69 réponses à ce sujet

[Awookie]

Assuming that you CAN control them...  

[Han Shot First]

Lizardviking wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy is the best ending.

It is the only ending where Shepard actually achieves his mission (destruction of the Reapers.) Control and Synthesis are both sort of a 'stalemate' ending to the Reaper War.

How in god's name is control a stalemate?

The Reapers survive.

Shepard's mission was never to destroy the Reapers, only to stop them. Control does that and much more.

His mission was to destroy them. There is no point in the series where anyone except TIM suggests that control is an option. Neither Shepard himself or any of Shepard's superiors (Hackett, Anderson, ect) ever mention anything besides destruction as being the solution to the Reapers.

But even if that hadn't been the case, the only way to guarantee that the Reapers have been stopped for all time is to destroy them.

Control is a fail ending.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 04 mai 2012 - 01:53 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Yes, but the green ending actually had magic (which is really the only thing it can be called). Each capital ship is composed of a different species (and we don't know the extent of the modification used to achieve this), and it goes without saying that they have wildly different genetic structures. So you scoop out millions-years-old gunk (if that is even how that works, seeing as we only have the Reapernator to draw inferences) and do...what?

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 04 mai 2012 - 01:52 .

[Omgzorro]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

You remember in the first game, when you were talking to Sovereign, and he said that reapers were the pinnacle of evolution? I never forgot about that. So in the end, I chose control because I thought that even if you destroyed the reapers, eventually some species or another would evolve into them again, and the cycle would restart. The only way to break the cycle is to control evolution.

...What?

If species A is at the pinnacle of evolution, then that would mean that species B at the end of its evolutionary path would become like species A. So even if you blow up species A, eventually, species B will still turn into the reapers, and the cycle will repeat. So killing the reapers wouldn't end the cycle of destruction, it'd just delay it.

[Legion64]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

You remember in the first game, when you were talking to Sovereign, and he said that reapers were the pinnacle of evolution? I never forgot about that. So in the end, I chose control because I thought that even if you destroyed the reapers, eventually some species or another would evolve into them again, and the cycle would restart. The only way to break the cycle is to control evolution.

... one does not simply control evolution.

Legion64 wrote...

People don't seem to understand control. Yes Shepard disintegrates but his energy goes into the crucible when it fires. If you think Shepard dies and nothing happens, then why did the Reapers leave Earth and go back into dark space? It is because of Shepard's control of them.

People need look closer at the ending. All people see is Shepard dying when that's not the point.

I'm pretty sure Shep becomes the next Catalyst. Otherwise the Reapers would just hover in orbit, what with Shep's last 'command' being simply, "stop attacking us." 

If Shepard is to be the next Catalyst, then he has full control over them like the previous Catalyst did. Hopefully, Control will be fully explained in the Extended Cut.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Han Shot First wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy is the best ending.

It is the only ending where Shepard actually achieves his mission (destruction of the Reapers.) Control and Synthesis are both sort of a 'stalemate' ending to the Reaper War.

How in god's name is control a stalemate?

The Reapers survive.

Shepard's mission was never to destroy the Reapers, only to stop them. Control does that and much more.

His mission was to destroy them. There is no point in the series where anyone except TIM suggests that control is an option. Neither Shepard himself or any of Shepard's superiors (Hackett, Anderson, ect) ever mention anything besides destruction as being the solution to the Reapers.

But even if that hadn't been the case, the only way to guantee that the Reapers have been stopped for all time is to destroy them.

Control is a fail ending.

That is because none of them actually believed control was plausible.

And as mentioned, Shepard can have all the Reaper commit suicide in the control ending. All the while without commiting genocide on the Geth. Also remember that Shepard has all the knowlegde of the Catalyst and the Reapers, meaning he could easily provide information that would help civilization recover much faster.

[DeinonSlayer]

Omgzorro wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

You remember in the first game, when you were talking to Sovereign, and he said that reapers were the pinnacle of evolution? I never forgot about that. So in the end, I chose control because I thought that even if you destroyed the reapers, eventually some species or another would evolve into them again, and the cycle would restart. The only way to break the cycle is to control evolution.

...What?

If species A is at the pinnacle of evolution, then that would mean that species B at the end of its evolutionary path would become like species A. So even if you blow up species A, eventually, species B will still turn into the reapers, and the cycle will repeat. So killing the reapers wouldn't end the cycle of destruction, it'd just delay it.

There is no "pinnacle of evolution." It's not a path from simple to advanced, it's a blind system of taking whatever is least-adapted to survive out of the system. If some cataclysm like an asteroid strike wiped out technological life on Earth, would that make the three-banded armadillo the "pinnacle of evolution?"

[What a Succulent Ass]

Omgzorro wrote...

If species A is at the pinnacle of evolution, then that would mean that species B at the end of its evolutionary path would become like species A. So even if you blow up species A, eventually, species B will still turn into the reapers, and the cycle will repeat. So killing the reapers wouldn't end the cycle of destruction, it'd just delay it.

I wasn't confused by your reasoning. I was pointing out your reasoning makes no sense. On any level.

[Omgzorro]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

You remember in the first game, when you were talking to Sovereign, and he said that reapers were the pinnacle of evolution? I never forgot about that. So in the end, I chose control because I thought that even if you destroyed the reapers, eventually some species or another would evolve into them again, and the cycle would restart. The only way to break the cycle is to control evolution.

...What?

If species A is at the pinnacle of evolution, then that would mean that species B at the end of its evolutionary path would become like species A. So even if you blow up species A, eventually, species B will still turn into the reapers, and the cycle will repeat. So killing the reapers wouldn't end the cycle of destruction, it'd just delay it.

There is no "pinnacle of evolution." It's not a path from simple to advanced, it's a blind system of taking whatever is least-adapted to survive out of the system. If some cataclysm like an asteroid strike wiped out technological life on Earth, would that make the three-banded armadillo the "pinnacle of evolution?"

Answer to the last question: No, because it's not finished evolving. And that's not entirely evolution. You're describing the one aspect that is "natural selection". Of course it's not a straight path, but it is an incredibly complex path that will ultimately lead to one end result: a species with no weakness, and no need for genetic differentiation, as lesser species require.

[Omgzorro]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

If species A is at the pinnacle of evolution, then that would mean that species B at the end of its evolutionary path would become like species A. So even if you blow up species A, eventually, species B will still turn into the reapers, and the cycle will repeat. So killing the reapers wouldn't end the cycle of destruction, it'd just delay it.

I wasn't confused by your reasoning. I was pointing out your reasoning makes no sense. On any level.

Well. It totally does. But thank you for your opinion. If you'd like to point out specific areas for me to address, I will.

[Han Shot First]

Lizardviking wrote...


That is because none of them actually believed control was plausible.

Regardless of the reasons, Shepard's mission was always to destroy them. If he chooses something else in the end game he is diverting from his own mission objectives.

And as mentioned, Shepard can have all the Reaper commit suicide in the control ending. All the while without commiting genocide on the Geth. Also remember that Shepard has all the knowlegde of the Catalyst and the Reapers, meaning he could easily provide information that would help civilization recover much faster.

That is head canon, not game canon. None of that actually happens in the game.

As an added bonus, Bioware is now backtracking from all Geth and EDI being destroyed in the Red Ending. Since the ending controversy and the extended DLC announcement they've said that the Catalyst wasn't exactly truthful, and that EDI and the Geth can survive the Red Ending. I don't think that was their intention originally with the Red Ending, but the backlash against the consequences of the Red Ending have seemed to have triggered a retcon.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 04 mai 2012 - 02:05 .

[NoUserNameHere]

Omgzorro wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

You remember in the first game, when you were talking to Sovereign, and he said that reapers were the pinnacle of evolution? I never forgot about that. So in the end, I chose control because I thought that even if you destroyed the reapers, eventually some species or another would evolve into them again, and the cycle would restart. The only way to break the cycle is to control evolution.

...What?

If species A is at the pinnacle of evolution, then that would mean that species B at the end of its evolutionary path would become like species A. So even if you blow up species A, eventually, species B will still turn into the reapers, and the cycle will repeat. So killing the reapers wouldn't end the cycle of destruction, it'd just delay it.

There is no "pinnacle of evolution." It's not a path from simple to advanced, it's a blind system of taking whatever is least-adapted to survive out of the system. If some cataclysm like an asteroid strike wiped out technological life on Earth, would that make the three-banded armadillo the "pinnacle of evolution?"

Answer to the last question: No, because it's not finished evolving. And that's not entirely evolution. You're describing the one aspect that is "natural selection". Of course it's not a straight path, but it is an incredibly complex path that will ultimately lead to one end result: a species with no weakness, and no need for genetic differentiation, as lesser species require.

The 'ultimate life form' is a cheesy sci-fi trope, even by Mass Effect standards.

Hell, the Reapers are made (mostly) out of or through tech. They are a singularity being.

[DeinonSlayer]

Omgzorro wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

You remember in the first game, when you were talking to Sovereign, and he said that reapers were the pinnacle of evolution? I never forgot about that. So in the end, I chose control because I thought that even if you destroyed the reapers, eventually some species or another would evolve into them again, and the cycle would restart. The only way to break the cycle is to control evolution.

...What?

If species A is at the pinnacle of evolution, then that would mean that species B at the end of its evolutionary path would become like species A. So even if you blow up species A, eventually, species B will still turn into the reapers, and the cycle will repeat. So killing the reapers wouldn't end the cycle of destruction, it'd just delay it.

There is no "pinnacle of evolution." It's not a path from simple to advanced, it's a blind system of taking whatever is least-adapted to survive out of the system. If some cataclysm like an asteroid strike wiped out technological life on Earth, would that make the three-banded armadillo the "pinnacle of evolution?"

Answer to the last question: No, because it's not finished evolving. And that's not entirely evolution. You're describing the one aspect that is "natural selection". Of course it's not a straight path, but it is an incredibly complex path that will ultimately lead to one end result: a species with no weakness, and no need for genetic differentiation, as lesser species require.

And again, such a thing does not exist in nature. As such you can't call it "evolution," rather, it's "re-engineering."

[Legion64]

Han Shot First wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...


That is because none of them actually believed control was plausible.

Regardless of the reasons, Shepard's mission was always to destroy them. If he chooses something else in the end game he is diverting from his own mission objectives.

And as mentioned, Shepard can have all the Reaper commit suicide in the control ending. All the while without commiting genocide on the Geth. Also remember that Shepard has all the knowlegde of the Catalyst and the Reapers, meaning he could easily provide information that would help civilization recover much faster.

That is head canon, not game canon. None of that actually happens in the game.

As an added bonus, Bioware is now backtracking from all Geth and EDI being destroyed in the Red Ending. Since the ending controversy and the extended DLC announcement they've said that the Catalyst wasn't exactly truthful, and that EDI and the Geth can survive the Red Ending. I don't think that was their intention originally with the Red Ending, but the backlash against the consequences of the Red Ending have seemed to have triggered a retcon.

Why would Bioware do that? That would just ruin the reasons for having a choice in the first place. I've never heard them say that EDI and the Geth can survive the Red Ending either. A link would be nice.

[Izhalezan]

Lizardviking wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy is the best ending.

It is the only ending where Shepard actually achieves his mission (destruction of the Reapers.) Control and Synthesis are both sort of a 'stalemate' ending to the Reaper War.

How in god's name is control a stalemate?

You control the Reapers, even though you're dead, apparently you get to ignore being dead or something.

[Legion64]

Extended Cut needs to come faster.

Until then, did anyone bother to look at the picture or did they just straight up posted?

[Han Shot First]

Legion64 wrote...


Why would Bioware do that? That would just ruin the reasons for having a choice in the first place. I've never heard them say that EDI and the Geth can survive the Red Ending either. A link would be nice.

I don't have an original link unfortunately. But there have been a couple threads where people have referenced something Jessica Merizan apparently said (on Twitter, perhaps?) regarding EDI & the Geth. She said that they might not necessarily die in the Red Ending.

While trying to search for a thread that might contain an original link to her actual comment, I found more recent comments where people said she clarified that earlier comment by saying that it was just her own personal speculation.

So I guess in the end EDI and the Geth potentially surviving isn't confirmed.

[Sal86]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

Extended Cut needs to come faster.

Until then, did anyone bother to look at the picture or did they just straight up posted?

I looked; I liked that small bit in the corner.

heh, I don't know Hamlet that well, can I make them perform The Lion King instead? Complete with full length songs?

[chengda85]

Catalyst:"or you can control them."
shepard: "huh? so the Illusive man was right after all"

/FACEPALM

[elecmanexe001]

Berkilak wrote...

Except in reality, the choice is merely a different colour with no consequence.

No, that's completely wrong. True the ending cinematic is different colors of the same thing but the consequences of each choice are wildely different.

[Siegdrifa]

FallTooDovahkiin wrote...

I didn't know turning into a french fry would be best..

How do you think Mc Donald rule the fast food world ?
french fry control the world ...

[Siegdrifa]

chengda85 wrote...

Catalyst:"or you can control them."
shepard: "huh? so the Illusive man was right after all"

/FACEPALM

Morality : what's matter is not what people do, it's who do it.

[KevTheGamer]

If u trust the random hologram that told you you could control it that's on you. That's self preservation 101 he wants you to "control them" when in reality you just die and they keep on going about thier business or you can choose to harvest yourself and decide that the reapers are right or you can do the right thing and just destroy their punk asses