1114 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Valentia X wrote...

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.

Um, no. Anderson knows about control. I believe his exact opinion on the concept can be summed up with "bulls***!"
Edit: Oh yeah. Also Hackett. "Dead Reapers are how we win this war."

Also, nobody in their right mind out of any of the characters would pick synthesis.
No. Not even Joker. I'm sure he'd pick it for HIMSELF, but the entire galaxy? Nobody would do that.

Modifié par The Angry One, 09 mai 2012 - 11:02 .

[incinerator950]

Konfined wrote...

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.

You know, I've been saying for a while that, and no one listened.  The ****?

Modifié par incinerator950, 09 mai 2012 - 11:04 .

[Candidate 88766]

From a storytelling point of view, the Catalyst is merely an avatar through which Bioware can explain the Reapers' motivations and the functions of the Crucible. It was an admittedly nonsensical avatar (the ancient being that created the Reapers manifesting itself as a human child) and the Reapers' motivations seem contrary to what much of ME2 and ME3 were telling us (that synthetics and organics will inevitably end up at war, and while there is plenty of evidence for this there is also evidence that peace is also possible, at least for a time). Not to mention that the Crucible seems to function by magic.

However, the main point is that the Catalyst was just an in-game avatar through which Bioware could explain what is going on to the player. They didn't do it very well, but it is what it is. And viewing the Catalyst as what it is makes the endings somewhat harder to choose from:

Destroy: deciding that the Cycle is unnecessary, and that by destroying all synthetic life the problem is averted. Organics take control of their future for the first time in millennia. Without the Cycle to halt organic advancement, organics will eventually create machines powerful enough to overthrow them entirely.

Control: deciding that the Cycle is the only way to avert the eventual extinction of organic life by synthetics. Synthetics retain control over organic life for the 'greater good'. The Cycle continues, and organic civilizations will never reach their full potential. With the Reapers now fully aware of the Crucible it is unlikely that any organic civilization will ever pose as much of a threat to them as this one.

Synthesis: ending both the problem and therefore the need for the solution (the Cycle), and ensuring peace between organics and synthetics. Of course, there are ethical issues with this ending that a lot of people can't overlook, and it basically seems to work via magic, but this can be seen as the 'best' ending due to the fact that it gets rid of both the problem and the vile solution of the Cycle, whereas the other endings only get rid of one or the other (destroy gets rid of the solution, leaving the problem unchecked and control gets rid of the problem by retaining the horrific solution).


Of course, these are the endings boiled down to their base level. This seems to be how Bioware wanted us to view the endings, but they're so riddled with plotholes and seem so counter to the themes of the trilogy that none of them are appealing, hence so many peoples' desire to come up with alternate theories and versions of the endings.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 09 mai 2012 - 11:03 .

[Random Geth]

Hadeedak wrote...

Proud to say my Shepard kept the relays and didn't turn on her allies! Control, baby, control!

And I still got the message at the end telling me I won. X3

Pff, not yet.  How long do you think it willl take before her single human mind breaks under the weight of thousands of Reapers, each with the mental force of an entire race?  A year?  A decade?  A century?

Fact of the matter is that no one, NO ONE has been immune to indoctrination, and there's no reason to think that Shepard has some super invincibility to it.

[Raiil]

Anderson knows that control is why TIM is trying to do. No one knew what the Catalyst was actually capable of until the elevator boss ate Shepard and burped him to God Child. Shepard and God Child have a one-on-one conversation; there is no point where you can call in and ask for advice or opinions.

[YNation913]

Konfined wrote...

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.

But the catalyst is the one that has given you the option to destroy it. I mean, you wouldn't even be able activate the crucible if the catalyst hadn't beemed you up and given you the choice. It's neither an enemy nor an ally at that point.

Modifié par YNation913, 09 mai 2012 - 11:06 .

[Konfined]

The Angry One wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

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.

Um, no. Anderson knows about control. I believe his exact opinion on the concept can be summed up with "bulls***!"
Edit: Oh yeah. Also Hackett. "Dead Reapers are how we win this war."

Also, nobody in their right mind out of any of the characters would pick synthesis.
No. Not even Joker. I'm sure he'd pick it for HIMSELF, but the entire galaxy? Nobody would do that.

Also, Javik was well aware of control.  His thoughts summed up as follows, verbatim: "Subjugating the Reapers will not bring victory.  Only their extinction will."  www.youtube.com/watch

[The Edge]

I picked synthesis the first time, but after thinking and reading about the endings more, I changed my decision to Destroy. I'm banking on the possibility that Star-Child was lieing and EDI and the geth are okay.

[Pelle6666]

destroy is the only option that isn't retarded! Really, why try to control them? I never trusted TIM and not the reaper boy neither. Synthesis is just plain weird, never even been part of the narrative and now it's the final solution to all the problems in the universe!? Really!?

[TSA_383]

Konfined wrote...

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.

I like your style

Valentia X wrote...

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.

Just trying to make sense of what we've been given, given the intentional ambiguity in the endings I think it's only reasonable to speculate

Oh, and since when has trusting a reaper-related character ever been a good idea?

Pelle6666 wrote...

destroy is the only option that isn't
retarded! Really, why try to control them? I never trusted TIM and not
the reaper boy neither. Synthesis is just plain weird, never even been
part of the narrative and now it's the final solution to all the
problems in the universe!? Really!?

It was, I think part of the narrative in ME1, in which Saren became very much an organic/synthetic hybrid and was a great fan of the same fate for everyone else.

Modifié par TSA_383, 09 mai 2012 - 11:11 .

[YNation913]

The Edge wrote...

I picked synthesis the first time, but after thinking and reading about the endings more, I changed my decision to Destroy. I'm banking on the possibility that Star-Child was lieing and EDI and the geth are okay.

 
If the thing can lie, why didn't it hide the destroy option from you in the first place?

[The Angry One]

YNation913 wrote...

But the catalyst is the one that has given you the option to destroy it. I mean, you wouldn't even be able activate the crucible if the catalyst hadn't beemed you up and given you the choice. It's neither an enemy nor an ally at that point.

The Catalyst does not have a choice.
Regardless of whether the Crucible was designed by the Catalyst as a test, or by it's creators as a failsafe or whatever, the Crucible is not attached and has compelled the Catalyst to present new solutions.

Regardless of the fact that all choices are unsatisfactory, destroy is clearly the one it does not favour. While it still follows it's philosophy, it does eliminate the Reapers.
Put simply it is still the enemy. It is doing this because arbitrary rules/programming/whatever forces it too. Otherwise it would happily continue exterminating everyone. Therefore, the logical choice is the one it, the enemy, doesn't favour.

YNation913 wrote...

The Edge wrote...

I
picked synthesis the first time, but after thinking and reading about
the endings more, I changed my decision to Destroy. I'm banking on the
possibility that Star-Child was lieing and EDI and the geth are okay.

 
If the thing can lie, why didn't it hide the destroy option from you in the first place?

Because it can't.

Modifié par The Angry One, 09 mai 2012 - 11:13 .

[pharsti]

None, since it was no test

Thou, if we go by your inane logic, i guess those who didnt get almost any EMS got stuck with the destroy choice, makes sense eh, i mean, yes, obviously, EMS is the factor that makes you able to "fall" into indoctrination! Yes, im being sarcastic, the IT is just laughable XD

[ShepnTali]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The point of the choices isn't to test Shepard. We clearly see from an audience-neutral perspective after the fact that the effects of each choice are what the Catalyst said they were (and the Catalyst isn't the one giving you the choices, the design of the Crucible does that). Shepard's goal through the games was to destroy the Reapers, yes, but now the question he must ask himself is should he do so at the cost of his synthetic friends and allies? So basically, you failed nothing by not picking destroy.

But there should have been more grilling. Shepard grills everybody and everything, sometimes to the point of boredom. Something's missing here for him to accept anything other than destroy, so fast. That's every Shepard. 

[Nimrodell]

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.

And actually Catalyst itself prove all our Shepards right in that regard - Shepard's cycle is new unknown in its equation, so it actually changes its original design - it gives new perspectives and again we have archetypes of that very thing in stories themselves (once again, I'm talking in terms of stories, not religion), when Zeus splits in two halfs androgens because they threaten his order, his vision of things, after seeing new unknown, he actually decides to give them ability to be whole again with measures of precaution that would prevent them from charging Olympus again - but he admits that he changed his original intent because he saw new truth, new unknown in his own design. When Jahveh sees the destruction he caused by purging the world, seeing his own design in new, for him yet not seen, picture, he forms a new pact with men and leaves the rainbow as eternal reminder on new state of things that showed him he was wrong in his intent to keep the original design. I'll stop here, because it's already TL;DR. Basically, Catalyst itself admits that things have changed that something that once was is no longer and it is actually backed by Javik - this cycle is the very first that is different, that brought new unknown - for it, it's not question of morality because itself is not judging by moral standards thus choosing who'll live and who'll die - it is something very different in nature and its reasons maybe were valid ones, while original state of things were in place... but all that changed and Catalyst is not stopping because it realises it's immoral, it simply stops because the very nature of current state in universe is different and it acknowledges it by offering three choices - new order of things to come. The entire galaxy won't remember it as saviour or good guy, but that's something that's not even important for it because that wasn't its purpose nor being human.

So, yes, keep true to your beliefs because they are correct from your own point of view - Catalyst itself has proven you right by actually giving you three options, but also remember, it didn't give you those options because it was even considering what you deem moral or immoral, those are not categories that had driven its action in the first place - it gave you those options because you and your cycle were the first ones that actually brought new unknown, new reality into his equation/design . Unless, BioWare changes current Catalyst nature in EC... we'll see what'll happen.

Anyway, thank you for this small talk, bah, have early start tomorrow again and I have to catch some sleep, but, thank you.

[TSA_383]

YNation913 wrote...

The Edge wrote...

I picked synthesis the first time, but after thinking and reading about the endings more, I changed my decision to Destroy. I'm banking on the possibility that Star-Child was lieing and EDI and the geth are okay.

 
If the thing can lie, why didn't it hide the destroy option from you in the first place?

Wouldn't be much of a game then, would it?
Same as the answer to "Why do they always seem to get out and do missions on foot when the normandy has an enormous and immaculately calibrated cannon sitting unloved?"
Well, not really, but giving us a scenario where the player can only lose wouldn't be a very good bit of game design...
Although, if you have low EMS and kept the reaper base, you can only choose control.

[RMP _]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Control: deciding that the Cycle is the only way to avert the eventual extinction of organic life by synthetics. Synthetics retain control over organic life for the 'greater good'. The Cycle continues, and organic civilizations will never reach their full potential. With the Reapers now fully aware of the Crucible it is unlikely that any organic civilization will ever pose as much of a threat to them as this one.

This is completely wrong. That assumes Shepard will be in control, but continue the cycles anyways. That makes no sense based on not only what we've been shown in the game, but also the whole reason why Shepard would choose the option. He gets the reapers to leave. The cycle is not continued.

[jijeebo]

The ending was no "test", it was a choice.

All three have their positives and negative, you go with the ending that you feel is best for your galaxy, and you rage at how awful everything turns out regardless.


All three are perfectly valid, it's all about what's important to you in the long run.

[NYG1991]

I pick destroy everytime. I just couldn't allow the reapers to exist.

Control/synthesis= reapers fly away

Destroy= reapers drop dead.

As long as the relays don't nova I chalk it up as a win.

[Konfined]

YNation913 wrote...


But the catalyst is the one that has given you the option to destroy it. I mean, you wouldn't even be able activate the crucible if the catalyst hadn't beemed you up and given you the choice. It's neither an enemy nor an ally at that point.

Its motives are irrelevant; its explanations, irrelevant.  What it has done up to that point, irrelevant.  That it has provided its options and "choices," irrelevant.  It controls the Reapers.  As long as it and the Reapers exist, the galaxy is threatened.  Therefore, for the sake of the galaxy, red has become my favorite color.

Modifié par Konfined, 09 mai 2012 - 11:20 .

[The Angry One]

Nimrodell wrote...

And actually Catalyst itself prove all our Shepards right in that regard - Shepard's cycle is new unknown in its equation, so it actually changes its original design - it gives new perspectives and again we have archetypes of that very thing in stories themselves (once again, I'm talking in terms of stories, not religion), when Zeus splits in two halfs androgens because they threaten his order, his vision of things, after seeing new unknown, he actually decides to give them ability to be whole again with measures of precaution that would prevent them from charging Olympus again - but he admits that he changed his original intent because he saw new truth, new unknown in his own design. When Jahveh sees the destruction he caused by purging the world, seeing his own design in new, for him yet not seen, picture, he forms a new pact with men and leaves the rainbow as eternal reminder on new state of things that showed him he was wrong in his intent to keep the original design. I'll stop here, because it's already TL;DR. Basically, Catalyst itself admits that things have changed that something that once was is no longer and it is actually backed by Javik - this cycle is the very first that is different, that brought new unknown - for it, it's not question of morality because itself is not judging by moral standards thus choosing who'll live and who'll die - it is something very different in nature and its reasons maybe were valid ones, while original state of things were in place... but all that changed and Catalyst is not stopping because it realises it's immoral, it simply stops because the very nature of current state in universe is different and it acknowledges it by offering three choices - new order of things to come. The entire galaxy won't remember it as saviour or good guy, but that's something that's not even important for it because that wasn't its purpose nor being human.

That does not change the Catalyst's previous actions.
Moreover, these examples you give have a fundamental difference. The deities themselves change their minds through observation... well technically Yahweh doesn't, he just extra special pinky swears never to do it again. But regardless this differs from the Catalyst who only presents new "solutions" after he is forced to by the Crucible
The cycle was already unique and different long before the Crucible plans were even found.

If the Catalyst had halted and recognised a need for change after Sovereign was destroyed, or the Collectors were stop, this'd be valid. But he didn't.
Also, even with the Crucible the Catalyst merely presents options to change the method. It's philosophy remains exactly the same.

So, yes, keep true to your beliefs because they are correct from your own point of view - Catalyst itself has proven you right by actually giving you three options, but also remember, it didn't give you those options because it was even considering what you deem moral or immoral, those are not categories that had driven its action in the first place - it gave you those options because you and your cycle were the first ones that actually brought new unknown, new reality into his equation/design . Unless, BioWare changes current Catalyst nature in EC... we'll see what'll happen.

Anyway, thank you for this small talk, bah, have early start tomorrow again and I have to catch some sleep, but, thank you.

See the problem here is I don't really care what it thinks, because it is a mass murderer.
Whatever it has deluded itself into thinking is no concern of mine, the fact remains it is morally reprehensible to me and my Shepard, and it is our enemy.
Maybe there should be an option to stand in awe of this deity figure, or maybe not. Personally I think not, as that's not something Shepard has ever done. Again, when Sovereign proclaimed himself above all he saw, Shepard dismissed his claims.

Modifié par The Angry One, 09 mai 2012 - 11:22 .

[TSA_383]

pharsti wrote...

None, since it was no test

Thou, if we go by your inane logic, i guess those who didnt get almost any EMS got stuck with the destroy choice, makes sense eh, i mean, yes, obviously, EMS is the factor that makes you able to "fall" into indoctrination! Yes, im being sarcastic, the IT is just laughable XD

Notice that on a low-ems ending the child doesn't attempt to persuade you away from destroy, possibly because they know shepard can't win and have no further interest in trying to stop him.

Note that the only combination that allows you to survive and wake up, in surroundings oddly similar to those at the beam site, is high EMS + destroy.

Also, as soon as you take the action to destroy the red tube & go against its logic, the child shimmers and disappears, and with the other two it stands behind you and watches,  if I remember rightly it even has a little smile in the synthesis one.
Trying not to get onto the abstract of IT in these threads, but otherwise there's also a whole bunch of stuff in the game sounds from the ending that are very interesting.

[greatcrusader44]

Picked destroy and never even contemplated the other two. Spent three games trying to do this, other two endings they live, and one of those two practically has us live in coexistance with these monsters, since I doubt synthesis will change them do to them already being equally organic and machine, so we're pretty much elevating us to an existence they appreciate. F@ck the reapers, I don't want to please them, I wanted them dead, and if me, edi, and the geth die for it, so be it. Plus I woke up at the end I don't even know if edi or geth are even gone (if IT proves incorrect, if it is then I still made right choice)

[The Angry One]

Konfined wrote...

YNation913 wrote...


But the catalyst is the one that has given you the option to destroy it. I mean, you wouldn't even be able activate the crucible if the catalyst hadn't beemed you up and given you the choice. It's neither an enemy nor an ally at that point.

Its motives are irrelevant; its explanations, irrelevant.  What it has done up to that point, irrelevant.  That it has provided its options and "choices," irrelevant.  It controls the Reapers.  As long as it and the Reapers exist, the galaxy is threatened.  Therefore, for the sake of the galaxy, red has become my favorite color.

This can't be stressed enough. Anything the Catalyst is and it's seemingly cooperative nature is instantly nullified when it states "I control the Reapers. They are my solution."
This should've put Shepard immediately on guard as it instantly goes from weird glowing being to the sworn enemy of all sapient life in the galaxy. No ifs, buts or maybes. Everything it says is suspect.