233 réponses à ce sujet

[OblivionDawn]

N7Gold wrote...

What do the Reapers gain from the endings? NOTHING. If you destroy, them, the cycle ends, which is what you've been fighting to do ever since ME1. Control releases the Reapers from the Catalyst's control putting them under YOUR command. With the possibility that Harbinger said "Save us" to Shepard before blasting his/her armor to a crisp near the Conduit, it's possible the organics preserved in the Reapers want to be freed from their personal hell made by the Catalyst's faulty solution. Everybody hates the Catalyst because of his faulty solution about organics and synthetics. Shepard replacing him as the new Catalyst is also a good thing.

Shepard (about Control): "I didn't fight this war to lose everything I have."

Catalyst: "And I do NOT look forward to being replaced by you, but, I would be forced to accept it."

Shepard: "Not unless I choose to do it."


Synthesis, while an abomination to the entire ME series, sets up a winning field for both organics and synthetics.

Right, I'm not saying that there is any reason for the Reapers to lie to you, and I think that all the original endings are viable ways of ending the Reaper threat. The Refusal option was spawned out of some delusion that all your options were part of the Reaper agenda, even though you made them possible.

All I'm saying is that it's not cowardly to say "screw the McGuffin, we're fighting you hand to hand, even if it kills us."

[Ryzaki]

Oh boy here's how EVERY SINGLE SHEP CAN BE A COWARD since people seem to not be able to comprehend this

Synthesis - Shep gives into the the Reapers goals out of fear and cowardice of a Technological Singularity (and of the Reapers themselves). Fearful of any other solution.
Control - Shep gives into the fear of destroying tech and of killing the Geth to permanently kill the Reapers. Fearful of other decisions. Arguably fearful of other races so much that he/she needs to take over the Reapers and keep them in line with newfound power.
Destroy - Shep is so fearful of the Reapers that he/she would willingly kill allies to make sure they're gone for good. Fearful of other decisions.
Refuse - Shep is fearful of a Reaper trap he/she is fearful of making one of the other decisions. He/she decides it's better to fight a futile battle and die in hopes that the next cycle won't have to.

Yay all Sheps are cowards now *waves flag*

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:54 .

[N7Gold]

Mr.House wrote...


A coward would not say that.

But you have a chance for freedom, and you threw it away over your ideals of what freedom is, you choked on the hard decisions. The Catalyst may be your enemy, but think about why he's offering you a choice to destroy or control the Reapers when he gains nothing from being controlled, destroyed or synthesized to be buddies with organics. Let go of your fantasy of freedom and realize that victory in a war like this comes with a heavy price. Some characters like Javik told you that before, but you didn't listen.  Before ME3 was released, I knew that Shepard would have to make an ultimate sacrifice to stop the Reapers, but I didn't know what. I had a hunch that Shepard might have to sacrifice himself/herself or someone else to attain victory.

Modifié par N7Gold, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:58 .

[Mr.House]

How is selecting an option the leader of the Reapers gives you freedom?

[CrutchCricket]

Greylycantrope wrote...

All endings suck
/thread

[wantedman dan]

N7Gold wrote...

But you have a chance for freedom, and you threw it away over your ideals of what freedom is.

That is called standing on principle.

[N7Gold]

Mr.House wrote...

How is selecting an option the leader of the Reapers gives you freedom?

The Catalyst controls the Reapers, the Catalyst aims to forge a peaceful relationship between organics and synthetics, but for some odd reason, he's commanding the Reapers to attack organics, even if you made peace between the Quarians and Geth.


By controlling the Reapers, you replace the Catalyst as controller of the Reapers. The Catalyst's logic is seriously flawed, but yours is not.

[wantedman dan]

N7Gold wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

How is selecting an option the leader of the Reapers gives you freedom?

The Catalyst controls the Reapers, the Catalyst aims to forge a peaceful relationship between organics and synthetics, but for some odd reason, he's commanding the Reapers to attack organics, even if you made peace between the Quarians and Geth.


By controlling the Reapers, you replace the Catalyst as controller of the Reapers. The Catalyst's logic is seriously flawed, but yours is not.

So that means you should choose one of the options provided, explained through said seriously flawed logic.

[N7Gold]

wantedman dan wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

But you have a chance for freedom, and you threw it away over your ideals of what freedom is.

That is called standing on principle.

Hiding your fears behind your ideals of freedom won't help.

[Mr.House]

N7Gold wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

How is selecting an option the leader of the Reapers gives you freedom?

The Catalyst controls the Reapers, the Catalyst aims to forge a peaceful relationship between organics and synthetics, but for some odd reason, he's commanding the Reapers to attack organics, even if you made peace between the Quarians and Geth.


By controlling the Reapers, you replace the Catalyst as controller of the Reapers. The Catalyst's logic is seriously flawed, but yours is not.

[wantedman dan]

N7Gold wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

But you have a chance for freedom, and you threw it away over your ideals of what freedom is.

That is called standing on principle.

Hiding your fears behind your ideals of freedom won't help.

And basing your logic on a fallacious leap helps nothing, either.

[Darc_Requiem]

N7Gold wrote...

Mr.House wrote...


A coward would not say that.

But you have a chance for freedom, and you threw it away over your ideals of what freedom is, you choked on the hard decisions. The Catalyst may be your enemy, but think about why he's offering you a choice to destroy or control the Reapers when he gains nothing from being controlled, destroyed or synthesized to be buddies with organics. Let go of your fantasy of freedom and realize that victory in a war like this comes with a heavy price. Some characters like Javik told you that before, but you didn't listen.  Before ME3 was released, I knew that Shepard would have to make an ultimate sacrifice to stop the Reapers, but I didn't know what. I had a hunch that Shepard might have to sacrifice himself/herself or someone else to attain victory.

By Refusing, Shepard gives organics and synthetic lifeforms true freedom to determine their own path. Synthesis on the other hand stripes away that freedom and forces all life down the path that the Catalysts wants. While Refusal isn't  my prime choice, it certainly a better option than the Pyrrhic victory that is Synthesis.

[N7Gold]

wantedman dan wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

How is selecting an option the leader of the Reapers gives you freedom?

The Catalyst controls the Reapers, the Catalyst aims to forge a peaceful relationship between organics and synthetics, but for some odd reason, he's commanding the Reapers to attack organics, even if you made peace between the Quarians and Geth.


By controlling the Reapers, you replace the Catalyst as controller of the Reapers. The Catalyst's logic is seriously flawed, but yours is not.

So that means you should choose one of the options provided, explained through said seriously flawed logic.

"When fire burns, is it at war? Is it in conflict? Or is it doing what it was created to do? We are no different. Like a cleansing fire, we restore balance."
Tell me how messed up the logic of the Catalyst is. Fire does not have a mind of its own like the Reapers. The Reapers represent fire, the Catalyst is the arsonist. It's not the fire's fault it burned an entire forest, it's the arsonist, the Catalyst, the one who controls the fire to blame. In other words, the Reapers are not the true villain. Destroy destroys the Catalyst and the Reapers, Control replaces the Catalyst and places Shepard as the new controller of the Reapers. Synthesis  frees the Reapers from the Catalyst's control through "space magic"

[Ryzaki]

Mr.House wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

How is selecting an option the leader of the Reapers gives you freedom?

The Catalyst controls the Reapers, the Catalyst aims to forge a peaceful relationship between organics and synthetics, but for some odd reason, he's commanding the Reapers to attack organics, even if you made peace between the Quarians and Geth.


By controlling the Reapers, you replace the Catalyst as controller of the Reapers. The Catalyst's logic is seriously flawed, but yours is not.

Yeah gotta love that logic.

[Sweawm]

N7Gold wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

It's not cowardice.

It takes a substantial amount of balls to build a superweapon/battery deliver it to the Reapers' doorstep, and then decide that you're not going to use it.

Stupid? Very. But not cowardly.

The point in my topic is its cowardice to back down when you're so close to victory, even if you don't exactly approve of your choice of outcomes.

Your not close to victory, your close  to the Reaper's victory. 
Each ending offered by the Catalyst could have massive implications:

Control - Not strong enough to maintain control, go power crazy, see the logic within the cycle... various bad things
Sythesis - Done to death. All I see is Reaper overlords, Catalyst still in control
Destroy - Chaos destined to come back. Organic/Sythnetic War resumes 

The Catalyst only offers because it advances the Reaper's agenda, even the Destroy Ending. Refusal is about ideals and freedom. 
Before, the Reapers have always maintained control and completed their objectives. For possibly the first time ever, the Reapers have failed. 

Modifié par Sweawm, 04 juillet 2012 - 05:11 .

[WarGriffin]

thefallen2far wrote...

Why does everyone who supports the endings keep quoting the villains in the game?  TiM, Kai Lang, Saren, Harbinger, Soverign, the council, Ambasador Udina, now Archer.  Anyone want to quote Benezia about how great Synthesis was?

The implications are rather unsettling if you think about it

[wantedman dan]

N7Gold wrote...

"When fire burns, is it at war? Is it in conflict? Or is it doing what it was created to do? We are no different. Like a cleansing fire, we restore balance."
Tell me how messed up the logic of the Catalyst is. Fire does not have a mind of its own like the Reapers. The Reapers represent fire, the Catalyst is the arsonist. It's not the fire's fault it burned an entire forest, it's the arsonist, the Catalyst, the one who controls the fire to blame. In other words, the Reapers are not the true villain. Destroy destroys the Catalyst and the Reapers, Control replaces the Catalyst and places Shepard as the new controller of the Reapers. Synthesis  frees the Reapers from the Catalyst's control through "space magic"

And thus, Children, we find the crux of an issue with the ending. Deus Ex Machina's are HORRIBLE plot devices.

Thank you for the post, in no way contradicting mine.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 04 juillet 2012 - 05:13 .

[N7Gold]

Darc_Requiem wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

Mr.House wrote...


A coward would not say that.

But you have a chance for freedom, and you threw it away over your ideals of what freedom is, you choked on the hard decisions. The Catalyst may be your enemy, but think about why he's offering you a choice to destroy or control the Reapers when he gains nothing from being controlled, destroyed or synthesized to be buddies with organics. Let go of your fantasy of freedom and realize that victory in a war like this comes with a heavy price. Some characters like Javik told you that before, but you didn't listen.  Before ME3 was released, I knew that Shepard would have to make an ultimate sacrifice to stop the Reapers, but I didn't know what. I had a hunch that Shepard might have to sacrifice himself/herself or someone else to attain victory.

By Refusing, Shepard gives organics and synthetic lifeforms true freedom to determine their own path. Synthesis on the other hand stripes away that freedom and forces all life down the path that the Catalysts wants. While Refusal isn't  my prime choice, it certainly a better option than the Pyrrhic victory that is Synthesis.

Refusing causes you to give up fighting for humanity and the other races. I chose Destroy because it gives organics a clean slate on how to treat Synthetics. I made peace with the Quarians and Geth, I told Diana Allers in an interview on how and why I made peace between the Quarians and Geth, telling them that the Geth were never hostile to organics to begin with, the Quarians unwittingly provoked them into rebelling. Because of that interview, everyone will learn from the Quarians' mistakes, and when new synthetics appear, organics will learn to treat synthetics with respect, not fear or ignorance, without the imposing intervention of the Reapers. The memories of the Geth and EDI will be positive role models for synthetics we'll meet in the future.

Modifié par N7Gold, 04 juillet 2012 - 05:13 .

[wantedman dan]

WarGriffin wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

Why does everyone who supports the endings keep quoting the villains in the game?  TiM, Kai Lang, Saren, Harbinger, Soverign, the council, Ambasador Udina, now Archer.  Anyone want to quote Benezia about how great Synthesis was?

The implications are rather unsettling if you think about it

Saren completely explains what synthesis is in ME1.

It's truly horrific.

[wantedman dan]

N7Gold wrote...

Refusing causes you to give up fighting for humanity and the other races.

Which was another piece of poor writing to begin with.

[WarGriffin]

wantedman dan wrote...

WarGriffin wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

Why does everyone who supports the endings keep quoting the villains in the game?  TiM, Kai Lang, Saren, Harbinger, Soverign, the council, Ambasador Udina, now Archer.  Anyone want to quote Benezia about how great Synthesis was?

The implications are rather unsettling if you think about it

Saren completely explains what synthesis is in ME1.

It's truly horrific.

Pfff nobody remembers ME1, Me3's team clearly doesn't

[wantedman dan]

WarGriffin wrote...

Pfff nobody remembers ME1, Me3's team clearly doesn't

I shudder out of disgust.

[N7Gold]

wantedman dan wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

Refusing causes you to give up fighting for humanity and the other races.

Which was another piece of poor writing to begin with.

What you call "poor writing", I call the inability to acknowledge your faults. If you're really fighting for freedom, how far would you go to attain freedom? Will you let your anxieties stop you or will you keep fighting on?

[estebanus]

Modifié par estebanus, 04 juillet 2012 - 05:22 .

[Ryzaki]

WarGriffin wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

WarGriffin wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

Why does everyone who supports the endings keep quoting the villains in the game?  TiM, Kai Lang, Saren, Harbinger, Soverign, the council, Ambasador Udina, now Archer.  Anyone want to quote Benezia about how great Synthesis was?

The implications are rather unsettling if you think about it

Saren completely explains what synthesis is in ME1.

It's truly horrific.

Pfff nobody remembers ME1, Me3's team clearly doesn't

I'm laughing and crying at the same time. Poor ME1. It's the red headed stepchild of the family.