4520 réponses à ce sujet

[killage_wizard]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...
I just watched the control ending agin.  The mass relays are destroyed.  All three endings destroy the mass relays.

No arguments there. 

Good luck building them again in destroy though. 

If you choose control you are doing exactly what you were trying to stop TIM from doing the entire game.

You're ignoring motivations, which is the real reason you wanted to stop him.

If you choose synthesis you are attempt to do exactly what Saren did the entire first game.

You're ignoring motivations, which is the real reason you wanted to stop him. 

Neither of those decisions make any sense for Shepard to choose.

Is that right?

I didn't know you had a list of the exact motivations for every player and their Shepard, the specifics of their playthroughs, and their reasons for choosing what they did. 

Why would rebuilding them be impossible in the destroy ending?

Its not about me having a lits of motivations for everyone's Shepards.  There are overall themes to the stories that don't change no matter what your Shepard does.  Why would you fight Saren and TIM only to do what they would have done anyway?  And if I remember correcctly Saren'smotivations were very Shepard like.  Join forces with the Reapers in order to save as many lives as possible.  If it was really about controlling the Reapers like TIM wanted to do, why wouldn't the game give you a choice to join forces with him?  You aren't fight TIM because of how he would control the Reapers, you are fighting him because he is attempting to control the Reapers.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Why is Shepard any different?  Control and Synthesis are what the Reapers use to cull a cycle.  By choosing one of those two options you are helping them.

[Jamie9]

Vigilant111 wrote...

2. the issue is not about purpose, but how exactly does Shepard control the reapers, and what can go wrong is uncertain

3. I am only referring to the free will of the reapers, objectively, if they are indoctrinated, then to me they are victims

4. Yes, Catalyst is old, so what? u r assuming Catalyst knows EVERYTHING about the past, which is unlikely, because it is NOT God, even if it has experience, it doesn't know s**t about the future, nothing is certain, "created blah blah creators" is NOT a law

2. Well we know the Catalyst has successfully controlled the Reapers for millennia beyond counting, though he is obviously an AI. If anyone could keep control, it would be Shepard, however.

3. Victims or not, you shoot Husks down because you have no choice. There's no turning them back. There's no turning the Reapers back. They are just huge husks. If we'd been shown evidence that they could do anything other than what they do I'd agree with you, but we haven't.

4. No, it's not a law. But a 34 million year old being (at least, that's the age of the Derelict Reaper) would notice some things I'd imagine. So it's a possiblity. To ignore it as foolish. To wipe out all life is foolish AND unethical.

Therefore we must find a new solution to this hypothetical problem. Ignoring synthesis, we can destroy the Reapers and synthetics in the hope that new synthetics will not be built. If they are, we might be screwed, because there'd be no way to stop them.

Control allows us a safeguard, to only be used at the absolute last moment. Kill the synthetics only if they are about to wipe out all life. It is incredibly foolish to ignore the Catalyst's experiences outright without investigating. If the execution wasn't terrible, more people would listen to the supposed problem I feel.

Control allows everyone to live their normal lives with the Citadel etc. They can go back to the status quo. You don't have to interfere, but only if necessary.

[Jamie9]

killage_wizard wrote...

Why would rebuilding them be impossible in the destroy ending?

Its not about me having a lits of motivations for everyone's Shepards.  There are overall themes to the stories that don't change no matter what your Shepard does.  Why would you fight Saren and TIM only to do what they would have done anyway?  And if I remember correcctly Saren'smotivations were very Shepard like.  Join forces with the Reapers in order to save as many lives as possible.  If it was really about controlling the Reapers like TIM wanted to do, why wouldn't the game give you a choice to join forces with him?  You aren't fight TIM because of how he would control the Reapers, you are fighting him because he is attempting to control the Reapers.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Why is Shepard any different?  Control and Synthesis are what the Reapers use to cull a cycle.  By choosing one of those two options you are helping them.

Rebuilding them may be impossible in the destroy, we don't know. All we know is that they are slightly less destroyed in the control ending.

I wouldn't join with TIM given the choice. You do realise the difference between "Stormtroopers" and "Only interfere if absolutely necessary" right? There is a HUGE difference. If you can't see that... well, I can't help you. I'll try to show you my perspective but it'll take a bit more time.

At the climax of the trilogy we discover that the cycle had a purpose. Unfortunately, the Cycle is unethical, horrific and stupid. Control allows you to do, if you so wish, what the Reapers should have been doing in the first place: wiping out synthetics ONLY if they are about to wipe out all life. What's the harm in waiting 10,000 years just to make sure the Catalyst was wrong? I'm willing to make that sacrifice to safeguard all life.

[Ageless Face]

killage_wizard wrote...

I just watched the control ending agin.  The mass relays are destroyed.  All three endings destroy the mass relays.  If you choose control you are doing exactly what you were trying to stop TIM from doing the entire game.  If you choose synthesis you are attempt to do exactly what Saren did the entire first game.  Neither of those decisions make any sense for Shepard to choose.

No, the mass relays are not destroyed in control. They are overloaded, but there is no explosion. Compare it to the other two endings. 

Maybe for your Shepard  it does not make sense, but i firmly believe my Shep could do the control ending. Otherwise I wouldn't do it. Same for people who chose synthesis.

[killage_wizard]

Jamie9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

2. the issue is not about purpose, but how exactly does Shepard control the reapers, and what can go wrong is uncertain

3. I am only referring to the free will of the reapers, objectively, if they are indoctrinated, then to me they are victims

4. Yes, Catalyst is old, so what? u r assuming Catalyst knows EVERYTHING about the past, which is unlikely, because it is NOT God, even if it has experience, it doesn't know s**t about the future, nothing is certain, "created blah blah creators" is NOT a law

2. Well we know the Catalyst has successfully controlled the Reapers for millennia beyond counting, though he is obviously an AI. If anyone could keep control, it would be Shepard, however.

3. Victims or not, you shoot Husks down because you have no choice. There's no turning them back. There's no turning the Reapers back. They are just huge husks. If we'd been shown evidence that they could do anything other than what they do I'd agree with you, but we haven't.

4. No, it's not a law. But a 34 million year old being (at least, that's the age of the Derelict Reaper) would notice some things I'd imagine. So it's a possiblity. To ignore it as foolish. To wipe out all life is foolish AND unethical.

Therefore we must find a new solution to this hypothetical problem. Ignoring synthesis, we can destroy the Reapers and synthetics in the hope that new synthetics will not be built. If they are, we might be screwed, because there'd be no way to stop them.

Control allows us a safeguard, to only be used at the absolute last moment. Kill the synthetics only if they are about to wipe out all life. It is incredibly foolish to ignore the Catalyst's experiences outright without investigating. If the execution wasn't terrible, more people would listen to the supposed problem I feel.

Control allows everyone to live their normal lives with the Citadel etc. They can go back to the status quo. You don't have to interfere, but only if necessary.

If the catalyst has been controlling the Reapers for millenia before Shepard gets a chance that means he wants the cycle to continue.  Why would he just let Shepard take control?  And for that matter why would Shepard just believe what he has been fighting so tough to stop?  And not everyone's playthoughs make synthetics out to be inherently dangerous.  My Shepard believes life is life whether is bones or circuits.  Why is it that just because a race is the latter they will eventually destory all organic life? 

[killage_wizard]

HagarIshay wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

I just watched the control ending agin.  The mass relays are destroyed.  All three endings destroy the mass relays.  If you choose control you are doing exactly what you were trying to stop TIM from doing the entire game.  If you choose synthesis you are attempt to do exactly what Saren did the entire first game.  Neither of those decisions make any sense for Shepard to choose.

No, the mass relays are not destroyed in control. They are overloaded, but there is no explosion. Compare it to the other two endings. 

Maybe for your Shepard  it does not make sense, but i firmly believe my Shep could do the control ending. Otherwise I wouldn't do it. Same for people who chose synthesis.

They explode in control.  They just don't show the explosion to be as big for some reason.  Choosing control or synthesis means you are choosing the path that TIM and Saren chose.  The path everyone's Shepard fought.  By choosing one of those two options you contradict the decision you make to fight them. 

[EricHVela]

The OP's version of control is based on head-canon filling in the plot holes.

It seems that anyone who claims an ending is the right one or best one will be met with opposition able to show that their ending involves speculation and that other possibilities exist to make their version of their choice not so right after all.

This is what happens when we get a huge choice with little solid information as to the consequences of each option. We make a choice and guess what happened, only to realize that it's just head-canon no matter what we want to believe and it becomes a hollow victory.

[Vigilant111]

Jamie9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

2. the issue is not about purpose, but how exactly does Shepard control the reapers, and what can go wrong is uncertain

3. I am only referring to the free will of the reapers, objectively, if they are indoctrinated, then to me they are victims

4. Yes, Catalyst is old, so what? u r assuming Catalyst knows EVERYTHING about the past, which is unlikely, because it is NOT God, even if it has experience, it doesn't know s**t about the future, nothing is certain, "created blah blah creators" is NOT a law

2. Well we know the Catalyst has successfully controlled the Reapers for millennia beyond counting, though he is obviously an AI. If anyone could keep control, it would be Shepard, however.

3. Victims or not, you shoot Husks down because you have no choice. There's no turning them back. There's no turning the Reapers back. They are just huge husks. If we'd been shown evidence that they could do anything other than what they do I'd agree with you, but we haven't.

4. No, it's not a law. But a 34 million year old being (at least, that's the age of the Derelict Reaper) would notice some things I'd imagine. So it's a possiblity. To ignore it as foolish. To wipe out all life is foolish AND unethical.

Therefore we must find a new solution to this hypothetical problem. Ignoring synthesis, we can destroy the Reapers and synthetics in the hope that new synthetics will not be built. If they are, we might be screwed, because there'd be no way to stop them.

Control allows us a safeguard, to only be used at the absolute last moment. Kill the synthetics only if they are about to wipe out all life. It is incredibly foolish to ignore the Catalyst's experiences outright without investigating. If the execution wasn't terrible, more people would listen to the supposed problem I feel.

Control allows everyone to live their normal lives with the Citadel etc. They can go back to the status quo. You don't have to interfere, but only if necessary.

2. I don't know y u r saying the Catalyst is an independent AI that controls the reapers, I thought Catalyst IS the reapers, it said:"PERHAPS I control them", and how come only Shepard can, how come not EDI, or Garrus?

3. someone said something earlier in the thread about enslaving the reapers after the Catalyst had indoctrinated them, so we should disregard them as sentient beings, and it really bugged me.

4. Again, things can ALWAYS take a change in the future, the Catalyst does not live in the future, it cannot know about the future whether it is old or not, yes, maybe it gives very good advice, if so, why don't u choose synthesis? obviously u don't believe what it says is true, or at least u have doubts

The highlighted part just show that now the only difference is reapers are used to destroy synthetic life instead of an organic one, and yet u r preaching about destroying the Geth is cruel, so in the future when Geth grows up, u r gonna kill them if they threathen organics?

Modifié par Vigilant111, 29 mai 2012 - 01:13 .

[The Night Mammoth]

killage_wizard wrote...

Why would rebuilding them be impossible in the destroy ending?

I don't know. 

All I implied was difficulty, or the time taken will be large in its span.

People who choose control and decide to liberall interpret it have no such difficulty. 

Its not about me having a lits of motivations for everyone's Shepards.  There are overall themes to the stories that don't change no matter what your Shepard does.  Why would you fight Saren and TIM only to do what they would have done anyway?  

Why would I fight them? 

Because the first was insane, indoctrinated, and wanted to bring the Reapers back, and the other was insane, indoctrinated, and wanted to control them for his own selfish ends. 

Saren's ideal of uniting synthetic and organic is not wrong on principle, I actually think it's a very good idea under certain circumstances, the main one would be everyone being able to choose whether they want it or not. His ideal was twisted by alliegience with the Reapers, and synthesis imposes unknown changes on everyone, so I won't choose it. 

The Illusive Man's ideal of using the Reaper's power for good was likewise, not bad on principle from my perspective. I don't necessarily think it's a good idea, but it has a certain nobility to it. His problem was the motivation for wanting control, which was the subjugation of all other species and the uplifting of humanity, but on his terms, Cerberus terms. I don't agree with that, but I'd still use the Reapers for good before destroying them. 

And if I remember correcctly Saren'smotivations were very Shepard like.  Join forces with the Reapers in order to save as many lives as possible.  

It was more to do with serving the Reapers so you don't die, noble to begin with, but he was indoctrinated so it was twisted and the truth hidden from him until the end. 

If it was really about controlling the Reapers like TIM wanted to do, why wouldn't the game give you a choice to join forces with him?

Join forces with the insane racist? What a game that would be. Move over No Russian, this game allows mass murder of innocents at your command too. 

You aren't fight TIM because of how he would control the Reapers, you are fighting him because he is attempting to control the Reapers.  

Yes, because he's insane. You don't know until the end that the possibility even exists. 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Why is Shepard any different?  

Why is Shepard any different? 

Oh boy, have you played Mass Effect? The whole f*cking series is a swan song to how ace Shepard is at everything. 

Control and Synthesis are what the Reapers use to cull a cycle.  

Different synthesis, different control. 

By choosing one of those two options you are helping them.

I don't think flying them into the sun is particularly good for the health. 

[killage_wizard]

Jamie9 wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

Why would rebuilding them be impossible in the destroy ending?

Its not about me having a lits of motivations for everyone's Shepards.  There are overall themes to the stories that don't change no matter what your Shepard does.  Why would you fight Saren and TIM only to do what they would have done anyway?  And if I remember correcctly Saren'smotivations were very Shepard like.  Join forces with the Reapers in order to save as many lives as possible.  If it was really about controlling the Reapers like TIM wanted to do, why wouldn't the game give you a choice to join forces with him?  You aren't fight TIM because of how he would control the Reapers, you are fighting him because he is attempting to control the Reapers.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Why is Shepard any different?  Control and Synthesis are what the Reapers use to cull a cycle.  By choosing one of those two options you are helping them.

Rebuilding them may be impossible in the destroy, we don't know. All we know is that they are slightly less destroyed in the control ending.

I wouldn't join with TIM given the choice. You do realise the difference between "Stormtroopers" and "Only interfere if absolutely necessary" right? There is a HUGE difference. If you can't see that... well, I can't help you. I'll try to show you my perspective but it'll take a bit more time.

At the climax of the trilogy we discover that the cycle had a purpose. Unfortunately, the Cycle is unethical, horrific and stupid. Control allows you to do, if you so wish, what the Reapers should have been doing in the first place: wiping out synthetics ONLY if they are about to wipe out all life. What's the harm in waiting 10,000 years just to make sure the Catalyst was wrong? I'm willing to make that sacrifice to safeguard all life.

Didn't the game hint that control of the Reapers was an illusion?  What makes anyone think that Shepard is the only one in the galaxy that can actually do so?  And why would the Catalyst just give up his control over the Reapers he created.  The entire series you have been trying to stop what the Reapers were doing, and now the Catalyst is just going to let you?

[Jamie9]

killage_wizard wrote...

If the catalyst has been controlling the Reapers for millenia before Shepard gets a chance that means he wants the cycle to continue.  Why would he just let Shepard take control?  And for that matter why would Shepard just believe what he has been fighting so tough to stop?  And not everyone's playthoughs make synthetics out to be inherently dangerous.  My Shepard believes life is life whether is bones or circuits.  Why is it that just because a race is the latter they will eventually destory all organic life? 

He allows Shepard to take control because he believes Shepard will end up continuing the Cycle, because the Catalyst believes in the Cycle.

I believe the Geth are life. They're as alive as humanity. But they're still fundamentally different. Synthetics could turn violent because of a runtime error.

To be fair, if an organic species in 50,000 years were about to wipe out all life, I'd wipe them out too. To maintain diversity. But, again, only if absolutely necessary.

When you read it like that, you probably think "Wipe them out? That's a pretty renegade thing to do." And, ordinarily, you'd be 100% correct. But if they were about to wipe out 10 other races, they would need to be wiped out.

For instance, if we go by what Javik said about the Protheans, then the Protheans were as dangerous as any singularity.

Shepard has been fighting to stop the suffering. He wants everybody to be able to live a normal life. His goal is not to eradicate his enemies. That's ruthless, and not necessary. The Reapers can be used to safeguard all life in case of the worst case scenario. And only then. In which case, the galaxy would be rather happy I picked Control.

[Ageless Face]

killage_wizard wrote...

They explode in control.  They just don't show the explosion to be as big for some reason.  Choosing control or synthesis means you are choosing the path that TIM and Saren chose.  The path everyone's Shepard fought.  By choosing one of those two options you contradict the decision you make to fight them. 

The mass relays only overloaded in control, explode in destroy and synthesis. Believe me, I watched it just a few minutes ago to be sure. 

It's been talked a million times on this thread. TIM had different ideas for control than Shepard. TIM wanted to dominate the galaxy. Shepard don't, or at least my Shepard don't. Saving the galaxy along with the synthetics, more like. TIM was right about the possibility of controling the reapers. But Shepard will control in different methods, different circemstances, different reasons. 

Saren wanted the galaxy to obey the reapers. Again, Shepard doesn't want that (I'm guessing most Shepards don't at least). 

Most people who chose control and synthesis do not think TIM and Saren were doing anything from the right reasons. Say it over and over, but that does not change this simple fact.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 29 mai 2012 - 01:18 .

[Seival]

killage_wizard wrote...

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

If destroy isn't what I would consider the ultimate "canon" choice (kind of like Shepard not surviving in ME2 wouldn't be the canon outcome) then why is it the only ending that gives you an extra cut scene if your EMS is high enough? People can debate the moralities and the rights vs wrongs of the three choices, but only destroy teases what is to come after you make your choice.

Because surviving in such an explosion is a huge achievement itself? The harder something to achieve - the more EMS is requires. But hard achievement is not always = "canon" achievement. This extra cut-scene doesn't make Destroy the "best option".

Then why not have an extra cut scene after the other two endings as well?  Or why would they have any extra scenes at all?  If Bioware really wanted all three endings to be equal that would be the case.  Over the course of all three games there has been a reason for just about everything that happens.  Even Conrad Verner can give you a war asset depending on how you treat him.  Bioware wouldn't just include the extra scene.

 - Control ending doesn't involve a possibility of Shepard's survival as a human being.
 - Synthesis ending doesn't involve a possibility of any kind of Shepard's survival.

So, adding similar hidden cutscenes to those will be against the endings' concept. 

Modifié par Seival, 29 mai 2012 - 01:21 .

[Jamie9]

Vigilant111 wrote...

2. I don't know y u r saying the Catalyst is an independent AI that controls the reapers, I thought Catalyst IS the reapers, it said:"PERHAPS I control them", and how come only Shepard can, how come not EDI, or Garrus?

3. someone said something earlier in the thread about enslaving the reapers after the Catalyst had indoctrinated them, so we should disregard them as sentient beings, and it really bugged me.

4. Again, things can ALWAYS take a change in the future, the Catalyst does not live in the future, it cannot know about the future whether it is old or not, yes, maybe it gives very good advice, if so, why don't u choose synthesis? obviously u don't believe what it says is true, or at least u have doubts

The highlighted part just show that now the only difference is reapers are used to destroy synthetic life instead of an organic one, and now u r preaching about destroying the Geth is cruel, so in the future when Geth grows up, u r gonna kill them if they threathen organics?

I'd like to say first I'm enjoying this debate. It's good to see different sides to things. Just do you know I don't hate you or your ideas.

2. I base this purely on the fact that the series constantly points out how "strong-willed" Commander Shepard is. He or she is able to overcome incredible odds, lead well, inspire confidence. That is what I was referring to when I meant, "if anyone could, it would be Shepard."

3. The point us. It's incredibly sad that those species were wiped out. Almost all of them who were killed were completely innocent; never did anything wrong and were wiped out for no reason. If I could bring them back I would, but I can't. All I'm left with is these walking graveyards, that don't have any redeeming factors whatsoever.

4. You're correct in reading me. I have my doubts. I do not know whether the Catalyst is right or wrong. His revelations caught me by surprise and gave me no chance to investigate it. And I must investigate it before making a decision. Therefore, I went control.

Synthesis is permanent, and not only that, but violates the right to choose for all living beings. All the sentient races would be "synthesised" and that, to my Shepard, is wrong.

Destroy, however, is equally wrong to my "canon" Shepard. Bare in mind some of my other Shep's do choose Destroy. It wipes out the Geth forever. Which is obviously wrong.

Control allows me to wait and see. I can hide out and Dark Space and just "watch" life. See if it continues. If it does, so be it, I'll let the Reapers run out of power, or hibernate for all eternity, or self-sabotage them. If, however, any race, be it organic or synthetic, plans to wipe out all other life (and looks to be about to succeed), then I would stop them. Because it would be the right thing to do.

I don't necessarily think the Geth will. I trust the Geth. But life has been stuck in this 50k year Cycle "experiment" for as long as time goes back. Who knows what will happen afterwards? I have to make sure everybody lives.

[Seival]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@Mammoth: u seem to think that mass relays are these benevolent things, u r wrong, they are traps for reapers to harvest, they made the organics to rely on them, its like an addictive drug

In ME universe Mass Relays are the only way to travel between clusters in seconds. Without Mass Relays ships have to spend years to get from one distant cluster to another, and it will require tons of fuel. It will be completely ineffective and VERY expensive.

Mass Relays destruction/disable means only that Galactic Civilization has to rebuild/reactivate the Relays. Galactic Civilization may even invent and build their own Mass Relays. But it will be the same technology Reapers used, just much less advanced.

Mass Effect universe can't exist without Mass Relays. Even without destroyed/disabled or WIP ones.

Modifié par Seival, 29 mai 2012 - 02:17 .

[killage_wizard]

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

If destroy isn't what I would consider the ultimate "canon" choice (kind of like Shepard not surviving in ME2 wouldn't be the canon outcome) then why is it the only ending that gives you an extra cut scene if your EMS is high enough? People can debate the moralities and the rights vs wrongs of the three choices, but only destroy teases what is to come after you make your choice.

Because surviving in such an explosion is a huge achievement itself? The harder something to achieve - the more EMS is requires. But hard achievement is not always = "canon" achievement. This extra cut-scene doesn't make Destroy the "best option".

Then why not have an extra cut scene after the other two endings as well?  Or why would they have any extra scenes at all?  If Bioware really wanted all three endings to be equal that would be the case.  Over the course of all three games there has been a reason for just about everything that happens.  Even Conrad Verner can give you a war asset depending on how you treat him.  Bioware wouldn't just include the extra scene.

 - Control ending doesn't involve a possibility of Shepard's survival as a human being.
 - Synthesis ending doesn't involve a possibility of any kind of Shepard's survival.

So, adding similar hidden cutscenes to those will be against the endings' concept. 

The content of an extra cutscene is irrelevant.  The fact that Destroy is the only choice with an extra scene is what matters.  They could have easily done different teasers for each ending, but they chose not to.  My question is why?  Why is Destroy different from Control and Synthesis in this way only if your EMS is high enough?

[Taboo]

The Geth are already dead in my playthrough. Those crazy ass Quarians killed them. The Reapers are going to be destroyed and the only blow back is EDI.

Control gives an obscene amount of power to one individual. I cannot tolerate such an ending. Destroy is blunt and over quickly and there is no long lasting effects on the galaxy, as we have dismissed the singularity several pages back.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Control gives an obscene amount of power to one individual. I cannot tolerate such an ending. Destroy is blunt and over quickly and there is no long lasting effects on the galaxy, as we have dismissed the singularity several pages back.

Who's to say there's lasting effects on the galaxy with control? 

[Seival]

killage_wizard wrote...

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

Seival wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

If destroy isn't what I would consider the ultimate "canon" choice (kind of like Shepard not surviving in ME2 wouldn't be the canon outcome) then why is it the only ending that gives you an extra cut scene if your EMS is high enough? People can debate the moralities and the rights vs wrongs of the three choices, but only destroy teases what is to come after you make your choice.

Because surviving in such an explosion is a huge achievement itself? The harder something to achieve - the more EMS is requires. But hard achievement is not always = "canon" achievement. This extra cut-scene doesn't make Destroy the "best option".

Then why not have an extra cut scene after the other two endings as well?  Or why would they have any extra scenes at all?  If Bioware really wanted all three endings to be equal that would be the case.  Over the course of all three games there has been a reason for just about everything that happens.  Even Conrad Verner can give you a war asset depending on how you treat him.  Bioware wouldn't just include the extra scene.

 - Control ending doesn't involve a possibility of Shepard's survival as a human being.
 - Synthesis ending doesn't involve a possibility of any kind of Shepard's survival.

So, adding similar hidden cutscenes to those will be against the endings' concept. 

The content of an extra cutscene is irrelevant.  The fact that Destroy is the only choice with an extra scene is what matters.  They could have easily done different teasers for each ending, but they chose not to.  My question is why?  Why is Destroy different from Control and Synthesis in this way only if your EMS is high enough?

Disagree. Content for a possible extra cutscene is very important. Control and Synthesis concepts just doesn't intend to have something "extra" (there is nothing to add to them, but detailed explanations). They just require more details right now, just like the Destroy ending.

"Secret scene" for Destroy is just a hidden achievement for task "almost impossible to complete". But it doesn't mean the task is "canon". It just requires a lot of EMS. Endings don't have to be a mirrors of each other.

...By the way. Synthesis requires more EMS then Control or Destroy. Actually, it requires the same EMS as the secret cutscene. But this doesn't make Synthesis a "canon" or "right" choice. In fact, Synthesis is the worst possible option.

[The Angry One]

I'm just going to say that your banner in the OP highlights the problem with how BioWare told this story.

Where did Shepard prove she was ready?

[The Night Mammoth]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm just going to say that your banner in the OP highlights the problem with how BioWare told this story.

Where did Shepard prove she was ready?

Everything she does proves readiness. 

As a Paragon. 

[frylock23]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'm just going to say that your banner in the OP highlights the problem with how BioWare told this story.

Where did Shepard prove she was ready?

Everything she does proves readiness. 

As a Paragon. 

There's an old saying that's very true. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It doesn't matter how good you think your Shepard is; she is going to be stuck for untold millions or billions of years as a super-powerful, godlike being with all that power ... and in close proximity to all those indoctrinating Reaper minds ...

[Seival]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm just going to say that your banner in the OP highlights the problem with how BioWare told this story.

Where did Shepard prove she was ready?

First -  by paragon options in the final conversation with TIM. The entire "you play with things you don't understand" thing was the proof that Shepard is ready.

Second - in the final Control scene. Reapers fall back after receiving Shepherd's orders.

[The Night Mammoth]

frylock23 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'm just going to say that your banner in the OP highlights the problem with how BioWare told this story.

Where did Shepard prove she was ready?

Everything she does proves readiness. 

As a Paragon. 

There's an old saying that's very true. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Never heard that argument in this thread a hundred times alreday.

It doesn't matter how good you think your Shepard is; she is going to be stuck for untold millions or billions of years as a super-powerful, godlike being with all that power ... and in close proximity to all those indoctrinating Reaper minds ...

Nope. 

I say the Reapers will be gone in three years tops. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 29 mai 2012 - 03:00 .

[The Angry One]

frylock23 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'm just going to say that your banner in the OP highlights the problem with how BioWare told this story.

Where did Shepard prove she was ready?

Everything she does proves readiness. 

As a Paragon. 

There's an old saying that's very true. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It doesn't matter how good you think your Shepard is; she is going to be stuck for untold millions or billions of years as a super-powerful, godlike being with all that power ... and in close proximity to all those indoctrinating Reaper minds ...

Exactly, paragon acts and being a good person does not prove anything. You could be a saint and that still doesn't mean you have the capacity or understanding to control the billion year old Reapers.