180 réponses à ce sujet

[Ilanox]

It could also be his last breath.

And we haven't doomed organics to inevitabely destroy themselves just because it said we would.

It's quite the opposite.

Modifié par Ilanox, 27 juin 2012 - 10:23 .

[KingZayd]

Eterna5 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Synthsis FTW, we are alive and have a tommorrow because of Shepards sacrafice

Destroy FTW, we are alive and have a tomorrow because Shepard got rid of the threat that we can't beat without a crucible: Reapers.

You also commited genocide and have doomed organics to inevitably destroy themselves.

And how have we doomed organics to inevitably destroy themselves?

Yes we deliberately killed all the Reapers. The Geth and EDI were unfortunate casualties, but were the only way of getting rid of the Reapers. Reapers would have killed them too anyway.

Modifié par KingZayd, 27 juin 2012 - 10:25 .

[mcz2345]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Synthsis FTW, we are alive and have a tommorrow because of Shepards sacrafice

amen

[CptData]

Eterna5 wrote...

CptData wrote...

The Destruction Ending IS the BEST Ending - if you value freedom and free will.

The other endings kinda subvert that ideal, but they're BEST Endings for those who want not to sacrifice whole species for a future.

How does control subjugate freedom?

My Shepard became and Avatar of preservation, I became the guardian of life and the galaxy. I in no way subjugated freedom.

The entire Shepard-has-all-power-vibe gives me the idea s/he becomes a guardian of peace in the galaxy. 'though it may work in the beginning, others may start to fear that power. And if species do have issues they have to duke out in a way, Shepard may send Reapers to stop it before it begins.

That MIGHT sound like a good idea since peace IS something we all want and look for. However, it's a forced peace. It feels like "Big Brother" on large scale to me.

I'd say, freedom and free come with the prize of being risky. That risk is war. You don't have to like my interpretation but that's it: there's no eternal peace as long as we're individuals, regardless if there's a mighty overlord watching us or not. It's easy as it is.

Therefore, "Control" comes with a vibe of "big brother" for me, 'though in a different concept than we're used to.

[Jonathan Sud]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

So the best ending involves Genocide!

Ending that justifies genocide!

You kill millions of synthetic life, you get to live!

As much as I like my geth they aren't human... 

This times a million.

They are machines. As much as I love the geth and EDI, they are expendable because of that single fact.

[Arcadian Legend]

Unlike the original ending The EC actually made me think through which ending to go for as my canon. Just throwing it out there. For Control there are no real drawbacks minus Shep losing his/her corporeal form. In Synthesis, at first I felt it seemed a tad wrong to do that. Change all life forever, but then I saw the characters genuinely didn't seem to care from what I can see. Reject has the disadvantage of the current cycle dying off with the advantage being the next cycle finishes off the reapers. Destroy however kills ALL synthetics, Nuff said.

Despite it all though I picked Destroy. (with some arguing against Catalyst on the side) It's what Shep originally set out to do with the Crucible. Plus the other options had no real consequence behind them barring Reject, I feel the final decision behind the fate of the current civillisation needed some real weight to it. If you get what I'm saying. Lastly I feel Control and Synthesis are like feeding you technological advancement and evolution on a plate. Humanity and the other races should gain that level of development on their own. Being given gifts like that just makes the races in those endings feel weak in a sense. And its not like I was unfeeling when picking Destroy. I felt pretty bad when EDI showed up in the flashback bit.

[TAK The Voyager]

For me, it's Rejection then Control. Rejection is an option I wished they put in the beginning, and I'm very happy that it's in and the way it was done. Control works out for me, the Relays are being rebuilt and now I'm a god that watches over everyone. How isn't that awesome. I didn't honestly expect Shepard to live throughout the Mass Effect trilogy, so having that heroic sacrifice does it for me.

[JeosDinas]

I don't think that any ending which leaves Shepard alive is narratively compelling. Sacrifice is a major theme of this series. And to capstone it, the protagonist (and the player) must be willing to give themselves up for the many.

[Obvakhi]

Am I the only one that prefers Destroy WITHOUT Shepard surviving? I like the idea of Shepard sacrificing himself for the greater good... it's much more emotional.
Now that the EMS has been lowered and with my added N7 rank, I don't think it's possible for me(without having to fail every quest).

[Merwanor]

I have yet to see the new destroy ending, but since I have read that it now at least shows that it kills the geth and EDI, then it is not a valid ending for my paragon Shepard. It would be just completly uncharacteristic for Shepard to kill all synthetics when throughout the game he does so much to protect EDI and help the Geth.

Decarte said I think therefore I am, and from what I have seen in game about synthetics is that they have thoughts and make choices our of some sort of emotion that is unexplainable, like why Legion actually used Shepards old armor, thus they seem very much alive to me. So then when I have options to either do genocide, or sacrifice one life, the decision is pretty obvious.

I have yet to see how Control, refusal and destroy turns out with the EC, but to me the Synthesis ending was pretty good, before I thought it to be horrible, and on some levels it is maybe unethical to choose something like that for the entire galaxy. But it seemed to turn out great, and the only one who died was Shepard, which was expected to begin with.

But as stated, the most important factor is that the Destroy ending would go against everything my Shepard stands for.

[zherok]

Arcadian Legend wrote...
In Synthesis, at first I felt it seemed a tad wrong to do that. Change all life forever, but then I saw the characters genuinely didn't seem to care from what I can see.

If the Reapers made you happy by force, is it really the same thing as coming to that conclusion on your own? 

Turning all life into synthetics, particularly after seeing the results of what Reapers have done along those lines seems like the sort of thing you should be a bit more skeptical about.

[Cant Planet]

Abraham_uk wrote...

So the best ending involves Genocide!

Ending that justifies genocide!

You kill millions of synthetic life, you get to live!

I look at it as an unfortunate sacrifice, but by taking the choice that kills all synthetics now, it allows for future synthetics to not suffer the same fate.

My view: If Synthesis seems like the kind of thing one person shouldn't be allowed to choose on behalf of all life, and Control seems like a trick, Destroy is the most conscionable choice.

[EDIT: I've only just now discovered that there is a Reject ending. I don't believe I got in on my one EC playthrough. It's possible my decision may change once I understand it and perhaps play through it.]

[EDIT 2: Meh to Reject.]

Modifié par Cant Planet, 27 juin 2012 - 11:22 .

[Adamantium93]

Destroy is awful because it kills EDI and the Geth just so you can live you selfish pyjaks.

A galaxy without Geth is not a Galaxy worth saving.

[vivanto]

Eterna5 wrote...
You also commited genocide and have doomed organics to inevitably destroy themselves.

I thought you don't consider killing something that was never alive as murder, so how can you commit genocide against a species that was never more than metal and silicon, and thus not even a real species to speak of.

[MadRabbit999]

So reaching a golden era through perfect understanding and harmony of one another with never again a conflict, leading to a possible transcendence of lie is not good? (Green)

Or being able to protect those you love from wars, poverty and threats for eons to come is also bad? (Blue)

What was that Destroy do again? Ah yes... cause a very long period of grief and rebuilt which will not restores things perfectly as they were before, like the Citadel, and kill all of the Geth (Who are self aware and have feelings/think like any other living creature), following a possible return of conflicts between races who disagree with one another like Salarian and Krogans, sounds, much better then those 2 mentioned above...!

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 27 juin 2012 - 10:48 .

[hexediter]

Ok, so I'll go over my grievances with the blue and green ending, and why in my mind red/destroy is the "best" choice even though it's still completely terrible that you have to sacrifice the geth and EDI.

Blue/Control:
This one is easy; you are giving one individual/entity absolute power and knowledge as well as near immortality.  It's about as close as I can think of obtaining godhood.  The problem is that everything in humanities short existence has taught us that power is a corrupting influence that can't be left unchecked.  Sure Shepard is a force for good now, but what about 100 years from now, or 1000?  There is a reason Tim is painted as the villain with control/power being his goal and you're constantly in conflict with that.  Remember LOTR when Frodo offers the ring to Gandolf, he rejects it.  He would be powerful enough to defeat Sauron sure, but you'd have only replaced one tyranny with another, and I fear that is all control has really done.

Green/Synthesis:
Synthesis tries to paint itself as allowing peace and understanding to happen, but the truth is that peace and understanding were already possible with hard work, patience, ect (essentially everything shepard did previously to throwing himself in the beam).  I don't believe in forced change, I believe in natural evolution and that everyone should make their own future.  Furthermore I don't think EDI needs to be organic to be alive, she is already sentient, and she is already coming to terms with what that means.  She and everyone else should be allowed to transcend on their own terms and when they are ready.  Our great traditions teach us that transcendence/enlightenment is earned, creating some kind of giant shortcut for everyone just feels completely wrong and foreign.

I also don't understand at all why conflict is inevitable between the created and the creator.  On the one hand conflict is present everywhere in life so it's not surprising to see it, but on the other there is no reason understanding could not replace conflict (and the game even shows us this with the Geth and EDI).  Bioware seems to believe that once machines surpass the organic mind to a great enough degree that understanding becomes impossible, I don't agree.  They say this happens because machines do not have our limitations, but it doesn't take a huge imagination to think the future could provide avenues for organics to move past their own limitations through evolution and technology.  If we can birth sentient machines, surely we can move post some of our own limitations as well.

TDLR:
Destroy is the only option that lets the galaxy make its own future on its own terms.  Whether we are doomed to conflict or not is open to debate, but the future will be open to whatever we make it unless you don't believe in free will and think fate demands that we eventually all turn green anyway.  Perhaps that is true, but I hope that when it happens it happens because individuals chose that future for themselves and it wasn't handed to them by god machines and one human.  To me the journey to that ending matters, ultimate transcendence/enlightenment needs to be earned, it loses all meaning otherwise.

Modifié par hexediter, 27 juin 2012 - 11:41 .

[darkiddd]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Synthsis FTW, we are alive and have a tommorrow because of Shepards sacrafice

Synthesis is sooooo creepy and stupid 

[2Shepards]

**** me more conflicted then ever before.

[Costin_Razvan]

This one is easy, you are giving one individual/entity absolute power and knowledge as well as near immortality. It's about as close as I can think of obtaining godhood. The problem is that everything in humanities short existance has taught us that power is a currupting influence that can't be left unchecked. Sure Shepard is a force for good now, but what about 100 years from now, or 1000? There is a reason Tim is painted as the villian with control/power being his goal and you're constantly in conflict with that. Remember LOTR when Frodo offers the ring to Gandolf, he rejects it. He would be powerful enough to defeat Sauron sure, but you'd have only replaced one tryanny with another, and I fear that is all control has really done.

A strong powerful leader is NOT a bad thing in itself if the leader is not a cruel person. Now I don't know about you but my Shepard is not cruel.

And seriously bringing LOTR in the discussion is pathetic with the childish good vs evil concept in there. ( There are great things in those books, but it's not the good vs evil fight ).

I reject the concept of destroying all the knowledge the Reapers have as well as destroying them when they can be used.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 juin 2012 - 11:41 .

[Crysis I]

Destroy is the best ending, at the end of the day the geth, EDI and reapers all die big deal they're just machines without feelings. Every single one of us if in  sheps shoes would of done destroy, why anyone would conside synthesis and control is beyond me. rejection is a stupid ending too why should we as a civilization sacrifice ourselves so the next cycle can win, i say no we blow the reapers up and move on with life. the geth and edi can be rebuilt anyway.  

[Kem1995]

I'm all for the destroy ending but how does Shepard survive if EDI and the Geth die? Shepard is part machine due to the Lazarus Project and it's clearly stated, he will die aswell.

[Kanon777]

Synthesis and Control are the best (unless you have a LI)

[Aaleel]

Kem1995 wrote...

I'm all for the destroy ending but how does Shepard survive if EDI and the Geth die? Shepard is part machine due to the Lazarus Project and it's clearly stated, he will die aswell.

Shepard has Cybernetic implants like many other people.  Heck the Quarians have cybernetic implants to help them interface with suits.

[Jonathan Sud]

Kem1995 wrote...

I'm all for the destroy ending but how does Shepard survive if EDI and the Geth die? Shepard is part machine due to the Lazarus Project and it's clearly stated, he will die aswell.

The Catalyst is clearly a Reaper itself as the Reject ending implied. That being said, would you really believe anything a Reaper told you?

Besides, EDI and the geth can be restored! Both of them required Reaper tech in order to achieve self-awareness, and guess what's just lying around for us in the Destroy ending? Reaper tech