1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Can you really believe that the galaxy can go on when it has committed mass genocide on one of their allies just to destroy the Reapers?

You know you can do this before the ending as well, right? You can have the Geth or the Quarians all die if you're unable to bring about peace.

How would your allies feel about sacrificing the Quarians to let the Geth survive?

Sure, but that's why the scenes on Rannoch on the Geth genocide are so sad. Genocide should not be a thing glossed over. It should force people to confront their demons and ask who they really are. "Does this unit have a soul" ironically does a better job of it than the Destroy ending sequence.

[Hudathan]

Just to clarify, whether or not Shepard believes the Catalyst changes nothing about the situation. Use the Crucible because it was the plan we all committed on, or die. Shepard can believe the Catalyst and take one of the options, or refuse to believe the Catalyst but then take one of the options anyway in the hopes that it'll save everyone.

Modifié par Hudathan, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:34 .

[Legbiter]

IMO Reject is the second best ending but that itsn't saying much because Control and Synthesis are so...problematic. Still, it's Shepard pussing out in the end on stopping the Reapers and just kicking the can down the road. The next cycle was able to complete the Crucible and use it.

[wh00ley 06]

When I first finished the game I thought of a cool way of explaining the Crucible or the Starchild that wasn't extremely dumb. In the first two games, the Reapers don't just try to destroy you, they taunt you and take pleasure in it.

When Control was explained to me, I wondered why the Reapers went the extra mile of being evil, rather than just continuing the cycle. That's when I got the idea: the Crucible is a device planted by the Reapers that is actually used to create a Reaper, but the 'Catalyst', as such, is actually you. If Shepard picks any of the options willingly, his willingness to obey the Starchild is imprinted on the Human Reaper, forcing the collective consciousness to want to carry out mass murder and torture. This would also explain why Shepard's body was wanted, and why Harbinger wants him taken alive.

Obviously, when Shepard refutes the Starchild's flawed logic, combined with peace on Rannoch, the story about the prisoners of the Reapers helping each other, and EDI being one of the first synthetics that would choose death over control, they would leave the galaxy for good.

Modifié par wh00ley 06, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:37 .

[Lord Goose]

Stop making Control out to be moral or selfless. The mad dictator who sees himself as selfless and altruistic is so cliché.

It still moral and self-less. Even if it could have some nasty consequences. Most of such decisions are in one way, or another.
Saving Rachni Queen may lead to another Rachni Wars.
Curing genophage may lead to another Krogan Rebellions.
Reprogramming heretic geth may ensue in higher casualities, if geth would fight organics... Wait, it already happened.

Most of Paragon decisions have great chance of nasty consequences.

[Biotic Sage]

wh00ley 06 wrote...

When I first finished the game I thought of a cool way of explaining the Crucible or the Starchild that wasn't extremely dumb. In the first two games, the Reapers don't just try to destroy you, they taunt you and take pleasure in it.

When Control was explained to me, I wondered why the Reapers went the extra mile of being evil, rather than just continuing the cycle. That's when I got the idea: the Crucible is a device planted by the Reapers that is actually used to create a Reaper, but the 'Catalyst', as such, is actually you. If Shepard picks any of the options willingly, his willingness to obey the Starchild is imprinted on the Human Reaper, forcing the collective consciousness to want to carry out mass murder and torture. This would also explain why Shepard's body was wanted, and why Harbinger wants him taken alive.

...what is this i don't even...

[Guglio08]

wh00ley 06 wrote...

[T]he Crucible is a device planted by the Reapers that is actually used to create a Reaper

Openly refuted in the EC when The Catalyst explains that someone other than the Reapers created the Crucible designs.

[Zine2]

Biotic Sage wrote...
Well, "you" do lose in Refuse if you consider "you" to mean Shepard or Shepard and the rest of the species in our cycle.  However, if you consider "you" organic life as a whole, then "you" do not lose even in Refuse.  Victory still comes, just many years after Shepard's time.

Sure, but that actually isn't really very relevant to the player. Mass Effect is the story of the current cycle. Of Shepard, the Humans, the Krogan, the Turians, etc. This is why again I say that the Refuse ending transforms the story into one of now how our cycle "wins", but of how it lived. And that in the face of annihilation, it chose not to achieve victory by compromising; perhaps without anyone knowing this was the case.

[M Hedonist]

@GroverA125: Missed the entire point of this thread.

Lord Goose wrote...

Stop making Control out to be moral or selfless. The mad dictator who sees himself as selfless and altruistic is so cliché.

It still moral and self-less. Even if it could have some nasty consequences. Most of such decisions are in one way, or another.
Saving Rachni Queen may lead to another Rachni Wars.
Curing genophage may lead to another Krogan Rebellions.
Reprogramming heretic geth may ensue in higher casualities, if geth would fight organics... Wait, it already happened.

Most of Paragon decisions have great chance of nasty consequences.

How does any of these choices compare to becoming the new Reaper god? You missed the whole moral (and to some level also practical) dilemma.

[v TricKy v]

Well I see a lot of the people saying Refuse=everyone drops dead immediately.
As a matter of fact no one knows what happened after your choice. You see Shepard standing and then is cuts to black. Everything you say is speculation from that point onward. The Stargazer says that we fought a terrible war so they didnt have to. That could mean anything really.
Shepard knows that they cannot win, but he knows that the war will take decades maybe even centuries. A lot of time to come up with something new.

[wh00ley 06]

Guglio08 wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

[T]he Crucible is a device planted by the Reapers that is actually used to create a Reaper

Openly refuted in the EC when The Catalyst explains that someone other than the Reapers created the Crucible designs.

He'd hardly admit to it when Shepard is so close to completing the Reaper.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

Sure, but that actually isn't really very relevant to the player. Mass Effect is the story of the current cycle. Of Shepard, the Humans, the Krogan, the Turians, etc. This is why again I say that the Refuse ending transforms the story into one of now how our cycle "wins", but of how it lived. And that in the face of annihilation, it chose not to achieve victory by compromising; perhaps without anyone knowing this was the case.

I don't see how activating the device you spend all game building is "compromising."

Assuming Shepard dies in any of  the endings you picked, no one other than him will know what occured with The Catalyst. Everyone else will assume the Crucible did whatever it is you chose it to do and when the Reapers are stopped, they will have achieved their goal.

[Zine2]

Hudathan wrote...

Just to clarify, whether or not Shepard believes the Catalyst changes nothing about the situation. Use the Crucible because it was the plan we all committed on, or die.

The "stay the course!" argument holds very little water when you consider that the only reason why the galaxy picked up on the Crucible idea was because a) They thought it'd Destroy the Reapers, and They were desperate.

Therefore, the moment it is revealed that the Crucible doesn't necessarily destroy the Reapers - and that it is even possibly being manipulated by the Reapers - then the justifications for "staying the course" become pretty stupid.

It'd be like the invasion of Iraq and the failure to find WMDs - "Stay the course and keep trying to find WMDs even though we've searched everywhere and are sure they don't exist!". It's stupid.

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

I don't see how activating the device you spend all game building is "compromising."

Because it is pretty clear you don't like looking very far or think very hard.

Assuming Shepard dies in any of  the endings you picked, no one other than him will know what occured with The Catalyst.

Actually, the reverse is true and has worse implications: Shepard dies not knowing if the Crucible actually worked. The Catalyst may have just tricked him into committing suicide and therefore eliminated one of its biggest threats.

Only in Control does Shep get to know that it works.

[Hudathan]

v TricKy v wrote...

Well I see a lot of the people saying Refuse=everyone drops dead immediately.
As a matter of fact no one knows what happened after your choice. You see Shepard standing and then is cuts to black. Everything you say is speculation from that point onward. The Stargazer says that we fought a terrible war so they didnt have to. That could mean anything really.
Shepard knows that they cannot win, but he knows that the war will take decades maybe even centuries. A lot of time to come up with something new.

At best, the fleets don't get wiped out at the battle for Earth, and they escape to fight a drawn out war that they MIGHT not lose. Many more lives are lost with no clear victory in sight. And for what, because Shepard didn't want to take an opportunity to end the war?

Even if the Crucible turned out to be a trap and either did nothing or something horrible to cripple our chances to win the war, have Liara send out more capsules warning the next cycle about the Crucible. She's got 900 more years to live doesn't she, and she could easily spend some of that time creeping around on her own and planting her time capsules.

There is literally no good reason to not use the Crucible the way the situation was presented, that's why it's a stupid decision despite the morality involved.

Modifié par Hudathan, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:47 .

[wh00ley 06]

Biotic Sage wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

When I first finished the game I thought of a cool way of explaining the Crucible or the Starchild that wasn't extremely dumb. In the first two games, the Reapers don't just try to destroy you, they taunt you and take pleasure in it.

When Control was explained to me, I wondered why the Reapers went the extra mile of being evil, rather than just continuing the cycle. That's when I got the idea: the Crucible is a device planted by the Reapers that is actually used to create a Reaper, but the 'Catalyst', as such, is actually you. If Shepard picks any of the options willingly, his willingness to obey the Starchild is imprinted on the Human Reaper, forcing the collective consciousness to want to carry out mass murder and torture. This would also explain why Shepard's body was wanted, and why Harbinger wants him taken alive.

...what is this i don't even...

It's just a little thing I was thinking about, it's probably messy and full of plotholes. Anyway, sorry for trying to hijack the thread. Refuse is the only option in my book, and this is coming from someone who picked synthesis originally. I don't think synthesis would be as bad if it only affected synthetics and left organics alone. Never picked destroy or control ever. It's all refuse for me. Probably the only time I've picked an option in the Renegade corner, even though it's the most Paragon thing you can do in-game.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Actually, I didn't argue it didn't matter.

Zine2 wrote...

Refuse, ironically, becomes the only artistic ending by making you lose for taking a moral stand. It makes you realize that standing for your convictions does not automatically result in victory. It is the only ending that isn't rainbows and sunshine (which the 3 other endings have become). It is the only ending that is actually a bittersweet ending.[/b]

Zine2 wrote...

For a moral stand to have meaning, it must come with actual sacrifice. You don't actually get to the "sacrifice" part in Destroy, Control, or Synthesis. They gloss over Geth genocide. Shep becomes a benevolent God in Control. Synthesis is green glowy rainbows and sunshine.

Zine2 wrote...

Again, you're just stupidly playing around with words. You do not "lose" in Destroy, Synthesis, or Control. You make sacrifices. You DO lose in Refuse. 

Zine2 wrote...

That using the weapon - and therefore possibly compromising our morals in the process to use such a weapon - would never have been necessarily in the first place if the Reapers were not committing massive war crimes. 

Zine2 wrote...

The Refuse ending is the best ending because it is the only one where you actually LOSE. And it shows that moral stands do not always emerge victorious. 

That's why it's different from every other cookie-cutter video game ending wherein the Developers shout "DEUS EX MACHINA!" and everything reverts to rainbows and sunshine. 

Zine2 wrote...

In short, you choose to sacrifice the soul of the species.

That's gonna sound awfully hypocritical to the "I refuse to sacrifice the soul of the species" Shepard from ME2.  

Zine2 wrote...

Not really; that doesn't necessarily pertain to material things, but to moral beliefs. Can you really believe that the galaxy can go on when it has committed mass genocide on one of their allies just to destroy the Reapers? 

So, is artistry and defiance of convention hinged solely upon whether the ending can be chalked up as "win" or "loss"? Because, here you are arguing why destroy, control and synthesis are bad endings because of what you sacrifice, while arguing refusal is the only artistic ending because you do lose, and that what you sacrifice in the others isn't tangible enough to impart meaning.

So, if what you sacrifice in destroy, control and synthesis aren't tangible enough to impart meaning, then why are they lower-order endings than refusal? You yourself liken those choices as compromises, sacrificing the soul of the species, and mass genocide. Why, because you make those sacrifices to win? If the depth of the sacrifices made in control, destroy or synthesis amount to so great a consequence as to claim you've sacrificed the soul of your species to do it, committed an act so heinous the galaxy can no longer "go on" as you put it? That sounds an awful lot like a loss in the end to me regardless whether the Reapers were defeated or not.

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:54 .

[Guglio08]

I could be wrong about this, so feel free to tell me if I am. But I don't really ever recall the Reapers actively deceiving anyone. At best they probably omit information, but they haven't lied. So, assuming this is accurate, why do people believe The Catalyst lies about the Crucible's functions?

And really, why would it lie to Shepard? It's function is to achieve peace between organics and synthetics. It failed previously so the Reapers were its questionable solution, but obviously it wants to find a new solution. It wants to do what it was made to do. So why would it feed false information to Shepard?

Modifié par Guglio08, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:50 .

[Zine2]

As an aside: I think I'd agree that in the "Geth already genocided on Rannoch" scenario, it is much more justifiable to use the Destroy option.

You at least already passed the moral quandry by that point (putting you firmly in the "genocide is an acceptable cost for victory" camp) and the Destroy option basically just kills Joker's girlfriend. And since Shep has been building up to destroying the Reapers, he has very little reason not to use it - especially since you have to shoot a panel instead of frying yourself or jumping down a massive shaft and is therefore not obviously suicide ..

[Lord Goose]

How does any of these choices compare to becoming the new Reaper god? You missed the whole moral (and to some level also practical) dilemma.

It would be moral dilemma, if Reapers were fully sentient and capable of making decisions. But, as Catalyst puts it, they're no different from fire, which burns because it is in his nature. That makes them even less sentient than the geth.

I'm not taking Leviathan into account, because we haven't seen his DLC. Judging from the leaked script, it is possible to assume that Leviathan is different.

Without taking into account Leviathan, what will happen if Shepard replace the Catalyst.
Synthetics would not be destroyed.
Organics would not be destroyed.
Reapers will have new ruler, instead of old one.

All of it could be realised even before choice, just by Catalyst words.

No one loses anything, besides Shepard.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:50 .

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

I could be wrong about this, so feel free to tell me if I am. But I don't really ever recall the Reapers actively deceiving anyone.

You'd be totally and utterly wrong. You DO remember the whole bit about Indoctrination and sleeper agents, yes? You DO remember why you're fighting Cerberus troopers for half the game?

Deception is part and parcel of the Reaper tool kit. That's why there was so much resistance to trusting the Star Kid and why it was such a dumb idea.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

If Shepard chooses to believe that Crucible is a threat to Reapers by other means... it still would be leap of faith. Just of different sort.

It's choosing not to put all faith in the word of the enemy.

To have verbal rejection, you should reject all three options. Or shoot Catalyst in face, but I don't even know that it means.

"I'm fighting for freedom mine and everyone".

I don't get your point. I'm only saying that the particular anti-control dialogue has nothing to do with the reject option.

[Hudathan]

So instead of killing some people to save all the people because that would be immoral, Shepard should do nothing and most likely directly cause the death of way more people because that would be more moral?

If we're talking about meta gaming, then Shepard has no way of knowing that subsequent Cycles would find the time capsules and win against the Reapers. Which means that Shepard could very well have pissed away the only Crucible that has ever been constructed. And instead of trying it, now the Reapers know about it and might not ever get built again.

Modifié par Hudathan, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:53 .

[Zine2]

Lord Goose wrote...
It would be moral dilemma, if Reapers were fully sentient and capable of making decisions. But, as Catalyst puts it, they're no different from fire, which burns because it is in his nature. That makes them even less sentient than the geth.

I'm not taking Leviathan into account, because we haven't seen his DLC. Judging from the leaked script, it is possible to assume that Leviathan is different.

Without taking into account Leviathan, what will happen if Shepard replace the Catalyst.
Synthetics would not be destroyed.
Organics would not be destroyed.
Reapers will have new ruler, instead of old one.

All of it could be realised even before choice, just by Catalyst words.

No one loses anything, besides Shepard.

As another aside, Control is actually arguably the "best" option from a utilitarian perspective. No one dies. Harby because Shepard's ****. Life is good. And Shep technically "lives" to see it worked.

But there are undertones against this ending, the most prominent of which is that it is the "TIM was right!" option.

[Guglio08]

The Angry One wrote...

It's choosing not to put all faith in the word of the enemy.

Refusing to do so means you are abandoning your stated goal in the game: to stop the Reapers.