132 réponses à ce sujet

[Bomma72]

ShadowJ20 wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Destroy is bad. It is just a temporary solution. Synthetics will eventually try to wipe out all organics, and the reapers won't be around to stop them.
 
"...the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."

This. Picking destroy will eventually lead to synthetics destroying all organics, it is inevitable. Synthesis stops this from happening, and that's why I picked it.

https://twitter.com/...107278174339073

At the expence of there "humanity".

[tyrvas]

EDI & the Geth die in destroy because both have or use reaper tech. simple!!!

My FemShep selected destroy before & after EC.
It has been her objective since Eden Prime.

[Thornne]

ShadowJ20 wrote...

mireisen wrote...
The fact is...the destruction of all organics has never happened (obviously because where would this war be if they were ever completely wiped out?), so the Star Kid is going on an assumption, not a fact.

Obviously it never happened because the Catalyst's has stopped it from happening. 

This has been beaten to death, several times.  There is no way to know if he is right about synthetics killing organics.   I can just as easily say "Synthetics and organics will ALWAYS find a way to co-exist peacefully" and be just as 'right' as he is.

If you want to believe Star Kid is an omniscient being who is telling you absolutely truths, go for it.  But I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[FOX216BC]

 The Reapers and StarBrat were a horrible project gone wrong to begin with.
Even if Shepard controls the Reapers it is no garantee he controls them 100%.
-future DLC speaks of a rogue Reaper.
-Reapers (StarBrat?) turned against their creators.
-That thing that has Shepard's thoughts sounds Power Mad.
It calls the Reapers the guardians of the many, so once again the Reapers decide what's right and Wrong.
-StarBrat says he will accept  that Shepard replaces him, but that he won't like it.
Their will be a rogue reaper dlc, so it is not impossible that StarBrat will turn against "Reaperd" in the future.

As for "hey my best friend is a husk" ending, it is so wrong i don't even know were to start.




"I'll defeat the reapers without sacrifiing the soul of our species."

[AxStapleton]

Thornne wrote...

ShadowJ20 wrote...

mireisen wrote...
The fact is...the destruction of all organics has never happened (obviously because where would this war be if they were ever completely wiped out?), so the Star Kid is going on an assumption, not a fact.

Obviously it never happened because the Catalyst's has stopped it from happening. 

This has been beaten to death, several times.  There is no way to know if he is right about synthetics killing organics.   I can just as easily say "Synthetics and organics will ALWAYS find a way to co-exist peacefully" and be just as 'right' as he is.

If you want to believe Star Kid is an omniscient being who is telling you absolutely truths, go for it.  But I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Couldn't have put it better myself. The Catalyst itself more or less admits that it is an AI. An AI created by fallable organics. Not an omniscient being that knows everything. It then contradicts itself when talking about the Synthesis option because it implies that Synthesis is the envitable future regardless of whether the Crucible is used or not for that purpose. This is testament to its broken and circular logic.

[WYLDMAXX]

[quote]Bomma72 wrote...

[quote]Enhanced wrote...

Destroy is bad. It is just a temporary solution. Synthetics will eventually try to wipe out all organics, and the reapers won't be around to stop them.
 
"...the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."[/quote]
 
Catalyst is just speculating that it will happen. 
 

[quote]Bomma72 wrote...


This, you don't win with destroy.

[/quote]

Price for destroying the Reaper is high but its still a victory.

It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning. - Dom

[Enhanced]

Thornne wrote...

ShadowJ20 wrote...

mireisen wrote...
The fact is...the destruction of all organics has never happened (obviously because where would this war be if they were ever completely wiped out?), so the Star Kid is going on an assumption, not a fact.

Obviously it never happened because the Catalyst's has stopped it from happening. 

This has been beaten to death, several times.  There is no way to know if he is right about synthetics killing organics.   I can just as easily say "Synthetics and organics will ALWAYS find a way to co-exist peacefully" and be just as 'right' as he is.

If you want to believe Star Kid is an omniscient being who is telling you absolutely truths, go for it.  But I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Not true.  You don't have any personal experiences and knowledge about past civilizations to back up your statement. However, Star kid does to back up his.

Modifié par Enhanced, 29 juin 2012 - 04:36 .

[Merwanor]

If you want to understand why the logic of the catalyst is wrong, I sugest you read up on this
http://en.wikipedia....em_of_induction

What the Catalyst does not understand is that there is no 100% certainty that synthetics will rebel against their creators, but there is a good chance it will happen. I believe humans will have to deal with AI in the future, and if we end up treating them as tools and not as equals, war will probably follow. That is why war is often waged between people on our own planet, because people view other people as less worthy than themselves.

Synthesis also does not have a guaranty against war, but from what I understand of the little information is given, it grants everyone the ability to have some sort of connection to everyone and gain understanding of who they are. Think of it as a more advanced ability than the sensory skill Javik has, or telpathy. Just my imagination, but it is what I get from that ending. How else would a AI, like EDI understand that my love interest needed a hug at the end there.

[JosieFrances]

sTARheels wrote...

Destroy was an easy choice for me. Only ending where reapers are dead. Plain and simple. My paragon sheps are horrified over the thought of synthesis and control.

As for sacrificing the geth/EDI, its that ruthless calculus garrus talked about. They will be remembered (or rebuilt if possible).

Being able to live and reunite was the icing on the cake

My thoughts exactly.

[Bomma72]

WYLDMAXX wrote...

Bomma72 wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Destroy is bad. It is just a temporary solution. Synthetics will eventually try to wipe out all organics, and the reapers won't be around to stop them.
 
"...the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."

 
Catalyst is just speculating that it will happen. 
 

Bomma72 wrote...


This, you don't win with destroy.

Price for destroying the Reaper is high but its still a victory.

It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning. - Dom

The cycle still repeats in the end.

Modifié par Bomma72, 29 juin 2012 - 04:31 .

[Peregrin25]

Bomma72 wrote...

WYLDMAXX wrote...

Bomma72 wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Destroy is bad. It is just a temporary solution. Synthetics will eventually try to wipe out all organics, and the reapers won't be around to stop them.
 
"...the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."

 
Catalyst is just speculating that it will happen. 
 

Bomma72 wrote...


This, you don't win with destroy.

Price for destroying the Reaper is high but its still a victory.

It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning. - Dom

The cycle still repeats in the end.

That is not necessarily true. Having no reapers left in the universe could be just that edge to prevent civilization from making the same mistake again. They would be more affraid of repeating past mistakes. There are millions of possible outcomes, no one could know 100% for sure. There is a chance that the cycle wouldn't be repeated.

[AxStapleton]

Bomma72 wrote...

WYLDMAXX wrote...

Bomma72 wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Destroy is bad. It is just a temporary solution. Synthetics will eventually try to wipe out all organics, and the reapers won't be around to stop them.
 
"...the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."

 
Catalyst is just speculating that it will happen. 
 

Bomma72 wrote...


This, you don't win with destroy.

Price for destroying the Reaper is high but its still a victory.

It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning. - Dom

The cycle still repeats in the end.

That's an assumption. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but there is never a 100% possibility that either will occur. The Geth actually trying to help the organics, even offering to help the Quarians with their immune systems by their own free will shows that it is wrong to always think in absolutes about issues in Mass Effect. I'm not saying destroy or synthesis is right or wrong but none of the endings is absolute in their morality. I wonder what people would think if none of them were colour schemed.

[darkiddd]

Adamantium93 wrote...

CHALET wrote...
In Control they have Emperor Shepard potentially influencing their lives through the use of Reapers, acting as a sort of inter-space police.

If you get Paragon control it seems more like Shep is just some kind of silent guardian who doesn't get involved in day to day activities.

With dozens of reapers orbiting earth...

[withneelandi]

I see destroy as the best option from 4 very unpleasant options.

I couldn't in all honestly choose synthesis. I don't believe it is right for one individual to choose to change the biological make-up of every being in the galaxy on the word of a AI that has been responsible for systematically wiping out billions of people every few thousand years. It doesn't allow for any sort of self determination or free choice. It may create a sort of peace but it is peace through a sort of forced uniformity not through understanding and cooperation.

As a "solution" I see it as no more morally sound the catalysts previous "lets make robots that wipe galactic society out in case it makes robots that destroy galactic society" solution.

Control, is equally flawed. The cinematic seems to show all being well, but there are far too many "what if" scenarios. If you allow the reapers to survive, what if someone else finds a way yo controll them? Bad times i'd wager, what if they eventually rebel and refuse to follow god-sheps orders or similarly what if god-shep eventually goes crazy and comes out with a similar reaper type solution to some yet to surface galactic crisis.

Destroy ends the threat of the reapers, for good, but it also wipes out the geth and EDI. That is a horrible cost, but it is there because both edi and the geth now have elements of reaper tech and programming built into them. They have independent thought and "souls" because of elements of the reaper code now built into them, I can't help but worry about that. In many ways as un pleasant as it may seem perhaps to truly wipe out the reaper threat to galactic society you do have to destroy edi and the geth as allowing them to survive may provide a "way back" down the line for the reapers.

That I believe is how my Sheapard would rationalise his decision to choose destroy. He's a soldier and his mission was to destroy the reapers, destroy was the only option that allowed him to do achieve that.

[Br00t4l]

The Quarians seemed to be the only race at that time to have huge issues with synthetics and depending on your options they end up being able to coexist and they are even helping them rebuild OOOHHH and helping them out without dying from taking their suits off. With the knowledge of this maybe, just maybe; organics have learned their lesson in not treating their machines so badly! lol

Javik's history lesson made everyone aware that they were pretty much bad as the reapers, since they enslaved other races that opposed them. Protheans could never treat others with respect - they were doomed.

[Br00t4l]

withneelandi wrote...

I see destroy as the best option from 4 very unpleasant options.

I couldn't in all honestly choose synthesis. I don't believe it is right for one individual to choose to change the biological make-up of every being in the galaxy on the word of a AI that has been responsible for systematically wiping out billions of people every few thousand years. It doesn't allow for any sort of self determination or free choice. It may create a sort of peace but it is peace through a sort of forced uniformity not through understanding and cooperation.

As a "solution" I see it as no more morally sound the catalysts previous "lets make robots that wipe galactic society out in case it makes robots that destroy galactic society" solution.

Control, is equally flawed. The cinematic seems to show all being well, but there are far too many "what if" scenarios. If you allow the reapers to survive, what if someone else finds a way yo controll them? Bad times i'd wager, what if they eventually rebel and refuse to follow god-sheps orders or similarly what if god-shep eventually goes crazy and comes out with a similar reaper type solution to some yet to surface galactic crisis.

Destroy ends the threat of the reapers, for good, but it also wipes out the geth and EDI. That is a horrible cost, but it is there because both edi and the geth now have elements of reaper tech and programming built into them. They have independent thought and "souls" because of elements of the reaper code now built into them, I can't help but worry about that. In many ways as un pleasant as it may seem perhaps to truly wipe out the reaper threat to galactic society you do have to destroy edi and the geth as allowing them to survive may provide a "way back" down the line for the reapers.

That I believe is how my Sheapard would rationalise his decision to choose destroy. He's a soldier and his mission was to destroy the reapers, destroy was the only option that allowed him to do achieve that.

I agree that the Destroy option is the best solution - to me. Just an assumption, EDI and Legion were pretty much human like before the Reaper involvement. With the Destroy option there are TONS of Reaper debris. Don't you think it could take a few Scientists to examine one and potentially make another? Or use that tech to imprint on future AIs?

[tyrvas]

Br00t4l wrote...

withneelandi wrote...

I see destroy as the best option from 4 very unpleasant options.

I couldn't in all honestly choose synthesis. I don't believe it is right for one individual to choose to change the biological make-up of every being in the galaxy on the word of a AI that has been responsible for systematically wiping out billions of people every few thousand years. It doesn't allow for any sort of self determination or free choice. It may create a sort of peace but it is peace through a sort of forced uniformity not through understanding and cooperation.

As a "solution" I see it as no more morally sound the catalysts previous "lets make robots that wipe galactic society out in case it makes robots that destroy galactic society" solution.

Control, is equally flawed. The cinematic seems to show all being well, but there are far too many "what if" scenarios. If you allow the reapers to survive, what if someone else finds a way yo controll them? Bad times i'd wager, what if they eventually rebel and refuse to follow god-sheps orders or similarly what if god-shep eventually goes crazy and comes out with a similar reaper type solution to some yet to surface galactic crisis.

Destroy ends the threat of the reapers, for good, but it also wipes out the geth and EDI. That is a horrible cost, but it is there because both edi and the geth now have elements of reaper tech and programming built into them. They have independent thought and "souls" because of elements of the reaper code now built into them, I can't help but worry about that. In many ways as un pleasant as it may seem perhaps to truly wipe out the reaper threat to galactic society you do have to destroy edi and the geth as allowing them to survive may provide a "way back" down the line for the reapers.

That I believe is how my Sheapard would rationalise his decision to choose destroy. He's a soldier and his mission was to destroy the reapers, destroy was the only option that allowed him to do achieve that.

I agree that the Destroy option is the best solution - to me. Just an assumption, EDI and Legion were pretty much human like before the Reaper involvement. With the Destroy option there are TONS of Reaper debris. Don't you think it could take a few Scientists to examine one and potentially make another? Or use that tech to imprint on future AIs?

I would assume that the DESTROY option would make all reaper tech unusable,
but then who made the relays? cause now they can be rebuilt.

[Mojenator12345]

Enhanced wrote...

Destroy is bad. It is just a temporary solution. Synthetics will eventually try to wipe out all organics, and the reapers won't be around to stop them.
 
"...the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."

 
The added dialog in the EC seemed to make it pretty clear that the godkid is freaking crazy.  Meanwhile the game pretty thoroughly showed via EDI and the Geth that, contra the Kid, it is possible for organics and synthetics to live in harmony.  Obviously what the kid says and what EDI and Legion have demonstrated can't both be true.  And given the choice I'd rather put my stock in EDI and Legion than in the psychotic kid who massacred his creators in an exceptionally gruesome fashion.

Frankly, the fact that the EC shows godkid to be cracked in the head was the single best thing about it.  He makes far more sense to me as a corrupted rogue VI than as a supposedly rational actor. 

[mrcanada]

It was the best and probably is still the best of the three.  It also shows that Shepard being alive within the framework of the ending is impossible.  Shepard CANNOT survive re-entry, a fact already proven by him dying in Mass Effect 2, so the breath scene is basically nonsense for nonsense's sake now.

The only way the breath scene made any sense was within the construct of the Indoctrination Theory.  Since IT is unfortunately not true, the breath scene has become stupid.

[saber00005]

Shepard Dies in Control and Synthesis. The Catalyst is an AI. If you listened to the dialog about what will happen to Shepard, he would die. But his memories will be transferred and upgraded to the AI. He wouldn't necessarily "Control" the reapers since he's dead. The Destroy option, in my opinion, is a better ending. Everything gets rebuilt in time. Good enough for me, but the ONE scene that drives me nuts from DAY1 was shepard taking a gasp of air. I WANT MORE!!!!!!!!! >.>

[Enhanced]

mrcanada wrote...

It was the best and probably is still the best of the three.  It also shows that Shepard being alive within the framework of the ending is impossible.  Shepard CANNOT survive re-entry, a fact already proven by him dying in Mass Effect 2, so the breath scene is basically nonsense for nonsense's sake now.

The only way the breath scene made any sense was within the construct of the Indoctrination Theory.  Since IT is unfortunately not true, the breath scene has become stupid.

The breath scene isn't nonsense, he's still on the Citadel.

Modifié par Enhanced, 29 juin 2012 - 05:06 .

[mrcanada]

saber00005 wrote...

Shepard Dies in Control and Synthesis. The Catalyst is an AI. If you listened to the dialog about what will happen to Shepard, he would die. But his memories will be transferred and upgraded to the AI. He wouldn't necessarily "Control" the reapers since he's dead. The Destroy option, in my opinion, is a better ending. Everything gets rebuilt in time. Good enough for me, but the ONE scene that drives me nuts from DAY1 was shepard taking a gasp of air. I WANT MORE!!!!!!!!! >.>

Me too and it fed into the IT theory perfectly.  But now, it's just stupid to keep it in and makes no sense.  They retconned a lot of things and they should've retconned this scene with the new EC.  I loved scene because it gave me hope that the ending was something more than what was face value.  Sadly, that isn't true.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Enhanced wrote...

Destroy is bad. It is just a temporary solution. Synthetics will eventually try to wipe out all organics, and the reapers won't be around to stop them.
 
"...the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."

This is pretty much how I feel about Destroy. It's the end where peace is most unstable.

Along with willingly commiting genocide to save myself. It just doesn't sit right with me.

Being killed by the enemy in war is very different to being killed by your own allies so that they could savfe themselves.

[mrcanada]

Enhanced wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

It was the best and probably is still the best of the three.  It also shows that Shepard being alive within the framework of the ending is impossible.  Shepard CANNOT survive re-entry, a fact already proven by him dying in Mass Effect 2, so the breath scene is basically nonsense for nonsense's sake now.

The only way the breath scene made any sense was within the construct of the Indoctrination Theory.  Since IT is unfortunately not true, the breath scene has become stupid.

The breath scene isn't nonsense, he's still on the Citadel.

No he isn't, the CItadel is destoyed and that is concrete and rubble akin to what's on earth.  Nothing what is shown is made out of what the Citadel is.  Even if it is the Citadel, Shepard can't survive an explosion of that magnitude right in his face, he isn't superman!!!!

[mrcanada]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

Destroy is bad. It is just a temporary solution. Synthetics will eventually try to wipe out all organics, and the reapers won't be around to stop them.
 
"...the peace won't last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."

This is pretty much how I feel about Destroy. It's the end where peace is most unstable.

Along with willingly commiting genocide to save myself. It just doesn't sit right with me.

Being killed by the enemy in war is very different to being killed by your own allies so that they could savfe themselves.

That is what defines humanity.  The very essense of that quote is against everything that the human race stands for.  Nothing is predestined, that is why we are fighting in the first place!