319 réponses à ce sujet

[sorentoft]

The Angry One said it in the very first comment. 12 pages of nonsense follows.

Modifié par sorentoft, 08 mai 2012 - 02:53 .

[Elite Midget]

The Angry One wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

If it just destroyed the Reapers than no one would pick the other two choices because it would be so blatantly obvious that is the best choice. Shepard only living in that ending would just be topping on that cake.

And why can't it be the best choice, if you do everything right, if you make peace with the Geth and get max EMS?

This is like saying that it shouldn't be possible to do the suicide mission in ME2 with 0 casualties no matter how hard you work.

Because they wanted to sell the other choices. They had to give Destroy a downside to try and make it not so obvious that's the only real choice that stays true to the series and what Shepard has been saying for 3 games.

[Kunari801]

I've said many time I'd like to see Control split into at least two options:
- One a way to send a "GTFO of our Galaxy" command to the Reapers. Kick them out maybe even leave it open that they may return if the Synthetics do rebel. Shepard can live in this ending.
- Second the control as it is now.

I'd also like to see Destroy split too:
- One as it is now, destroy the Reapers and Synthetics (Shepard may live)
- Destroy the Reapers and spare the Geth and EDI, but Shepard gives up his life to save them.

[frylock23]

MisterJB wrote...

Please no Perfect Ending, thank you very much.

But we all know you think Synthesis is THE perfect ending. So you already have one. What's your beef?

[Iakus]

I've said before the choice between Blue and Red would be much better if:

Red:  Low EMS kills Shep, geth, and EDI.  Medium EMS could  kill EDI, some or all of the geth, and might kill Shepard, based on certain choices.  High EMS saves the geth, EDI, and Shepard.  If Shep lives, can reunite with crew/LI and live out life as an ordinary human, no longer partly synthetic.

Blue:  Low EMS, Shepard dies, but with last thought can command the Reapers to "go away" or something like that"  With high EMS, Shepard becomes a fully sentient AI in the Citadel, replacing the Catalyst and free to find his/her own "solution.  Shep is no longer human, and no longer has purely "human" concerns, but with full control of the Reapers, can decide what to do with them, and can make an in-game choice.  Such choices could include:  Rebuilding the galaxy, keeping the peace between the races (use Reapers as a White Star fleet), conquering the galaxy or leave to let the races find their own way.   

Modifié par iakus, 08 mai 2012 - 03:29 .

[wantedman dan]

balance5050 wrote...

I can't wait for summer so my ending will be *extended* and *clarified*. And don't forget!

LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE!

 

This makes me physically ill.

[MisterJB]

frylock23 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Please no Perfect Ending, thank you very much.

But we all know you think Synthesis is THE perfect ending. So you already have one. What's your beef?

Synthesis is not perfect. For one, Shepard dies. But worse, it brings about a great moral conflict. I believe Synthesis has the potential to improve the galaxy but I can't exactly forget that Shepard is forcibly rewritting everyone's genetic code. Thus, it is an hard decision for the greater good.
There is nothing hard about picking an option that only destroys Reapers.

[Hadeedak]

If you had synthesis with a live Shepard and assurance everyone would remain THEM, just with a bit of upgrade, Reapers gone forever... It'd be the best.

If you had Control with a live Shepard and the assurance that the Reapers were gone forever/dead, that'd be best (though control already has the carrot of a unbroken Citadel and relays that don't totally explode...)

If Destroy, with a live Shepard, ended with EDI and the geth fine... It'd be the best.

Making one clearly the best in every way with no sacrifices would sort of make the triplicate choice pointless.

[PsyrenY]

MisterJB wrote...

There is nothing hard about picking an option that only destroys Reapers.

This. It's boring.

And as if that weren't enough, Shepard survives too. They may as well have Morinth stand in front of the other two paths (with an arrow pointed at her junk) if they do that.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 08 mai 2012 - 06:15 .

[SovereignWillReturn]

I'd take the destroy every time. Only ending that makes sense.

[jeweledleah]

you know, people who think its boring - don't have to pick the option they find boring.

its not a hard concept.

technicaly - ME2 had the best ending. everyone survives. and yet... people still kill off their squadmates. different ones, in different ways. because variety is fun.

make destroy kill reapers only if you do everything right, finish every quest. unite everyone that can be united.

me, I'm going with my headcanon. I've given up on stuff we got. if EC doesn't deliver, I'm sticking to headcanon. and in my headcanon - all 3 endings are attractive in their own way. all 3 have their benefits and their drawbacks, both longterm and short term.
its not impossible you know. somehow.. they managed it with DAO.

[wantedman dan]

MisterJB wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Please no Perfect Ending, thank you very much.

But we all know you think Synthesis is THE perfect ending. So you already have one. What's your beef?

Synthesis is not perfect. For one, Shepard dies. But worse, it brings about a great moral conflict. I believe Synthesis has the potential to improve the galaxy but I can't exactly forget that Shepard is forcibly rewritting everyone's genetic code. Thus, it is an hard decision for the greater good.
There is nothing hard about picking an option that only destroys Reapers.

If I've earned that right, what does it matter?

[wantedman dan]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

There is nothing hard about picking an option that only destroys Reapers.

This. It's boring.

And as if that weren't enough, Shepard survives too. They may as well have Morinth stand in front of the other two paths (with an arrow pointed at her junk) if they do that.

Again, who are you to decide for me what is best for MY Shepard?

[Oldbones2]

Why do we need a hard choice?

I played super hard, did every quest and bought all the extra content.

My Shep has earned his happy ending.

[Flamewielder]

Unless you believe the Starkid has god-like omniscience, you cannot take anything it says at face value. If synthetics ALLWAYS rebel against their organic creators, how did the Starkid fix it the first time? It would obviously imply it had another way to fix the problem before coming up with this Reaper solution... and then if he'd solved the problem once, why bother with the Reapers? The whole Starkid idea of KNOWING (i.e. from having witnessed it before) is flawed from the start.

That being said, Starkid BELIEVES synthetic rebellion is unavoidable (that different from KNOWING). It created the Reapers to fix a problem it BELIEVES is unavoidable. You, as Shepard, can disprove this belief. Yet you're powerless to make the Starkid see that. So Destroy it is, especially if it doesn't impact EDI and our Geth allies.

The writers failed when trying to come up with a set of equally morally ambiguous options. They should have stuck to simpler Paragon/Renegade choices.

Far more interesting would have been to use the Reaper's very name to posit their intent: to harvest "mature" civilizations to leave space for younger emerging ones to evolve. You can debate wether this is desirable or not, wether or not the process is painfull or painless... You can debate wether younger civiliztions have a "right" to take over the galaxy on their terms... after all, mammals have essentially taken over the top spots in Earth's planetary evolution after the dinosaurs became extinct. You may argue if thas random chance or design...

Personally, I say let chance decide. Destroy the Reapers and let the future decide for itself. Some synthetics will rebel, some will form symbiotic relationships with their creators. So what if the Yagh enventually take over and wipe us out... as Javik says, it's the cosmic imperative at work. Maybe collaboration between species is the best way for them to secure their position on the top rung of the evolutionary ladder... or maybe it's only survival of the fittest.

There is moral ambiguity/ambivalence with all these options without adding Starkid to the overall picture.

I'm greatly sadened that Legion's notion that civilizations should be allowed the freedom of evolving along their own paths rather than one selected/imposed by a more advanced one (the Reapers).

The current ending insults my intelligence and is shockingly substandard in a series that was otherwise brilliant in exploring classic sci-fi concepts.

[George-Kinsill]

Does anyone care about the fact though that the destroy ending does nothing about the synthetic rebellion cycle? Control and synthesis both presumably fix it (either we have a Reaper armada to help or we are all the same), but destroy leaves the galaxy vulnerable for all organic life to be wiped out.

[RocketManSR2]

If your EMS was high enough, it should have. That is all.

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

If they didn't kill Shepard in the other two endings, they wouldn't need to arbitrarily add penalties to Destroy, especially as Control makes less sense with Shepard dead.

[Verit]

George-Kinsill wrote...
Does anyone care about the fact though that the destroy ending does nothing about the synthetic rebellion cycle? Control and synthesis both presumably fix it (either we have a Reaper armada to help or we are all the same), but destroy leaves the galaxy vulnerable for all organic life to be wiped out.

If you choose Destroy, you don't believe the Catalyst's assertion that synthetics will destroy all organic life. So no, I don't care. Ever considered the fact that the Reapers themselves made the geth attack organics? Just listen to the Rannoch Reaper that tries to prove the point that "synthetics will always destroy organics" by using the Rannoch battle itself as an example. The battle where it was actively controlling the geth. It's basically a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Their logic is so flawed it's not even funny.

Modifié par -Draikin-, 08 mai 2012 - 11:55 .

[Zix13]

The Angry One wrote...

Said it before and I'll say it again. They couldn't make control and synthesis appealing on their own merits, so they had to tack on penalties to destroy.

That's lazy writing. Their job was to sell these other options, not arbitrarily penalise people for picking the only option that even begins to resemble what we've been fighting for, for 3 whole games.

Agreed.