314 réponses à ce sujet

[DDG4005]

For me, Control and Synthesis are non-starters.  The Reapers have been annihilating races in throughout the galaxy for 37 million years in the name of "harvesting them".  If my Shepard could have put a bullet in the head of that little bastard he would have; to think any option other than Destroy is viable after all the ensuing carnage and destruction is ludicrous in my opinion.

I didn't believe that little bastard on my first playthrough nor my second and at the end of my third it will be that same: gut the bastards.  I've skimmed through the posts that support either Control or Synthesis but Destroy is the only viable option for me.  At least that way I know those metal bastards won't be coming back.

[DubVee12]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

it might be because you got blinded by not wanting to do what you gotta do to beat the reapers (sacrifice the Geth - if they are still functioning - and EDI).

I actually wounder. Would you (or any pro-Destroy) choose Destroy if you have to kill humanity to Destroy the Reapers?

I think if Catalyst would really want to persuade us to choose Control or Synthesis he could say what Destroy beam would destroy Earth/Solar system as whole. No one would probably do what.

No, I guarentee people would still choose destroy if it blew up our entire solar system.

The same people? 

All of them? 

Not so sure about that. 

All of them? No
Some definately would. When you have people advocating blowing up the charon relay as a possibility to beat the Reapers conventionally, then yes I believe people would still pick it.

Edit: and with previous replies and the ones below, I rest my case.

Modifié par DubVee12, 30 mai 2012 - 08:45 .

[Jamie9]

Navasha wrote...

Absolutely.    Choosing destroy means willing to make the tough choice to do the right thing.   Yes, its painful.  Yes, its horrific.  Yes, it seems a terrible price.    BUT...   its still the only option that ensures victory.  

Choosing control is choosing to gamble on your own hubris.   You think you are mighty enough to control the reapers, just like MILLIONS of people think they are going to be the one to win the lottery every week.    However, the odds are against you and the price for failure isn't just the $2 ticket, its the lives of EVERYONE you know and everyone in the galaxy you don't know.    To me, that gamble isn't an option, anyone should be willing to make.  

I won't even consider synthesis an option, that pretty much guarantees everyone you know will die and along with everything that might have ever lived.  

I presume you sacrificed the Concil in ME1? Because with sacrificing some of the Human Fleet, you risked the lives of everyone by risking the loss of those ships. What if you didn't have enough ships to defeat Sovereign?

That reasoning is the very essence of what makes a renegade in Mass Effect.

[Vox Draco]

Jamie9 wrote...
I'm an optimist, what can I say.

And you have to, when you want control to work out how you want to!

[Lord Goose]

I didn't believe that little bastard on my first playthrough nor my second and at the end of my third it will be that same: gut the bastards.

If you truly haven't believed him, why would you bother yourself with choosing Destroy? If Catalyst IS lying, choices are essentially pointless. Any of them could be the trap. All of them can be the trap.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 30 mai 2012 - 08:40 .

[Jamie9]

DDG3595 wrote...

For me, Control and Synthesis are non-starters.  The Reapers have been annihilating races in throughout the galaxy for 37 million years in the name of "harvesting them".  If my Shepard could have put a bullet in the head of that little bastard he would have; to think any option other than Destroy is viable after all the ensuing carnage and destruction is ludicrous in my opinion.

I didn't believe that little bastard on my first playthrough nor my second and at the end of my third it will be that same: gut the bastards.  I've skimmed through the posts that support either Control or Synthesis but Destroy is the only viable option for me.  At least that way I know those metal bastards won't be coming back.

Exactly. I'm not trying to convince anyone Control is the correct option for everybody. I'm attempting to refute the claim that Destroy is the noblest option. Yes, morality is subjective usually, but not so in Mass Effect.

Being a Paragon means to follow a specific ruleset, and to be a renegade means to follow a different ruleset.

You can be anywhere in between and dictate your own moral code but the two ends are constant.

Destroy's biggest draw is that you 100% ensure the Reapers are gone. And this is a fantastic reason to pick it. If you want to make sure they are gone for good, pick it. It's your game. But don't convince yourself that it's a really noble option. It follows Mass Effect's Renegade mindset.

[Bill Casey]

Jamie9 wrote...

I presume you sacrificed the Concil in ME1? Because with sacrificing some of the Human Fleet, you risked the lives of everyone by risking the loss of those ships. What if you didn't have enough ships to defeat Sovereign?

That reasoning is the very essence of what makes a renegade in Mass Effect.

I saved the Council...
You can't compare that to trying to control an inumerably vast mind corrupting force because its leader tells you that you can...

One choice is offensively stupid...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 30 mai 2012 - 08:43 .

[DubVee12]

Navasha wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

it might be because you got blinded by not wanting to do what you gotta do to beat the reapers (sacrifice the Geth - if they are still functioning - and EDI).

I actually wounder. Would you (or any pro-Destroy) choose Destroy if you have to kill humanity to Destroy the Reapers?

I think if Catalyst would really want to persuade us to choose Control or Synthesis he could say what Destroy beam would destroy Earth/Solar system as whole. No one would probably do what.

No, I guarentee people would still choose destroy if it blew up our entire solar system.

Absolutely.    Choosing destroy means willing to make the tough choice to do the right thing.   Yes, its painful.  Yes, its horrific.  Yes, it seems a terrible price.    BUT...   its still the only option that ensures victory.  

Choosing control is choosing to gamble on your own hubris.   You think you are mighty enough to control the reapers, just like MILLIONS of people think they are going to be the one to win the lottery every week.    However, the odds are against you and the price for failure isn't just the $2 ticket, its the lives of EVERYONE you know and everyone in the galaxy you don't know.    To me, that gamble isn't an option, anyone should be willing to make.  

I won't even consider synthesis an option, that pretty much guarantees everyone you know will die and along with everything that might have ever lived.  

Each choice is a gamble at the time. You have no way of knowing starchild is telling the truth with destroy either. In fact, that seems like the LEAST likely choice he would tell the truth about. Why would he want to give you the possibility of destroying the Reapers at all?

[Jamie9]

Vox Draco wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
I'm an optimist, what can I say.

And you have to, when you want control to work out how you want to!

Ouch. That hurt me real deep. I'm just going to go over here in this corner and watch the bottles revolt now. Should lift my spirits a little.

[Jamie9]

Bill Casey wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

I presume you sacrificed the Concil in ME1? Because with sacrificing some of the Human Fleet, you risked the lives of everyone by risking the loss of those ships. What if you didn't have enough ships to defeat Sovereign?

That reasoning is the very essence of what makes a renegade in Mass Effect.

I saved the Council...
You can't compare that to trying to control an inumerably vast mind corrupting force because its leader tells you that you can...

That argument can be applied to all three endings. Shooting that tube AND walking towards it could just kill you. Or it could activate synthesis. If the Catalyst is lying, you have no information to go on.

You have to go on the Catalyst telling the truth with the ending as it is.

[frylock23]

Lord Goose wrote...

If you've really gotten to the point where you're willing to actually play the ruthless calculus game in order to get rid of the Reapers once and for all and you truly do have a Shepard who sees a person as a person no matter which species they belong to, then yes, you would be willing to accept that price.

So, basically, you're playing Ruthless here. Achieve the result no matter the cost, sacrificing 75% of your squad just to kill the batarians. Right?

Not exactly. It's the only way out that destroys the enemy. If I were solely playing for the future of humanity, then it wouldn't be acceptable, but I'm not, I'm playing for the future of all advanced life in the galaxy. There can be no future free of the Reapers if they're left in the picture.

I can't trust that I'll be able to control them. TIM couldn't, but he could could control me. If I'm wrong, we all lose.

Synthesis wipes out all organic and synthetic life and leaves the Reapers alive. It's a non-starter.

The only option I have left is destroy and it's price.

It's the alpha relay all over again with a bigger price tag.

(Honestly, I hate it with a passion no matter which race gets put on the chopping block, but the other two options don't work for me. Control is too chancy, and synthesis is morally repugnant and I can't save all organic and synthetic life by wiping it out. But then again, this would be why I've only actually played the game to its conclusion twice out of all my playthroughs and seriously regret having done it both times.)

[Vox Draco]

Jamie9 wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
I'm an optimist, what can I say.

And you have to, when you want control to work out how you want to!

Ouch. THAT HURT ME REAL DEEP. I'm just going to go over here in this corner and watch the bottles revolt now. Should lift my spirits a little.

Corrected it for you, controllers should always write in HARBINGER-VOICE!

alright, I am going too far, but I could't pass on that opportunity for a joke. But I better go to bed now, before it gets ugly *cough*

[Lord Goose]

Destroy's biggest draw is that you 100% ensure the Reapers are gone. And this is a fantastic reason to pick it. If you want to make sure they are gone for good, pick it. It's your game. But don't convince yourself that it's a really noble option. It follows Mass Effect's Renegade mindset.

I would rather say, what Destroy is only Renegade because you have to sacrifice geth and EDI to kill the Reapers. In itself, Reapers doesn't seems to be more "alive" than forces of nature. And even if they're alive they're responsible for horrible crimes for millions of years.

What's making the decision Renegade is the fact, what you have to sacrifice entire species to destroy them and you have option to not doing it. It could be the same situation as in Arrival: its either the whole Galaxy or those colonies.

But with Control and Synthesis its not the same situation. Also, what's why I'm thinking that theories about Control and Synthesis being "LIES!" are so popular. If they're lies, where is no other option, and you can only choose destroy regardless of morality.

[Bill Casey]

The catalyst never tells you which option is which...

[PsyrenY]

DubVee12 wrote...

All of them? No
Some definately would. When you have people advocating blowing up the charon relay as a possibility to beat the Reapers conventionally, then yes I believe people would still pick it.

You mean the ones that don't realize that explosions travel slower than light?

[Jamie9]

Vox Draco wrote...
Corrected it for you, controllers should always write in HARBINGER-VOICE!

alright, I am going too far, but I could't pass on that opportunity for a joke. But I better go to bed now, before it gets ugly *cough*

Night. Hope you don't dream of the Catalyst!

[frylock23]

Jamie9 wrote...

Navasha wrote...

Absolutely.    Choosing destroy means willing to make the tough choice to do the right thing.   Yes, its painful.  Yes, its horrific.  Yes, it seems a terrible price.    BUT...   its still the only option that ensures victory.  

Choosing control is choosing to gamble on your own hubris.   You think you are mighty enough to control the reapers, just like MILLIONS of people think they are going to be the one to win the lottery every week.    However, the odds are against you and the price for failure isn't just the $2 ticket, its the lives of EVERYONE you know and everyone in the galaxy you don't know.    To me, that gamble isn't an option, anyone should be willing to make.  

I won't even consider synthesis an option, that pretty much guarantees everyone you know will die and along with everything that might have ever lived.  

I presume you sacrificed the Concil in ME1? Because with sacrificing some of the Human Fleet, you risked the lives of everyone by risking the loss of those ships. What if you didn't have enough ships to defeat Sovereign?

That reasoning is the very essence of what makes a renegade in Mass Effect.

It depends on my Shepard. On my first playthrough, I did sacrifice them because I felt we needed to make sure that Sovereign was defeated. I felt it more important to defeat the overwhelming threat to all of the galaxy than to save three individuals who should have ready replacements waiting in the wings.

I have two Shepards who felt that way and two who did it the other way.

And actually, that choice was neutral in the original game not paragon or renegade. It netted you points for both.

[Lord Goose]

Not exactly. It's the only way out that destroys the enemy. If I were solely playing for the future of humanity, then it wouldn't be acceptable, but I'm not, I'm playing for the future of all advanced life in the galaxy. There can be no future free of the Reapers if they're left in the picture.

I can't trust that I'll be able to control them. TIM couldn't, but he could could control me. If I'm wrong, we all lose.

Synthesis wipes out all organic and synthetic life and leaves the Reapers alive. It's a non-starter.

What's exactly what I'm talking about. In Control ending Shepard will control the reapers and they would leave the galaxy. In Synthesis no one will die. Yes, species will disappear but no individual is supposed to perish.

But everybody seems to be twisting them: claiming that Catalyst lying, claiming that Reapers would win, etc. That's only leads to Destroy being only viable option.

But... If Catalyst is trying to deceive you, why you do believe that choosing destroy would change something?

Modifié par Lord Goose, 30 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[WYLDMAXX]

Post implementation of Control has too many unknowns. What happens if someone, with a nefarious purpose, comes along and grabs the control rods?

[Jamie9]

frylock23 wrote...

It depends on my Shepard. On my first playthrough, I did sacrifice them because I felt we needed to make sure that Sovereign was defeated. I felt it more important to defeat the overwhelming threat to all of the galaxy than to save three individuals who should have ready replacements waiting in the wings.

I have two Shepards who felt that way and two who did it the other way.

And actually, that choice was neutral in the original game not paragon or renegade. It netted you points for both.

You get +25 paragon for saving the Council.

+25 renegade for sacrificing the Council.

+9 paragon +9 renegade for "Concentrating on Sovereign.

I was just using the two polar opposites. If you play a Paragade or Renegon then it is absolutely acceptable to pick destroy. I'm not arguing that.

I'm arguing that Destroy isn't a paragon option, because some people are saying it is.

My 2nd Shepard picks Destroy. He hates AI, and allows the Quarians to wipe out the Geth. He easily picks Destroy. I don't hate the option. It's just not the "paragon option".

[Jamie9]

Lord Goose wrote...

Destroy's biggest draw is that you 100% ensure the Reapers are gone. And this is a fantastic reason to pick it. If you want to make sure they are gone for good, pick it. It's your game. But don't convince yourself that it's a really noble option. It follows Mass Effect's Renegade mindset.

I would rather say, what Destroy is only Renegade because you have to sacrifice geth and EDI to kill the Reapers. In itself, Reapers doesn't seems to be more "alive" than forces of nature. And even if they're alive they're responsible for horrible crimes for millions of years.

What's making the decision Renegade is the fact, what you have to sacrifice entire species to destroy them and you have option to not doing it. It could be the same situation as in Arrival: its either the whole Galaxy or those colonies.

But with Control and Synthesis its not the same situation. Also, what's why I'm thinking that theories about Control and Synthesis being "LIES!" are so popular. If they're lies, where is no other option, and you can only choose destroy regardless of morality.

Yeah, that's what I meant, I just didn't convey it very well. Thanks Lord Goose!

Let this be a lesson that no matter how well you think you've constructed your writing, it should always be reviewed by someone else, as they can usually improve it. 

[DubVee12]

Optimystic_X wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...

All of them? No
Some definately would. When you have people advocating blowing up the charon relay as a possibility to beat the Reapers conventionally, then yes I believe people would still pick it.

You mean the ones that don't realize that explosions travel slower than light?

Yes, those people. If they would sacrifice the solar system in a plan that wouldn't even work, they most definately would do it in the destroy ending. Because destroy is the only ending that actually defeats the reapers and makes Shep a legend apparently....<_<

[legion999]

DDG3595 wrote...

For me, Control and Synthesis are non-starters.  The Reapers have been annihilating races in throughout the galaxy for 37 million years in the name of "harvesting them".  If my Shepard could have put a bullet in the head of that little bastard he would have; to think any option other than Destroy is viable after all the ensuing carnage and destruction is ludicrous in my opinion.

I didn't believe that little bastard on my first playthrough nor my second and at the end of my third it will be that same: gut the bastards.  I've skimmed through the posts that support either Control or Synthesis but Destroy is the only viable option for me.  At least that way I know those metal bastards won't be coming back.

WRONG.



It's a billion+ years actually.

[BigGuy28]

DubVee12 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

DubVee12 wrote...

All of them? No
Some definately would. When you have people advocating blowing up the charon relay as a possibility to beat the Reapers conventionally, then yes I believe people would still pick it.

You mean the ones that don't realize that explosions travel slower than light?

Yes, those people. If they would sacrifice the solar system in a plan that wouldn't even work, they most definately would do it in the destroy ending. Because destroy is the only ending that actually defeats the reapers and makes Shep a legend apparently....<_<

Destroy is the only one that defeats the reapers. Control and synthesis lets them continue living, get away with trillions of murders and allowes them to continue the cycle at some point in the future.

[Lord Goose]

My 2nd Shepard picks Destroy. He hates AI, and allows the Quarians to wipe out the Geth. He easily picks Destroy. I don't hate the option. It's just not the "paragon option".

Making peace between geth and quarins can be renegade solution. The difference is motive. Paragon believes what everybody should survive and the geth are truly living being. Renegade may not think about the geth as living beings, but he may want to use them as combat force.