332 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

[quote]Astartes Marine wrote...

[quote]Zine2 wrote...
Are you willing to just sit back like a pathetic little coward and watch everyone die?  Entire species?  All of this knowing that you could have stopped it?  And you still think it's the better ending? 

Having the chance to act and save many, and instead doing nothing...your character would better serve on the business end of a firing line or in a meat shield penal battalion.[/quote]

So, if you're trapped on a mountain and food is running out, would you kill a member of your party who is injured and eat him to save everyone else? Is that a "moral" choice?

Again, people need to realize that the utilitarian choice is not necessarily the moral choice.

Choosing to compromise your values to serve the "greater good" is the utilitarian choice.

Choosing to remain uncompromising abour your belief in diversity, unity, and refusal to be party to genocide is the moral choice.

And again, that's why the Reject ending is the best ending. It's actually the deep ending. It ties thematically to Shepard saying "I will not sacrifice the soul of this species" back in ME2. It is not simply "Do X, ignore the implications, yay everyone is now at peace and has glowing green eyes!".

It is the one that does, in fact tell people that while there is not always a happy ending, how you face the end is more important than winning or losing.

That's not cowardice. That's not selfishness. It's making a moral choice; and attempting to spite that choice by going "HAHA you lose" doesn't make it any less moral; it only demonstrates your own lack of conviction about these values. That for you, it's okay to commit genocide in the name of victory.

[Astartes Marine]

Dusen wrote...
EDIT: It's a lot like making a deal with the devil in exchange for one's life. The cost outweighs the benefits in this case.

So blowing the Reapers all to hell in Destroy is like making a deal with the devil?  What?  WHAT?!

I would say it's more like giving him the middle finger.

[Zine2]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Dusen wrote...
EDIT: It's a lot like making a deal with the devil in exchange for one's life. The cost outweighs the benefits in this case.

So blowing the Reapers all to hell in Destroy is like making a deal with the devil?  What?  WHAT?!

I would say it's more like giving him the middle finger.

Killing the Geth along with the Reapers very much falls under "genocide".

[Eterna]

Miles_E wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Both reject and destroy are ultimately selfish and short sighted options.

Yes, because choosing to become essentially a god or forcing a huge leap of evolution on every lifeform in the galaxy is completely unselfish and totally won't have unforseen consequences...

If I may, I suggest Reject is the closest thing to a "paragon" ending, as it seems very similar to ME2's final choice of destroying or keeping the collector base and Shepard saying he won't  "sacrifice the soul of the species" just to win. Reject and Destroy are my personal favorites and the only two somewhat tolerable endings.

Becoming a god like being in order to watch over and safeguard organic life seems pretty noble to me, and synthesizing organics and synthetics to achieve a higher state of being for all is also pretty great.

Refusing to use the crucible in order to prove a point to the catalyst or chosing to destroy the reapers just so you can live and pray to god organics never create synthetic life and create chaos again is selfish.

[Veneke]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Dusen wrote...
EDIT: It's a lot like making a deal with the devil in exchange for one's life. The cost outweighs the benefits in this case.

So blowing the Reapers all to hell in Destroy is like making a deal with the devil?  What?  WHAT?!

I would say it's more like giving him the middle finger.

You sacrifice the Geth and EDI in Destroy. It was one of the primary reasons why I didn't like Destroy first time 'round and nothing's changed since. That said, if you're cool with that then more power to you. Those of us who are less gung-ho about throwing a race into the dustbin of history to save our own skins obviously aren't going to be as comfortable with Destroy.

[Five1thOUsanD]

Didn't Liara's capsule specify that the Crucible didn't work? I assumed that the next cycle were given the schematics to the Shepard-era weapons and had 50k years or so to improve them. By the time the Reapers showed up, they didn't stand a chance.

[Galbrant]

Rejection is the only logical choice and the fact that we all have to die is complete and utter bull****. The other three choices are not only unethical and morally wrong they are lay out by basically the defacto leader of the Reapers. I have no god damn reason to believe this little freak. I do not believe a no win scenario in a video game.

And to say we can not defeat the reapers by conventional warfare is asinine. Hell it doesn't even have to be conventional warfare It seems the Bulk of the Reapers are at Earth I say we crash the Crucible into the Sol system relay and kill most of the reapers there. And have the Victory Fleet destroy the stragglers.

[Zine2]

Eterna5 wrote...

Becoming a god like being in order to watch over and safeguard organic life seems pretty noble to me, and synthesizing organics and synthetics to achieve a higher state of being for all is also pretty great.

There are bad undertones with the Control ending, not the least of which is that it's the TIM-preferred option. Who knows, maybe God-SHep goes crazy later on and tries to kill everyone again.

Refusing to use the crucible in order to prove a point to the catalyst or chosing to destroy the reapers just so you can live and pray to god organics never create synthetic life and create chaos again is selfish.

Again, marking a moral choice as a selfish choice is little more than a complete failure to properly assign blame.

[Urumashi]

this, all of my this.

[TODD9999]

A good post. A few comments.

I absolutely agree that the "moral" choice is Reject, even though I ultimately went with Control (basically for the reasons presented). However, I as a player really didn't feel like having gone through what I did to see a bare few minutes of Liara's holoimage and then the "next cycle" scene, and for my Shepard, he was willing to sacrifice himself to ensure the best outcome he could for all the rest of the galaxy. Yours may disagree.

The fade to black after Rejection just leaves too much open to me (although I will readily concede someone else might find it wonderful). Does Shepard die there, or, once the Crucible shuts down, does the Normandy come rescue him? Does the galaxy continue to fight a losing war, being ground down year after year, until finally they are eradicated, or do they collapse within a few months? As with the original endings, if I had wanted to have to write my own story, I would have done so, rather than paying BioWare to make one for me to experience.

EDIT: And I would disagree with Shepard's continuing to exist as a "sort of god".  He's a virtual entity that controls the Reapers.  He's no more of a god than, say, Skynet.  There seemed to be no indications of anyone worshipping him, or even necessarily knowing that Shepard continues to exist in any fashion.  The geth slide at the end could be argued as some sort of worship, but I feel it's quite ambiguous.

Plus, I find the OP's usage of the term "best" . . . problematic.  Sorry, never gotten to do a Mordin before, had to give it a shot.  In seriousness, what is "best"?  Is it most moral or most utilitarian?  I'd imagine it depends upon who you talk to, and is really more of a phiosophical debate than something that can be really resolved one way or the other.

Modifié par TODD9999, 27 juin 2012 - 09:31 .

[Ageless Face]

Dusen wrote...


What's the point in living if you have to forsake everything that defined that life and made it special?

EDIT: It's a lot like making a deal with the devil in exchange for one's life. The cost outweighs the benefits in this case.

So accepting the cold hard truth is now to forsake everyone?

I'm not aware that in any of the three choices, control, destroy, synthesis, anyone seemed practically unhappy. In all of them, you did more good to the galaxy than bad. What exactly did you loose in accepting the catalyst's logic and choices? Your pride? If all your Shepard cares about is how bad are the reapers and never looking forward, then your Shepard just forsaken everyone. Definitly not the Shepards who tried to make a difference, to make evretything better for the future.
 

[Talhydras]

RainbowDazed wrote...
...Since she as a character does not know what results from the other choices, she has no reason to believe the blabberings of the god-child. Thus she'd tell him to **** off.

Section quoted for extreme relevance: It's extremely easy to berate Reject Shepard for not choosing Destroy, esp. if you believe the tweets. With the perspective granted by hindsight, Reject seems pointless.

But Shep doesn't have hindsight - all Shep can do is either trust a Reaper and pick an RGB ending or not. Trusting Reapers has up until this point literally never worked. Not for Saren, not for TIM. EVERY Reaper gadget, gizmo, and doorstop left behind has been a cunning piece of bait to mold people and render them helpless.

So from the point of view of Shep on the precipice of decision there is no way to know for sure that any of the RGB options will work, just like there's no way to know for sure if Hackett's assessment that victory is impossible is in fact true. Remember Hackett's a pretty flawed guy and this is his very first Reaper war. So in the end... it comes down to which crazy risk does Shep take?

Destroy/Control/Synthesis: The Reapers are breaking an established pattern hundreds of millions of years long and being truthful / forthright / altruistic instead of manipulative / deceptive / genocidal, or...

Rejection: You can't trust the Reapers. Anything they advocate is suspicious, therefore stick with what has been shown to destroy Reapers of all sizes in sufficient quantity: conventional weapons and unconventional tactics. The odds aren't good, but hey- there's no guarantee that any of the above aren't horrible traps just like Object Rho, the Mass Relays, and the Citadel.

Even Destroy is suspicious from the POV of Shep. Shep didn't make the Crucible - for all Shep knows, shooting that pipe just releases horrifying flesh-melting gas and then the Catalyst just laughs at your horrible, smoking bones for believing it would allow something so insignificant as a mortal human to damage its immortal perfection. Again, hindsight is the only way to rationally weigh the pros and cons of each ending. With that taken into account, not only is Rejection the only ending where Shep can actually come close to telling the Catalyst that its logic is bonanas, but it's arguable that the lessons learned in preparing and defeating the Reapers conventionally or through modifying the Crucible allow the next cycle to arrive at the singularity, or whatever else is next, on their own more natural terms. In that light I prefer Rejection over all else. It's the decision I would have made all along in a heartbeat. It doesn't require me as a player to metagame, to go back and view each video on youtube then cherrypick the combination of end results I view as best. I actually get to roleplay - to assess the state of the galaxy and compare what I've been told to what I know of the Reapers.

Modifié par Talhydras, 27 juin 2012 - 09:26 .

[Astartes Marine]

Zine2 wrote...
So, if you're trapped on a mountain and food is running out, would you kill a member of your party who is injured and eat him to save everyone else? Is that a "moral" choice?

Morals vs. survival.  It's a hard decision to make and not one to make lightly, but I would volunteer myself to help ensure the survival of others. 

Zine2 wrote...
Choosing
to remain uncompromising abour your belief in diversity, unity, and
refusal to be party to genocide is the moral choice.

In a case of galactic survival, where you and your morals are the VAST minority, check them at the door.  It's either life or the Reapers, sure you might feel bad but your pain is insignificant compared to the multitudes of living beings who can survive. 

Zine2 wrote...
And again,
that's why the Reject ending is the best ending. It's actually the deep
ending. It ties thematically to Shepard saying "I will not sacrifice the
soul of this species" back in ME2. It is not simply "Do X, ignore the
implications, yay everyone is now at peace and has glowing green eyes!".

Not the soul, but he's perfectly happy to sacrifice the species itself as with ALL of the others, just so he can feel right with himself.  That's a Shepard I'd rather have NOT seen revived in Lazarus.  That's a very selfish Shepard putting his own conscience ahead of the galaxy.

And for the record, I believe the Synthesis and Control endings are equally trash.  One forces a sort of slavery/Reaper implantation, the other gives the illusion of control while satisfying a disheartening god complex.

Zine2 wrote...
That's not cowardice. That's not
selfishness. It's making a moral choice; and attempting to spite that
choice by going "HAHA you lose" doesn't make it any less moral; it only
demonstrates your own lack of conviction about these values. That for
you, it's okay to commit genocide in the name of victory.

To this very moment I still very much doubt the "deaths" of EDI and the Geth, the "evidence" was from that abominable intelligences mouth alone.  You know, the creator of the great enemy, very trustworthy source of information.

Even if they were dead they knew what was at stake and put their own existences on the line just like everyone else.  Their sacrifices should be honored whether they are dead or alive. 

Your morals would allow the Reapers to commit a far greater level of genocide to satisfy some corrupted AI's idea of a cycle, one they most likely made up.

[Veneke]

Eterna5 wrote...

Miles_E wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Both reject and destroy are ultimately selfish and short sighted options.

Yes, because choosing to become essentially a god or forcing a huge leap of evolution on every lifeform in the galaxy is completely unselfish and totally won't have unforseen consequences...

If I may, I suggest Reject is the closest thing to a "paragon" ending, as it seems very similar to ME2's final choice of destroying or keeping the collector base and Shepard saying he won't  "sacrifice the soul of the species" just to win. Reject and Destroy are my personal favorites and the only two somewhat tolerable endings.

Becoming a god like being in order to watch over and safeguard organic life seems pretty noble to me, and synthesizing organics and synthetics to achieve a higher state of being for all is also pretty great.

Refusing to use the crucible in order to prove a point to the catalyst or chosing to destroy the reapers just so you can live and pray to god organics never create synthetic life and create chaos again is selfish.

I don't think it's the use of the Crucible itself that is the primary impetus behind Rejection, though that is certainly a factor.

Obviously all of the endings can be spun a certain way, but if you put all of them in the least favourable light, this is what you get:

Control: You, quite literally, become your enemy to save the galaxy.

Synthesis: You compromise with your enemies and everything is forgiven.

Destroy: You sacrifice others to win. Lots of others.


There are good and bad points for each, and Control is definitely more Paragon now than it was, but the crux of the issue remains; how far are you willing to go to win? I agree that Control is probably the most palatable of the options, but after having destroyed the Collector base in ME 2 how do you then turn around and say 'Actually, we will use the alien technology to make this a better galaxy.'?

[Zine2]

TODD9999 wrote...

A good post. A few comments.

I absolutely agree that the "moral" choice is Reject, even though I ultimately went with Control (basically for the reasons presented). However, I as a player really didn't feel like having gone through what I did to see a bare few minutes of Liara's holoimage and then the "next cycle" scene, and for my Shepard, he was willing to sacrifice himself to ensure the best outcome he could for all the rest of the galaxy. Yours may disagree.

Like I said, Control is actually the best ending from a utilitarian perspective. As in shockingly awesomely good. You don't commit genocide. There is minimal compromise of values. The only mark against it is that it has many bad implcit undertones (being the TIM-preferred choice, hence possibly marking it as the "Shep eventually gets corrupted choice), but on the whole if you're a utilitarian sort of person, Control is the absolute best choice - better than the Reject ending.

On a personal level though, I tend to think the best ending is the one that actually imparts a deeper set of morals and values. Hence the Reject ending - which essentially teaches the player that while you may lose, you can still choose to face the end with dignity - is the "best" ending.

The fade to black after Rejection just leaves too much open to me (although I will readily concede someone else might find it wonderful). Does Shepard die there, or, once the Crucible shuts down, does the Normandy come rescue him? Does the galaxy continue to fight a losing war, being ground down year after year, until finally they are eradicated, or do they collapse within a few months? As with the original endings, if I had wanted to have to write my own story, I would have done so, rather than paying BioWare to make one for me to experience.

I'd like to have seen a "Ramming speed" sequence too, but like I said Bioware apparently wanted to spite this ending; only to end up becoming arguably both the deepest and best ending (with the above caveats).

[commandergodchild]

Youmu wrote...

If the next cycle just picks R, G or B anyways, Shepard not picking one when he had the chance just leads to the current cycle to die off for... nothing. Being forced in to the dilemma matters little, when Shepard changes nothing, the next cycle is placed into that dilemma, and actually picks their favorite color. Reject would be a good ending, if it actually allowed the next cycle to defeat the reapers without the starchild, thanks to the detailed information and much, much more time to prepare. But nope. 

Guess one can always headcanon it to be that the next cycle doesn't use the crucible - at which point one might just as well headcanon that Destroy ending leaves EDI and Geth fixable.

In the reject ending Liara tells the next cycle that the crucible didnt work.  It seems really unlikely they would then go ahead and build it for the hell of it given how many resources were required.  I think logically the next cycle defeats the reapers without the crucible. 

[Zine2]

Your morals would allow the Reapers to commit a far greater level of genocide to satisfy some corrupted AI's idea of a cycle, one they most likely made up.

And again, failing to realize that it's the Reaper's problem that they are a bunch of idiots committing genocide - not Shep - is why you fail to realize why it's a moral choice.

[Zine2]

HagarIshay wrote...

Dusen wrote...


What's the point in living if you have to forsake everything that defined that life and made it special?

EDIT: It's a lot like making a deal with the devil in exchange for one's life. The cost outweighs the benefits in this case.

So accepting the cold hard truth is now to forsake everyone?

I'm not aware that in any of the three choices, control, destroy, synthesis, anyone seemed practically unhappy. In all of them, you did more good to the galaxy than bad. What exactly did you loose in accepting the catalyst's logic and choices? Your pride? If all your Shepard cares about is how bad are the reapers and never looking forward, then your Shepard just forsaken everyone. Definitly not the Shepards who tried to make a difference, to make evretything better for the future.
 

Kinda hard to find unhappy Geth when you've killed them all.

[JeosDinas]

Personally, I think it's the most petulant of the endings, even if it has a certain nobility to it. There's plenty of options open. Including one which doesn't kill a single additional soul. And Shepard refuses on vague principles that gets people killed for little more than moral self aggrandizement. The hope for the future, present in Liara's VI, is a nice touch but at the end of the day, the "Refusal" is literally that.

It is a refusal. Of compromise. Of duty. And much more. People seem to want to gloss over this. They damn something like the Destroy ending because it has a cost. Then they extol something like this, which has an even greater cost, because it let's them engage in a very brief game of power dynamics. It's smug at best and needlessly indulgent at worst.

I cannot see (okay, well, I can...but you understand my meaning here) why someone would forgo an ending which embraces all life for an ending which damns it all. Especially since we spend such time in this series having the notion that all life is life affirmed to us.

Modifié par JeosDinas, 27 juin 2012 - 09:32 .

[Astartes Marine]

Zine2 wrote...

Your morals would allow the Reapers to commit a far greater level of genocide to satisfy some corrupted AI's idea of a cycle, one they most likely made up.

And again, failing to realize that it's the Reaper's problem that they are a bunch of idiots committing genocide - not Shep - is why you fail to realize why it's a moral choice.

My morals would force me to act, to save as many as I could rather than sit back and watch them all die. 

And idiots or not, their problem becomes your problem when they start killing you.  You're involved and you have a chance to stop it.

[Veneke]

commandergodchild wrote...

Youmu wrote...

If the next cycle just picks R, G or B anyways, Shepard not picking one when he had the chance just leads to the current cycle to die off for... nothing. Being forced in to the dilemma matters little, when Shepard changes nothing, the next cycle is placed into that dilemma, and actually picks their favorite color. Reject would be a good ending, if it actually allowed the next cycle to defeat the reapers without the starchild, thanks to the detailed information and much, much more time to prepare. But nope. 

Guess one can always headcanon it to be that the next cycle doesn't use the crucible - at which point one might just as well headcanon that Destroy ending leaves EDI and Geth fixable.

In the reject ending Liara tells the next cycle that the crucible didnt work.  It seems really unlikely they would then go ahead and build it for the hell of it given how many resources were required.  I think logically the next cycle defeats the reapers without the crucible. 

I initially thought that as well, however, it would appear that tweets by Gamble and posts by Jessica Merizan pretty much confirm that the established ending for Rejection is that the next cycle picks one of the RGB.

[Oransel]

Refusal is my type of ending. First of all, it's the most rational thing to do. Never trust an enemy when he suddenly decides to help you in killing him. He can control minds, btw. That's why any option presented by starchild is a lie for me and must be rejected. Second, Refusal is the most Paragon choice for me. And finally, I do believe that conventional victory is possible and I just shut ME3 down right after I say that to starkid.

[zyntifox]

I agree. In my mind the Mass effect series has always been about unity among different species working together towards a common goal. Even Javik mentions in one of his dialogues that the protheans ultimately falls due to them being too homogenous and therefore reapers could whipe them out. I would have liked if they actually would have beaten the reapers conventionally just because Shepard had unified the entire galaxy.

[Zine2]

Astartes Marine wrote...
My morals would force me to act, to save as many as I could rather than sit back and watch them all die. 

See OP. And a few other subsequent posts. That's what's called being a utilitarian. "Serve the greater good regardless of moral compromise".

In which case Control is best for you.

[Blarty]

Zine2 wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

Dusen wrote...
EDIT: It's a lot like making a deal with the devil in exchange for one's life. The cost outweighs the benefits in this case.

So blowing the Reapers all to hell in Destroy is like making a deal with the devil?  What?  WHAT?!

I would say it's more like giving him the middle finger.

Killing the Geth along with the Reapers very much falls under "genocide".

And being given the option to end the conflict and stop a war on a galactic scale that if not stopped will wipe out countless trillions of lives - which is ultimately what Shepard is tasked to do - yet standing by and doing nothing, irrespective of your view of moral stance, essentially makes Shepard complicit in the Reaper's atrocities; 'Hey everyone's dead, but at least I came out of it with some dignity'?

Modifié par Blarty, 27 juin 2012 - 09:35 .