381 réponses à ce sujet

[Gibb_Shepard]

ME3 went TW2 with it's ending choices.

Synthesis is a pile of lolz. Control is far too vague for any rational mind to choose without conjuring up some serious head canon.

Destroy is the lesser evil.

That's what Bioware were trying to go for. A "lesser evil" like scenario. The choice that makes your head implode from the lolz the least.

You must choose the lesser evil.

[Ieldra]

WindOverTuchanka wrote...
The original thematic distribution of endings did feel like destroy was an "ax-crazy" organic purist's option, and Synthesis was a "peace" option. Too bad the actual writing and the balancing considerations have shot Synthesis in the foot, repeatedly.

The writing of the whole Catalyst scene is insulting. So I think it's more the actual writing and less the balancing, though Shepard's survival is a contributing factor. And yes, this interpretation of the ending options was in my mind when I played the ending for the first time. 

It's mostly post-ending movement that has chosen Destroy as a (somewhat fitting, actually) symbol of rebellion. Well, it was Bioware writers who said that sometimes "stories write themselves", and that's the way this story has written itself into a corner.

Rebellion against the writers, yes. I actually understand this attitude of "Bioware thinks Synthesis is the best option, who are they to prescribe that for me?" I'd hate it if that was done with an option I dislike. But with a few notable exceptions, the anti-Synthesis front has lost all sanity since. I would love to give them a taste of their own medicine, but I'd rather not go down to their level.

I can just say - kudos for seeing Bio's original intention through the writing, and for having guts to defend it under fire.

If I've learned one thing in debates over the years, it's how often the majority is wrong. Apart from that, I guess both jtav and I have some experience in having a minority opinion.

[Taboo]

That's democracy for you. Foundation of society.

But I agree, at least in part. This is however, not a vote to decide if we are going to raise taxes Ieldra.

It's kind of a big deal.

[Ieldra]

KingZayd wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

We see them leaving the battle. For all you know they're just baffled by the greenwave and are retreating until they figure it's safe.

There is no way of knowing if they're going to come back.

That's a non-argument. All endings end the Reaper threat. Both your only in-world source (the Catalyst) and your only out-of-world source (the game itself) tell you so. There is absolutely no ambiguity about that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 05:56 .

[Reorte]

Destroy is the most certain way of getting rid of the threat that's killing everyone and will continue to do so. The death of the geth and EDI, whilst unpleasant, is a lesser evil than a forced fundamental change on all life everywhere. Control is possibly even less bad but it very much depends upon Shepard. However it's also a much, much bigger risk.

Doing nothing and letting the Reapers win is certainly worse than Destroy and Control; it's debatable whether it's worse than Synthesis.

[ghost9191]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

not really wanting to start a argument , respect your opinion. but the reapers were built for one purpose, how would setting them free stop them from continuing it? that and the races that were killed in order to make a reaper can rest in peace with their destruction, shepard says something along the lines of "whatever race was usede to make you is dead". Mainly i am just saying the reapers have one purpose, we do not know if they are controlled to the point that they are doing this against their will.  or if because they were made to harvest organic species that they will suddenly stop when all organic are merged with synthetics. They could see them as lessers or just continue to harvest to make new reapers. only way to make new reapers is by harvesting,well that or some other form of space magic

[o Ventus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

We see them leaving the battle. For all you know they're just baffled by the greenwave and are retreating until they figure it's safe.

There is no way of knowing if they're going to come back.

That's a non-argument. All endings end the Reaper threat. Both your only in-world source (the Catalyst) as your only out-of-world source (the game itself) tell you so. There is absolutely no ambiguity about that.

That doesn't, in any way, imply or prove that they were under total control. Way to dodge the point.

[eye basher]

They are trying to kill me hell yes i am going to kill them besides better safe than sorry.

[Ieldra]

ghost9191 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

not really wanting to start a argument , respect your opinion. but the reapers were built for one purpose, how would setting them free stop them from continuing it? that and the races that were killed in order to make a reaper can rest in peace with their destruction, shepard says something along the lines of "whatever race was usede to make you is dead". Mainly i am just saying the reapers have one purpose, we do not know if they are controlled to the point that they are doing this against their will.  or if because they were made to harvest organic species that they will suddenly stop when all organic are merged with synthetics. They could see them as lessers or just continue to harvest to make new reapers. only way to make new reapers is by harvesting,well that or some other form of space magic

Actually, it's not true that the Reapers were built for the harvesting. The Reapers are, first and foremost, built to "store the old life in 'ascended' form". They are rather the result of the cycle, with the added benefit that they can also be used to perpetuate it.

As for what Shepard says, I'm very surprised that so few people know that Shepard doesn't actually always say that. I should really make a list of the possible responses in the relevant conversations. I have never heard that line (two games so far). (Ugh, that means repeated replays of the most annoying fight in the game. Has anyone found a means to cheat with the Reaper fight on Rannoch yet?)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 06:02 .

[ghost9191]

ah whatever, even before all this i chose destroy with my first playthrough, was pretty damn sure Shepard was going to die (which he did cause i avoided mp till my second play through) but out of the 3 i thought it was right. so it was my first and only choice for me.

also notice how the soldiers don't cheer in the synthesis ending? i don't think they thought of it as a victory , kinda of the same as in destroy when you destroy all tech also. the earth is on fire so they don't see it as much of a victory

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for what Shepard says, I'm very surprised that so few people know that Shepard doesn't actually always say that. I should really make a list of the possible responses in the relevant conversations. I have never heard that line (two games so far).

We've already discussed this.

You don't pick the Paragon options. This is why.

[ghost9191]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

not really wanting to start a argument , respect your opinion. but the reapers were built for one purpose, how would setting them free stop them from continuing it? that and the races that were killed in order to make a reaper can rest in peace with their destruction, shepard says something along the lines of "whatever race was usede to make you is dead". Mainly i am just saying the reapers have one purpose, we do not know if they are controlled to the point that they are doing this against their will.  or if because they were made to harvest organic species that they will suddenly stop when all organic are merged with synthetics. They could see them as lessers or just continue to harvest to make new reapers. only way to make new reapers is by harvesting,well that or some other form of space magic

Actually, it's not true that the Reapers were built for the harvesting. The Reapers are, first and foremost, built to "store the old life in 'ascended' form". They are rather the result of the cycle, with the added benefit that they can also be used to perpetuate it.

As for what Shepard says, I'm very surprised that so few people know that Shepard doesn't actually always say that. I should really make a list of the possible responses in the relevant conversations. I have never heard that line (two games so far).

well i know he doesn't always say that but does if you go the "paragon" way, and i am just curios about the reapers, they just seemed to be built for one purpose  but idk

[Tealjaker94]

I'll try to guess what everyone's reaction to synthesis would be. I'll assume a good amount of organics will be pissed off: "I didn't ask for this!" The geth will probably also be pretty pissed off because they seemed okay with being synthetic. So basically everyone's pissed off and stuck in the Sol system with limited resources and a lot of guns. Oh and the reapers are there too. Sounds like a ****storm to me.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, it's not true that the Reapers were built for the harvesting. The Reapers are, first and foremost, built to "store the old life in 'ascended' form". They are rather the result of the cycle, with the added benefit that they can also be used to perpetuate it.

This is kind of a moot point. They were made to both destroy and 'preserve' simultaneously. One does not come without the other. 

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
As for what Shepard says, I'm very surprised that so few people know that Shepard doesn't actually always say that. I should really make a list of the possible responses in the relevant conversations. I have never heard that line (two games so far).

We've already discussed this.

You don't pick the Paragon options. This is why.

Odd, actually. Usually the Renegade options are the more aggressive ones. BTW, whatever Shepard says, it's just an opinion. Roleplaying-wise, Shepard should act like he says (so I'm glad this is avoidable), but it says nothing about how things really are. I find Legion a more reliable source on that.

Edit:
Well ok, the Paragon options are usually those which paint the Reapers as abominations as if Shepard was defending some sacred natural order. I often choose Paragon in the game, but I hate that attitude. None of that detestable attitude will ever come out of any of my Shepards' mouths.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 06:08 .

[Joe Del Toro]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

Sigh. There you go again with conjecture. I refuse to take that seriously.

Give a f*ck about what ending anyone chose. They're all moronic and all the moral and ethical dilemmas you're making are rendered pointless. 

[_aLucidMind_]

None of the decisions are ethical:

Destroy- Genocide of enemy and your own (Geth; everyone if EMS is too low)
Control- Slavery
Synthesis- Ethnocide

Which heinous act does your Shepard approve of?

Modifié par _aLucidMind_, 16 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[Taboo]

It is a new consciousnesses. Whatever they were is long dead. They are thoughts and memories which have no meaning.

That's what he means.

[clennon8]

 I'm tired of going around and around on this, so I'm just going to say this one last thing and let the issue rest, at least for a good, long while.

Yes, if you metagame it (i.e. take what you consider to be the writers' intentions into consideration, imbue the uber-brief post-choice Joker/Edi scene with wide-reaching implications, disregard nonsensical statements made by the Catalyst, take the Catalyst's truthfulness and correctness for granted, make all sorts of beneficial assumptions about the long term effects of Synthesis), then you have something of an argument for taking an "ends justify the means" stance in choosing Synthesis.  Congratulations, you cheated at solitaire and won.

However, I still say that if you roleplay it - if you truly stay "in the moment" with your Shepard, given what he/she knows and has experienced up to that point - then choosing Synthesis is nothing short of bat-sh*t insane.

Modifié par clennon8, 17 juin 2012 - 02:03 .

[o Ventus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It is a new consciousnesses. Whatever they were is long dead. They are thoughts and memories which have no meaning.

That's what he means.

Assuming memories and thoughts can even be stored after the brain is destroyed.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

It is a new consciousnesses. Whatever they were is long dead. They are thoughts and memories which have no meaning.

That's what he means.

Assuming memories and thoughts can even be stored after the brain is destroyed.

Even if they could we wouldn't be able to do anything with them. It's a random image. This is basic film logic here. An image means nothing without context.

No emotions, no use.

[GreyLycanTrope]

_aLucidMind_ wrote...

None of the decisions are ethical:

Destroy- Genocide of enemy and your own (Geth; everyone if EMS is too low)
Control- Slavery
Synthesis- Ethnocide

Which heinous act does your Shepard approve of?

My thoughts exactly

[Taboo]

Greylycantrope wrote...

_aLucidMind_ wrote...

None of the decisions are ethical:

Destroy- Genocide of enemy and your own (Geth; everyone if EMS is too low)
Control- Slavery
Synthesis- Ethnocide

Which heinous act does your Shepard approve of?

My thoughts exactly

Geth are dead in my playthrough.

[essarr71]

1st: Actually, there is more evidence that the Catalyst doesn't control the Reapers. It's a common leap of logic that by saying they're a "solution" people assume he created them/controls them. All evidence points to the contrary, outside of them facilitating his goals. My boss doesn't control me, even tho he might give me direction - and it's not a far stretch to assume the Reapers aren't aware of the Catalyst or know it's not all powerful (see ME1).

2nd: Until we see the Geth get destroyed, I'm not convinced it actually occurs. We know EDI being alive isn't a bug or oversight, so why should we believe the Geth aren't around. Further, no amount of happy clouds will deny the logic of sacrificing a collection of charismatic toasters to save the lives of every race and future race that would have been cultivated for who knows how many years. It'd be like killing one person so that an entire city doesn't burn.

3rd: Seeing as this is a level playing field, it's a moot point. But I'd argue that synthesis slams the galaxy twice.. while destroy hits them once - cutting off the hands to free the body.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

_aLucidMind_ wrote...

None of the decisions are ethical:

Destroy- Genocide of enemy and your own (Geth; everyone if EMS is too low)
Control- Slavery
Synthesis- Ethnocide

Which heinous act does your Shepard approve of?

My thoughts exactly

Geth are dead in my playthrough.

But they're not dead in mine and neither are the Quarians, so unlike you I'm left with these implications