329 réponses à ce sujet

[Krunjar]

For me no way. To quote the good doctor.

"Look up Genocide in the dictionary you'll see a picture of my face and a little caption reading Over My Dead Body!"

But thats my choice

[Taboo]

Well messing with genes is also considered genocide if you wipe out a species Krunjar.

Look that up.

In Synthesis you've commited Genocide against every organic species in the galaxy.

Also, Genocide is not always an outcome of Destroy. It always will be in Synthesis.

[Uncle Jo]

nvm

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 29 juillet 2012 - 03:53 .

[Uncle Jo]

Elite Trooper wrote...

I don't think ME1,2 foreshadowed anything about cotrolling the Reapers because Bioware didn't know that was going to be an option.

I was thinking of indoctrination which was already introduced in ME1. This made the Reapers able to subjugate anyone who stays close to them for a too long time. In retrospect, it indirectly made me also think that they're not controllable.

In ME2 there are the Geth heretics mission (rewrite or destroy) and the collector base. The latter was an abomination. Still TIM is opposed to its destruction and wants to preserve it and use it against the Reapers (officially). You choose then to either give it to him or show him the middle finger.

In ME3 it's not that different, you have the Reapers. An abomination. you either destroy or preserve and use them to the galaxy's benefits (or your own).

So IMO the control theme was always there somehow. I just didn't think that BW would have the nerves to make it really happens and dare present it as "happy" ending possibility, after all the hard work they did to convince us that only insane or indoctrinated persons can think it's feasable.

Fair enough, but I admired his ambition, not his goal.

This very ambition was the cause of his downfall. It made him particularly receptive to the idea of power which slowly corrupted him, drove him insane and lead him to be indoctrinated at the end. Not a think I can admire.

Well (although this was incredibly stupid on Biowares part) the Reapers did those things by the order of Star****. They don't need to trust the Reapers, they just need to trust me. I see your point, however.

For what reason they did it, doesn't really matter in this case.

Try to say to someone "You know bro, the Reapers killed your whole family just because a brat, who thought it's the best way for you to not get killed by synthetics, tell them to do so. It was nothing personal, so no hard feelings."
It will make a hell of a difference.

You're the (new) boss of the Reapers. A Reaper. Why would they trust you ? Just because you'd say "Hi folks! I know I look somehow different, have tentacles and a creepy voice, but I swear it's me. Believe me pls."

I'm sorry for insisting on this part, because some people who chose control or even synthesis, tend to disregard the fact that the war against the Reapers let terrible wounds which will need centuries or millenias to heal, if even possible. Just take a history book and look at the aftermath of any war.

I blame the EC and the writers for playing with such serious themes like genocide, absolute power, dictatorship, transhumanism and giving such an unrealistic, childish vision of their outcome.

Who says I'll meddle? If Shepard wants, he could make the Reapers leave, and never return.

You said in your previous post before that if being the galactic cop keeps the Galaxy safe, it wouldn't be a problem for you. I took your word for it.

And if I make the Reapers leave for good, I can make the same happen, without sacrificing the Geth.

The bolded, underlined part is exactly my problem. Reapers disappearing is in the blue ending only a possibility, in destroy a certainty.

That's not very fair, the developers didn't even know themselves what the Reapers were doing until the last game. And since the brat is the only source of information on the purpose of the Reapers, it's impossible for me to give an example. They preserved races that, if the brat is to be believed, would have been wiped out by synthetics. Hell, in, bleh, the Synthesis ending, the Reapers share the knowledge of the civilisations they preserved.

I know it's unfair as well as I know that no one can do it. But the brat is using this c**ppy argument as well as fear (you know tech sing will happen and organics are doomed, if the Reapers don't help) to justify what he and his minions have done the last billions years and convince me that the Reapers are necessary for the future of the galaxy, in one way or another. Swing and a miss.

The Reapers share their "knowledge" only if you radically change every single being in the galaxy the way they want. Don't you find it troubling?

Bringing speculation etc. to an argument can't be used as hard evidence though. If you say "Well in Control Shepinger could kill everyone." I might say "Well maybe he won't" and we just keep going in circles.

That's the fun

Well it was an RPG based on your many choices, so why only have 1 outcome for TIM? I chose to keep the collector base in ME2, but it turns out it doesn't matter what you do, the outcome is the same. I would have liked the option (although I probs wouldn't choose it) to let TIM take Control of the Reapers, then Humanity becomes an almighty and powerful master race of the galaxy. Not the most appealing option, but the series was based on options and choices, who would complain if we were given more?

In the underlined part. I find your words choice kinda inappropriate.

Shep is the main character and the hero of the story, what's the point of her letting TIM control the Reapers ? You don't want to finish the story yourself?
TIM is indoctrinated. He's beyond the no return point. He doesn't think for himself anymore, nor could control the Reapers. The only way out for him is death.

Even just keeping him alive could have been an option, now i need to kill him every time and say "Your wrong" when i know think he's right and Shepards being a complete hypocrite.

Fixed it for ya.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 30 juillet 2012 - 11:28 .

[Batnat]

My very first playthrough (pre-EC, spoiler-free), I chose Synthesis...in my defense I was tired, in shock and not at all able to clearly think things through...I regretted it the second the cutscene started...well, not quite, the first thing I thought of as the cutscene started was the end of Buffy Season 5...

Seeing as I have a whole bunch of Sheps I have at least one for each ending...I think I can even headcanon (urgh, I hate that word!) the reasons why they make their decisions for Control (very nice for my lonely disillusioned and vengeful Shep!) and Synthesis (perfect for my naive everything will be fine and dandy Shep!)...it´s frankly not more difficult than imagining the reasons for the rest of their "abnormal" ME3-behavior. <_<

My main Shep...the one who´s basically "me"...well, I´m in a predicament with her. She would actually very much like to choose Refusal, ´cause that´s the decision most in line with her/my character. But here the knowing of the outcome unfortunately really gets in the way, because she promised Liara she would always come back...and she would very VERY much like to keep to her word! So...that Shep is staying on the backburner for now, until the last SP-DLC sees the light of day. I´m not expecting the DLCs will have a big impact on the endings, but I can´t deny that there´s still just a little tiny bit of hope in me that they will...I guess we´ll see.

So, no, I don´t choose the Destroy option just for the sake of Shepard´s "survival" (and I use that word loosely). It just happens to be the mindset of most of my Sheps and if only the original three options would be available there really wouldn´t be any question as to why. Destroy the Reapers was the imperative since ME1, and since most of my Sheps (and me) are lucid enough not to trust what the ReaperAI/Starbrat blabbers about, shooting the tube it is! 

[Krunjar]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Well messing with genes is also considered genocide if you wipe out a species Krunjar.

Look that up.

In Synthesis you've commited Genocide against every organic species in the galaxy.

Also, Genocide is not always an outcome of Destroy. It always will be in Synthesis.

By definition perhaps but I would wager that those writing that definition did not consider something like synthesis a possibility. Nor do I have to prescribe to someone else's definition. As far as i am aware the genes don't change only the language they are written and expressed in. Does this still count? I would imagine lawyers would have a field day. However the destruction of the Geth is Genocide by anyones definition. Unless you think they aren't really alive. Then Im going to have to just hate you for being a meanie.

In the end of the day this seems like splitting hairs over a definition. You knew what i meant right ?

Modifié par Krunjar, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:02 .

[Taboo]

Krunjar wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Well messing with genes is also considered genocide if you wipe out a species Krunjar.

Look that up.

In Synthesis you've commited Genocide against every organic species in the galaxy.

Also, Genocide is not always an outcome of Destroy. It always will be in Synthesis.

By definition perhaps but I would wager that those writing that definition did not consider something like synthesis a possibility. Nor do I have to prescribe to someone else's definition. As far as i am aware the genes don't change only the language they are written and expressed in. Does this still count? I would imagine lawyers would have a field day. However the destruction of the Geth is Genocide by anyones definition. Unless you think they aren't really alive. Then Im going to have to just hate you for being a meanie.

In the end of the day this seems like splitting hairs over a definition. You knew what i meant right ?

Hold on there chuckles. You can't dismiss definitions when they suit you. International law states what Genocide is and rewriting DNA is on that list.

You more closely resemble Synthetics now, which is why you can understand them more. Michael Gamble has stated this. There is "just life". You just "killed" every single organic being that exists.

If the Geth die above Rannoch, you don't commit Genocide against them in Destroy. But I still consider it a moral failing.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:04 .

[Krunjar]

Actually yes I can. When I consider the definition to have been made irrelevant by apparent Information. Also define rewriting. As far as I can see no re writing occurred. Just translation. If you tell me an existing law and definition covers that possibility I am just going to laugh.

Modifié par Krunjar, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:11 .

[Taboo]

Krunjar wrote...

Actually yes I can. When I consider the definition to have been made irrelevant by apparent facts. Also define rewriting. As far as I can see no re writing occurred. Just translation. If you tell me an existing law and definition covers that possibility I am just going to laugh.

No you can't.

By your definition I don't commit genocide because it fits a law now. Is that right?

The point of Synthesis is to make a singular life form capable of progressing at the same rate as Synthetics. You have to make them similar biologically to do that.

James Vega retains his personality and appearence, but he is biologically similar to EDI now.

The Catalyst states that he's tried it before, and husks and Cannibals are an imperfect Synthesis. Jumping into the beam merely perfects it.

[daigakuinsei]

FFinfinity1 wrote...

arial wrote...

I pick destroy because its the lesser of the three evils

How is Destroy the lesser of three evils? You essentially Destroy the reapers yeah but at the cost of all synthetic life in the galaxy and pretty much crippling the galaxy for god knows how long. Plus if you think long term the there will never be a council or galactic government again and the cycle pretty much continues where synthetics destroy all life with no reapers to stop them :/ You basically learn nothing.

The Catalyst was wrong and couldn't absorb new knowledge.  Also, assuming wht you say is true re: the cycle, it's too speculative and too far in the future to worry about.

[Taboo]

daigakuinsei wrote...

FFinfinity1 wrote...

arial wrote...

I pick destroy because its the lesser of the three evils

How is Destroy the lesser of three evils? You essentially Destroy the reapers yeah but at the cost of all synthetic life in the galaxy and pretty much crippling the galaxy for god knows how long. Plus if you think long term the there will never be a council or galactic government again and the cycle pretty much continues where synthetics destroy all life with no reapers to stop them :/ You basically learn nothing.

The Catalyst was wrong and couldn't absorb new knowledge.  Also, assuming wht you say is true re: the cycle, it's too speculative and too far in the future to worry about.

This. He even states that he hasn't taken in new variables for millions of years.

[Krunjar]

Look I am not suggesting flying loose with the interpretation of genocide in a current day international treaty or anything so keep yer pants on. I am suggesting that the definition is made irrelevant by the singular and unprecedented nature of synthesis in the fictional universe of mass effect. In that case i can throw out any definition I like. Hell you could even argue that killing the geth isn't genocide because they don't have genes. In fact even in the ME universe wiping out the geth would probably still be considered not legal genocide. However we must have the wisdom to see when a law or a definition needs re writing. This happens in real life all the time and has probably happened several times in the history of the ME universe since our time.Even for such a definition as genocide. I do not have to accept our current definition as proof that synthesis is genocide.

Modifié par Krunjar, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:20 .

[forthary]

When I thought about it, my first impressions was I doubt I could control the reapers without some catch, like the Illusive Man.  As for synthesis, I think it was a solution above my intelligence and didn't sound right.  Destroy seemed to be the best ending, because from the beginning in Mass Effect 1 to the end in Mass Effect 3, I faught to get rid of the reapers the whole time, not to take control of them or make up some crazy solution!  If there are any other threats to the galaxy out there, such as the machine devils, the galaxy can defeat them WITHOUT the help of the reapers.  It will be difficult, but not impossible to do so.  Plus, then there's Tali.  No other person will be able to satisfy her, both physically and emotionally, than Shepard.  It just doesn't feel right to romance anyone else than her for me in some way that I can't describe.  She NEEDS Shepard.  So I came back for her.

Now that I've seen the endings, I think control is actually a viable alternative; It's a classic heroic sacrifice ending where you take over the reapers, probably the biggest asset in the entire galaxy, to help rebuild and protect the galaxy.  If the machine devils are truly out there, then the galaxy has a better chance at protecting themselves from them.  Synthesis is still unattractive; sure, it looks cool, giving everyone tron-like appearances and unparalled power, but I think this will be the death of the galaxy in the long run.  If everyone will achieve immortality or become near-immortal, the shift of the power in the galaxy will be enough to undo all of it's works.  However, at the same time, it also means that the galaxy has the best chance ever at defending themselves with the reapers as not only are the reapers are preserved, all organic and synthetic live has fully evolved as well.

In the end, I picked destroy for Tali, maybe for some of my squadmates, and because the galaxy can make victory on it's own terms, even if it is difficult to do so.

[Taboo]

Krunjar wrote...

Look I am not suggesting flying loose with the interpretation of genocide in an international treaty or anything so keep yer pants on. I am suggesting that the definition is made irrelevant by the singular and unprecedented nature of synthesis in the fictional universe of mass effect. In that case i can throw out any definition I like. Hell you could even argue that killing the geth isn't genocide because they don't have genes. In face even in the ME universe wiping out the geth would probably still be considered not legal genocide. However we must have the wisdom to see when a law or a definition needs re writing. This happens in real life all the time and has probably happened several times in the history of the ME universe since our time.

It's also invalidated as Genocide is a long process and is made for a methodical or tactical reasons. It's a horrible price to pay but I would consider it to be more collateral damage than anything. You still kill them, but my Shepard plans on taking responsibility for that.

None of the choices are ethical.

[XqctaX]

i picked destroy. but not for that reason

[jshowatts]

 Desteroy, because that was the goal from he beginning.

[daigakuinsei]

PanzerGr3nadier wrote...

I turned Reapers into space junk and Shep lives. What could you possible want??

+1 

[JosieFrances]

Yeah i'd be lying too if I said it had nothing to do with my decision, although just like my forum banner, I felt we had set out to destroy them and the idea of walking from that game and not destroying them, just didn't sit right with me.

[atheelogos]

I really dislike the destroy ending. It makes no sense. The catalyst tells you that it doesn't for one second believe destroy will work... Then it gives you the option to pick it? Why would and intelligent being do that?

[Elite Trooper]

Uncle Jo wrote...



]I was thinking of indoctrination which was already introduced in ME1. This ability made the Reapers able to subjugate anyone who stays close to them for a too long time. In retrospect, it indirectly made me also think that they're not controllable.

Ah i see what you mean, i thought you meant it was a direct theme

In ME2 there are the Geth heretics mission (rewrite or destroy) and the collector base. The latter was an abomination. Still TIM is opposed to its destruction and wants to preserve it and use it against the Reapers (officially). You choose then to either give it to him or show him the middle finger.

Choosing control in both of those cases works in your advantage though (albeit it only contributes to a number in your EMS )

In ME3 it's not that different, you have the Reapers. An abomination. you either destroy or preserve and use them to the galaxy's benefits (or your own).

That's a good way to put it

So IMO the control theme was always there somehow. I just didn't think that BW would have the nerves to make it really happens and dare present it as "happy" ending possibility, after all the hard work they did to convince us that only insane or indoctrinated persons can think it's feasable.
Agreed, they tried hard to convince us it was the wrong thing to do then give us a reasonable outcome when choosing them

This very ambition was the cause of his downfall. It made him particularly receptive to the idea of power which slowly corrupted him, drove him insane and lead him to be indoctrinated at the end. Not a think I can admire.

I mean before he was indoctrinated. In my opinion he did the wrong things for the right reason.


For what reason they did it, doesn't really matter in this case.

Try to say to someone "You know bro, the Reapers killed your whole family just because a brat, who thought it's the best way for you to not get killed by synthetics, tell them to do so. It was nothing personal, so no hard feelings."
It will make a hell of a difference.

Sounds bad when you put it like that, but it's true

You're the (new) boss of the Reapers. A Reaper. Why would they trust you ? Just because you'd say "Hi folks! I know I look somehow different, have tentacles and a creepy voice, but I swear it's me. Believe me pls."

Your not actually a Reaper, your the Reaper consciousness, hence how you can control the Reapers. After everything Shepards done for the Galaxy, i don't find it too far fetched that he'll be trusted.

I'm sorry for insisting on this part, because some people who chose control or even synthesis, tend to disregard the fact that the war against the Reapers let terrible wounds which will need centuries or millenias to heal, if even possible. Just take a history book and look at the aftermath of any war.

Like you said earlier, it's not like any other war. The Reapers were impossible to defeat conventionaly and therefore we had to use an unconventional method to beat them. I understand that people have deep scars from the war, but they need to understand what it took to win.

In order to physically destroy the Reapers I had to sacrifice an entire race which i wasn't willing to do.

I blame the EC and the writers for playing with such serious themes like genocide, absolute power, dictatorship, transhumanism and giving such an unrealistic, childish vision of their outcome.

Agreed


You said in your previous post before that if being the galactic cop keeps the Galaxy safe, it wouldn't be a problem for you. I took your word for it.

Meddling and peacekeeping are different things, which is why i responded differently.


The bolded, underlined part is exactly my problem. Reapers disappearing is in the blue ending only a possibility, in destroy a certainty.

I understand what you mean here, but in the end, it's all speculation and/or headcanon. I obviously can't tell you what will happen for sure, but if it's left for us to headcanon, then whatever we say happens, happens.

]I know it's unfair as well as I know that no one can do it. But the brat is using this c**ppy argument as well as fear (you know tech sing will happen and organics are doomed, if the Reapers don't help) to justify what he and his minions have done the last billions years and convince me that the Reapers are necessary for the future of the galaxy, in one way or another. Swing and a miss.

It's sure as hell a crappy argument, but I'm assuming we're meant to take it at face value and believe it.

The Reapers share their "knowledge" only if you radically change every single being in the galaxy the way they want. Don't you find it troubling?

Yes, i hate synthesis. Galactic rape and everyone turns into what looks like a zombie.



That's the fun

If you say so^_^

Well it was an RPG based on your many choices, so why only have 1 outcome for TIM? I chose to keep the collector base in ME2, but it turns out it doesn't matter what you do, the outcome is the same. I would have liked the option (although I probs wouldn't choose it) to let TIM take Control of the Reapers, then Humanity becomes an almighty and powerful master race of the galaxy. Not the most appealing option, but the series was based on options and choices, who would complain if we were given more?

In the underlined part. I find your words choice kinda inappropriate.

Shep is the main character and the hero of the story, what's the point of her letting TIM control the Reapers ? You don't want to finish the story yourself?
TIM is indoctrinated. He's beyond the no return point. He doesn't think for himself anymore, nor could control the Reapers. The only way out for him is death.

The moment Shepard  gets raised up by the floating elevator he/she is overshadowed massively. All of a sudden Star**** becomes more important than Shepard and the war with synthetics becomes a bigger deal than the Reapers. It wouldn't seem surprising if it was an option. Besides, the more choices the better imo.


Fixed it for ya.

I wrote "know" as in i know that controlling them is an option.

[Chashan]

atheelogos wrote...

I really dislike the destroy ending. It makes no sense. The catalyst tells you that it doesn't for one second believe destroy will work... Then it gives you the option to pick it? Why would and intelligent being do that?

Maybe it wants to become an hero?

Simple reason anyway...ignoring any "reasoning" behind why it brushes over it - might be enforced by an oh-**** button its creators failed to push just in time - to then present to Shepards its grand scheme of succession to its throne and the utopia in its image:

If it gets you what you want, do you really care what that erratic, cowardly thing says?


And as far as absence of sense I would point at certain other choices, to be had...

Modifié par Chashan, 30 juillet 2012 - 05:37 .

[zeypher]

I would have picked destroy even if shepard and entire normandy were sacrificed. If it was earth sacrificed instead of geth i still would have picked destory. My entire goal since i started Me1 has been destroy them.

[Reikilea]

Its the only ending I believe in. I didnt mind sacrificing the Geth, I thought it was pretty logical decidion. After all they were always unstable and Legion is now not there. Its a war, so you need to make decisions like this. Plus I want to get rid of everything reaper like and Geth are equipped with reaper codes. You never know what might happen. I want galaxy to evolve on its own. (Same reason why I am never picking synthesis)

Its not genocide. Its juts price you have to pay. Geth are unstable, they fought even inside their ranks. So if sacrificing them is a price I have to pay to let galaxy survive I am willing to do it, without regrets. My only regret in the Geth question was that Legion had to go.

+ its only ending where I can get rid of Edi. Bye bye shiny fembot, not gonna miss you.

So only Destroy for me. Surviving Shepard is bonus.

[Elite Trooper]

Chashan wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

I really dislike the destroy ending. It makes no sense. The catalyst tells you that it doesn't for one second believe destroy will work... Then it gives you the option to pick it? Why would and intelligent being do that?

Maybe it wants to become an hero?

Simple reason anyway...ignoring any "reasoning" behind why it brushes over it - might be enforced by an oh-**** button its creators failed to push just in time - to then present to Shepards its grand scheme of succession to its throne and the utopia in its image:

If it gets you what you want, do you really care what that erratic, cowardly thing says?


And as far as absence of sense I would point at certain other choices, to be had...

What i want to know is how come destroy kills all Synthetics, but control only affects the Reapers ?

It's questions like these that make you wonder just how little thought Bioware put into their ending.

[Samtheman63]

picked destroy on first playthrough before i knew what would happen

Modifié par Samtheman63, 30 juillet 2012 - 06:04 .