1114 réponses à ce sujet

[Demoiselle]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
My point in all this is yes, we can judge the Catalyst, because it's actions are reprehensible.

On that, we agree.

Oh yes. But it comes down to the point that the Catalyst not disaproving of Control/Synthesis doesn't make them wrong by association.

[2lame4fame]

i failed... 3 game full paragon and first time i chose control couse i don't want kill geth..they indocrinated me:(

[YNation913]

Well if you buy into the premise that Reaper corpses can still indoctrinate people, how is "destroy" passing the test? "The peace won't last" indeed.

[TSA_383]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
There is far more going on here than "ascension" and the Catalyst knows it, yet it sweeps it under the rug because it KNOWS what is doing is wrong.

There's nothing to suggest that the Catalyst thought it was doing anything wrong, or that it was trying to cover anything up.  I think the Catalyst is very genuine with you, which makes it more of a bastard.

I still find it impossible to trust this creature, whatever form it may take. At the end of the day, it controls the reapers, making it responsible for suffering and death on an unimaginable scale. It also means that it is in control of a race for whom one of their resounding themes is the ability to control and manipulate. Seeing it then attempt to talk me out of destroying the reapers, and the inclusion of the cutscene when we see Anderson (one of the major heros throughout all three games) and TIM (arguably the primary villain of ME3 choosing Destroy and Control respectively and the fact that I had throughout the source of the series killed proponents of control and synthesis, I saw no other option.

Then got the "Shepard lives!" ending and thought I was about to get more gameplay.
But no, cliffhanger ending, cut to black, 4-5 month wait for DLC for proper ending.
**** Bioware, seriously

[Bad King]

Choosing destroy leads to earth being buried under reaper corpses so there was no way I was going to choose that- it's a disaster waiting to happen.

[Geneaux486]

Demoiselle wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
My point in all this is yes, we can judge the Catalyst, because it's actions are reprehensible.

On that, we agree.

Oh yes. But it comes down to the point that the Catalyst not disaproving of Control/Synthesis doesn't make them wrong by association.

In the sense of control and synthesis, it's really just a matter of how much you care about the Geth and EDI.  Destroy has an unexpected consequence, but in another sense, it kind of is expected.  The Crucible was designed by countless cycles who all went to war with synthetics that wanted to kill them, so it makes sense that they would either rig the Crucible up to destroy synthetics as well, or not take steps to prevent the effects from harming synthetics.

I still find it impossible to trust this creature, whatever form it may take.

You don't have to trust it.  The things it's telling you about the Crucible's functionality would be there whether or not the Catalyst was there to tell you about it.

Choosing destroy leads to earth being buried under reaper corpses so there was no way I was going to choose that- it's a disaster waiting to happen.

 
I'm sure they'll flash-decompose and become fields of grass in no time.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 09 mai 2012 - 10:26 .

[H2Ape]

I don't see how destroy could even be considered the right answer.

[Demoiselle]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Demoiselle wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
My point in all this is yes, we can judge the Catalyst, because it's actions are reprehensible.

On that, we agree.

Oh yes. But it comes down to the point that the Catalyst not disaproving of Control/Synthesis doesn't make them wrong by association.

In the sense of control and synthesis, it's really just a matter of how much you care about the Geth and EDI.  Destroy has an unexpected consequence, but in another sense, it kind of is expected.  The Crucible was designed by countless cycles who all went to war with synthetics that wanted to kill them, so it makes sense that they would either rig the Crucible up to destroy synthetics as well, or not take steps to prevent the effects from harming synthetics.

I still find it impossible to trust this creature, whatever form it may take.

You don't have to trust it.  The things it's telling you about the Crucible's functionality would be there whether or not the Catalyst was there to tell you about them.

Ditto. The Catalyst is abhorent, it simplifies what it has done and doesn't seem to even acknowlege the suffering caused as important, and believes that organic species would prefer to be a freaking Reaper than just to be killed.

But I didn't choose synthesis because I cared about or believed in what the Catalyst was saying about it, I chose it because I believed that if BW created what is basiclly a charachter soley for exposition on my last choice in the game, they were going to have him give me the facts, and not reveal a few months down the line in some writers tweet that the Geth/EDI dont ever die in Destroy or that the synthesis means organics are now indoctrinated.

No faith in the Catalyst, but I still have a little in BWs writing staff.

Modifié par Demoiselle, 09 mai 2012 - 10:29 .

[Nimrodell]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm sorry, that's crap, Nim. Pure crap.
I don't care what the Catalyst is. I will not judge a being by what they are, I will judge them by their actions, and by it's ACTIONS the Catalyst is a genocidal maniac, who sugar-coats it's actions with platitudes.

Tell me something. If the Catalyst is so beyond us, so above us, so unaccountable, WHY is it so dishonest about what it does? Why does it play verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that it's KILLING people? If it's understanding is so beyond us, why hide what it does? Why not simply state that what it does is murder?
Because it knows it's wrong, it knows it's unjustifiable, so it hides it and calls it "ascension".

Please. Also, not to bring religion into this, but the story of Noah's Ark is deeply immoral. Genocide is never justified under any circumstance for any reason. I don't care who the perpetrator is.

Well, Angry One, first of all, I'm not bringing religion in - I'm brining in archetype that is used, one of them. In this archetype Noah is mortal that doesn't understand the higher power, just like cavemen didn't understand fire or lightining or any other power of nature thus assigning them characteristics of deities and trying to survive - not even questioning the morality of changes, because there is no morality there to talk about - it is what it is, higher design of things that are. Otherwise, what's the difference between Clarcke's Monolith and Catalyst - or Old Testiment Jahveh and Catalyst? Again, I'm talking here in terms of stories and archetypes, not faith or religious beliefs - so, pardon me, but your so often self-expressed righteousness is crap, because you're judging something as if you understand its nature and plan and as if you are Justice itself .

(By the way, I don't mean anything offensive by this, I just answered in your writing style, I am regular reader of your posts and I'm very well familiar with your beliefs and if we were talking about humans nowadays and human villains that we can comprehend, I'd support you 100%, but this is more like Ahriman/Ormuzd type of situation - it just is, whether we like that dualistic nature or not, whether from our perspective he's moral or not . I may not like Ahriman and his materialistic nature from which this world and all its diversity stems, but its the nature of the higher design that was created in one moment and it's our curse we're so short lived and limited by knowledge - otherwise we'd know how to stop our Sun from dying so it doesn't commit genocide in its nature and intention to turn into white dwarf, or cycles of extinction wouldn't happen already on Earth because that how things are, or we would comprehend dark energy and stop it from beating gravity force thus ultimately destroying our universe .)

Ah, so much can be said on this subject... and as I said while I presented undetermined spots in story - for you, Catalyst, even though you don't nothing about its nature, its purpose, how it all begun, unlike, lets say, Melkor or Biblical version of Lucifer, is incarnation of something that can be qualified by human standards of morality thus having right choice according to your own perception of things - the only thing I'm trying to explain to people is (let me put it like this, it's simpler and shorter that way), democracy is no longer democracy if one person determines what is democratic for others .

Anyway, crap or no crap, that's how things are.

[UrgentArchengel]

I didn't really trust that douche. Especially if Shepard could live. As far as I know, Shepard, EDI, and at least most Geth back at Rannoch are all alive. EDI at least in the ship, EVA Córe is probably gone.

[RMP _]

We see that all endings work. All three endings end with the datapad saying Shepard ended the reaper threat. Control means you sacrified yourself (or your body anyways) instead of the geth race and EDI, hence the paragon/renegade colors. That's the conclusion I've come to anyways.

I regret to say, my choice the first time was synthesis. I was paralyzed with indecision, couldn't go with control or destroy at the time, so I walked down the middle. I feel dirty for picking it first. It ends the reaper threat, and even though people don't turn into ugly borg-like monsters, I still don't lilke it.

[Clayless]

People that think the IT theory are real keep on leaking their headcannon into ending conversations.

It's like you argue about 2 completely different things, the ending, and the IT ending, so all arguments go nowhere.

[Zix13]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

LOL @ Indoctrination Headcanon.

Doesn't matter, destroy is still the only sensible choice. 

[YNation913]

RMP _ wrote...

We see that all endings work. All three endings end with the datapad saying Shepard ended the reaper threat. Control means you sacrified yourself (or your body anyways) instead of the geth race and EDI, hence the paragon/renegade colors. That's the conclusion I've come to anyways.

I regret to say, my choice the first time was synthesis. I was paralyzed with indecision, couldn't go with control or destroy at the time, so I walked down the middle. I feel dirty for picking it first. It ends the reaper threat, and even though people don't turn into ugly borg-like monsters, I still don't lilke it.

So what'd you pick on your next go?

[Fingertrip]

Alot by the look of things. Didn't play prior Mass Effect games probably, but they're welcome to the series and the world tho- can't get it right the first time! =)

[Asharad Hett]

H2Ape wrote...

I don't see how destroy could even be considered the right answer.

Listen to yourself!  You're indoctrinated!

[Asharad Hett]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

People that think the IT theory are real keep on leaking their headcannon into ending conversations.

It's like you argue about 2 completely different things, the ending, and the IT ending, so all arguments go nowhere.

You must not have played the same game.  The ending to my game involved indoctrination (TIM) and how you can't control reapers.

[Wulfram]

Foolish. By picking Destroy, you have failed the test.

Shepard never left the Geth Consensus. Everything after that is merely a test by the Geth to assess the value of allying themselves with the Organics. Hence the shoehorned in "Organics vs Synthetics" stuff at the end.

If you pick destroy, you clearly place no real value on Synthetic life, so the Geth will kill you.  Which is why you see Shepard's last breath.

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 mai 2012 - 10:45 .

[The Angry One]

Nimrodell wrote...

Well, Angry One, first of all, I'm not bringing religion in - I'm brining in archetype that is used, one of them. In this archetype Noah is mortal that doesn't understand the higher power, just like cavemen didn't understand fire or lightining or any other power of nature thus assigning them characteristics of deities and trying to survive - not even questioning the morality of changes, because there is no morality there to talk about - it is what it is, higher design of things that are. Otherwise, what's the difference between Clarcke's Monolith and Catalyst - or Old Testiment Jahveh and Catalyst? Again, I'm talking here in terms of stories and archetypes, not faith or religious beliefs - so, pardon me, but your so often self-expressed righteousness is crap, because you're judging something as if you understand its nature and plan and as if you are Justice itself .

The fact that a caveman may not understand fire does not give me the right to find cave men and shoot them in the face with a gun.
They cannot understand me or my motives, that doesn't mean that justifies what I've done as anything other than murder*

*And before a smart alec brings animals into this, I remind everyone that we are speaking of sapient species.

(By the way, I don't mean anything offensive by this, I just answered in your writing style, I am regular reader of your posts and I'm very well familiar with your beliefs and if we were talking about humans nowadays and human villains that we can comprehend, I'd support you 100%, but this is more like Ahriman/Ormuzd type of situation - it just is, whether we like that dualistic nature or not, whether from our perspective he's moral or not . I may not like Ahriman and his materialistic nature from which this world and all its diversity stems, but its the nature of the higher design that was created in one moment and it's our curse we're so short lived and limited by knowledge - otherwise we'd know how to stop our Sun from dying so it doesn't commit genocide in its nature and intention to turn into white dwarf, or cycles of extinction wouldn't happen already on Earth because that how things are, or we would comprehend dark energy and stop it from beating gravity force thus ultimately destroying our universe .)

I responded the way I did because a being lacking accountability merely because they're "better" in some way goes against my core beliefs, and I just cannot accept that harmful actions against other sapients will ever be justified simply with "I am beyond you."
This is after all the justification used by Sovereign, who is presented as a being to be challenged and opposed no matter what he thinks of himself.

Ah, so much can be said on this subject... and as I said while I presented undetermined spots in story - for you, Catalyst, even though you don't nothing about its nature, its purpose, how it all begun, unlike, lets say, Melkor or Biblical version of Lucifer, is incarnation of something that can be qualified by human standards of morality thus having right choice according to your own perception of things - the only thing I'm trying to explain to people is (let me put it like this, it's simpler and shorter that way), democracy is no longer democracy if one person determines what is democratic for others .

Anyway, crap or no crap, that's how things are.

My point is, I don't have to understand what the Catalyst is. Only what it does, and what it does is wrong. There is no system of values out there that would ever view what it does as right and justified and if there is... then I want no part of it.

[Apathy1989]

 I never believed IT, nor did it occur to me when playing. I always chose destroy though. 

Many reasons. Didn't trust starchild, didn't like the idea of synthesis, and my objective past 2 games has always been to destroy the reapers. And the Geth were already dead on my first playthrough, so was 'only' sacrificing EDI who has said she is willing to sacrifice herself to save Joker.

[CubeDaily]

Posted this in another thread, but it seems more relevant here. I think that each of the three endings is "right," according to BW. They had to design a game that someone could pick up off the shelf, without having played the other two games, without necessarily having an internet connection, and complete with relatively the same possibilities everyone else has.

That's why Control and Destroy are available by default, with better outcomes unlocking all the way until Synthesis appears, with enough EMS is amassed.

Assuming a high enough EMS, each of these outcomes is capable of having a happy ending for someone who is not tied to the lore / the way of thinking that Shepard would have after experiencing everything from the first two games. Control makes the Reapers go away with the fewest casualties / least number of extraneous effects following your decision. Synthesis is the middle road since it affects everyone in the galaxy, and of course Destroy eliminates both the geth and EDI. These do ultimately follow Paragon, Neutral and Renegade options.

By the same token, this is why, with enough EMS, you can choose Destroy and survive. This option was meant to reward players who went through all three games and stuck with their goal of destroying the Reapers. By
playing in that role, you have made the ultimate "correct" choice for Shepard's character and eliminated the threat. Since Shepard survives, it can be inferred that the SC was lying or mistaken, and that the geth and EDI have survived as well.

Note that this outcome doesn't necessarily need IT to work; following the lore, by choosing Control or Synthesis, you're ultimately either following in the footsteps of TIM or Saren, respectively, even though your choice doesn't affect the galaxy adversely (nobody is horribly mutated after stepping out of the Normandy following Synthesis, and Control doesn't immediately affect anyone but Shepard and the Reapers). 

By choosing Destroy, you're following Shepard's true character path. The way this choice is presented muddies the waters, though, especially with the last-minute curveball of having to (potentially) sacrifice the geth and EDI (since Shepard for sure dies in other endings, self-preservation isn't really a part of the question in this choice). This video does a pretty good job explaining things:



Anyway, full disclosure, I picked Synthesis on my first playthrough; though I did hesitate to rewrite everyone's DNA, it didn't seem right to sacrifice the geth after working to save them, or to throw EDI under the bus. Having had time to think about it in the meantime, though, I'm going back to pick Destruction, and will follow that arc on all subsequent playthroughs. 

(Edited to fix formatting)

Modifié par CubeDaily, 09 mai 2012 - 10:50 .

[RMP _]

YNation913 wrote...

RMP _ wrote...

We see that all endings work. All three endings end with the datapad saying Shepard ended the reaper threat. Control means you sacrified yourself (or your body anyways) instead of the geth race and EDI, hence the paragon/renegade colors. That's the conclusion I've come to anyways.

I regret to say, my choice the first time was synthesis. I was paralyzed with indecision, couldn't go with control or destroy at the time, so I walked down the middle. I feel dirty for picking it first. It ends the reaper threat, and even though people don't turn into ugly borg-like monsters, I still don't lilke it.

So what'd you pick on your next go?

After that I came to the forums to read more about the ending and found out Shepard could live with the destroy ending with a high EMS score. I didn't know I needed multi-player to make it happen. I guess I missed it if it was in the manual. Didn't see it talked about anywhere else as I avoided going to the forums for fear of spoilers.

So then I did some multiplayer, then re-started the last two missions and picked destroy. Still wasn't quite happy with that though, so I reloaded a save I had near the end and picked control as my last choice. Funny, I did control last and I personally feel it's the best ending. Guess I did them in reverse order of preference.

[balance5050]

The Angry One wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

Well, Angry One, first of all, I'm not bringing religion in - I'm brining in archetype that is used, one of them. In this archetype Noah is mortal that doesn't understand the higher power, just like cavemen didn't understand fire or lightining or any other power of nature thus assigning them characteristics of deities and trying to survive - not even questioning the morality of changes, because there is no morality there to talk about - it is what it is, higher design of things that are. Otherwise, what's the difference between Clarcke's Monolith and Catalyst - or Old Testiment Jahveh and Catalyst? Again, I'm talking here in terms of stories and archetypes, not faith or religious beliefs - so, pardon me, but your so often self-expressed righteousness is crap, because you're judging something as if you understand its nature and plan and as if you are Justice itself .

The fact that a caveman may not understand fire does not give me the right to find cave men and shoot them in the face with a gun.
They cannot understand me or my motives, that doesn't mean that justifies what I've done as anything other than murder*

*And before a smart alec brings animals into this, I remind everyone that we are speaking of sapient species.

(By the way, I don't mean anything offensive by this, I just answered in your writing style, I am regular reader of your posts and I'm very well familiar with your beliefs and if we were talking about humans nowadays and human villains that we can comprehend, I'd support you 100%, but this is more like Ahriman/Ormuzd type of situation - it just is, whether we like that dualistic nature or not, whether from our perspective he's moral or not . I may not like Ahriman and his materialistic nature from which this world and all its diversity stems, but its the nature of the higher design that was created in one moment and it's our curse we're so short lived and limited by knowledge - otherwise we'd know how to stop our Sun from dying so it doesn't commit genocide in its nature and intention to turn into white dwarf, or cycles of extinction wouldn't happen already on Earth because that how things are, or we would comprehend dark energy and stop it from beating gravity force thus ultimately destroying our universe .)

I responded the way I did because a being lacking accountability merely because they're "better" in some way goes against my core beliefs, and I just cannot accept that harmful actions against other sapients will ever be justified simply with "I am beyond you."
This is after all the justification used by Sovereign, who is presented as a being to be challenged and opposed no matter what he thinks of himself.

Ah, so much can be said on this subject... and as I said while I presented undetermined spots in story - for you, Catalyst, even though you don't nothing about its nature, its purpose, how it all begun, unlike, lets say, Melkor or Biblical version of Lucifer, is incarnation of something that can be qualified by human standards of morality thus having right choice according to your own perception of things - the only thing I'm trying to explain to people is (let me put it like this, it's simpler and shorter that way), democracy is no longer democracy if one person determines what is democratic for others .

Anyway, crap or no crap, that's how things are.

My point is, I don't have to understand what the Catalyst is. Only what it does, and what it does is wrong. There is no system of values out there that would ever view what it does as right and justified and if there is... then I want no part of it.

I don't always agree with you Angry One, but you are on point here.

[Raiil]

Eh, your allies fight for destroy because they don't know if there are more options. Shepard didn't know until the end, ffs. It's not like you can ask them.

I chose control, and barring more explanation from EC, it'll be my go-to choice. If OP and certain other members of the IT crowd can use that to stroke their chins in some sort of imaginary eliteness, have at it. Don't know why you'd use a video game theory to try to appear as an intellectual superior, but knock yourself out.

[Konfined]

The Angry One wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

Well, Angry One, first of all, I'm not bringing religion in - I'm brining in archetype that is used, one of them. In this archetype Noah is mortal that doesn't understand the higher power, just like cavemen didn't understand fire or lightining or any other power of nature thus assigning them characteristics of deities and trying to survive - not even questioning the morality of changes, because there is no morality there to talk about - it is what it is, higher design of things that are. Otherwise, what's the difference between Clarcke's Monolith and Catalyst - or Old Testiment Jahveh and Catalyst? Again, I'm talking here in terms of stories and archetypes, not faith or religious beliefs - so, pardon me, but your so often self-expressed righteousness is crap, because you're judging something as if you understand its nature and plan and as if you are Justice itself .

The fact that a caveman may not understand fire does not give me the right to find cave men and shoot them in the face with a gun.
They cannot understand me or my motives, that doesn't mean that justifies what I've done as anything other than murder*

*And before a smart alec brings animals into this, I remind everyone that we are speaking of sapient species.

(By the way, I don't mean anything offensive by this, I just answered in your writing style, I am regular reader of your posts and I'm very well familiar with your beliefs and if we were talking about humans nowadays and human villains that we can comprehend, I'd support you 100%, but this is more like Ahriman/Ormuzd type of situation - it just is, whether we like that dualistic nature or not, whether from our perspective he's moral or not . I may not like Ahriman and his materialistic nature from which this world and all its diversity stems, but its the nature of the higher design that was created in one moment and it's our curse we're so short lived and limited by knowledge - otherwise we'd know how to stop our Sun from dying so it doesn't commit genocide in its nature and intention to turn into white dwarf, or cycles of extinction wouldn't happen already on Earth because that how things are, or we would comprehend dark energy and stop it from beating gravity force thus ultimately destroying our universe .)

I responded the way I did because a being lacking accountability merely because they're "better" in some way goes against my core beliefs, and I just cannot accept that harmful actions against other sapients will ever be justified simply with "I am beyond you."
This is after all the justification used by Sovereign, who is presented as a being to be challenged and opposed no matter what he thinks of himself.

Ah, so much can be said on this subject... and as I said while I presented undetermined spots in story - for you, Catalyst, even though you don't nothing about its nature, its purpose, how it all begun, unlike, lets say, Melkor or Biblical version of Lucifer, is incarnation of something that can be qualified by human standards of morality thus having right choice according to your own perception of things - the only thing I'm trying to explain to people is (let me put it like this, it's simpler and shorter that way), democracy is no longer democracy if one person determines what is democratic for others .

Anyway, crap or no crap, that's how things are.

My point is, I don't have to understand what the Catalyst is. Only what it does, and what it does is wrong. There is no system of values out there that would ever view what it does as right and justified and if there is... then I want no part of it.

Simply put, his motives are irrelevant; he is the enemy.  For the sake of the galaxy he must be destroyed.  Red it is, red it shall forever be.

Modifié par Konfined, 09 mai 2012 - 11:00 .