1027 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Disclaimer: If my opinions on the ending bother you, the back button should be to the top left of your browser.

When talking about rejection compared to the other endings, people often bring up how the Reaper threat is still ended one way or another and how selfish people are for rejecting and so on. That's debatable, but not the point here.
One important point that I think is often missed though pointed out many times before by various people - how does Shepard know that?

Every one of the 3 options is a leap of faith based on the word - and that alone - of the creator and controller of the Reapers. Shepard will not even survive to see these options pan out. Definitely so in control and synthesis, and at least a likely possibility in destroy (especially since Shepard tries to commit suicide by explosion).
From Shepard's perspective, all she sees is the head Reaper giving her an ultimatum, the logic of which is flawed. Why would the Reapers hand you the keys to their own destruction? The Catalyst does not adequately explain the reasons for this, other than the current solution no longer being viable for arbitrary reasons.

How is the Catalyst trustworthy? The Reaper's main tactic throughout all 3 games is corruption and deception.
Yes, Sovereign and Harbinger were honest. But they didn't WANT anything from Shepard, they were simply making proclamations as to their intent.
With others they have manipulated, lied and used up through indoctrination and such. Look at the Geth. The Geth were attacked by the Quarians, so the Reapers promised to upgrade and help them. Which they did... they also took total control and made them puppets, illustrating perfectly how the Reapers cannot be trusted.

This represents a fundamental flaw in the ending. Within the narrative Shepard basically can't take any of these options, they require a leap of faith far worse than the one needed to give TIM the Collector Base, for example.
The only way you know the endings are viable is because you already know what they'll do! This is in the EC of course - a first time player with the OE must simply blindly fumble into an ending because you have no other choice.
Now that you HAVE the choice to reject, no other ending makes sense internally. You can philosophise about sacrifice and brave new eras all you want. I'm sure some will immediately react and yell "DON'T SPEAK FOR MY SHEPARD". But I'm sorry, you see the appeal of destroy/control/synthesis because you are meta-gaming. Shepard doesn't see it because Shepard CANNOT see it.

[The Angry One]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I've always been a shameless meta-gamer, and that's never going to change.

I never said there's anything wrong with meta-gaming.
However if the story REQUIRES you to meta-game in order for your character's actions to make sense (unless the story is based around meta-gaming, with Mass Effect's is NOT), then that story has completely failed.

[Phlander]

My Shepard would agree, but it kind of depends on whether or not you think conventional victory is possible. If your Shepard is convinced it isn't, then rejection is a much larger leap of faith for you than trusting starchild.

[Sajuro]

Doesn't reject take a pretty big leap of faith that another cycle would be able to finish the Reapers?

[77boy84]

Yeah, it really doesn't make sense for Shepard to just take the reapers' word for it that RGB will save the day and that he has no other alternative.

Maybe I'm just not artistic enough to get it.

[Biotic Sage]

How is it any less a leap of faith to expect to defeat the Reapers with military strength when thousands of cycles before us failed to do so? I'm not saying choosing one of the Destroy, Control, or Synthesis paths is undoubtedly the right decision, but I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3 is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that thousands of dead cycles before us attempted. Isn't doing something DIFFERENT, trying a different approach the most logical choice here? Again I'm not saying it doesn't come with risk, but there's no way you can convince me that the inherent risk is greater than the refusal.

Also, the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:47 .

[David7204]

First of all, I think the Reapers taking control of the geth was part of the bargain they made. There was no deception. The geth knew what they were getting into.

Secondly, the Catalyst wanted something from Shepard. That was clear to me from the beginning. If the whole thing was a trap to kill organics, why would the Catalyst need Shepard at all? Why would he bother speaking to Shepard at all? If all the Catalyst needed was a body to break down to achieve synthesis or a button pressed, he would have done it already. He would have done it many cycles ago. I think it's true what he says - he needs organics as part of the new solution, and he can't that from deception or force.

Modifié par David7204, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:50 .

[The Angry One]

Phlander wrote...

My Shepard would agree, but it kind of depends on whether or not you think conventional victory is possible. If your Shepard is convinced it isn't, then rejection is a much larger leap of faith for you than trusting starchild.

Our fleets are a known variable. They've come here to fight and that's what they're doing.
The Catalyst is a total unknown. It appears out of nowhere, proclaims itself the creator and controller of all Reapers (and thus the enemy by default) then asks us to trust everything is says.

Destroy... where is the logic in shooting a tube to activate a device? For all I know, shooting the tube breaks the Crucible!
Control.. Shepard will die.. but won't... yes. It turns out Shepard's personality is copied into the new controlling AI.. but Shepard doesn't know that.
Synthesis.. yes let's just do what the Reapers have always wanted to do. Makes sense.

[77boy84]

Biotic Sage wrote...

How is it any less a leap of faith to expect to defeat the Reapers with military strength when thousands of cycles before us failed to do so? I'm not saying choosing one of the Destroy, Control, or Synthesis paths is undoubtedly the right decision, but I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3 is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that thousands of dead cycles before us attempted. Isn't doing something DIFFERENT, trying a different approach the most logical choice here? Again I'm not saying it doesn't come with risk, but there's no way you can convince me that the inherent risk is greater than the refusal.

Also, the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.

The current cycle is different from all other previous cycles in a huge way, and that's the fact that the Reaper sneak attack through the citadel failed, and that gave us a chance to prepare. No other cycle got that chance because the reapers always systematically wiped them out after disabling the relay network. This is the first cycle to actually fight the reapers head on with a united fleet.

[capn233]

Without metagaming Shepard can realize that no antagonist has ever actually lied to him since he became a Spectre.

Personally I don't think you can say one way or the other if you don't trust StarChild. You've been told countless times that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally, so basically if you decide that StarChild is lying about all 3 possibilities with the Catalyst, then you believe that some future cycle will finally win if you decide to go reject. And that going down fighting and "sticking to your principles" is superior to gambling that the Crucible might actually work.

Modifié par capn233, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:51 .

[The Angry One]

Biotic Sage wrote...

How is it any less a leap of faith to expect to defeat the Reapers with military strength when thousands of cycles before us failed to do so? I'm not saying choosing one of the Destroy, Control, or Synthesis paths is undoubtedly the right decision, but I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3 is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that thousands of dead cycles before us attempted. Isn't doing something DIFFERENT, trying a different approach the most logical choice here? Again I'm not saying it doesn't come with risk, but there's no way you can convince me that the inherent risk is greater than the refusal.

Ever hear the phrase "Better the devil you know?"
We're doing something different right now by fighting the Reapers on our terms.

Also, the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.

On the behest of who? The Catalyst is cagey about that too.

[MegaSovereign]

There are two different ways to interpret why the Catalyst can be trusted (without meta-gaming)

1) The Catalyst underestimated the organics, realizing that his solution might not be as flawless as he thinks it is. Even if he does trick Shepard and wins this cycle, organics are very savvy at containing and storing information for future cycles. Eventually a cycle will build a new and improved Crucible, one that might not even need the Catalyst's help to be deployed. With that said, the Catalyst, knowing that the cycle will inevitably end, takes his chances and gives the ball to Shepard. If he helps Shepard, there is a better chance that he could use the Crucible to replace his solution with synthesis. "If there is a new solution, you must act." Why doesn't he force synthesis? Same reason Legion asked Shepard to decide the fate of the geth heretics. He needed a new perspective, an organic---one that wasn't indoctrinated to the Reaper's cause (sorry TIM). This is one way to look it at.

2) The Crucible introduces new shackles to the Catalyst's core programming. The Crucible messes with the Catalyst's core programming so that it has to not only guide free-willed organic to where the Crucible can be activated but also explain the Crucible's capabilities in a truthful manner. This explains why the Catalyst elevated Shepard up to the Crucible and also explains why the Catalyst would truthfully tell shepard how to destroy him and his solution. If the Crucible is badly damaged and or poorly constructed (AKA low EMS), the Catalyst is more reluctant to open up all the pathways to the different endings. This doesn't mean that the Catalyst will do anything Shepard says. He is still bound by his original programming to stop tech singularity. So if you refuse to use the Crucible, the Catalyst continues the cycle regardless.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:54 .

[xsdob]

Alright than, reject is one of my shepards cannon ending as well. But for my main shepard, as in my first shepard I import to each game, paragon control is my choice.

Why? Because the motif of the hero sacrificing himself to save everyone was how I choose to interpret the end to my shepards story, and because the hero either using a dark power for the side of good or turning a force for evil into a force for good have always been appealing to me as troupes.

And so all three were meet with this ending, making me happy.

That's my opinion on it, refusal is the cannon for my paragade shepard because, well, there's something I like about our cycle giving the next cycle a chance like the protheans did for us when they stopped the citadel relay from functioning. Feels like the whole thing came full circle from the beacon on edan prime to the archive liara makes.

Modifié par xsdob, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:54 .

[Hudathan]

You can turn on the Crucible since it's already there. If it stops the Reapers, then great. If it does nothing, then your fleets are leaving for the rendezvous to fight another day anyway regardless of what happens. If they eventually lose, then the time capsules are there no matter what. So there is no reason not to turn on the device you all built since you're already all in, might as well see the cards.

And no, I didn't need to meta-game the first time I played the game and chose Destroy.

Modifié par Hudathan, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:55 .

[The Angry One]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, I think the Reapers taking control of the geth was part of the bargain they made. There was no deception. The geth knew what they were getting into.

I recall Legion implying otherwise.
Do you think the Geth would've wanted that Reaper virus infecting their consensus, interfering with data streams?
Everything the Reapers do is to corrupt and manipulate anything that is not a Reaper.

Secondly, the Catalyst wanted something from Shepard. That was clear to me from the beginning. If the whole thing was a trap to kill organics, why would the Catalyst need Shepard at all? Why would he bother speaking to Shepard at all?

Because Shepard has connected the Crucible and is right there. For all Shepard knows, the Catalyst is trying to save itself, and we know for a fact it's trying to preserve it's agenda one way or another.

If all the Catalyst needed was a body to break down to achieve synthesis or a button pressed, he would have done it already. He would have done it many cycles ago. I think it's true what he says - he needs organics as part of the new solution, and he can't that from deception or force.

Except that's a lie, because synthesis forces itself on the galaxy.

Hudathan wrote...

You can turn on the Crucible since it's
already there. If it stops the Reapers, then great. If it does nothing,
then your fleets are leaving for the rendezvous to fight another day
anyway regardless of what happens. If they eventually lose, then the
time capsules are there no matter what. So there is no reason not to
turn on the device you all built since you're already all in, might as
well see the cards.

Explain the logic of turning a device on by breaking a component. This should be good.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:54 .

[Old Books]

Sajuro wrote...

Doesn't reject take a pretty big leap of faith that another cycle would be able to finish the Reapers?

Perhaps, but at least it's a leap of faith based on your own assumptions/opinions.

I'm comfortable with picking destroy but that doesn't mean that I am accepting of the EC ending over the original in terms of its quality. The only way I can accept it is because I am metagaming.

[Biotic Sage]

77boy84 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

How is it any less a leap of faith to expect to defeat the Reapers with military strength when thousands of cycles before us failed to do so? I'm not saying choosing one of the Destroy, Control, or Synthesis paths is undoubtedly the right decision, but I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3 is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that thousands of dead cycles before us attempted. Isn't doing something DIFFERENT, trying a different approach the most logical choice here? Again I'm not saying it doesn't come with risk, but there's no way you can convince me that the inherent risk is greater than the refusal.

Also, the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.

The current cycle is different from all other previous cycles in a huge way, and that's the fact that the Reaper sneak attack through the citadel failed, and that gave us a chance to prepare. No other cycle got that chance because the reapers always systematically wiped them out after disabling the relay network. This is the first cycle to actually fight the reapers head on with a united fleet.

Let's say that conservatively speaking it takes 20 of our ships to bring down one Reaper.  I know from the lore that for every one of our ships, the Reapers have at least 40.  The Citadel backdoor certainly makes them more efficient, but you do the math on the above and tell me it's a good idea to try to fight them with our fleets.

[Voutsis1982]

The Angry One wrote...
But I'm sorry, you see the appeal of destroy/control/synthesis because you are meta-gaming. Shepard doesn't see it because Shepard CANNOT see it.

I'd call that fair enough for me. I run with Destroy as the ending that is the closest to not ruining my suspension of disbelief, but I generally find something else to do when the Catalyst is talking.

That said, there are a lot of people who seem to think differently and maybe they genuinely do. I don't have a very high opinion of that kind of thought process, but there you have it.

[RainbowDazed]

For me rejection is the best possible choice and the choice my main Shepard chooses. None of the options the Catalyst offers are good enough - they are all based on their (=reapers) terms. This cycle was not ready to finish the job. Nothing left to do than to die with honor and do what ever is possible to ensure that the next cycle triumphs.

[Captiosus77]

capn233 wrote...

Without metagaming Shepard can realize that no antagonist has ever actually lied to him since he became a Spectre.

Thank you.

I doubt anyone here played the game "in character" as Shepard the entire time. The game has required players to meta-game many times throughout the series to progress the story. Damn near every morality choice required an evaluation of facts and conditions that may not have been known to Shepard but assumed by the player. Therefore this argument that reject is the "only" choice unless players meta-game is pointless because, no matter what, players had to meta-game many times simply to get to this point.

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

Explain the logic of turning a device on by breaking a component. This should be good.

I don't need to, the device was already there and the fleets are committed. Whether you use it in one manner or another is already irrelevant. You're the one that brought up meta-gaming but you never explained how using the Crucible any way we know how could possibly hurt us more than the Reapers were already doing.

[The Angry One]

As an aside I'd like to ask. Is there any reason why these effects must only be revealed right at the end?

You could remove the meta-gaming problem out of the equation entirely by properly foreshadowing these effects during the game. Control is talked about but always as an indoctrination deception, while the mechanics of destroy are never detailed.

I've never played Deus Ex or Human Revolution. Was it like this there too? Were all the options just shoved in your face at the end of the game with no details beforehand?