381 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

Armannen wrote...

In control, my bet is that shep will eventually see things from a "eternal machine" point of view rather than a sentient organic and soon continue the reaping because it would be for the greater good of the galaxy or something. I absolutely have no idea what really synthesis does, except make us "evolve" in a way merciless space cthulhus approve of.
So destroy means we might all destroy ourselves soon enough, maybe the geth will rebel. But that chaos would be our future, our own fate rather than let some harsh, unfeeling AI decide our future for us.
That's why i chose destroy, but if bioware explain what the hell Synth means in Extended Cut, I might give that one a chance. 

Yeah exactly i think that is a very real possibility that if you lose all you are you might come to see things from the evil genocidal machine point of view. Synthesis is clearly an unknown but one where for every positive there will a positive change. I certainly see some pretty negative mental changes likely given it is supposed to stop creation of new AI's. Destroy is harshly cauterised wound but best of awful bunch imo.

Modifié par wright1978, 16 juin 2012 - 09:48 .

[syllogi]

I'm too apathetic to care about endings at this point, but choosing Destroy is as close to defying Starbrat as we can get.

And I'm playing the tiniest violin for EDI. If sacrifices have to be made, I'll wipe a hard drive.

[guacamayus]

covertdrizzt wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

covertdrizzt wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

are you saying that synthesis has anything to do with what the reapers did to the collectors? because that's incredibly absurd, the collectors were husks, nothing more.

synthesis is what they did to Saren.

saren was implanted with reaper tech, synthesis changes everyone at a molecular level. Completly different things.

Saren "Organic and machine itertwined, a union of flesh and steel" sounds like synthesis to me.  I guess we'll have to disagree on that.

He believed that, yes, but in my opinion everything done to him had nothing to do with synthesis, he was implanted not totally changed (DNA). That was the way Sovereign manipulated him, after the invasion Saren was probably going to be left behind as the reapers always did to indoctrinated slaves.

Modifié par guacamayus, 16 juin 2012 - 09:49 .

[Iecerint]

Why has no one mentioned that EDI survives Destroy?

[JamieCOTC]

Kaidan Fan wrote...

Mordin would like to talk to you and so would Javik.

The destroy option goes beyond "machines are bad."  The Reapers (or whoever) created the mass relays so that the galaxy would evolve on their terms.  “You exist because we allow it.”  W/out the relays, the galaxy would have to evolve beyond those limitations, but that would provide the galaxy a way to evolve on its own terms.  The geth actually agree w/ this as they believe all species have the right to self determine.  It does come w/ the heavy cost of killing the geth and possibly EDI.  Control changes nothing and allows the galaxy to live on, but everything is status quo, including the Reapers.  The cost is Shepard’s life as well as the fact that the Reapers will most likely return in another 50,000 years.  Synthesis allows both organics and machines to make a leap in evolution in one step.  There is harmony between the two, but the cost is both Shepard’s life and another possible divide.  The mistake synthesis makes is in assuming it is the final evolution between organics and machines. Evolution never ends and now the Reapers are at the top of the food chain.

I pick destroy. 

It’s the only way to be sure.

[zambot]

I was going to tell you why you should pick control for your Shepard then, but all this thread did was make me realize again just how poor the ending choices are explained to us. They might as well just given us a single button to press and have the screen fade to black with a god child's voice telling us to imagine what happens next.

[Tealjaker94]

Iecerint wrote...

Why has no one mentioned that EDI survives Destroy?

I've yet to see actual video evidence of this. If you have a link please provide it so we can use this point.

[iAFKinMassEffect3]

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
They were forced to.

Pay attention. A singularity does not necessarily equal violence either.

Two different people trying to live in the same space equals violence.
If one is clearly the stronger, it will either destroy or dominate the weaker.
Peace is only possible between equals.

Human Histroy disagrees with you but that's okay, we can disregard logical arguments if you want.

Lots of variables are involved in humanities history, he only mentioned two sides.
It was illogical for you to say that.

[Taboo]

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
They were forced to.

Pay attention. A singularity does not necessarily equal violence either.

Two different people trying to live in the same space equals violence.
If one is clearly the stronger, it will either destroy or dominate the weaker.
Peace is only possible between equals.

Human Histroy disagrees with you but that's okay, we can disregard logical arguments if you want.

Lots of variables are involved in humanities history, he only mentioned two sides.
It was illogical for you to say that.

I know. But he doesn't give me much to work with. Synthesis people don't factor in ANY variables.

[frylock23]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
They were forced to.

Pay attention. A singularity does not necessarily equal violence either.

Two different people trying to live in the same space equals violence.
If one is clearly the stronger, it will either destroy or dominate the weaker.
Peace is only possible between equals.

That's an interesting perspective you have there. By your logic, there is no such thing as a nonviolent marriage since pretty much every man is physically stronger and to pretty much every woman. That must mean that my husband has been seriallly beating me all during the course of our past 16 years together and I have been blissfully unaware of it.

*runs off to examine self for bruises that don't exist because her husband absolutely has not been beating her physically or emotionally*

[Taboo]

frylock23 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
They were forced to.

Pay attention. A singularity does not necessarily equal violence either.

Two different people trying to live in the same space equals violence.
If one is clearly the stronger, it will either destroy or dominate the weaker.
Peace is only possible between equals.

That's an interesting perspective you have there. By your logic, there is no such thing as a nonviolent marriage since pretty much every man is physically stronger and to pretty much every woman. That must mean that my husband has been seriallly beating me all during the course of our past 16 years together and I have been blissfully unaware of it.

*runs off to examine self for bruises that don't exist because her husband absolutely has not been beating her physically or emotionally*

U R INDOCTRINATED.

[covertdrizzt]

guacamayus wrote...

covertdrizzt wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

covertdrizzt wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

are you saying that synthesis has anything to do with what the reapers did to the collectors? because that's incredibly absurd, the collectors were husks, nothing more.

synthesis is what they did to Saren.

saren was implanted with reaper tech, synthesis changes everyone at a molecular level. Completly different things.

Saren "Organic and machine itertwined, a union of flesh and steel" sounds like synthesis to me.  I guess we'll have to disagree on that.

He believed that, yes, but in my opinion everything done to him had nothing to do with synthesis, he was implanted not totally changed (DNA). That was the way Sovereign manipulated him, after the invasion Saren was probably going to be left behind as the reapers always did to indoctrinated slaves.

Saren  "I am a vision of the future shepard.  the evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. join sovereign and experience a true rebirth"  It all just seems too similar to what the starbrat says. I guess I just see it as doing what the reapers want and I don't trust them for a second.  This is my iterpretation anyway. I could be wrong.

[Jadebaby]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Kaidan Fan wrote...

Mordin would like to talk to you and so would Javik.

The destroy option goes beyond "machines are bad."  The Reapers (or whoever) created the mass relays so that the galaxy would evolve on their terms.  “You exist because we allow it.”  W/out the relays, the galaxy would have to evolve beyond those limitations, but that would provide the galaxy a way to evolve on its own terms.  The geth actually agree w/ this as they believe all species have the right to self determine.  It does come w/ the heavy cost of killing the geth and possibly EDI.  Control changes nothing and allows the galaxy to live on, but everything is status quo, including the Reapers.  The cost is Shepard’s life as well as the fact that the Reapers will most likely return in another 50,000 years.  Synthesis allows both organics and machines to make a leap in evolution in one step.  There is harmony between the two, but the cost is both Shepard’s life and another possible divide.  The mistake synthesis makes is in assuming it is the final evolution between organics and machines. Evolution never ends and now the Reapers are at the top of the food chain.

I pick destroy. 

It’s the only way to be sure.

This is an educated opinion, people would do well to listen to this.

[Gold Dragon]

The fianl analysis is that there is no "right" answer to which of the three options is "Best".  Which also means that there is no "wrong" answer, either.

There is your choice, and only your choice.  And the consequences pertaining therein.  This final decision will be made by the ethics and morals of each person siting at the computer, or at a console in front of a television, and it is those morals and ethics that determine which is right.

Dying for what you believe is actually quite common.

It's being able to live with your choice afterwards that shows the real martyr.

[What a Succulent Ass]

syllogi wrote...

And I'm playing the tiniest violin for EDI. If sacrifices have to be made, I'll wipe a hard drive.

gurl, now u kno u wrong fo dat.

[What a Succulent Ass]

HellishFiend wrote...

Look out everyone, the internet tough guy has armed himself with a thesaurus and a dictionary. Next he's going to wow us with his education background and credentials. 

Why does the Internet always resort to anti-intellectual argument when it sees a word it doesn't recognise?

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 16 juin 2012 - 10:23 .

[Tealjaker94]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Dying for what you believe is actually quite common.

It's being able to live with your choice afterwards that shows the real martyr.

So...destroy?

[Taboo]

Random Jerkface wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Look out everyone, the internet tough guy has armed himself with a thesaurus and a dictionary. Next he's going to wow us with his education background and credentials. 

Why dies the Internet always resort to anti-intellectual argument when it sees a word it doesn't recognise?

It's my fault, I apologize.

[Jadebaby]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

The fianl analysis is that there is no "right" answer to which of the three options is "Best".  Which also means that there is no "wrong" answer, either.

There is your choice, and only your choice.  And the consequences pertaining therein.  This final decision will be made by the ethics and morals of each person siting at the computer, or at a console in front of a television, and it is those morals and ethics that determine which is right.

Dying for what you believe is actually quite common.

It's being able to live with your choice afterwards that shows the real martyr.

Spoken like a true scholar lol.

also...

syllogi wrote...

And I'm playing the tiniest violin for EDI. If sacrifices have to be made, I'll wipe a hard drive.

Even though I know you were just simplifying it / telling a joke. That seems like a racial slur

[MisterJB]

frylock23 wrote...
That's an interesting perspective you have there. By your logic, there is no such thing as a nonviolent marriage since pretty much every man is physically stronger and to pretty much every woman. That must mean that my husband has been seriallly beating me all during the course of our past 16 years together and I have been blissfully unaware of it.

*runs off to examine self for bruises that don't exist because her husband absolutely has not been beating her physically or emotionally*

That is a simplistic way of looking at it. Society has evolved enough to allow for equality between genders.
Of course, there are certain differences between marriages and international or interspecies relations.

[o Ventus]

Random Jerkface wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Look out everyone, the internet tough guy has armed himself with a thesaurus and a dictionary. Next he's going to wow us with his education background and credentials. 

Why dies the Internet always resort to anti-intellectual argument when it sees a word it doesn't recognise?

Because ________.

You can ad-lib the rest if you want.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Look out everyone, the internet tough guy has armed himself with a thesaurus and a dictionary. Next he's going to wow us with his education background and credentials. 

Why dies the Internet always resort to anti-intellectual argument when it sees a word it doesn't recognise?

Because ________.

You can ad-lib the rest if you want.

The joke is that I didn't need a thesarus or a dictionary to respond to him.

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

frylock23 wrote...
That's an interesting perspective you have there. By your logic, there is no such thing as a nonviolent marriage since pretty much every man is physically stronger and to pretty much every woman. That must mean that my husband has been seriallly beating me all during the course of our past 16 years together and I have been blissfully unaware of it.

*runs off to examine self for bruises that don't exist because her husband absolutely has not been beating her physically or emotionally*

That is a simplistic way of looking at it. Society has evolved enough to allow for equality between genders.
Of course, there are certain differences between marriages and international or interspecies relations.

Disregarding extreme outliers...

Why aren't we at war with Japan, Britain, Germany, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Russia, Africa, or Canada then?

[thefallen2far]

For me, the Reapers have to die. Plain and simple. They're not a reasonable entity that could be changed or reasoned with... they're genocidal robots.

If in Control you could choose for the Reapers to destroy themselves, then I would go with that.... but it only shows them flying away. If the EC expands on this and says they kill themselves... then I might change my mind that Control is the best option. Until then, they have to be destroyed.  It's not about Revenge or hate.  They're evil genocidal robots that will wipe out civilizations and can be controled using some unkown method [space magic] or programed with faulty logic.... They're evil.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 16 juin 2012 - 10:26 .

[zambot]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

The fianl analysis is that there is no "right" answer to which of the three options is "Best".  Which also means that there is no "wrong" answer, either.

There is your choice, and only your choice.  And the consequences pertaining therein.  This final decision will be made by the ethics and morals of each person siting at the computer, or at a console in front of a television, and it is those morals and ethics that determine which is right.

Dying for what you believe is actually quite common.

It's being able to live with your choice afterwards that shows the real martyr.

I think this was Bioware's intent, but the execution of the ending was poor enough to where this kind of ethical decision making did not happen for most people in practice.  The intent of control clearly was to provide players with the option of saving the galaxy by sacrificing their lives.  Why else would control be the option that preserves the citidel and possibly even all the relays?  Big problems with control include it being associated with one of the most evil characters in the game (TIM) and it being utterly unbelievable based on it being fought against the entire game.

Destroy on the other hand looks to be the option where the player gets to destroy the reapers and possibly save him/herself, but at the cost of allies and a friend.  The problem there is that the cost appears to be tacked on by Bioware just to make sure there's a cost to what would oherwise be a very desirable ending.  And sythesis isn't even worth talking about as it makes no sense whatsoever, but is presented to the player as something desirable. 

I think the community's reaction would be a lot different if Shep survived control instead of destroy.  You'd see a LOT more support for control.  There are a large number of people who just want their Shep to survive, no matter the cost.  These people are upset at the cost ("I can't believe BW blew up the relays") or in denial about the cost ("He's lying about EDI and the Geth being destroyed).

The community's reaction would be a lot different if the best possible EMS score unlocked a small cutscene at the end of control or synthesis.  A large number of people consider the "best" ending to be whatever the ending that you get with the high score.  

At the end of the day, this is why the ending failed.  No one understood the choices, neither the risks nor the consequences of those choices.  We were all asked to believe and trust the explanation of a new, untrusted, and frankly poorly developed character (god child) to help us understand these difficult choices.   This is an unreasonable expectation placed on us (the players) by the developers.  Then in the aftermath, there were only subtle differences between the consequences of those actions presented to us which trivialized the choices themselves.  wtf Bioware.  wtf.

Modifié par zambot, 16 juin 2012 - 10:29 .