287 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

MerchantGOL wrote...

D24O wrote...

Because BW did a good job making them sympathetic characters in a game in which its strongest aspect is character development. Also it seems like an arbitrary price tacked onto the Destroy choice when Synthesis can be so percise as to target everyone in the galaxy at the molecular level.

how is that arbitray the destory and synthesis waves do 2 completley diffrent things

The point being, if it's precise enough for one ending, why not another?

[D24O]

UKillMeLongTime wrote...

cameltoe....

[MerchantGOL]

its not tacked on any more then the consequences of synthesis are

[Priss Blackburne]

Given people's reaction to the Star Child it seems to have been placed there to have people consider the other choices. As most would probably just choose destroy. I mean can you really trust a AI who controls the reapers and turned on his creators?

I choose Destroy every time as I cannot/ will not trust this little mass murdering AI brat.

[Soggy-Snake-]

See how its the Catalyst which is the problem though? At least he's gone too. Punk.

[Vortex13]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Given people's reaction to the Star Child it seems to have been placed there to have people consider the other choices. As most would probably just choose destroy. I mean can you really trust a AI who controls the reapers and turned on his creators?

I choose Destroy every time as I cannot/ will not trust this little mass murdering AI brat.

Which is why Destroy is such an overly penelizing ending (for me). Its the game more or less saying: "You want to kill me? Fine! But I am taking your friends with me!"

[daaaav]

MerchantGOL wrote...

its not tacked on any more then the consequences of synthesis are

Apparently there are no downsides to synthesis

[MerchantGOL]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Given people's reaction to the Star Child it seems to have been placed there to have people consider the other choices. As most would probably just choose destroy. I mean can you really trust a AI who controls the reapers and turned on his creators?

.

Did you trust Edi and the Geth because they did the same thing

[daaaav]

Vortex13 wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Given people's reaction to the Star Child it seems to have been placed there to have people consider the other choices. As most would probably just choose destroy. I mean can you really trust a AI who controls the reapers and turned on his creators?

I choose Destroy every time as I cannot/ will not trust this little mass murdering AI brat.

Which is why Destroy is such an overly penelizing ending (for me). Its the game more or less saying: "You want to kill me? Fine! But I am taking your friends with me!"

Agreed. And no worries I was just to lazy to post it over:P

[wantedman dan]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Given people's reaction to the Star Child it seems to have been placed there to have people consider the other choices. As most would probably just choose destroy. I mean can you really trust a AI who controls the reapers and turned on his creators?

.

Did you trust Edi and the Geth because they did the same thing

They control the Reapers?

[Vortex13]

I will just post what I said in another thread here:

CronoDragoon wrote...
Personally, I feel that Destroy's consequences should be what they are for Control: the possibility of something in the future going horribly wrong. In this case, synthetics wiping out organics is what you risk.

Exactly. I don't get why Destroy has to have such penalties associated with it. The endings should have consequenses that follow along with their underlying themes.

Control's delemia is that by controlling the Reapers you would be:

A. Agreeing with the Illusive Man.
B. Keeping the Reapers exactly as they are just enslaving them under Shepard's rule.
C. The Control ending suggests that AI Shep would not be above using the new Galaxy wide police force to wipe out a species (like say the Krogan) should they step out of line, the whole "The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few." line.

Synthesis, while obviously trying to be painted in the best light possible still has sacrifices associated with it. Shepard dying is the most obvious (s/he at least has some form of AI recreation with his/her memories in Control) but there are other issues. Issues like:

A. The elimination of free will in the biggest descision in the history of the Mass Effect universe. Whether or not the people living after synthesis are brainwashed to accept the fact is besides the point, in the act of picking this ending no other lifeform in the galaxy has any say so what-so-ever.
B. The ending suggests that immortality is viable for the galaxy now, but they can still reproduce. So you now have a society that can not die (naturally) and is constantly adding new members to that society, eventually there is going to be no more food (if they still need to eat, most likley considering they can still make babies) or they are going to run out of room and supplies in the Galaxy and will have to move to others like a swarm of locusts devouring all in their path. Such a senario would be possible in the other endings eventually in the far future, but synthesis puts that senario as the imediate future.

Destroy all ready has several consequences associated with it even before EDI and the Geth. Things such as:

A. You are essentially commiting genocide on the thousands of species comprising each individual Reaper. In Shepard's talk with the Catalyst it is revealed that the genetic goop the Reapers grind people into in order to make a new Reaper are somehow still alive, albeit under the Catalyst's control. This means that picking the destroy option (forgeting Shepard, EDI, and the Geth for a moment) is essentially killing more people than have been killed in all three Mass Effect games combined. The players unwilling to pick Destroy because of it commiting genocide on synthetics also have this to contend with.
B. This ending suggests that killing the Reapers will only postpone the inevitable conflict with synthetics, a conflict that will (according to the Catalyst) wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. So while the current generation will live in peace, future generations are doomed to be killed by their creations.
C. A sidenote to point B., the Catalyst not only heavily implies that killing the Reapers will result in machines killing all organics in the future, it also suggests that future generations will recreate the Reapers again as a means to solving the conflict. Basically, the bad guys will come back, if you belive the statments made by the head bad guy.
D. EDI and the Geth are killed. Now while this is the most obvious consequence for picking destroy there are several underlying themes associated with this penalty that make Destroy seem like the Reapers' collective middle finger to Shepard for killing them.

- For people who brought peace between the Quarians and the Geth, and for players who had talked with EDI, and Legion in Mass Effect 2 and 3 they are losing friends/allies to the cause. But they (the players) are also having people (or talking toasters to those that don't belive they are alive) that activley believed that peaceful co-existence between synthetics and organics was possible, people that had grown and developed an understanding of organic beliefs and values are killed. The very fact that EDI and the Geth were willing to lay down their lives (robot bodies) to stop the Reapers alongside the organic races of the galaxy proves that co-existence is possible without the need for a continuous cycle of harvesting and extinction, or a complete restructing of the galaxy's foundations. EDI and the Geth were the perfect example of how wrong the Reaper solution was, and they could, as developed, empethetic AIs, teach any new synthetics to value organic life, or at the very least come to organic aid if an AI went rouge.

So what does Destroy do? It kills the only fully developed synthetic life cabale of understanding and helping organics. With EDI and the Geth out of the way the Catalyst's logic becomes possible again, with no friendly/empethtic AIs around the liklehood of a synthetic vs. organic conflict is possible again. The Mass Effect codex states that AI are created using a blue box and that each one is unquie, every synthetic lifeform has to have a balanced development cycle in order to prevent the AI from going crazy or having warped view of the world around it. EDI and the Geth could help future synthetic life grow in a proper manner, but by killing them the Catalyst is ensuring that it's belief about conflict comes to pass.

Whew! Sorry for the wall-o-text, but I hope people can see that Destroy already has plenty of 'sacrifies' associated with it. Killing EDI and the Geth is just a tacted on penalty that should (IMO) be able to be avoided with a high enough EMS/War Assets.

To people saying that without killing EDI and the Geth Destroy would be the only choice picked, I say look at the underlying themes of each ending. If the message behind each ending is not enough to have diverse playthroughs without holding EDI and the Geth hostage, then the endings fail narrativly speaking.

[D24O]

MerchantGOL wrote...

its not tacked on any more then the consequences of synthesis are

Well it needs a cost, true. It just seems silly that a machine that can target DNA can't tell between reaper code and non-reaper code. But with how contrived the sequence feels as a whole, plus the fact I don;t choose it, I don't care all that much.

[Angelo2027]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Given people's reaction to the Star Child it seems to have been placed there to have people consider the other choices. As most would probably just choose destroy. I mean can you really trust a AI who controls the reapers and turned on his creators?

I choose Destroy every time as I cannot/ will not trust this little mass murdering AI brat.

You are correct you cannot trust the catalyst and Control option its just creepy have you heard how shepard talks for God sake you know he is definitly gonna turn like the catalyst he says it himself he is not shepard anymore and he is infinite you know he will turn bad and with synthesis no need to talk about it that option is just stupid.

[ForThessia]

what Geth?
I'm too busy mourning edi

[MerchantGOL]

wantedman dan wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Given people's reaction to the Star Child it seems to have been placed there to have people consider the other choices. As most would probably just choose destroy. I mean can you really trust a AI who controls the reapers and turned on his creators?

.

Did you trust Edi and the Geth because they did the same thing

They control the Reapers?

No they turned on their creators, hell edi did it twice

[MerchantGOL]

D24O wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

its not tacked on any more then the consequences of synthesis are

Well it needs a cost, true. It just seems silly that a machine that can target DNA can't tell between reaper code and non-reaper code. But with how contrived the sequence feels as a whole, plus the fact I don;t choose it, I don't care all that much.

Like i said befor those are 2 diffrenct effects cause by 2 diffrent means.

[wantedman dan]

MerchantGOL wrote...

No they turned on their creators, hell edi did it twice

Without any context reinforcing your argument, it makes pretty good sense.

With context, however, your argument makes none.

[D24O]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Like i said before those are 2 diffrenct effects cause by 2 diffrent means.

I suppose with what we know about the Crucible's function and its interactions with the citadel, anything is possible. While that doesn't change my opinion that the plot point was a contrivance to balance out thc choices, but you are probably right there's some technichal explination of how it does whatever it does.

[MerchantGOL]

wantedman dan wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

No they turned on their creators, hell edi did it twice

Without any context reinforcing your argument, it makes pretty good sense.

With context, however, your argument makes none.

it makes plenty, u cant distrust the catalyst just because it turned on its createors  when faced with a moral quandry because u might have allies who did the exact same thing. hell  shepeard technicaly did that as well

the fact that the decisions  they made  might be considerd morally "good"is irreevant

Modifié par MerchantGOL, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:29 .

[Krunjar]

This topic boils down to why do people have a different opinion than me?

I mean really OP engage brain please.

[Soggy-Snake-]

Krunjar wrote...

This topic boils down to why do people have a different opinion than me?

I mean really OP engage brain please.

Follow your own advice and maybe read the OP. Then perhaps read the ensuing discussion. Might prevent you from posting embarassing posts like you just did.

[Scott Sion]

It killed me inside to destroy EDI and the Geth, but I didn't trust the Reapers or SC so they needed to die. This time around when synthetics are created the mistake the Quarians made can be avoided. I feel awful for Joker though.

[daaaav]

Naugi wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

I would like to post this from another topic, this user nicely sums up why people don't care for Destroy holding EDI and the Geth hostage.

He does? Seriously? Personally I've never read anything so silly. The Geth and EDI are sacrificed in a horrific ritual to appease the Catalyst? WTFuuuuuuuu ...

And?

[Kileyan]

What I didn't like about the destroy ending killing Edi and the Geth was that it seemed to have little to do with the tech and what was happening, and more to do with the writers just demanding that all the ending sorta suck and have consequences. It was forced, and made no sense, other than someone decided no good ending were allowed.

In other words it was lame and contrived.

[MerchantGOL]

IT wasn't Contrived, its makes sense that a weapon designed to destroy giant machines across the galaxy would also destroy the ones you liked