689 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

mass perfection wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
But they leave in Synthesis.Besides,they were under control by the Catalyst but Synthesis kills the Catalyst leaving the Reapers free and maybe they retreat into Darkspace after they help rebuild.

Again, how could you possibly know that? If making stuff up helps you enjoy the ending more, well good for you. However, your headcanon does not make a convincing argument to other people.

Because the Citadel is destroyed.

*sigh*

The cutscene following Synthesis only shows the Citadel shifting its arms. Nowhere do you see it breaking off or otherwise being destroyed. Only in the aptly named Destroy ending is it destroyed.

[Mr.House]

111987 wrote...

Kelwing wrote...

Only choice I ever make. Until the starbrat gives me a valid and BELIEVABLE reason to except what he says as truth. I'll kill him and his toys ever damn time.

I hate this reasoning. If you don't believe the Catalyst, than you shouldn't believe that blowing up the tubes activates Destroy.

Not our fault Bioware only gave ust hree choices.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

Off topic.: I now have Too Mass Effect Stories.

1: Luis (My Name) Shepard. This is my Main/"True" Mass Effect Story. Canon as many call it. It goes from ME1 all the way to ME3. It is Complete. I feel a LOT of affection and attachment to this not only because of My Name, but also the Personal Choices, Interests, and Emotional Attachments. For Example, I played ME2 First, the Reason being that Miranda was in it, and I got interested in her before getting the game, and the game looked cool, so I didn't want to go through ME1. I wanted to go to ME2 right away. I played ME1 later. Miri is My Love Interest. In THIS Story, I feel like I'm actually there, as Shepard. You know what I mean?

2: Quorra Shepard. My First FemShep. Her Love Interest is Liara. I STILL consider Myself a MirimancerMirimaniac ONLY. I mean, yeah, Quorra is Romancing Liara, BUUUTTT..I don't think she's my Love Interest, but Quorra's Love Interest. I do not have that "Connection" Like I do with Miri. I have been a Mirimancer/Mirimaniac for more than 2 Years, and I want to stay as A Mirimancer/Mirimaniac. Meaning since I feel more affection with my Main Shepard (Luis Shepard), I feel that I'm still a Mirimancer/Mirimaniac only. In my Main Story, I feel like I'm actually in Shepard's shoes. Not just because of My Name, but also due to My Personal Connection to it. It is Complete, My "Canon." Like I said with My Main Shepard, I feel like I'm actually him. With Quorra I am not. She is Quorra Shepard. Her Story is Alternate And Parallel to my own, and it is meant to be that way. You know what I mean?
I decided to Start Quorra in ME2 instead. I used the Genesis Comic so that ME1 would serve as her Back Story. Since I didn't want to go through all of ME1 again, and since I am more Emotionally Attached to the ME2 Characters (Including Garrus and Tali), I downloaded the Genesis Comic and Started in ME2. It wasn't to be as "Complete" as my Canon (Luis (My Name) Shepard, with Miranda Lawson as My Love Interest), so instead of skipping things in ME1 and regretting it, I decided to Download Genesis and use ME1 as a "Back Stoy," or "Prologue." Her Story is a Two-Part-Series, Like Kill Bill, and her Love Interest is Liara T'Soni. In the Genesis Comic I made her Romance Liara. I not only want to make an Alternate Playthrough, but I also want it to be Unique.

Two Different Commanders, Two Different Love Interests, One with More "Personal" Connection, and One Destiny for Both.

Quorra will Destroy as well.

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 27 mai 2012 - 08:01 .

[xsdob]

Shepard Wins wrote...

Inb4 control people storming in with pitchforks and torches.

Well you did storm our thread first and steal the idea IMO.

But I'm just glad you guys have gotten into the spirit of things, hope you don't get flamed and trolled as much as you guys did us.

[Cadeym]

Jamie9 wrote...

Sohlito wrote...

The Geth/EDI =/= The rest of the Galaxy.

And what I mean by that is to state that EDI and the Geth do not, under any circumstance, sufficiently warrant hesitation when the rest of the galaxy is at stake. That's potentially trillions upon trillions of lives in comparison to millions or less of the Geth, and one EDI.

As Garrus put it, "ruthless calculus"; but necessary.

I just have to say:

Advanced Organics =/= The entire Galaxy

Technically, the Catalyst's logic isn't circular. It wants organics to live in some form for all of time. And it's biggest worry is the technological singularity. I don't believe in it myself but his logic DOES in fact make sense.

The Catalyst's logic is flawed as long as it doesn't allow organics to challange it's perspective.

Some odd and silly examples. People who can prove themselves responsible enough (hunting license... handguns etc are strictly illegal) are where I live allowed to buy rifles and such weaponry. Nobody trusts that North Korea would be responsible enough to handle having nuclear weapons.. that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed the oportunity to prove us wrong though.

[CroGamer002]

Seival wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Destroy, the lesser of three evils...

Lesser?

Do you know why I choose Control? Becouse Destroy kills not just Reapers, Geth and EDI, it also kills everyone on the Citadel, and everyone with vital synthetic implants - i.e. all Quarians and a lot of people from other races... Well, and I don't want to destroy even Geth and EDI actually.

Actually, Patrick Weekes said millions on Citadel actually survived since Citadel arms are protected by it's own kentict barriers to protect inhabitants in case something happens to Citadel.

Also, I wouldn't use that everyone with vital synthetic implants would die argument.
It makes sense( by not making no sense logic, I guess), but I don't think Bioware thought of that thing.

[o Ventus]

111987 wrote...

Kelwing wrote...

Only choice I ever make. Until the starbrat gives me a valid and BELIEVABLE reason to except what he says as truth. I'll kill him and his toys ever damn time.

I hate this reasoning. If you don't believe the Catalyst, than you shouldn't believe that blowing up the tubes activates Destroy.

Nice strawman.

Believing the ideals presented in the endings is fundamentally and inherently not associated with how they're carried though.

I don't believe the catalyst either. He told me I was going to die because of my synthetic implants (The same implants that Shepard needs to survive), when I very clearly lived. Going off of this, there's nothing to say the geth or EDI also didn't survive.

[dreamgazer]

zovoes wrote...
so now we are on to what the meaning of the word "is" is. it kills the geth and EDI the devs have said this and gamble backs it up saying they don't think of them "as life".

Yeah, and some have also said that EDI can live in the destroy ending.  Some players have even seen EDI walk out of the Normandy during the destroy ending.  And no matter what, you're putting stock in the words of an extension of the Reapers' technology, dressed as a human child who looks like it was ripped directly from Shepard's war-torn nightmares. 

The only thing we know for a point-blank fact, as voiced by the catalyst, is that the Reapers will be destroyed.  Nearly everything else is up in the air and exists in a gray area. 

[Barquiel]

I chose "destroy" at the end because it's the only outcome that kills the reapers and ends the cycle beyond a shadow of a doubt

[clennon8]

Look, I like the geth too, but if they have to be sacrificed to rid the galaxy of the Reapers and their billions of years old reign of terror, then so be it. Casualties of war. It sucks, it really does, but Destroy is hands down the best option. Control and Synthesis simply aren't sensible. The people who are defending them are rationalizing and resorting to post-choice cutscenes to retro-justify very shaky decisions. (See, see, Joker and EDI look happy!)

Synthesis is abhorrent and violative, and Control is just stupid. I mean, really, is there a single person here who if put in that situation would say "I believe you, little boy from my nightmares. I will go ahead and kill myself so that I may control the Reapers. That makes much more sense than just killing you all."

Modifié par clennon8, 27 mai 2012 - 08:19 .

[Jamie9]

Mouseraider wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is flawed as long as it doesn't allow organics to challange it's perspective.

Some odd and silly examples. People who can prove themselves responsible enough (hunting license... handguns etc are strictly illegal) are where I live allowed to buy rifles and such weaponry. Nobody trusts that North Korea would be responsible enough to handle having nuclear weapons.. that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed the oportunity to prove us wrong though.

I do think the Catalyst is hypocritical and he does create the problem by having us develop the same way every time via the Mass Relays and the Citadel. It's circular logic in that way.

But the "Create an army of synthetics to stop all synthetics" meme isn't true. That was what I was trying to dispute. I still think the Catalyst creates the problem.

I agree also, everybody should have a chance. To relate this again to Mass Effect, it is why I choose to cure the Genophage, because everybody deserves a chance.

[111987]

o Ventus wrote...

111987 wrote...

Kelwing wrote...

Only choice I ever make. Until the starbrat gives me a valid and BELIEVABLE reason to except what he says as truth. I'll kill him and his toys ever damn time.

I hate this reasoning. If you don't believe the Catalyst, than you shouldn't believe that blowing up the tubes activates Destroy.

Nice strawman.

Believing the ideals presented in the endings is fundamentally and inherently not associated with how they're carried though.

I don't believe the catalyst either. He told me I was going to die because of my synthetic implants (The same implants that Shepard needs to survive), when I very clearly lived. Going off of this, there's nothing to say the geth or EDI also didn't survive.

It's not a strawman argument because your argument is different from Kelwing's. Or at least that's how I interpret it, because it is left vague.

The Catalyst also never said Shepard would die. You just made that assumption.

Besides, these are two different arguments. The reasoning I am referring to is that if you don't believe what the Catalyst is saying, you should choose Destroy, when in reality you have to have some degree of trust with the Catalyst.

[mass perfection]

o Ventus wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
But they leave in Synthesis.Besides,they were under control by the Catalyst but Synthesis kills the Catalyst leaving the Reapers free and maybe they retreat into Darkspace after they help rebuild.

Again, how could you possibly know that? If making stuff up helps you enjoy the ending more, well good for you. However, your headcanon does not make a convincing argument to other people.

Because the Citadel is destroyed.

*sigh*

The cutscene following Synthesis only shows the Citadel shifting its arms. Nowhere do you see it breaking off or otherwise being destroyed. Only in the aptly named Destroy ending is it destroyed.

You obviously see the middle get blown to hell.

[Sohlito]

Jamie9 wrote...

Sohlito wrote...

The Geth/EDI =/= The rest of the Galaxy.

And what I mean by that is to state that EDI and the Geth do not, under any circumstance, sufficiently warrant hesitation when the rest of the galaxy is at stake. That's potentially trillions upon trillions of lives in comparison to millions or less of the Geth, and one EDI.

As Garrus put it, "ruthless calculus"; but necessary.

I just have to say:

Advanced Organics =/= The entire Galaxy

Technically, the Catalyst's logic isn't circular. It wants organics to live in some form for all of time. And it's biggest worry is the technological singularity. I don't believe in it myself but his logic DOES in fact make sense.

I wasn't arguing the singularity or the Catalyst's contrived logic, I was arguing the primary basis for common counter arguements against Destroy. Which is that the Geth and EDI being sacrificed automatically negates all merit in the Destroy ending.

[Clayless]

o Ventus wrote...

I don't believe the catalyst either. He told me I was going to die because of my synthetic implants (The same implants that Shepard needs to survive), when I very clearly lived. Going off of this, there's nothing to say the geth or EDI also didn't survive.

Incorrect, he at best implied Shepard may die. As you can see from all the destroy endings he was telling the truth, and as you can see everything else he said that we saw was true.

Even if you don't believe it, there's no reason to believe that the Geth and EDI survive the destroy all synthetics ending, especially as the Catalyst was shown to be telling the truth in everything else.

[Pelle6666]

Totally agree! but why the hell did the geth and Edi have to die?! And wtf was up with the ending any way?!

[Mr.House]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I don't believe the catalyst either. He told me I was going to die because of my synthetic implants (The same implants that Shepard needs to survive), when I very clearly lived. Going off of this, there's nothing to say the geth or EDI also didn't survive.

Incorrect, he at best implied Shepard may die. As you can see from all the destroy endings he was telling the truth, and as you can see everything else he said that we saw was true.

Even if you don't believe it, there's no reason to believe that the Geth and EDI survive the destroy all synthetics ending, especially as the Catalyst was shown to be telling the truth in everything else.

Untill I see the Geth and EDI die, it will just be another lie of Starbrat.

[Jamie9]

Sohlito wrote...

I wasn't arguing the singularity or the Catalyst's contrived logic, I was arguing the primary basis for common counter arguements against Destroy. Which is that the Geth and EDI being sacrificed automatically negates all merit in the Destroy ending.

Yeah, I was just relating your comparison to a similar comparison of my own: towards the Catalyst. I apologise if I've misrepresented you. I'll try to be more clear in future.

I do wonder if as many people would pick Destroy if Humanity was sacrificed as opposed to the Geth. (Purely speculative, I'm not anti-Destroy.)

[Verit]

I don't support any of the 3 endings. Destroy is "my" ending but I can't accept the fact that it involves Shepard stabbing his/her synthetics friends in the back, especially when those helped him realize the Catalyst's reasoning is wrong in the first place. Have EDI and the geth survive (without their Reaper upgrades) and then I'll certainly pick Destroy. Control and Synthesis might as well not even exist for me. I'll never accept my Shepard acting like a complete hypocrite by becoming the Reaper overmind, not will I accept Shepard changing all organic life in the galaxy into an new articifially created, and therefore ironically synthetic, lifefom. I'd rather not choose anything and try to forget this franchise ever existed rather than having to choose between 3 endings that "corrupt" my Shepard's character.

[Sohlito]

xsdob wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Inb4 control people storming in with pitchforks and torches.

Well you did storm our thread first and steal the idea IMO.

But I'm just glad you guys have gotten into the spirit of things, hope you don't get flamed and trolled as much as you guys did us.

Hurray for blanket statements!

Theft? The concept of a support thread was first discovered here on the BSN and by individuals who chose Synthesis/Control? They should be edited into a Wiki article or something and seek royalties.

Modifié par Sohlito, 27 mai 2012 - 08:08 .

[Clayless]

Mr.House wrote...

Untill I see the Geth and EDI die, it will just be another lie of Starbrat.

Technically it would be the first lie of the Catalyst.

But it is ok to say "Despite everything else he said being true, I believe this part here was a lie", I'm not arguing against that.

[clennon8]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I don't believe the catalyst either. He told me I was going to die because of my synthetic implants (The same implants that Shepard needs to survive), when I very clearly lived. Going off of this, there's nothing to say the geth or EDI also didn't survive.

Incorrect, he at best implied Shepard may die.

Oh, he definitely implied it.  It may not have been a lie exactly, but it was manipulative and deceitful.  Only a fool would believe that kid.

[Jamie9]

Would it not be a gigantic plot hole if the Geth and EDI survived, though? The Destroy beam destroys all Reaper code, so why would it only destroy 'some' Reaper code?

For all the problems I have with the ending, the fact that the Destroy beam kills the Geth and EDI was a sound decision IMO.

[Sisterofshane]

RavenEyry wrote...

Seival wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Destroy, the lesser of three evils...

Lesser?

Do you know why I choose Control? Becouse Destroy kills not just Reapers, Geth and EDI, it also kills everyone on the Citadel, and everyone with vital synthetic implants - i.e. all Quarians and a lot of people from other races... Well, and I don't want to destroy even Geth and EDI actually.

We don't know any of that stuff for sure. The only info we have is what Mr. Sparkle said and we can see Shep survive despite their many vital implants.

In fact, the catalyst does not speak in absolutes when he refers to EDI and the geth.  He says "You can destroy all Synthetic life if you want...".

The qualifying words in that statement are "can" (not WILL) and "if you want" (not, if you choose to destroy us).  In fact, the only reason we know the Reapers are destroyed in that ending for sure is because we forced the catalyst to tell us by asking him "But the Reapers will be Destroyed/" and it has to respond "yes...".

We are never shown the death of any of the Geth, nor of EDI (in fact, there seem to be some unsubstantiated rumors floating around that she is in fact seen alive exiting the Normandy), but we are explicity shown the Reapers being disabled.

Also, despite heavily implying that Shepard will also die (but never outright saying that he will), we are shown what is presumably commander Shepard alive and breathing.  So why do we need to outright believe the Catalyst when he also implies that EDI and the Geth will be destroyed?

[Clayless]

clennon8 wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I don't believe the catalyst either. He told me I was going to die because of my synthetic implants (The same implants that Shepard needs to survive), when I very clearly lived. Going off of this, there's nothing to say the geth or EDI also didn't survive.

Incorrect, he at best implied Shepard may die.

Oh, he definitely implied it.  It may not have been a lie exactly, but it was manipulative and deceitful.  Only a fool would believe that kid.

At best he implied he may die yes. In hindsight we see he was right.