319 réponses à ce sujet

[ahandsomeshark]

yeah if it only destroyed the reapers then the other ending options would be nonsense.

Basically the endings as they stand are broken without an overhaul. No amount of clarification will fix that.

Though my issue with destroy is that while it stops the reapers isn't doesn't stop the supposed cycle so really it doesn't seem to accomplish anything but pushing the problem a few centuries into the future.

Modifié par ahandsomeshark, 07 mai 2012 - 11:23 .

[111987]

I think a Shepard who chose to save the Collector Base could very well rationalize choosing Control, even if Destroy didn't kill all synthetics.

[Hadeedak]

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Instead of asking other people to give you answers, like you always do because you never do anything yourself, how about you answer why it can't be the best choice?

Once you have your answer, tell us what you're going to do about it.

Why should I do your work for you?
My argument is that it can and should be the best choice, of the choices provided.

The onus is on you to argue otherwise.

Why? Destroy's the easiest option to get to, I believe. It takes the least 'work'. It's also solving the problem with a rather weak "WHACK THE REAPER OFF BUTTON", which is kind of dull. (Not that control and synthesis are all that much better. ) Low risk, high reward. Would it really help if it had another consquence yoinked out from under it?

Modifié par Hadeedak, 07 mai 2012 - 11:31 .

[Pelle6666]

Then everyone would be happy! Maybe too easy way to and the series though. This way it is a harder choice but still the consequences of destroy is almost to grave for me to see it as a good ending. I see it as the best ending only because control and synthesis is soooooo ridiculous!

[Hadeedak]

111987 wrote...

I think a Shepard who chose to save the Collector Base could very well rationalize choosing Control, even if Destroy didn't kill all synthetics.

I think a Shepard who rewrote the geth should be going for control...

Uh. Leaving aside that my girl who went with control blew the heretics up.

[ahandsomeshark]

Hadeedak wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Instead of asking other people to give you answers, like you always do because you never do anything yourself, how about you answer why it can't be the best choice?

Once you have your answer, tell us what you're going to do about it.

Why should I do your work for you?
My argument is that it can and should be the best choice, of the choices provided.

The onus is on you to argue otherwise.

Why? Destroy's the easiest option to get to, I believe. It takes the least 'work'. It's also solving the problem with a rather weak "WHACK THE REAPER OFF" button, which is kind of dull. (Not that control and synthesis are all that much better. ) Would it really help if it had another consquence yoinked out from under it?

no but it wouldn't help because the entire construction of the ending is just bad. Adding the consequences doesn't make them any les poorly constructed they just seem like nonsense added on in a weak attempt to distract from the awful. It's like a band-aid on a bullet wound, taking the band-aid off isn't going to fix it, but it's addition doesn't help either.

[Draining Dragon]

Hadeedak wrote...

111987 wrote...

I think a Shepard who chose to save the Collector Base could very well rationalize choosing Control, even if Destroy didn't kill all synthetics.

I think a Shepard who rewrote the geth should be going for control...

Uh. Leaving aside that my girl who went with control blew the heretics up.

...you went with control?

[Hadeedak]

See, I'm not sure I agree with that. I think where the endings really suffer isn't from the outline of the ending. I think where they suffer is how little time is spent on transition between settings and clarification. We don't really know what or how any of the choices work, and it certainly isn't shown to us.

[MisterJB]

Please no Perfect Ending, thank you very much.

[Catamantaloedis]

If someone truly believes that Destroy is the only option which they can morally choose, then sacrificing the Geth should be inconsequential.

In fact, when Starchild said that destroy will kill all Synthetics even the Geth, I shrugged my shoulders.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 07 mai 2012 - 11:36 .

[The Angry One]

Hadeedak wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Instead of asking other people to give you answers, like you always do because you never do anything yourself, how about you answer why it can't be the best choice?

Once you have your answer, tell us what you're going to do about it.

Why should I do your work for you?
My argument is that it can and should be the best choice, of the choices provided.

The onus is on you to argue otherwise.

Why? Destroy's the easiest option to get to, I believe. It takes the least 'work'. It's also solving the problem with a rather weak "WHACK THE REAPER OFF BUTTON", which is kind of dull. (Not that control and synthesis are all that much better. ) Low risk, high reward. Would it really help if it had another consquence yoinked out from under it?

I'm speaking of max EMS destroy. Max EMS would by defintion require the most work, along with gaining peace with the Geth (which I would have as a requirement).

Of course all 3 choices as they are, are garbage. But even within these limitations one could easily make it so that destroy can reflect your work.

[ahandsomeshark]

Hadeedak wrote...

See, I'm not sure I agree with that. I think where the endings really suffer isn't from the outline of the ending. I think where they suffer is how little time is spent on transition between settings and clarification. We don't really know what or how any of the choices work, and it certainly isn't shown to us.

As far as I can tell they were constructed like that on purpose. We weren't shown how they work or the consequences because they weren't written. So to me that's a construction problem.

[Killa rican]

Well, its not just because the other endings were "unattractive". It's not like you see the results of your choices on the galaxy besides colored explosions lol.

[Reorte]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Though my issue with destroy is that while it stops the reapers isn't doesn't stop the supposed cycle so really it doesn't seem to accomplish anything but pushing the problem a few centuries into the future.

A few centuries into the future is where I'm quite happy to embrace speculation.

[Hadeedak]

Draining Dragon wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

111987 wrote...

I think a Shepard who chose to save the Collector Base could very well rationalize choosing Control, even if Destroy didn't kill all synthetics.

I think a Shepard who rewrote the geth should be going for control...

Uh. Leaving aside that my girl who went with control blew the heretics up.

...you went with control?

Ayup, on my 'canon' playthrough! I had a Shepard who generally got on well with the quarians and the geth. After they were getting along so nicely, she wasn't going to zap the geth. So... Reapers get Shepard morals, Shepard dies.

[The Angry One]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If someone truly believes that Destory is the only option which they should choose, then sacrificing the Geth should be inconsequential.

In fact, when Starchild said that destroy will kill all Synthetics even the Geth, I shrugged my shoulders.

How nice for you. I don't feel the same. Why should my game reflect your views?
That's the antithesis of Mass Effect.

How would you like it if I said you could only play as an Engineer? Or only as ManShep or FemShep?
Choice. It matters.

[ahandsomeshark]

MisterJB wrote...

Please no Perfect Ending, thank you very much.

They could always give us multiple endings like they promised. And they could give a non perfect ending with a sacrifice that makes way more sense then lol jk all that crap you did with the geth was just filler you could have skipped it. I'd rather sacrifice the entire sol system than wipe out an entire species who allied with me.

[SirBob1613]

Hadeedak wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Instead of asking other people to give you answers, like you always do because you never do anything yourself, how about you answer why it can't be the best choice?

Once you have your answer, tell us what you're going to do about it.

Why should I do your work for you?
My argument is that it can and should be the best choice, of the choices provided.

The onus is on you to argue otherwise.

Why? Destroy's the easiest option to get to, I believe. It takes the least 'work'. It's also solving the problem with a rather weak "WHACK THE REAPER OFF BUTTON", which is kind of dull. (Not that control and synthesis are all that much better. ) Low risk, high reward. Would it really help if it had another consquence yoinked out from under it?

Yup because walking 10 feet in the other direction is really hard to get to

[Bill Casey]

If the ending is taken at face value, all three endings should be on a sliding scale of Utopian to Distopian, dependant on War Assets...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 07 mai 2012 - 11:39 .

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

Please no Perfect Ending, thank you very much.

This attitude irks me. Why can't we have the option for a "perfect" (perfect, after all the death and destruction?) ending?
If you don't want it, don't choose it, but why should the rest of us be forced into the same options as you?

[KingNothing125]

If Destroy only killed the Reapers, there would be no reason to choose any of the others. Killing the Geth (and possibly EDI) is an arbitrary addition to make people consider the alternatives. I said "F it" and chose Destroy anyway. Only a fool would follow Illusive Man (Control) or Saren (Synthesis).

[Hadeedak]

The Angry One wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Instead of asking other people to give you answers, like you always do because you never do anything yourself, how about you answer why it can't be the best choice?

Once you have your answer, tell us what you're going to do about it.

Why should I do your work for you?
My argument is that it can and should be the best choice, of the choices provided.

The onus is on you to argue otherwise.

Why? Destroy's the easiest option to get to, I believe. It takes the least 'work'. It's also solving the problem with a rather weak "WHACK THE REAPER OFF BUTTON", which is kind of dull. (Not that control and synthesis are all that much better. ) Low risk, high reward. Would it really help if it had another consquence yoinked out from under it?

I'm speaking of max EMS destroy. Max EMS would by defintion require the most work, along with gaining peace with the Geth (which I would have as a requirement).

Of course all 3 choices as they are, are garbage. But even within these limitations one could easily make it so that destroy can reflect your work.

Why destroy only (or specifically), then? Why not have control where Shepard's infesting Citadel ads being like "Hey, guys! The reapers are in dark space! Someone build me a body!" Or a synthesis with...

Ok, so I don't like synthesis, even in concept... But something like a benevolent ghost in the machine Shepard...

Modifié par Hadeedak, 07 mai 2012 - 11:40 .

[SirBob1613]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If someone truly believes that Destroy is the only option which they can morally choose, then sacrificing the Geth should be inconsequential.

In fact, when Starchild said that destroy will kill all Synthetics even the Geth, I shrugged my shoulders.

See thats the problem with destory i don't want to control the reapers they dont deserve a easy way out i dont want to combine oragincs and synthetics into some nasty monster. How come blue and green endings have no problems attached when red does?

Modifié par SirBob1613, 07 mai 2012 - 11:40 .

[hoodaticus]

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?

The Geth deserve their fate for joining the Reapers.  I take solace in the fact that they were at least redeemed before they died.

Of course, none of this ever happened anyway, because Shepard was indoctrinated 5 minutes before he met Justin Beiber.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 07 mai 2012 - 11:40 .

[Verit]

What if destroy only killed the Reapers?

See, that would actually make the ending meaningful. Shepard would actually achieve what he/she had been fighting for all along. What all his/her friends were helping him/her achieve. The galaxy would actually truly be freed from the Reapers and their twisted ideology. Why would anyone want such an ending?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I absolutely hate the "oh yeah killing the Reapers means you need to kill all synthetics and in doing so betray your friends." addition to the Destroy ending. Might as well display a popup at the end telling us they didn't want us to Destroy the Reapers, in the same way they didn't want Shepard to survive. Sure, the options are there, but they're really just trolling us by asking us to wipe out all synthetic life to achieve them.

Modifié par -Draikin-, 07 mai 2012 - 11:43 .