319 réponses à ce sujet

[Hadeedak]

I still say that control consists of instilling the reapers with Shepard's values (his/her code), like Legion upgrading the geth, but the process kills him/her. I'm not sure I buy it being AI Shepard driving the Citadel and the Reapers around, because... well, frankly, that makes Control just the best because LIVE SHEPARD CAN BUILD MACHINE BODY, LIVE GETH, YAY CITADEL, DRIVE REAPERS INTO THE SUN OR DARK SPACE FOREVER, happy sunshine unicorn ponies. Though that's one of many things that I'd like clarified.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 08 mai 2012 - 04:40 .

[Madecologist]

About the OP. You are right, if you had a variant of Destroy it would have made Destroy way too tempting, and be the only 'good' choice. Maybe a few will like the power that Control might give or find the metaphysical debate of the Catalyst gripping and like the 'creativity' of Synthesis (sorry... I really really don't like Synthesis). But overall many would beeline to Destroy without second thought.

The Genocide of the Geth and EDI is deliberate to cause you pause to reconsider the other two choices. Problem with this... this is a ****** poor tactic to stimulate a choice. It doesn't make Control or Synthesis better, it merely brings down Destroy down to their level, which is a bad approach to making all three choices compelling. Normally you want to make each choice compelling but adding to them, not by subtracting from the only 'reasonable' one.

Yes this is harder to pull off, but that it is why they have writers no? Taking the easier route of 'smearing' all the choices to make them 'equal' is the easy way out and doesn't lead to a satisfying story.

The second problem, take the guy that doesn't care about the Geth and EDI (maybe they chose to kill the Geth even if they had the diplomatic option available). You also ignored EDI or overall picked the least trusting comments about her ever since ME2. The other endings also ruin the relays (Synth blows them up too and they don't look too good after Control), so it is not like the Relay sacrifice is a bargaining chip.

Well then, Destroy suddenly becomes all your dreams come true. Destroy the Reapers and all other Synthetic life you didn't get a chance too yet.

Basically the current dilemna is not hard for all people, it is only hard for those that want to spare synthetics but are disgusted by Synthesis and way too iffy about Control. Now you see why it is cheap tactic to make a choice difficult by the way Bioware did. It doesn't always work and only punishes those that care.

Modifié par Madecologist, 08 mai 2012 - 04:45 .

[Byronic-Knight]

MisterJB wrote...

Averdi wrote...
If the destroy ending targeted only the reapers, it might move that option out of the "no way, no how" zone, but the destruction of the relays is still a huge problem for my satisfaction with the endings.

Are people simply incapable of dealing with hard choices and consequences anymore?
If everything is not sunshine and bunnies and world peace we start demanding new endings?

Thessia is decimated, Palaven is a cinder, and Earth is in ruins, trillions have died since the Reaper’s arrival, and it will take decades, if not centuries to rebuild. Yeah, everything is "sunshine and bunnies." 

Without the Relay network, Tali will never see Rannoch, Wrex won’t see the clans thrive, and the only thing staving off immediate war over resources is the fact that most of Victory fleet’s capital ships (concievably) have food stores. 

If you pick any of the endings, Legion dies for nothing, because the Geth---the race that just attained full individuality and awareness---has either been set upon by coercive genetic rewrite, has been enslaved, or is dead, the former two violating their well-established belief in self-determination. 

MisterJB wrote...

The Reapers don't commit genocide if they can avoid it. They "elevate" organic species to immortality as Reapers.
As such, I can argue that, while not ideal, preserving organic life in Reaper form and opening way for new life is better than Synthetics simply destroying all organic life without even offering a second life.

Yeah, that’s what the leader of Heaven’s Gate told his followers too. . . 

MisterJB wrote...

It's better than having all organic life extinct because turns out the Reapers were right and the synthetics killed us all.

Which synthetics would those be?

The Geth---a race that was persecuted and almost exterminated for the simple act of contemplation?

EDI---a rougue AI that and formed a romantic bond with an organic with glass bones? 

That leaves only. . . the Reapers. 

And now we return to circular logic land, where the synthetic overlords, to stop organics from fashioning synthetics to kill them, slaughter and assimilate organics preëmptively. 

The other major synthetic characters in the series have reconciled their differences with organics (and in the case of the first mention ^ above ^ had no animosity toward organics to begin with), the same goes for your previous "Turians during first contact" example---in regard to they and humans---and the Krogan with the Salarians and Turians. 

The only ones not willing to do so are the fanatical Reapers, who seek to save us from a fate not demonstrated to have occurred during the cycle in which the game(s) take(s) place. All horrors in regard to synthetic life can be attributed to the coercive mendling of organic and synthetic components (Project Overlord, Zha’til, Cerberus soldiers in ME3), which is a) what the synthesis ending accomplishes on a galactic scale (albeit "prettier"), and what the Reapers are doing anyway. 

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 08 mai 2012 - 10:36 .

[111987]

Hadeedak wrote...

I still say that control consists of instilling the reapers with Shepard's values (his/her code), like Legion upgrading the geth, but the process kills him/her. I'm not sure I buy it being AI Shepard driving the Citadel and the Reapers around, because... well, frankly, that makes Control just the best because LIVE SHEPARD CAN BUILD MACHINE BODY, LIVE GETH, YAY CITADEL, DRIVE REAPERS INTO THE SUN OR DARK SPACE FOREVER, happy sunshine unicorn ponies. Though that's one of many things that I'd like clarified.

I personally think Control is the best ending, for all the reasons you posted. Even if Shepardcan't install himself on a mobile platform, you have hundreds if not thousands of Reapers at your disposal. The Geth and EDI live. The citadel isn't destroyed.

Need to repair Earth? Have the Reapers do it! Wanna ferry the fleets back to their homeworlds? Have the Reapers do it! Wanna rebuild the Relay network? Set the Reapers on it!

And you can destroy them at anytime. It has all the best results.

[Madecologist]

111987 wrote...

Need to repair Earth? Have the Reapers do it! Wanna ferry the fleets back to their homeworlds? Have the Reapers do it! Wanna rebuild the Relay network? Set the Reapers on it!

And you can destroy them at anytime. It has all the best results.

For a bit of humour, imagine if the Reapers don't loose their Indoctrination ability, as in its a byproduct of their nature.

Shepoctrination!

[Ring1]

MisterJB wrote...
What it says is logic. War is inevitable when two different people share the same location.

I can't offer proof about this but back when we were hunters and gathers I bet conflicts between tribes was less common compared to after agriculture was developed. Since the potential loss in warfare could amount to the loss of the tribe. I hope that makes sense though.

[Hadeedak]

And then everyone was Shepards.

Though I think most Shepards (or their valuesets, or whatever) will not have indoctrination-on Reapers skipping blithely around, doing loop-di-loops around passing ships of toddlers.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 08 mai 2012 - 04:53 .

[wantedman dan]

Hadeedak wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Says you. Maybe my Shepard doesn't throw her allies under the bus to live.

(Little bit of hyperbole, but honestly... Each endings has its downsides and upsides, and they all are kind of borked and underexplained).

The base assumption being that the sole reason to pick destroy is to live.

Well, I've said a few times in this thread that the big bonus of destroy is that it's assured. It's not a gamble. You're going to be rid of reapers forever and ever. But Shepard living is one hell of a bonus if you're as attached to yours as I am to mine (who I electrocuted, but the next one gets to live). That's why I don't think destroy needs additional carrots to make it tempting, to bring this home. Nor do I think control does. It's a pretty good ending, capable of being as interesting as destroy. They both suffer from not being clarified.

And then... there's synthesis.... Hrrrgh. That needs a carrot or six and a metric ton of clarification.

No, destroy needs to be less biased in its description. It's obvious that the writers--through starchild--don't want you to pick it. It's the only one to be comprised of, in majority, negatives.

[balance5050]

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

thesnake777 wrote...

Dude I will pick destroy every single time. It is the only one that guarantees a defeat of the Reapers. The other two...stink of Reaper Victory....

If you choose Control, your Shepard could always decide down the line to send them into a Sun or something.

Yep, all you gotta do is die first. Great plan right?

"You wanna control these weapons of mass destruction?"

"Uhh, yeah, sure I gu.."

"Electrocute yourself until you die first."



Don't DERP people...

Umm, well you also die in 'Destroy', so I am not sure what your point is here.

And actually in Control, your mind lives on.

I didn't die in destroy.... 

The kid tells you that your mind lives on.... you just have to die first, fool proof!!! Right?

[Hadeedak]

If the writers don't want you to pick it, why is it the easiest choice to get? Synthesis is the only one which really gets a glowing recommendation from Starchild.

I think Destroy is probably the most popular choice. It does have the selling point of being the option that gets portayed most positively through most of the game. I mean, it ends the reapers. That's a pretty big plus. Shepard can live. That's huge.

And Shepard died and had her mind live on at least once. Damnit ME2. You and your shenanigans. Though as previously mentioned, I think control has a dead Shepard.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 08 mai 2012 - 05:06 .

[111987]

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

thesnake777 wrote...

Dude I will pick destroy every single time. It is the only one that guarantees a defeat of the Reapers. The other two...stink of Reaper Victory....

If you choose Control, your Shepard could always decide down the line to send them into a Sun or something.

Yep, all you gotta do is die first. Great plan right?

"You wanna control these weapons of mass destruction?"

"Uhh, yeah, sure I gu.."

"Electrocute yourself until you die first."



Don't DERP people...

Umm, well you also die in 'Destroy', so I am not sure what your point is here.

And actually in Control, your mind lives on.

I didn't die in destroy.... 

The kid tells you that your mind lives on.... you just have to die first, fool proof!!! Right?

The kid also tells you that shooting those tubes will destroy the Reapers. How do you know it just won't destroy the Crucible?

If your argument is that you can't trust the kid, well, you need to be consistent.

[balance5050]

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

thesnake777 wrote...

Dude I will pick destroy every single time. It is the only one that guarantees a defeat of the Reapers. The other two...stink of Reaper Victory....

If you choose Control, your Shepard could always decide down the line to send them into a Sun or something.

Yep, all you gotta do is die first. Great plan right?

"You wanna control these weapons of mass destruction?"

"Uhh, yeah, sure I gu.."

"Electrocute yourself until you die first."



Don't DERP people...

Umm, well you also die in 'Destroy', so I am not sure what your point is here.

And actually in Control, your mind lives on.

I didn't die in destroy.... 

The kid tells you that your mind lives on.... you just have to die first, fool proof!!! Right?

The kid also tells you that shooting those tubes will destroy the Reapers. How do you know it just won't destroy the Crucible?

If your argument is that you can't trust the kid, well, you need to be consistent.

I chose the one he didn't want me to choose, the one that doesn't align myself with the reapers. He implied that I would die and he was wrong, I'm just staying true to the mission that I started 5 years ago.

[Armass81]

There had to be some price to pay for destroying the reapers IMO. If they just die and everything generally stays as it is, it makes it all feel too easy. This is a billion year galactic menace that has killed thousands of civilizations after all. It would feel too cheap to have everything returning to normal, after all the currect cycle pretty much sat on its ass until the threat was knocking at their doors. We werent ready. That we should even win around this cycle againsta threat this big is a miracle of itself.

This is one of the reasons I feel the relays should go at least in one ending. But not before everyone jumps to their home systems. Have a chrono trigger kind of ending with the balloons.

Modifié par Armass81, 08 mai 2012 - 05:15 .

[111987]

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

thesnake777 wrote...

Dude I will pick destroy every single time. It is the only one that guarantees a defeat of the Reapers. The other two...stink of Reaper Victory....

If you choose Control, your Shepard could always decide down the line to send them into a Sun or something.

Yep, all you gotta do is die first. Great plan right?

"You wanna control these weapons of mass destruction?"

"Uhh, yeah, sure I gu.."

"Electrocute yourself until you die first."



Don't DERP people...

Umm, well you also die in 'Destroy', so I am not sure what your point is here.

And actually in Control, your mind lives on.

I didn't die in destroy.... 

The kid tells you that your mind lives on.... you just have to die first, fool proof!!! Right?

The kid also tells you that shooting those tubes will destroy the Reapers. How do you know it just won't destroy the Crucible?

If your argument is that you can't trust the kid, well, you need to be consistent.

I chose the one he didn't want me to choose, the one that doesn't align myself with the reapers. He implied that I would die and he was wrong, I'm just staying true to the mission that I started 5 years ago.

The word 'align' implies a mutual relationship; it is not. Shepard controls the Reapers, he owns them.

Also, you are basing your argument on something that happened after the decision. You have to construct your argument as it would be at the time of the decision.

The mission was to defeat the Reapers, yes. But that's because the possibility of control wasn't an option at the time. If your mission is to do something, but right at the end you are given a better option, why not take it?

[balance5050]

111987 wrote...

The word 'align' implies a mutual relationship; it is not. Shepard controls the Reapers, he owns them.

Also, you are basing your argument on something that happened after the decision. You have to construct your argument as it would be at the time of the decision.

The mission was to defeat the Reapers, yes. But that's because the possibility of control wasn't an option at the time. If your mission is to do something, but right at the end you are given a better option, why not take it?

Because you are enslaving an entire race.....

[Hadeedak]

He only implies you might die in destroy. In control and synthesis, he flat out tells you Shepard's dying. Period.

[Hadeedak]

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

The word 'align' implies a mutual relationship; it is not. Shepard controls the Reapers, he owns them.

Also, you are basing your argument on something that happened after the decision. You have to construct your argument as it would be at the time of the decision.

The mission was to defeat the Reapers, yes. But that's because the possibility of control wasn't an option at the time. If your mission is to do something, but right at the end you are given a better option, why not take it?

Because you are enslaving an entire race.....

Did you choose to rewrite the Heretic geth? Which was the right choice there?

[Afalstein]

It would still have been a bit of a toss-up between that and synthesis, I think--synthesis just had such obvious overtones with the EDI situation and the Geth-Quarian thing. But I definitely would have been more likely to choose Destroy. In fact, the penalty of killing the Geth is my major objection to the Destroy choice. Why work for that peace if you're just going to kill them all? Especially as you're doing so due to the Catalyst's assertion that machines will always fight their creators, which is untrue in the Geth's case.

However, there's a more interesting side to this debate I'd like to hear about. Something that keeps popping up in the ME series is the question of genocide--is it ever justified and so forth. We spare the Rachni Queen, we save the Geth (or the Quarians, or both), we redeem the Krogan.

Isn't killing the entire race of Reapers also a form of genocide?

Granted, the entire point of the Reapers IS genocide and they're too powerful for you to spare one and just let it disappear. But then, that's what the council said about the Rachni Queen.

[111987]

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

The word 'align' implies a mutual relationship; it is not. Shepard controls the Reapers, he owns them.

Also, you are basing your argument on something that happened after the decision. You have to construct your argument as it would be at the time of the decision.

The mission was to defeat the Reapers, yes. But that's because the possibility of control wasn't an option at the time. If your mission is to do something, but right at the end you are given a better option, why not take it?

Because you are enslaving an entire race.....

What, the Reapers?

The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. You can't tolerate enslaving the Reapers, but you are okay with genocide?

[balance5050]

Hadeedak wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

The word 'align' implies a mutual relationship; it is not. Shepard controls the Reapers, he owns them.

Also, you are basing your argument on something that happened after the decision. You have to construct your argument as it would be at the time of the decision.

The mission was to defeat the Reapers, yes. But that's because the possibility of control wasn't an option at the time. If your mission is to do something, but right at the end you are given a better option, why not take it?

Because you are enslaving an entire race.....

Did you choose to rewrite the Heretic geth? Which was the right choice there?

If you rewrite the Geth you find out later that they joined the reapers anyway, so destroying them was the right choice.

[George-Kinsill]

Armass81 wrote...

There had to be some price to pay for destroying the reapers IMO. If they just die and everything generally stays as it is, it makes it all feel too easy. This is a billion year galactic menace that has killed thousands of civilizations after all. It would feel too cheap to have everything returning to normal, after all the currect cycle pretty much sat on its ass until the threat was knocking at their doors. We werent ready. That we should even win around this cycle againsta threat this big is a miracle of itself.

This is one of the reasons I feel the relays should go at least in one ending. But not before everyone jumps to their home systems. Have a chrono trigger kind of ending with the balloons.

Since destroy presumably has a bunch of Reaper eezo cores blowing up on earth...it will presumably make earth unlivable. I'm not going to try to argue that this is what the writers intended, but it is a path they could have taken. You accomplish your mission in destroy, but sacrifice earth in the process. This makes the decision hard yet more sensible than the death of all synthetics. This could then be exemplified by Vega, Ashly/Kaiden, Hackett, Earth born Shep, looking over the eezo contaminated remains of their homes and a bunch of humans dying of eezo inflicted cancer and babies with horrible birth defects?

See? A depressing ending that fits with the universe (excluding the fact that bioware doesn't like to show violence against children.)

The choices should be hard, but what makes them hard should make sense.

[balance5050]

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

The word 'align' implies a mutual relationship; it is not. Shepard controls the Reapers, he owns them.

Also, you are basing your argument on something that happened after the decision. You have to construct your argument as it would be at the time of the decision.

The mission was to defeat the Reapers, yes. But that's because the possibility of control wasn't an option at the time. If your mission is to do something, but right at the end you are given a better option, why not take it?

Because you are enslaving an entire race.....

What, the Reapers?

The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. You can't tolerate enslaving the Reapers, but you are okay with genocide?

I personally don't think the Geth die because I didn't die and the kid says "Most technology you rely on" will be destroyed.

[111987]

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

The word 'align' implies a mutual relationship; it is not. Shepard controls the Reapers, he owns them.

Also, you are basing your argument on something that happened after the decision. You have to construct your argument as it would be at the time of the decision.

The mission was to defeat the Reapers, yes. But that's because the possibility of control wasn't an option at the time. If your mission is to do something, but right at the end you are given a better option, why not take it?

Because you are enslaving an entire race.....

What, the Reapers?

The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. You can't tolerate enslaving the Reapers, but you are okay with genocide?

I personally don't think the Geth die because I didn't die and the kid says "Most technology you rely on" will be destroyed.

Once again you are making arguments after the fact.

Besides, I was talking about the genocide of the Reapers, the race you are unwilling to enslave but willing to wipe out.

[Hadeedak]

Well, he does say the geth are dying. Even if they live, it's a choice your Shepard made on the available information -- take a sure bet and kill his/her allies.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 08 mai 2012 - 05:32 .

[balance5050]

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

111987 wrote...

The word 'align' implies a mutual relationship; it is not. Shepard controls the Reapers, he owns them.

Also, you are basing your argument on something that happened after the decision. You have to construct your argument as it would be at the time of the decision.

The mission was to defeat the Reapers, yes. But that's because the possibility of control wasn't an option at the time. If your mission is to do something, but right at the end you are given a better option, why not take it?

Because you are enslaving an entire race.....

What, the Reapers?

The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. You can't tolerate enslaving the Reapers, but you are okay with genocide?

I personally don't think the Geth die because I didn't die and the kid says "Most technology you rely on" will be destroyed.

Once again you are making arguments after the fact.

Besides, I was talking about the genocide of the Reapers, the race you are unwilling to enslave but willing to wipe out.

So enslaving the ancient death machines is more is more courageous than destroying the death machines? Interesting opinion....