319 réponses à ce sujet

[jijeebo]

ohupthis wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I think there's a decent logical case for picking Control even without dead Geth. Particularly if you clear up a few practical issues, like how you can control the reapers while dead.

It would be a minority choice, but I'm sure some would take it.  Even more would take it if the story leading up to the final choice wasn't so heavy handedly anti-Control - like allowing Shepard to show some sympathy with the objective, while opposing TIM's methods.

Synthesis is just gibberish.

control isn't any better, those big-baddies are still reapin'.

They ain't gonna reapin when my Shepard is controlling them, I'll tell you that for sure.

Modifié par jijeebo, 08 mai 2012 - 01:28 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Navasha wrote...

For me personally, I am not a gambler. I will always choose destroy as it is the only choice that guarantees an end to the reaper threat.

I would have chosen destroy even if the "cost" was the entire human race instead of the Geth, so yes, I imagine if they stripped away all of the "cost" to the choice I would have had an easier moment choosing it.

Low enough EMS, and your wish is sorta granted, LOL

[unoriginalname1133]

Hadeedak wrote...

Well, the other 2 games had 2 endings. Council? Y/n? Collector base? Y/n?

I'm not SHOCKED that our option level was low... except the part where we were told something else. That was odd.

We need to be careful not to equate choices at the end with CONSEQUENCES. There could have been no choice at the Crucible whatsoever as far as I'm concerned; what was important to me was seeing the consequences of the many choices I had already made over the 3 games. Even if the Crucible was just a giant laser or something uninspired like that, I would have been fine. The differentiated endings should be shaped by what you did in the 100+ hours leading up to the end, not a choice you make in the last 5 minutes

[Hadeedak]

Oh, yeah... Well, the big kick was the others had 2 endings, and the consequences of those choices were shown in the next game.

There's no aftergame for this one, so an epilogue beyond Gilligan's Planet would have... really, really helped. Instead of a final dialogue, montage, roll credits like ME1 and ME2.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

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.

But EDI essentially gave you permission to terminate her if you needed to. She said something about destroying the reapers being worth non-functionality. And she was adamant about it. Of course this might be if you renegaded her throughout the game.

Still it is lazy writing.

[Spectre Impersonator]

Destroy was what I went there to do and that's what I'm going to do. Don't care how many cheap ass tactics they use to make me choose Synthesis, it's the worst choice.

[MisterJB]

unoriginalname1133 wrote...
Wow. If you're that cynical, you have problems that are simply too big to be solved in an internet forum argument

I'm not cynical, I'm realistic.

[eddieoctane]

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.

You have to love those threads when the first response is the best one.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Reorte wrote...

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.

Yes, speculation tis a wonderful and horrifying forethought.

Imagine if you will, if the Geth weren't wiped out, and they retained the Reaper code, could they resort to doing what the Reapers were originally programmed for?

[Joe Del Toro]

I don't understand why the ending has to be an arbitrary point where the story says 'Right, stop everything, choose here.' Why can't it simply play out according to how I played the last 3 games. That way, there is a perfect ending, but you don't 'choose' it, you PLAY for it. As much as anyone wants to defend the three choices we are given, there's no excuse for a choice to be thrown up like this. Why wouldn't you want better than this?

[Hadeedak]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

I don't understand why the ending has to be an arbitrary point where the story says 'Right, stop everything, choose here.' Why can't it simply play out according to how I played the last 3 games. That way, there is a perfect ending, but you don't 'choose' it, you PLAY for it. As much as anyone wants to defend the three choices we are given, there's no excuse for a choice to be thrown up like this. Why wouldn't you want better than this?

Because it's the end of a game. You're always going to choose collector base or no. You're always going to choose to save the Destiny Ascension or not. And you're always going to pick what color light you want streaming through the relays. How you play up until then is where you make your choices. Can you imagine what an unholy bear it would be to program an ending based on EVERYTHING? As for one based on your EMS... Synthesis, Control good/control bad, destroy good/destroy bad/destroy liveShep, and of course, does Buzz Aldrin give you a message about science fiction (probably!) in the end?

Do I think the endings are perfect? Hahah, no. But I do think they're workable. And I think (and others may disagree) is where Mass Effect 3's ending REALLY drops the ball is that there's no real conclusion, even text based. I'd LOVE more clarity in choices and probably different choices. But being left on a mild cliffhanger, like the last 2 games, and knowing this is THE LAST ONE... Is kind of bullocks.

[Averdi]

George-Kinsill wrote...

The forums are filled with a never ending morality debate between the endings and the amount of personal attacks are unfortunately increasing. Many defend their ending with a certain level of zeal that I think is displaced. To me, the endings do not fit well into the Mass Effect universe. Tthat is besides the point though. It seems that many, if not all people would choose the destroy ending if only the Reapers were killed. So my question is, if only the Reapers, not the geth and EDI, were destroyed in the destroy ending, would this cause you to pick destroy over synthesis and control?

I know that many people speculate this already, and others attack this speculation does not justify the genocide of the geth. However, let's accept for this debate that only the Reapers are killed off. If this is the case, then I think that destroy shoots control and synthesis out of the water in terms of morality and overall quality. Personally, I think Bioware shoe horned the death of the geth and EDI in order to not have everyone choose destroy, just like they had the First Enchanter responsible for the death of Hawke's mother so that some people would side with the Templars in DA2.

So please respond with your thoughts on how this scenario would change you choice, if at all. Also, let's try to keep things somewhat civil.

Edit: For the sake of more debate, would you change your decision if Shepard survived the control ending?

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.

[Joe Del Toro]

Hadeedak wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

I don't understand why the ending has to be an arbitrary point where the story says 'Right, stop everything, choose here.' Why can't it simply play out according to how I played the last 3 games. That way, there is a perfect ending, but you don't 'choose' it, you PLAY for it. As much as anyone wants to defend the three choices we are given, there's no excuse for a choice to be thrown up like this. Why wouldn't you want better than this?

Because it's the end of a game. You're always going to choose collector base or no. You're always going to choose to save the Destiny Ascension or not. And you're always going to pick what color light you want streaming through the relays. How you play up until then is where you make your choices. Can you imagine what an unholy bear it would be to program an ending based on EVERYTHING? As for one based on your EMS... Synthesis, Control good/control bad, destroy good/destroy bad/destroy liveShep, and of course, does Buzz Aldrin give you a message about science fiction (probably!) in the end?

Do I think the endings are perfect? Hahah, no. But I do think they're workable. And I think (and others may disagree) is where Mass Effect 3's ending REALLY drops the ball is that there's no real conclusion, even text based. I'd LOVE more clarity in choices and probably different choices. But being left on a mild cliffhanger, like the last 2 games, and knowing this is THE LAST ONE... Is kind of bullocks.

You counteracted your own point there a bit. It's the end of a TRILOGY. Those examples you listed are consequences to what will happen in the next game. We didn't need that again, we needed those consequences to finalise. That would have ended the story. And it might very well have been difficult to program (it certainly would be) but that is the challenge they set themselves and why it should have been given more time. It still could have been a good ending without making this arbitrary choice.

[MisterJB]

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?

[Hadeedak]

I disagree on that. I think while it would be nice to have an ending individually tailored for each Shepard, it's not realistic. You did go through your consequences throughout the game, mostly after every story mission.

See, I actually think Buzz Aldrin was a nice touch. If that'd been expanded on or have Hackett talking about Shepard and what he/she did, in very general terms, I think it would have been a better wrap. But I don't think MOAR ENDINGS are the blanket answer so much as expansion and clarification on what we have and what it meant.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 08 mai 2012 - 02:14 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...



Still the best ending.

Where is that option? PLEASE WE need it DESPERATELY!!!!

[Hadeedak]

Well, yeah, that'd be ideal... But then we'd only have one ending. D: The best ending. >.>

[Joe Del Toro]

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?

That is extremely patronising and ignorant of what everyone has been saying but alright. If someone said to you 'what do you want for breakfast, burnt toast, cereal with urine instead of milk or rotten eggs, you wouldn't call that a hard choice. You'd call it a stupid choice, because it's giving you three outcomes that are arbitrarily unpleasant.

I love a good sad ending. But I know an ending that is sad for the sake of it a mile away and this is a prime example of it.

I disagree on that. I think while it would be nice to have an ending individually tailored for each Shepard, it's not realistic. You did go through your consequences throughout the game, mostly after every story mission.

If it's not realistic, it should not have been promised.

[ahandsomeshark]

all I wanted was too blow up a bunch of reapers bioware. And talk some junk to Harbinger.

Was that so much to ask? Why did the ending have to be any more complex than that?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

MisterJB wrote...

unoriginalname1133 wrote...
Is there actually any debate that the Reapers are the bad guys? I can't imagine anyone arguing that genocide isn't a bad thing, and the Reapers have committed genocide countless times. It doesn't matter why they did it; some things are just downright evil, genocide among them

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.

This is horse-hockey!!, the Reapers do so commit genocide, they obliterate all sentient life of an advanced race, because they are programmed to do only that!

Elevate life my ass, their just worried some race will become too strong and wipe them out, that's called self-preservation. Nothing wrong with that, except it's the way they go about 'preserving' the races.

And while i'm at it, I'd bet you'd like to come back in 50,000 years, and wipe out some other sentient beings?

I know i wouldn't so drop it already, and go play with your squid-buddies,K?

[Hadeedak]

Well, yeah, I agree there. They made a serious mistake with talking up the ending, especially considering the chopped, bare bones ending we got.

[Varus Praetor]

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.

There's a difference between taking casualties during the suicide mission and being forced to one by one shoot every team mate in the head in order to defeat the fetus-Reaper.  One is murder (of your allies no less) and the other is a consequence of war.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

MisterJB wrote...

Reorte wrote...
Right... What exactly is left of the species when it's mushed and turned into a Reaper? About as much as when an individual is turned into a husk.

Am I to assume that you have spent some time as a Reaper?
Unlike Husks, Reapers are sapient and they seem to really like their condition since they keep calling it "the pinacle of existence."

Remember what Shepard said to the Reaper on Rannoch?

Shepard has never been a Reaper so his opinion on the subject has little merit.

In their eyes, all 6 of em.

there's NOTHING meritorious about them, they kill hence they will die.

[MisterJB]

Joe Del Toro wrote...
That is extremely patronising and ignorant of what everyone has been saying but alright. If someone said to you 'what do you want for breakfast, burnt toast, cereal with urine instead of milk or rotten eggs, you wouldn't call that a hard choice. You'd call it a stupid choice, because it's giving you three outcomes that are arbitrarily unpleasant.

I love a good sad ending. But I know an ending that is sad for the sake of it a mile away and this is a prime example of it.

Hardly. Comparing something as simple as a breakfast to the ending of the trilogy is a disservice.
A rotten egg is a rotten egg. Eating it will not nourish me, it will make me sick. However, all three endings bring negative consequences but also positive that you overlooked.
 
The consequences of Destroy make sense and are a logical result of the option you picked. You picked an ultimate end of the spectrum; there will be no form of compromise with the Reapers, they must be destroyed. As such, the Crucible destroys the Cycle that brough the galaxy so much pain and suffering but also target the wonders than the Reapers created. The Relays, the Citadel and the Geth who were using Reaper code to gain true life.
The consequences of this choice are in tune with its spirit. Same as with Control where none of this technology is destroyed.

Synthesis is a completely different story. Amazing and beautiful idea but simply far too complicated to introduce in the last 10 minutes of a trilogy.

Ultimately, I agree that there are good reasons to complain about the ending but I believe most of them lie in its presentation not the choices and consequences.

[Averdi]

MisterJB wrote...

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?

Well, first, regardless of what you may think about the ending choices and their appropriateness, my Shepard has a pretty solid track record of avoiding choices between bad options.  He did it when he made peace between the geth and quarians.  He would call your sentiment cowardly defeatist twaddle and look for a better solution.

Second, I find it somewhat ironic that hard, undesired, and unavoidable consequences must be accepted via the pick-a-ending when the consequences of so many other choices made in the series are neutered.  If only I could experience the full impact of the consequences of destroying the collector base or sparing the rachni!

Finally, do you think an ending where Shepard died, had his/her sacrifice honored, but the relays were left intact and galactic rebuilding could commence is a sunshine and bunny ending?  I'd like a range of options, based on past choices, that include Shepard living, but I'd generally be ok with that type of ending (previous sentence).

Sunshine and bunnies is the catalyst letting you go back in time with a reaper gun to prevent the invasion in the first place.  In a post-invasion galaxy where billions are dead, some races almost completely, I really don't think we need to worry about an ending being too bright.