376 réponses à ce sujet

[Shallyah]

No ending will make sense till the Extended DLC is released and possibly other future paid DLC which explains in more detail the real scope of each ending.

As it is, I can side in favor or against any of the three endings and out of speculation and extrapolation make all three sound like the best or the worst ending as I feel like.

For now, I'm happy with Destroy since the Reapers are gone for good and Shepard lives. There is higher collateral damage in exchange of zero risk for the Reapers to ever return. Plus it feels damn good to see them all self-righteous arrogant murdering asses explode.

Modifié par Shallyah, 06 mai 2012 - 02:09 .

[Sundance31us]

ReXspec wrote...

Sundance31us wrote...
<snip>

If this was intended to make me laugh, you succeeded.

Indeed it was.

[JamieCOTC]

From the leaked script:

Catalyst: You may harness the energy. Use it to circumvent my control of the Reapers.
Shepard: Control? So the Illusive Man was right.
Catalyst: Correct... though he could never have taken control, as we already controlled him.
Shepard: And what happens to me?
Catalyst: You will subvert my existence. You will control the Reapers. You will continue to seek an answer to problem.
Shepard: But the Reapers will obey me?
Catalyst: Correct.

Obviously, in some cases, the dialogue changed drastically, but did the intent? We may never know, but in this earlier draft of the script Shepard would become the Catalyst and (perhaps) continue the cycle. In this case, Shep wins for his/her own cycle, but in 50,000 years ...

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 06 mai 2012 - 02:35 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Let's look at what the Catalyst actually says in the final scene.

"But the Reapers will be destroyed?"
"Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon, your children will create synthetics, and the chaos will come back."
"Maybe..."
"Or, do you think you can control us?"
"Hmph. So. The Illusive Man was right after all."
"Yes. But he could never have taken control, because we already controlled him."

Notice how evasive the Catalyst is here? He never actually outright says that Shepard will actually control the Reapers to do what he wants them to. He phrases it in the form of a question.

I've read to many variations on the genie or the demon tempting the hero with unlimited wealth and power to buy what some deus ex machina says at face value.

[RMP _]

JamieCOTC wrote...

From the leaked script:

Catalyst: You may harness the energy. Use it to circumvent my control of the Reapers.
Shepard: Control? So the Illusive Man was right.
Catalyst: Correct... though he could never have taken control, as we already controlled him.
Shepard: And what happens to me?
Catalyst: You will subvert my existence. You will control the Reapers. You will continue to seek an answer to problem.
Shepard: But the Reapers will obey me?
Catalyst: Correct.

Obviously, in some cases, the dialogue changed drastically, but did the intent? We may never know, but in this earlier draft of the script Shepard would become the Catalyst and (perhaps) continue the cycle. In this case, Shep wins for his/her own cycle, but in 50,000 years ...

Interesting. I think most people going with this option after hearing this dialog would think it is not necessary to seek an answer to his chaos problem. Call off the reapers and don't bring them back unless the problem actually presents itself. The solution then would be to have the reapers attack the offending synthetics.

Modifié par RMP _, 06 mai 2012 - 05:05 .

[RMP _]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Let's look at what the Catalyst actually says in the final scene.

"But the Reapers will be destroyed?"
"Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon, your children will create synthetics, and the chaos will come back."
"Maybe..."
"Or, do you think you can control us?"
"Hmph. So. The Illusive Man was right after all."
"Yes. But he could never have taken control, because we already controlled him."

Notice how evasive the Catalyst is here? He never actually outright says that Shepard will actually control the Reapers to do what he wants them to. He phrases it in the form of a question.

Well, the next line is Shepard asking point blank if the reapers will obey him, and he gets a straight yes answer.

[Rulycar]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Let's look at what the Catalyst actually says in the final scene.

"But the Reapers will be destroyed?"
"Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon, your children will create synthetics, and the chaos will come back."
"Maybe..."
"Or, do you think you can control us?"
"Hmph. So. The Illusive Man was right after all."
"Yes. But he could never have taken control, because we already controlled him."

Notice how evasive the Catalyst is here? He never actually outright says that Shepard will actually control the Reapers to do what he wants them to. He phrases it in the form of a question.

I've read to many variations on the genie or the demon tempting the hero with unlimited wealth and power to buy what some deus ex machina says at face value.

It simply does not matter what the catalyst says.
Imagine the scene without any catalyst ...
... you are transported to the upper platform where you discover you can take one of three actions
... ... 1) you shoot some wires; reapers destroyed
... ... 2) you grab some contacts near an energy beam; you die, and reapers disengage
... ... 3) you jump into a beam of energy; you die, people, plants, and bugs all turn into circuitry beings
... The End

Really, the catalyst doesn't even need to exist.
Shepard actions speak louder than Catalyst words.

Modifié par Rulycar, 06 mai 2012 - 05:14 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

OPs' Nic say it all,................RMP= Reapers Must Perish

[balance5050]

No, control sounds amazing! Fly around as death machines that have taken countless lives over hundreds of thousands of years. What's wrong with that!?

"Is there a catch?"

"You have to die first."

"Uhm.. I don't know...."

DERP

Modifié par balance5050, 06 mai 2012 - 05:18 .

[Paragon Fury]

Control is morally wrong to many people for many of the same reasons that Synthesis is.

Besides the whole thing with TIM, and the Catalyst's dubious nature and doubting if it will actually work, Control is essentially ripping the will of an entire sentient species away from them without their consent and forcing them to do what you want, something the game tries to make clear is not a good thing (particularly in Overlord and with EDI) and to many is less respectful to the Reapers as a sentient race than outright destroying them.

[Rulycar]

Wait ...
... genocide is MORE respectful than, say ... imprisonment? You know ... control of prisoner's freedom.

[RMP _]

Paragon Fury wrote...

Control is morally wrong to many people for many of the same reasons that Synthesis is.

Besides the whole thing with TIM, and the Catalyst's dubious nature and doubting if it will actually work, Control is essentially ripping the will of an entire sentient species away from them without their consent and forcing them to do what you want, something the game tries to make clear is not a good thing (particularly in Overlord and with EDI) and to many is less respectful to the Reapers as a sentient race than outright destroying them.

Shepard wouldn't enslave them, he would just tell them to leave. I don't see how that's morally wrong at all. They are already controlled by the catalyst.

[Zix13]

Because to pick it, you'd have to believe it would work. You have absolutely no reason to even think that it MIGHT work.

[Seryl]

I didn't read through the entire thread, so my apologies if I'm restating something here.

I still think that Destroy is the only moral choice of the three. Control is willfully enslaving an entire race. This is completely evil when the Reapers do it (Indoctrination), so I'm not sure why it suddenly becomes acceptable when Shepard does it to the Reapers (this is also why I chose to destroy the heretical Geth). The two truisms "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" both come into play here. It doesn't matter how trustworthy Shepard is, or how noble his intentions were, if he picks Control, he WILL be corrupted. This has happened to everybody in game who had long term contact with the Reapers. It has happened in real life to people that are suddenly given absolute power. History and Literature is rife with examples. When Shepard is corrupted, the Reapers will come back.

Synthesis is, essentially, playing god in order to make the galaxy's species' more to your own liking. This is wrong for a variety of reasons. The biggest one is that it doesn't even guarantee that it will prevent the problem it's supposed to avoid. Just because everybody is now partially synthetic, it doesn't prevent the creation of pure synthetics that will come kill all the (now) partials. Second, evolution will eventually come full circle and produce another sentient, fully organic race. Last, it has undertones of racism to it. It's effectively saying that the only way to avoid war is to remove everything that makes each species unique and different. This is disgusting and spits in the face of every theme the games have so far been based on.

Destroy *might* kill EDI and the Geth (starbrat's ravings are not to be trusted as far as I'm concerned). But, both EDI and the Geth knew what might happen when they signed on to fight the Reapers. EDI even says "To the Death" at one point. This is the only choice where Shepard can make a decision using the information he has.

Destroy results in the possible genocide of the Geth and the possible death of EDI, but the Reapers are also destroyed. The cycle is broken. There is no chance they'll come back. Shepard finishes what he set out to do five years ago.

Admiral Hackett is right. Dead Reapers is how the war is won. I'm not sure why the other choices are even there.

[rachellouise]

RMP _ wrote...

Paragon Fury wrote...

Control is morally wrong to many people for many of the same reasons that Synthesis is.

Besides the whole thing with TIM, and the Catalyst's dubious nature and doubting if it will actually work, Control is essentially ripping the will of an entire sentient species away from them without their consent and forcing them to do what you want, something the game tries to make clear is not a good thing (particularly in Overlord and with EDI) and to many is less respectful to the Reapers as a sentient race than outright destroying them.

Shepard wouldn't enslave them, he would just tell them to leave. I don't see how that's morally wrong at all. They are already controlled by the catalyst.

Yeah it depends what they mean by control. They are led by the catalyst,  but they are all independent. All choiceshave some moral stuff about it . Is it really okay to force this 'evolution' on everyone? Is it really okay to decide /all/ synthetic life must die, because of what some of them did?

[Sisterofshane]

Seryl wrote...

I didn't read through the entire thread, so my apologies if I'm restating something here.

I still think that Destroy is the only moral choice of the three. Control is willfully enslaving an entire race. This is completely evil when the Reapers do it (Indoctrination), so I'm not sure why it suddenly becomes acceptable when Shepard does it to the Reapers (this is also why I chose to destroy the heretical Geth). The two truisms "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" both come into play here. It doesn't matter how trustworthy Shepard is, or how noble his intentions were, if he picks Control, he WILL be corrupted. This has happened to everybody in game who had long term contact with the Reapers. It has happened in real life to people that are suddenly given absolute power. History and Literature is rife with examples. When Shepard is corrupted, the Reapers will come back.

Synthesis is, essentially, playing god in order to make the galaxy's species' more to your own liking. This is wrong for a variety of reasons. The biggest one is that it doesn't even guarantee that it will prevent the problem it's supposed to avoid. Just because everybody is now partially synthetic, it doesn't prevent the creation of pure synthetics that will come kill all the (now) partials. Second, evolution will eventually come full circle and produce another sentient, fully organic race. Last, it has undertones of racism to it. It's effectively saying that the only way to avoid war is to remove everything that makes each species unique and different. This is disgusting and spits in the face of every theme the games have so far been based on.

Destroy *might* kill EDI and the Geth (starbrat's ravings are not to be trusted as far as I'm concerned). But, both EDI and the Geth knew what might happen when they signed on to fight the Reapers. EDI even says "To the Death" at one point. This is the only choice where Shepard can make a decision using the information he has.

Destroy results in the possible genocide of the Geth and the possible death of EDI, but the Reapers are also destroyed. The cycle is broken. There is no chance they'll come back. Shepard finishes what he set out to do five years ago.

Admiral Hackett is right. Dead Reapers is how the war is won. I'm not sure why the other choices are even there.

To build upon your choice, the Destroy choice is the only choice that for certain ends the war/any future war we may have with the Reapers.

Control as a means to peace depends solely on Shepard's will power.  How many of us here are 100 percent certain that Shepard's mental fortitude will hold indefinitly?  We are not shown Shepard using his control to "destroy" the Reapers in any manner, but could he even maintain control long enough to do so?

In Synthesis the Reapers will coexist with everyone else - does anybody else see the problem here?  These things were just killing everybody else.  They turned loved ones into montrosities.  If individuals retain their memories and free will, I can see many, many angry people seeking retribution.

Destroy eliminates the above questions.  The Reapers no longer exist - the galaxy is now free to rebuild and self-determinate.  Depending upon how you've played the game, many old grudges have been set aside and we can see a truly unified galaxy in the post-Reaper war - a clean slate, as you will.  Who knows how long it will last before the next conflict arises, but I think defeating the Reapers will become a very powerful bond.

[Mass effect 2 forever]

JamieCOTC wrote...

From the leaked script:

Catalyst: You may harness the energy. Use it to circumvent my control of the Reapers.
Shepard: Control? So the Illusive Man was right.
Catalyst: Correct... though he could never have taken control, as we already controlled him.
Shepard: And what happens to me?
Catalyst: You will subvert my existence. You will control the Reapers. You will continue to seek an answer to problem.
Shepard: But the Reapers will obey me?
Catalyst: Correct.

Obviously, in some cases, the dialogue changed drastically, but did the intent? We may never know, but in this earlier draft of the script Shepard would become the Catalyst and (perhaps) continue the cycle. In this case, Shep wins for his/her own cycle, but in 50,000 years ...

Only if you assume that the catalyst was right that org/syn would inevitably destroy eachother. Yet most of the game, EDI n Geth/Quarian shows that co-operation is possible or at the very least no different from the sort of tensions any other race in the galaxy has. Thus if you pick control it implies that Shephard doesn't believe there is a problem that needs to be solved; if you did then you would pick synthesis since you dispense with free-will.

Also, somebody said 'Shephard becomes a reaper' in the game guide that does make sense with how the catalyst claims he will be displaced by Shephard.

Just because they cut words for dramatic use doesn't mean that isn't what takes place. It actually makes a lot of sense. the catalyst controls the reapers. If Shephard controls the reapers then he/she has to become or replace the catalyst.

Modifié par Mass effect 2 forever, 06 mai 2012 - 10:50 .

[Sweawm]

"If we destroy the Reapers, this war ends today, but if you can't control them..."

Choosing Control makes Shepard even more a hypocrite

[Mass effect 2 forever]

Paragon Fury wrote...

Control is morally wrong to many people for many of the same reasons that Synthesis is.

Besides the whole thing with TIM, and the Catalyst's dubious nature and doubting if it will actually work, Control is essentially ripping the will of an entire sentient species away from them without their consent and forcing them to do what you want, something the game tries to make clear is not a good thing (particularly in Overlord and with EDI) and to many is less respectful to the Reapers as a sentient race than outright destroying them.

Reapers are goop in jars with wires put into them. Its doubtful they ever had anything more than a zombie like existence with the essence of the catalyst forced upon them.

[Pelle6666]

Because you die.

[tvman099]

I have no reason to believe a single word the Starkid says. Its negative attitude toward the red explosion made it a more desirable choice for me.

[Mass effect 2 forever]

Pelle6666 wrote...

Because you die.

In that your organic form is destroyed. If Shephard was absolutely destroyed in the course of making that message then there would have been nothing with which to influence the reapers. Also 'control' has a different meaning to 'command' Shephard did not simply send out a pulse telling the reapers to go. Obviously they could eventually circumvent that programming. The term ocntrol implies Shephard retaining some agency in order to direct the reapers and since they clearly leave Earth that implies that Sheps moral sensibilites do not disappear with his body. Therefore its quite clearly the case that his/her soul is transferred to the reapers.

Modifié par Mass effect 2 forever, 06 mai 2012 - 11:25 .

[Mass effect 2 forever]

tvman099 wrote...

I have no reason to believe a single word the Starkid says. Its negative attitude toward the red explosion made it a more desirable choice for me.

I'll admit, first time around. I picked destruction for that exact reason. It was jarring for him to suddenly want to help you and both control/synthesis go massively against what is established. So I blew the reapers up even though I was a paragon who wouldn't have wanted the Geth or EDI to die.

I think it would have been better if Shephard had done an AZURAS WRATH moment and just screamed

-'It was not your decision to make!!!'   

[EnvyTB075]

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

In that your organic form is destroyed. If Shephard was not totally destroyed in the course of making that message then there would have been nothing with which to influence the reapers. Also 'control' has a different meaning to 'command' Shephard did not simply send out a pulse telling the reapers to go. Obviously they could eventually circumvent that programming. The term ocntrol implies Shephard retaining some agency in order to direct the reapers and since they clearly leave Earth that implies that Sheps moral sensibilites do not disappear with his body. Therefore its quite clearly the case that his/her soul is transferred to the reapers.

I dunno about you, but spending forever in isolation would send someone insane regardless of intentions. The remifications of this is that the outcome could be severely worse than if the catalyst remained in control.

Unless they're trying to do an Eva thing, "proof that someone somewhere existed"

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...
So I blew the reapers up even though I was a paragon who wouldn't have wanted the Geth or EDI to die.
 

Depends on whether you believe they die or not.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 06 mai 2012 - 11:27 .

[Vigil_N7]

Its not. But because most people picked destroy, and shepard dies, they'll do everything they can to rationalize it being bad.

I picked destroy, still would and would again, but right now, Control is the most favorable of the endings