329 réponses à ce sujet

[ghostz82]

I picked destroy because one I don't like the reapers and two I want Shepard to live and it shows you that short clip of his body breathing when you choose destroy. That keeps my hopes of a future mass effect 4 with Shepard alive possiable. I think it would be great for them to make a mass effect 4 in where based on what ending you choose you can be Shepard if you choose destroy or if you choose one of the other endings you ll be a new hero they create since Shepard would be dead in the other endings chosen that would be awesome it would keep both Shepard fans and the fans who think Shepard should be dead happy and give them the choice to continue with Shepard or a new hero that they create and bring into the mass effect universe.

[pinkandblack84]

i pick destroy because to be honest it was the only choice that made sense to me, the goal is to stop the reapers not to control them or to synthesis so for me either Destroy or Reject are the only real choices.

[Sajuro]

ThaDPG wrote...

I pick destroy because it's what Shep set out to do, whether he lives or not

[Apple Lantern]

I picked it on my second playthrough solely for this reason.

I was going to pick it on my first, but after mishearing the Catalyst (I destroy all of our technology and the Relays?! What the ****!!) I chose Synthesis as the next best thing.

[DirtyPhoenix]

No, because that's what that particular Shepard of mine, believed in. She wanted to kill the reapers whatever the cost. Doesn't matter if she lives or dies. Being alive was just an added bonus, not the driving force.

[OmegaXI]

Destroy is the only way to be sure the reapers are gone for good. I hated the fact that EDI and Legion's people (the Geth) died cause they were my robo-bros. But I couldn't risk it and I still go from the mind set of my first playthrough in which I didn't know Shepard could survive.

Control= no one should have that much power and the reapers are still there
Shep=dead-ish AI Guardain /Overlord

Synthesis= The catalyst said it failed before whats to say it would fail again and the Reapers are still there
Shep=Dead

Destroy=Reapers Dead and the nightmare of their cycle has ended, at the cost of trusted allies
Shep= Chance of being Alive or dead but if I was going down I was taking the Reapers with me

[RavenEyry]

I couldn't care less which options Shep lives and dies in. In fact, before extended cut Shepard didn't live in my destroy but it was still by far my favourite choice, out of three awful ones at least.

[B.Shep]

Reapers are finally destroyed, that was the goal since ME1.
Galaxy races free to build their own future (no Reaper Overlord or green brainwash).
Shepard alive.

Those are the three reasons why i believe Destroy is the best ending.

[BaneForever]

 I chose destroy because that was my Shepard's main goal since the beginning. Whether he lives or dies does not matter because the goal was accomplished.

[B.Shep]

Also you see the starbrat dying/fading when you are destroying the Reapers

[Jassu1979]

I choose destroy because it's the only option that doesn't let the Reapers win, essentially.
Having Shepard "survive" (that gasp scene is more of an easter egg than a real ending) is but a small bonus of staying true to what you set out to do.

[SMichelle]

De1ta G wrote...

In fact. Destroy was the choice I made on my first playthrough. As far as I knew, Shepard was going to die.

I expected Shepard to die stopping the Reapers.  Destroy is the only option for my Shepard no matter if she lives or dies.


(Honestly, I consider that breath scene to be meaningless.  Especially since there's nothing really following it.)

[Quackjack]

I

[Elite Trooper]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Elite Trooper wrote...

I laugh and find it ironic how some people think Destroy is the 'paragon' option.

I laugh and find it ironic how some people think any option is parangon. Especially control.

My argument is aimed at people who beleive Destroy is paragon because "the Reapers are dead". And i never said any option was paragon, nor did i say control was paragon.

Why? Well in ME1 you have a conversation with Anderson about Saren. He says "Saren wouldn't hesitate to kill 1000 people in an instant just to end a war." and i'm assuming all you 'Paragons' out there, in response, would choose the option "Then he needs to be stopped" (or something like that).

IF you say that "You would too" then Anderson says that Saren would do it even if their were other options.

What are you doing with destroy? Killing millions to end a war. Even with other options available. So, in that sense, your no better
than Saren.

I never thought that someone who chose Control would ever have the nerves to bring morality as argument.
Again i never said that Control is morally right. It sounds as if you see it as morally wrong however. I chose Control and sacrificed my Shepard to save an entire race from being wiped out (the Geth) by choosing Destroy.

Assuming you don't bring some petty assumptions to the argument, i will say that Shepard now has Control of the entire Reaper fleet and can help rebuild and safegaurd the galaxy from harm. Wether you believe that Shepard can handle the power or not is irrelevant, I beleive he can.

Saren... Was it the guy who hated humans, didn't want Anderson to become a spectre because of his hatred, and collaborated with the Reapers ? Quoting just one sentence is enough for you to make this kind of analogy ?

No, this one line didn't bring me to my conclusion. I simply came across and found it was ironic in the case of some Destroy 'Paragons' out there (no-one on specific)

TIM... Wasn't it the guy who, amongst other funny things, experimented the indoc process on his own people?

Irrelevant, his experiments in no way reflect why i chose Control.

The others options are: Fullfilling the wet dreams of the Reapers or replacing a catalyst with an "improved" one, which changes absolutely nothing in the long-term, since you still have the Reapers AND the danger of a probable tech sing. No matter who controls them, the Reapers break the balance of the Galaxy. They're unmatched killing machines. No one can sleep well, knowing that they're out there.

Opinion. You believe one thing, i beleive the other. There is no proof to support your argument here, especially when you say it "changes absolutely nothing", i beleive otherwise. And what does Destroy do to secure long-term peace? The threat of Synthetics still goes unchallenged.

Do you think even one second, that the Galaxy will be happy to see you hanging around with your new buddies, trust you, or won't try someday to get rid of you ? Do you like to play the galactic cop?

I don't see how you can say for certain  that each and every person in the Galaxy is unhappy and now hates me and wants to kill me. If playing the "galactic cop" keeps the galaxy safe, why not?

Don't you think that every one has the right to evolve the way they should, without some god-like machines interfering in any way ?

Yes i do beleive they deserve to evolve in thier own way, the Reapers don't need to "interfere" if Shepard doesn't want them to. Funny you should bring this up, in Destroy you decimate the Geth who's goal, according to Legion, was to "build their own future". Now their dead, that doesn't sound like they "evolve the way they should", does it?

It's not a simple war, it's a programmed extermination. Your enemy is a billion years old race, who never gave a damn about organic nor synthetics and is just using you for their own selfish purposes. They have no place in the Galaxy.

They are machines, that is true, but they wanted to stop organic life from becoming extinct, that doesn't sound selfish. (However, note that i don't agree with them)

The outcomes of all the options are unknown in the long-term. In Destroy you have at least the biggest problem fewer.

They are unknown, but you have assumed that Control is bad in the long run. And it depends what you think is the biggest problem. The Reapers or the extinction by synthetics, opinon and speculation are the only things we can decide by.

Me? I chose Control. Like The Illusive Man says "Control is a means to survival."

The same guy you've told five minute before that we're not ready for this kind of power (parangon option BTW) and shot right after that. Cool story bro.

It's true, you do say that, however the diologue options are very limited and given the choice I wouldn't have said that, nor would i have killed TIM.

Answers in bold BTW;)

[Chashan]

Elite Trooper wrote...
My argument is aimed at people who beleive Destroy is paragon because "the Reapers are dead". And i never said any option was paragon, nor did i say control was paragon.

It does not matter whether you pick "paragon" or "renegade"-control as your favourite monologue of the god-construct Control creates, as both are quite interchangable. Both make for a pretty disturbing prospect of the future under the clutches of a totalitarian persona in absolute control of creatures that rely upon the most horrendous means of waging war and replenishing their numbers.

Again i never said that Control is morally right. It sounds as if you see it as morally wrong however. I chose Control and sacrificed my Shepard to save an entire race from being wiped out (the Geth) by choosing Destroy. 

Assuming you don't bring some petty assumptions to the argument, i will say that Shepard now has Control of the entire Reaper fleet and can help rebuild and safegaurd the galaxy from harm. Wether you believe that Shepard can handle the power or not is irrelevant, I beleive he can.

Head-canon is magic, eh? 

In which case discussion is somewhat futile if you simply brush aside the disturbing implications of Control's ambiente and content as we have it now.

Irrelevant, his experiments in no way reflect why i chose Control.

Except that ME3 goes to quite some length to exposit what type of people advocated Control...Prothean indoctrinated traitors, a ruthless father with an inferiority complex, a man with aspirations to make humanity the master-race no matter the cost...

Opinion. You believe one thing, i beleive the other. There is no proof to support your argument here, especially when you say it "changes absolutely nothing", i beleive otherwise. And what does Destroy do to secure long-term peace? The threat of Synthetics still goes unchallenged.

So you give a damn about the faulty ramblings of the thing? Guess what, many people do not, and I count myself among them. The "threat" we are dealing with throughout the series are the Reapers. They are the problem that needs removal, nothing more, nothing less.
And they give zero reason to think otherwise. Think the masterminding of the Rachni-invasion, think the Collector-raids, think their eon-long tour of genocide...

I don't see how you can say for certain  that each and every person in the Galaxy is unhappy and now hates me and wants to kill me. If playing the "galactic cop" keeps the galaxy safe, why not?

Safe from what? The things Shepard 3.0 determines to be "unwholesome" to the galaxy. "unworthy" to exist and thus fodder for its Reaper servants to process?

Yes i do beleive they deserve to evolve in thier own way, the Reapers don't need to "interfere" if Shepard doesn't want them to. Funny you should bring this up, in Destroy you decimate the Geth who's goal, according to Legion, was to "build their own future". Now their dead, that doesn't sound like they "evolve the way they should", does it?

In-game, the geth-unit that succeeds Legion tells you that they will not compromise with the "ancient machines". What else is Control but a compromise with the genocidal tentacle-bots?

They are machines, that is true, but they wanted to stop organic life from becoming extinct, that doesn't sound selfish. (However, note that i don't agree with them)

It sounds like someone had a horribly wrong idea to conceive these things in the first place and that they need their plugs pulled quick. But I do get that you can accept their faulty reasoning, I do not and thus not much point arguing on that, is there?

They are unknown, but you have assumed that Control is bad in the long run. And it depends what you think is the biggest problem. The Reapers or the extinction by synthetics, opinon and speculation are the only things we can decide by.

Since the thing saying "I did it for the lulz" would have been even more acceptable to me than the paradoxical crap it is trying to bull**** me with I simply cannot take that whole fundamental premise of its make seriously. Thus, simple solution to all this is to pull the Reapers' plug, period.

It's true, you do say that, however the diologue options are very limited and given the choice I wouldn't have said that, nor would i have killed TIM.

They might be very limited since maybe even the developers realized how full of it TIM was. And how Control turned out it might be a further nudge to take as a hint that Control of these erratic constructs is not a good idea at all...

Modifié par Chashan, 28 juillet 2012 - 07:56 .

[Nefla]

De1ta G wrote...

In fact. Destroy was the choice I made on my first playthrough. As far as I knew, Shepard was going to die.

Me too, and at the time he DID die because I don't play multiplayer. The other endings are creepy and give me a bad feeling and the reapers are still alive. The only ending that's ok is the one where the reapers are gone for good and the galaxy can form its' own future.

[Elite Trooper]

Chashan wrote...



It does not matter whether you pick "paragon" or "renegade"-control as your favourite monologue of the god-construct Control creates, as both are quite interchangable. Both make for a pretty disturbing prospect of the future under the clutches of a totalitarian persona in absolute control of creatures that rely upon the most horrendous means of waging war and replenishing their numbers.

Like you said below, head-canon. I can understand why people don't like the prospect of Control, but it's up to the player what happens. And i can assure you that my Shepinger does't cause galaxy wide genocide.

Head-canon is magic, eh? 

In which case discussion is somewhat futile if you simply brush aside the disturbing implications of Control's ambiente and content as we have it now.

Again, like above, head-canon and opinion. Some people don't like Control and find it, as you say, disturbing. No-one is wrong, but i choose to see it in a different way than others.




Except that ME3 goes to quite some length to exposit what type of people advocated Control...Prothean indoctrinated traitors, a ruthless father with an inferiority complex, a man with aspirations to make humanity the master-race no matter the cost...

It still doesn't mean that my aspirations for Control is the same as theirs. They do it for personal gain, i do not.

So you give a damn about the faulty ramblings of the thing? Guess what, many people do not, and I count myself among them. The "threat" we are dealing with throughout the series are the Reapers. They are the problem that needs removal, nothing more, nothing less.
And they give zero reason to think otherwise. Think the masterminding of the Rachni-invasion, think the Collector-raids, think their eon-long tour of genocide...

I'll admit, i hate Starchild and his ****** logic, but regardless, we are now presented with a second threat (albeit a very poorly implemented one that just ruins the series) that we need to consider. I've seen people say "Well the Starbrat is lying" which is ridiculous. No proof, and in any case, Bioware have meant it to be true (unfortunatly).



Safe from what? The things Shepard 3.0 determines to be "unwholesome" to the galaxy. "unworthy" to exist and thus fodder for its Reaper servants to process?

Well who knows, but there will always be danger and war in the Galaxy. For all we know other galaxies have giant fleets that plan to kill everyone. And you can't base your view of Control solely on what "could be" and what "could happen". In any case, if a fleet of slavers is going on the offensive, Shepinger's fleet will be on stand-by 

In-game, the geth-unit that succeeds Legion tells you that they will not compromise with the "ancient machines". What else is Control but a compromise with the genocidal tentacle-bots?

He was meaning that they wouldn't turn on Shepard during the war against the Reapers because the Reapers can't control them anymore like in the ME1 or on Rannoch. Completely different meaning than what you interpreted it as.


It sounds like someone had a horribly wrong idea to conceive these things in the first place and that they need their plugs pulled quick. But I do get that you can accept their faulty reasoning, I do not and thus not much point arguing on that, is there?

Agreed

Since the thing saying "I did it for the lulz" would have been even more acceptable to me than the paradoxical crap it is trying to bull**** me with I simply cannot take that whole fundamental premise of its make seriously. Thus, simple solution to all this is to pull the Reapers' plug, period.

Yeah i agree it spouts a load of ****, but i took it's "synthetic war" idea into consideration as we are forced to do so by the developers


They might be very limited since maybe even the developers realized how full of it TIM was. And how Control turned out it might be a further nudge to take as a hint that Control of these erratic constructs is not a good idea at all...

Or Bioware turned Mass Effect into a 3rd person shooter with some [b]RPG elements.

Edit effed up my post. Replies are bolded or blue;)

Modifié par Elite Trooper, 28 juillet 2012 - 09:43 .

[commanderkai]

Dead Reapers is all that matters.

[kookie28]

CHALET wrote...

 ...Just because it's the one where Shepard lives?

Yes.

[RiptideX1090]

Destroy all the way.

If for no other reason than because it kills Starbrat and shuts up Harbinger for good.

Modifié par RiptideX1090, 29 juillet 2012 - 01:51 .

[Ryuzetsu]

Destroy is honestly the safest option. The other two leaves the Reapers functional, and if the star child's programming can be altered so to can any other. Destroy eliminates the possibility of the Reapers "forgetting" for lack of a better term, their new programming.

[circe]

The only ending I will pick is anything that allows me to kill Starchild. Period. It sucks that EDI and the geth are arbitrarily tacked on to the ending but killing that little $%@^&# is worth it.

As for "Shepard surviving", the space hamster was better as an easter egg than that breath scene.

[Bill Casey]

My Shepard died the first three times I picked it...
I don't play multiplayer...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 29 juillet 2012 - 02:25 .

[Fiannawolf]

The Levi DLC....makes me wonder just how much control a Shep AI hub would really have on the Reaper Collective....

Thing is I youtubed the other endings and they are just...no...wont ever pick Saren's POV or Tim's choice. Esp since I told Tim Control isnt a option 5 mins before the kid shows up anyway. Sure green has a nice speech from EDI but....sorry not my kind of future.

Destroy is the only way Ill know the Reaper threat is truely over. Syth just makes us all reaper hybrids faster.