314 réponses à ce sujet

[Apocaleepse360]

dreman9999 wrote...

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

In my mind, I took control of the Reapers. I commanded them to rebuild the Mass Relays, which allowed everyone to return to their homes. I then sent the Reapers on a one-way course towards the sun. I also pictured my Shepard having a conflict of conscience similar to how the protagonist does at the end of Prey.

But what's in you mind is not lore. What is import is what the star child imations.

The Star Child doesn't go into detail on ANY of the choices. The whole ending lacks detail and logic, so I can imagine whatever I want to make up for it.

Modifié par Apocaleepse360, 30 mai 2012 - 07:18 .

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

So submitting to them is a better choice?

Some people have to get over this bullsh*t. 

Whether you 'submit' is entirely subjective. 

[antares_sublight]

Lord Goose wrote...

That's your actual point.

I think he rather meant, what using the Reapers technology is not a crime, since we use it all the way.

No, his point is that Control and Synthesis, despite being appear to be giving in to the Reapers in some way, is "ok" because the galaxy made use of Reaper technology. Hence, his sentence "So let’s get off our “all things Reaper/Reaper tech is t3h eeeevviiiilllzz!” shall we?"

Replace "reaper" with "any more advanced civilization" and it has the same meaning. The implication of the OP is that you should always follow go along with more advanced civilizations.

(also, as someone else in the thread pointed out: while it's true victory was achieved through the use of reaper tech, if reaper tech had never been used in the first place this kind of war wouldn't have happened)

[Lord Goose]

So just like I said, a brand new, arbitrary choice thrust upon you at the last moment for which you have nothing to base a decision on

I was hoping that Crucible would be able to stop the Reapers. Turns out, it can. I got what you mean, but for me it isn't a flaw, but something which was expected in the first place. Reapers are ones who killed hundreds and thousands of civilizations. They're like nature or acts of God. Putting blind irrational hope into mysterious device was only possible solution to begin with.

[draken-heart]

starbrat is just like ME2 mordin, hiding behind statistics and theories that make no sense.except that mordin eventually agrees that there are too many variables to determine the best long-term course of action. that is what i see in control and synthesis: not taking all the too many variables into account and looking a one set of data and using it to prove your point, that is called confirmation bias in my book.

[PsyrenY]

llbountyhunter wrote...
thats were IT comes in......

Oh yes, picking the first option the Starchild tells you about is totally defying the Starchild.

And somehow you succumb to indoctrination in two of the choices yet end the Reaper threat anyway.

You IT folks never seem to be able to explain those.

[draken-heart]

that is why i think that the end is shepard fighting her own doubt about the war.

[Lord Goose]

So submitting to them is a better choice?

How exactly choosing to make them leave the galaxy is submitting to them?

by lying I actually meant painting destroy in bad light, and favoring the other two. I was looking past the deception in my other post.

Both Control and Destroy are portraited in gray light. In Destroy you will kill EDI and geth (assuming you have geth) and probably have to deal with consequences of future Tech Singularity. In Control you will die and lose everything you have.

Also, as you could see, most players choose Destroy. So, even if Catalyst tried to make us choose Control, how come he failed so miserably?

[Jamie9]

You can use that argument on synthesis (that it's a betrayal) because it's seemingly irreversible.

Reaper Tech is useful, yes, and doesn't indoctrinate if recreated. Thanix, EDI etc. as proof.

[antares_sublight]

Post-decision player rationalizations aside, imagine you are Shepard at decision time. Given what extremely limited information you know about them, plus all you've been told and have seen throughout the series, choosing Control or Synthesis would be a rash, irresponsible move - Synthesis especially.

[WYLDMAXX]

How would Shepard maintain control? If the crucible is destroyed would that mean that Shepard's conciseness losses control of the Reapers?

What protects the syntheses space magic beam from being used again? I certain don't want random organic material being thrown into it.

I find the Destroy option a more permanent solution to the Reaper problem.

Modifié par WYLDMAXX, 30 mai 2012 - 07:27 .

[Jamie9]

WYLDMAXX wrote...

How would Shepard maintain control? If the crucible is destroyed would that mean that Shepard conciseness losses control of the Reapers?

What protects the syntheses space magic beam from being used again? I certain don't want random organic material being thrown into it.

I find the Destroy option a more permanent solution to the Reaper problem.

Wiping out the Krogan would be a permanent solution... permanent does not equal ethical. In fact, more often than not, permanent means unethical, as there is no way to reverse it if it's a mistake.

[dreman9999]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

In my mind, I took control of the Reapers. I commanded them to rebuild the Mass Relays, which allowed everyone to return to their homes. I then sent the Reapers on a one-way course towards the sun. I also pictured my Shepard having a conflict of conscience similar to how the protagonist does at the end of Prey.

But what's in you mind is not lore. What is import is what the star child imations.

But his imagination is perfectly valid here because there is no lore for what happened after ME3. There's nothing to disprove that Shepard commanded the Reapers to rebuild the relays. As long as it doesn't violate any lore, then why is imagining stuff in the story wrong? And at the end of the day, this is our story. Bioware gives us the basic framework, and we get to make choices, but if we don't like something then why shouldn't we change it in our imaginations? It doesn't affect your Mass Effect story. Its a fictional story. Its not gospel or something.

And that's where indoctrination comes in...The reapers can make you beleive anything once they get control of you..

[jijeebo]

WYLDMAXX wrote...

How would Shepard maintain control? If the crucible is destroyed would that mean that Shepard's conciseness losses control of the Reapers?

What protects the syntheses space magic beam from being used again? I certain don't want random organic material being thrown into it.

I find the Destroy option a more permanent solution to the Reaper problem.

You replace the catalyst in Control and reside on the Citadel i'd imagine, probably why they made sure it doesn't explode in that ending.

[llbountyhunter]

Lord Goose wrote...

So submitting to them is a better choice?

How exactly choosing to make them leave the galaxy is submitting to them?

by lying I actually meant painting destroy in bad light, and favoring the other two. I was looking past the deception in my other post.

Both Control and Destroy are portraited in gray light. In Destroy you will kill EDI and geth (assuming you have geth) and probably have to deal with consequences of future Tech Singularity. In Control you will die and lose everything you have.

Also, as you could see, most players choose Destroy. So, even if Catalyst tried to make us choose Control, how come he failed so miserably?

actually the starbrat brushed over destroy in a very negative way.

and most people chose control at first (or sinthesis because they didnt realise they could go left or right!)

it wasnt untill IT became popular that destroy became the dominate choice.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 07:35 .

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So submitting to them is a better choice?

Some people have to get over this bullsh*t. 

Whether you 'submit' is entirely subjective. 

Sorry, when you  agreed to work with them...You submited to them.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So submitting to them is a better choice?

Some people have to get over this bullsh*t. 

Whether you 'submit' is entirely subjective. 

Sorry, when you  agreed to work with them...You submited to them.

I'm not working with them. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 30 mai 2012 - 07:33 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So submitting to them is a better choice?

Some people have to get over this bullsh*t. 

Whether you 'submit' is entirely subjective. 

Sorry, when you  agreed to work with them...You submited to them.

Control =/= Collaboration

If that's how you interpret control, that's fine, but please stop arguing from a subjective point. You have absolutely nothing to base your assertion off of.

[Jamie9]

dreman9999 wrote...

Sorry, when you  agreed to work with them...You submited to them.

The Catalyst submits to Shepard. He yields his power to Shepard. Especially in the control ending.

Submit:   to give over or yield to the power or authority of another.

[Lord Goose]

actually the starbrat brushed over destroy in a very negative way.

That's subjective. At least in my opinion, only Synthesis was described as perfect and consequnces less. And I choose Control only because it suited my Shepard better. The guy who saved Rachni, who saved Krogan and make peace between geth and quarins could not possible choose to sacrifice anybody provided an option.

And in my national part fandom (russian-speaking) it seems like everybody just have choosen destroy because of "we must kill the Reapers" thing.

Sorry, when you agreed to work with them...You submited to them.

I can argue, what if you decided to kill somebody just to make sure, what nothing wrong will happen in the future, you're acting just like Reapers do. They harvest civilizations so organics would be saved, you kill the geth so Reapers would be killed.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 30 mai 2012 - 07:35 .

[dreman9999]

Jamie9 wrote...

You can use that argument on synthesis (that it's a betrayal) because it's seemingly irreversible.

Reaper Tech is useful, yes, and doesn't indoctrinate if recreated. Thanix, EDI etc. as proof.

The tanix and EDI is not proof. We don't know what happen in the reverse engining of the reapers cannons to say it never happen. The tanix cannon are based on reaper tech not reaper tech themselves.
As for EDI, is actively is using the reapers codes in the war. It many be by have the tech attached to her consusness and the fact She don't want to indoctriante any one would be the reason why the normadies reaper is not incotriation anyone...Or She turned it off.

[llbountyhunter]

look, one of the first play though videos.
http://www.youtube.c...czhHtqgY#t=815s

whats the "good ending" here?

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 07:35 .

[dreman9999]

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

In my mind, I took control of the Reapers. I commanded them to rebuild the Mass Relays, which allowed everyone to return to their homes. I then sent the Reapers on a one-way course towards the sun. I also pictured my Shepard having a conflict of conscience similar to how the protagonist does at the end of Prey.

But what's in you mind is not lore. What is import is what the star child imations.

The Star Child doesn't go into detail on ANY of the choices. The whole ending lacks detail and logic, so I can imagine whatever I want to make up for it.

But that still make what you imagine happing pointless because your not the one excicutiong the actions of the choice...The starchild is.

[WYLDMAXX]

Jamie9 wrote...

WYLDMAXX wrote...

How would Shepard maintain control? If the crucible is destroyed would that mean that Shepard conciseness losses control of the Reapers?

What protects the syntheses space magic beam from being used again? I certain don't want random organic material being thrown into it.

I find the Destroy option a more permanent solution to the Reaper problem.

Wiping out the Krogan would be a permanent solution... permanent does not equal ethical. In fact, more often than not, permanent means unethical, as there is no way to reverse it if it's a mistake.

So destroying the Reapers is not ethical? 

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So submitting to them is a better choice?

Some people have to get over this bullsh*t. 

Whether you 'submit' is entirely subjective. 

Sorry, when you  agreed to work with them...You submited to them.

I'm not working with them. 

So imagining rebuilding the galexy with reapers is not working with them?