Modifié par nitefyre410, 26 avril 2012 - 10:06 .

[IanPolaris]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
Since the problems of synthesis can't be resolved, they're trying to say the geth and EDI don't die so paragons can pick destruction and feel a little better about it.

Which destroys the whole point of the ending.  That would be removing the one aspect of the ending that's even remotely interesting (the fact it's a difficult choice, and we can have these debates about it). 

But it's difficult choice for an arbitrary reason. There was no reason they had to make Destroy kill the Geth and EDI, or even Shepard. They just tacked it on there. The whole ending is slapped together without any rhyme or reason.

Exactly.  Basically Starbrat tries to add information to try to discourage you from picking the destroy option. It's a clear tack-on.  How do I know?  If you side with the Quarians, starbrat STILL says you will destroy all synethetic life and cautions even you are partially synthetic.

The enemy (starbrat) is doing his level best to convince you that destroy==bad which IMHO is sufficient cause to pick it (given that all three are otherwise terrible).

-Polaris

[Muhkida]

Wait, what's this supposed possibility that EDI and the Geth can possibly not be killed off in the "destruction" ending? I thought they weren't changing the consequences of the endings?

Modifié par Muhkida, 26 avril 2012 - 10:08 .

[Taboo]

Muhkida wrote...

Wait, what's this supposed possibility that EDI and the Geth can possible not be killed off in the "destruction" ending? I thought they weren't changing the consequences of the endings?

They aren't changing the endings. That means Synthesis, Control and Destroy are still in place.

I've been trying to say this for a about two weeks now.

It took a match to the powder keg for people to notice but I don't care anymore..........

[Ferah84]

I think Bioware want people to speculate on those arising questions we get from the synthesis ending. I really don't like the synthesis ending either because I feel it muddies everything and makes things more complicated between organics and synthetics.

There is one question that's been bugging me about EDI though:
EDI says that she primarily inhabits the Normandy and can only control the robotic body within a certain radius of the ship. The A.I core on the Normandy I assume acts as her heart, so my question is... Is the Normandy itself alive now? Or has EDI completely shifted her "mind" to the robotic body? If the Normandy is now alive with organic emotion and feelings, will she be objectional the next time Kenneth needs to install a thermal pipe )8 ?

[Kunari801]

Muhkida wrote...

Wait, what's this supposed possibility that EDI and the Geth can possibly not be killed off in the "destruction" ending? I thought they weren't changing the consequences of the endings?

They aren't changing the endings, so they'll be labeled "Control" "Destroy" and "Synthesis" but their outcomes can be changed and added too. 

I'd like to see "Control" split into two:   1- A way to just kick the Reapers out (even if it just resets the cycle) but have Shepard lives and 2- Shepard joins the Reapers for permanent control.  

I'd like to see "Destroy" split up too, with high enough EMS you can choose to kill the Reapers and yourself (Thus saving the Geth & EDI) or sacrifice the Geth & EDI to save yourself.  

[MisterJB]

Seryl wrote...
Then you are supremely arrogant. I rarely resort to ad hominems on the Internet, but I do think this is apt.

Reread what I wrote about how those past would have pushed the "Remove Homosexuality" button and they would have been just as justified and correct in their line of reasoning as you are. They wouldn't have known what they were doing; they wouldn't have had all the information required to make a decision of that magnitude, but they would have believed themselves to be right. It's pure hubris.

There are myths, legends and all kinds of other tales warning of this sort of hubris and how it always ends badly. History records lots of instances of people doing this kind of thing. The phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" sums up why this is not a decision that people should be tempted to make.

Right or wrong is relative. Yes, to those people removing homosexuality would have made a better world while today, we would call it a hate crime.
However, that still should not affect the decision Shepard has to make in 2187. He is a man of that age bounded by the morals of that age. With Synthesis, he is offered an option of preventing a war between synthetics and organics by bringing both forms of life together in mutual understanding and acceptance and I believe he should take it.
We can't make our decisions based on the morals our grand-grandsons might have but rather on the effects they will have on the world we live in.

[Muhkida]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Muhkida wrote...

Wait, what's this supposed possibility that EDI and the Geth can possible not be killed off in the "destruction" ending? I thought they weren't changing the consequences of the endings?

They aren't changing the endings. That means Synthesis, Control and Destroy are still in place.

I've been trying to say this for a about two weeks now.

It took a match to the powder keg for people to notice but I don't care anymore..........

I know the endings won't change, but the results of what the game's end details us (specifically the Catalyst) and what the devs are saying are contradictory.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Kunari801 wrote...

Muhkida wrote...

Wait, what's this supposed possibility that EDI and the Geth can possibly not be killed off in the "destruction" ending? I thought they weren't changing the consequences of the endings?

They aren't changing the endings, so they'll be labeled "Control" "Destroy" and "Synthesis" but their outcomes can be changed and added too. 

I'd like to see "Control" split into two:   1- A way to just kick the Reapers out (even if it just resets the cycle) but have Shepard lives and 2- Shepard joins the Reapers for permanent control.  

I'd like to see "Destroy" split up too, with high enough EMS you can choose to kill the Reapers and yourself (Thus saving the Geth & EDI) or sacrifice the Geth & EDI to save yourself.  

This would be the best way to do it. Also get rid of the colors red and blue, since people are thinking of them as their respected "alignment" (one thing I always hated). Let's say make the colors all purple. 

[Reidbynature]

Muhkida wrote...

Wait, what's this supposed possibility that EDI and the Geth can possibly not be killed off in the "destruction" ending? I thought they weren't changing the consequences of the endings?

EDI can survive, but as far as I know you always kill the Geth in the destroy ending.  I've seen a flimsy excuse about EDI surviving because she wasn't really Reaper tech or something like that, but nothing about Geth surviving.  Though saying that I would probably prefer Destroy if it allowed Geth and EDI to survive with enough assets acquired.  Not that it makes it that much of a better ending, they were all awfully executed (and some just terrible ideas top to bottom) in the game as it released.

[Taboo]

Muhkida wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Muhkida wrote...

Wait, what's this supposed possibility that EDI and the Geth can possible not be killed off in the "destruction" ending? I thought they weren't changing the consequences of the endings?

They aren't changing the endings. That means Synthesis, Control and Destroy are still in place.

I've been trying to say this for a about two weeks now.

It took a match to the powder keg for people to notice but I don't care anymore..........

I know the endings won't change, but the results of what the game's end details us (specifically the Catalyst) and what the devs are saying are contradictory.

It's a PR thing. They are "Expanding" with info. They are "changing" the endings without changing them.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 26 avril 2012 - 10:18 .

[Jeb231]

A simple retcon of the synthesis ending being the 'bad' ending the catalyst is trying to force on you while control and destroy are the intended functions for the crucible would fix so many issues with the ending but noooooooo.

[nuculerman]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
Since the problems of synthesis can't be resolved, they're trying to say the geth and EDI don't die so paragons can pick destruction and feel a little better about it.

Which destroys the whole point of the ending.  That would be removing the one aspect of the ending that's even remotely interesting (the fact it's a difficult choice, and we can have these debates about it). 

But it's difficult choice for an arbitrary reason. There was no reason they had to make Destroy kill the Geth and EDI, or even Shepard. They just tacked it on there. The whole ending is slapped together without any rhyme or reason.

It wasn't arbitrary.  You have no power.  StarChild has all the power.  We can all disagree with the use of the plot device, but he's the oldest being in the Galaxy, and he's decided there are only three valid solutions to the synthetic vs. organic problem.  Since you worked so hard to get there, he'll let you choose which one he implements.  As a plot device by itself, this is fairly interesting.  How it was rushed and actually implemented is what made it terrible.  Personally I think the ending could be fixed with a fourth option "screw you, I'm not making that choice for you" *cue synthesis*, and more explanation and more dialogue options for each option.  It still wouldn't be the best ending, but it would keep their vision intact, while delivering something resembling a good reason for why they chose it as the ending.  But destroy should definitely kill the Geth and EDI.  It's starChild's power, not yours.  I.E I don't believe for a second this device was created solely by organics destroyed by the Reapers.  As in the Matrix, it smells of just another system of control, which is fine, if that's where they want to go with their IP (as much as I'd prefer something else).

[RocketManSR2]

Richard 060 wrote...

Wow. It's like these important moments of character development were for nought:

Legion: "Does this unit have a soul?"

EDI discovers her 'humanity'


God dammit - and this is guy is supposed to be the Associate Producer for Mass Effect 3, with a primary focus on DLC. I.e., one of the main people in charge of the Extended Cut.

*Double facepalm*

That is what disgusted me the most. In order to do the right thing and destroy the murder machines called Reapers, we are forced to kill the geth and I assume EDI as well. BioWare just took those great moments and tossed them right in the garbage. That had better change in the EC or BioWare can kiss my ass. I killed those f***ing Reapers and would make that choice everytime, no matter paragon or renegade. The person who quoted the borg from ST:TNG "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile" is absolutely right. That is basically the "life" we turn the whole damn galaxy into. Guess what, BioWare? They were villians. I'm not.

[Reidbynature]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

Muhkida wrote...

Wait, what's this supposed possibility that EDI and the Geth can possibly not be killed off in the "destruction" ending? I thought they weren't changing the consequences of the endings?

They aren't changing the endings, so they'll be labeled "Control" "Destroy" and "Synthesis" but their outcomes can be changed and added too. 

I'd like to see "Control" split into two:   1- A way to just kick the Reapers out (even if it just resets the cycle) but have Shepard lives and 2- Shepard joins the Reapers for permanent control.  

I'd like to see "Destroy" split up too, with high enough EMS you can choose to kill the Reapers and yourself (Thus saving the Geth & EDI) or sacrifice the Geth & EDI to save yourself.  

This would be the best way to do it. Also get rid of the colors red and blue, since people are thinking of them as their respected "alignment" (one thing I always hated). Let's say make the colors all purple. 

It would be interesting if with a high enough assets rating the control ending changed so that Shepard replaced the Catalyst and you have Shepard there permanently in the Citadel as a holographic AI keeping away the Reapers indefinitely.  Then balance that with the destroy ending with a high enough assets rating where he doesn't kill the Geth then it becomes more palatable for a lot of people.

There still no way I can see the  synthesize ending being salvaged, I think it's too fundamentally flawed.