314 réponses à ce sujet

[Kileyan]

Flog61 wrote...

Legendary Chop Chop wrote...

Both Synthesis and Destroy make very good sense to do.

Synthesis shows that nobody really changes even after the merge, and if you ask me, the weird green glow isn't necessarily supposed to be visible to those within the canon and is more for the player to see, which makes the emotional impact of it a lot less worth arguing about. Life prospers and "transcends morality", which is a good thing for everyone.

Destroy is the theme of the entire series, in that each game you're told to "destroy the Reapers at any cost" and based on what they did to the galaxy, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Destroy the bastard that destroyed you. Some things blow up, but "they can be repaired".

All of this debate and discussion make me pretty proud of the ending post-EC.

Transcending mortality =/= a good thing for everyone.


When this happens, we become immortal.

From slides we know we can still have children.

All people are immortal = low death rate.

We can still have children + increasing population = constantly increasing birth rate.

3000 years later, galaxy empty of resources.

All life, synthetic or organic, dies.






 
Dying is good for everyone? Really?

No, we load up in our giant space bus, head to other galaxies. We become what the Reapers tried to stop, we wipe out every organic in our path, like locusts we leave barren planets, as we keep moving onward, taking what we need.

I'd love if this is what happened, I'd like to see what a Reaper facepalm looks like.

[Bill Casey]

Flog61 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

New EDI says they can "eliminate" overpopulation...

Umm......

How?

I don't know...
Make more Reapers?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 août 2012 - 07:22 .

[Essalor]

I choose destryo because

a) It's not "space magic";
It preserves the most of the universe that I helped to shape, i.e. all the alliances, relationships etc.at a minimal cost

All other endings profoundly rewrite the universe making my previous playthroughs and decisions almost meaningless.

[JunMadine]

I choose destroy when I romance Tali, Jack or Miranda. I know its selfish but I can't stand the idea of leaving them alone. If I am with Liara or any male I choose control (personally think this is best). They seem like they would recover (maybe not so much cortez). With Ashley I take synthesis (which I personally hate as it violates Legions ME2 ideas) simply because she is my least favorite character.

[eye basher]

Oh people always with the whole geth and edi thing it's war they are assets hell the whole galaxy is an asset and all assest are expendeble. I'm gonna tell you even more even if destroy sacrificed only humanity i'd still choose it the reapers need to die now not later not in the next cycle now i don't make nice with things that try to kill me i kill them.

[AlanC9]

Essalor wrote...

I choose destryo because

a) It's not "space magic";
It preserves the most of the universe that I helped to shape, i.e. all the alliances, relationships etc.at a minimal cost

All other endings profoundly rewrite the universe making my previous playthroughs and decisions almost meaningless.

Doesn't Control have even lower costs?

[Raizo]

I'm not exactly sure what it says about ME gamers but it does give me some insight into the fact that despite all the praise the Ranoch story arc gets how very few people think the Geth have the right to live and how easily everyone can let them die, how easily most of you can kill off EDI and it also tells me how powerful a motivator it is to have Shepard take a live at the end of the 'Destroy' ending. The 'Breath' scene and how everyone ( myself included ) reacts to it tells me that a lot of us aren't ready to say good bye to Shepard and and/or the ME Universe just yet.

Actually I've just thought of something, every time I come across one of these 'which ending did you choose' or 'which ending is the best' or 'why synthesis is evil' topics I always come across someone who says that they picked 'Destroy' because that's what Shepard's job was, to destroy The Reapers. To me his mission has always been to STOP the Reapers ( using any means neccesary ), destroying them was just a means to an end, not the be all and end all of everything. The fact that so many of you think this franchise was all about killing Reapers does make me think.

[AlanC9]

And posts like this always make me wonder something:

eye basher wrote...

Oh people always with the whole geth and edi thing it's war they are assets hell the whole galaxy is an asset and all assest are expendeble. I'm gonna tell you even more even if destroy sacrificed only humanity i'd still choose it the reapers need to die now not later not in the next cycle now i don't make nice with things that try to kill me i kill them.

Since that's how you figure things should work, how do you handle Rannoch? For consistency, shouldn't you help one side exterminate the other rather than try to make peace? I'm guessing it'd be the quarians there.

@ Raizo: we're thinking along similar lines. Note that to the extent players think "Destroy was my original mission so I'm going to do that no matter what else happens, what I find out, or who gets killed," Bio's original design intent is unworkable.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 août 2012 - 07:34 .

[Billyg3453]

I'd just like to point out that this is perhaps the single dumbest, while still being self-indulging, post I have read on this forum.

I got about halfway through a rant breaking down the post statement by statement, then realized it really would be better posting this.

Modifié par Billyg3453, 12 août 2012 - 07:33 .

[eye basher]

AlanC9 wrote...

And posts like this always make me wonder something:

eye basher wrote...

Oh people always with the whole geth and edi thing it's war they are assets hell the whole galaxy is an asset and all assest are expendeble. I'm gonna tell you even more even if destroy sacrificed only humanity i'd still choose it the reapers need to die now not later not in the next cycle now i don't make nice with things that try to kill me i kill them.

Since that's how you figure things should work, how do you handle Rannoch? For consistency, shouldn't you help one side exterminate the other rather than try to make peace? I'm guessing it'd be the quarians there.

that would be a waste i need all the assest i can get against the reapers besides they don't need to know there gonna fry later that's need to know and they don't need to know.

[Essalor]

AlanC9 wrote...

Essalor wrote...

I choose destryo because

a) It's not "space magic";
It preserves the most of the universe that I helped to shape, i.e. all the alliances, relationships etc.at a minimal cost

All other endings profoundly rewrite the universe making my previous playthroughs and decisions almost meaningless.

Doesn't Control have even lower costs?

The mere presence of reapers reduces such plot points as Genophage or Geth/Quarian conflict or anything else to dust, because Shepard acts like a super-policeman. 

Example: If you choose to cure genophage it's not all sunshine and lollipops. Even Wrex says the first thing they want to do after the cure is done is to colonise a few planets. That was quick... Will it lead to a new rebellion? It's not an easy question, yet if you choose synthesis it's irrelevant since everyone lives in peace and in control the reapers will basically wipe out any rebellion at a whim. That makes my decisions carry little weight. 

That's also the reason why I would like geth not to die. 

[clennon8]

Raizo wrote...

I'm not exactly sure what it says about ME gamers but it does give me some insight into the fact that despite all the praise the Ranoch story arc gets how very few people think the Geth have the right to live and how easily everyone can let them die, how easily most of you can kill off EDI and it also tells me how powerful a motivator it is to have Shepard take a live at the end of the 'Destroy' ending. The 'Breath' scene and how everyone ( myself included ) reacts to it tells me that a lot of us aren't ready to say good bye to Shepard and and/or the ME Universe just yet.

Actually I've just thought of something, every time I come across one of these 'which ending did you choose' or 'which ending is the best' or 'why synthesis is evil' topics I always come across someone who says that they picked 'Destroy' because that's what Shepard's job was, to destroy The Reapers. To me his mission has always been to STOP the Reapers ( using any means neccesary ), destroying them was just a means to an end, not the be all and end all of everything. The fact that so many of you think this franchise was all about killing Reapers does make me think.

It was about killing the Reapers.  You headcanoned a different Shepard than the one portrayed in the game.

[Bill Casey]

AlanC9 wrote...

Doesn't Control have even lower costs?

You create an omnipotent dictator in your own image and leave the rest of the galaxy to deal with it...
So no, I don't consider that lower costs...

I consider that Orwellian...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 août 2012 - 07:41 .

[Leonia]

The stereotyping and over-generalising of the entire gaming community in the OP is enough to make me vomit. There's plenty of threads that argue Destroy is just as emotionally deep as any other choice. That's why we keep talking about the endings. There's much to debate, it's not as simple as "herpderp push this button to kill everything and win!"

[The Heretic of Time]

Speak for yourself OP.

[legion999]

Is the OP a peeved off Bioware employee or something?

Anyway have you seen the amount of people who say it's bull**** that the Geth and EDI die? That they want to reunite their Shepard with his/her friends and loved ones?

That doesn't exactly show all gamers as being destructive.

[Xellith]

LOL @ OP.

[Hydralysk]

Raizo wrote...
Actually I've just thought of something, every time I come across one of these 'which ending did you choose' or 'which ending is the best' or 'why synthesis is evil' topics I always come across someone who says that they picked 'Destroy' because that's what Shepard's job was, to destroy The Reapers. To me his mission has always been to STOP the Reapers ( using any means neccesary ), destroying them was just a means to an end, not the be all and end all of everything. The fact that so many of you think this franchise was all about killing Reapers does make me think.

I agree that stop the Reapers, who are incredibly powerful genocidal machines, was the main goal of the ME3 trilogy so let's look at the options you are given:

Control: The Reapers aren't stopped. Instead Shepard dies and his memories somehow turn into a new AI that takes control of them all. An AI that, and I cannot stress this enough, is not Shepard and whose actions can therefore not be predicted based on my Shepard's actions. Also remeber that we've spent the entire game telling TIM that Control is a terrible idea and that we aren't ready to control such power.

Synthesis: I'm told that the Reapers will stop killing everyone, but to do that I need to violate the free will of every living thing in the galaxy, and in the process validate to an extent the main Reaper ideal (i.e. organics and synthetics cannot co-exist). 

Destroy: I am sure that the Reapers will no longer be a threat, but it requires the sacrifice of an entire race and a beloved crew member. It's sad but EDI has already said to my face that she would die for the Normandy's crew, and it's the safest and most logical way to be sure the Reapers won't return to attack again.

Yes I am annoyed that in the option which best exemplifies my belief that organics and synthetics can get along without being mutated into equality first also results in the death of every current synthetic being, but that's the way the writers made it. I didn't kill the Reapers because I needed to kill them, it's because when I weighed the risk/cost of every scenario Destroy made the most sense. I won't appologize for not minding that the Reapers are dead after all that they did, but I didn't choose destroy solely out of vengeance.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 12 août 2012 - 08:20 .

[Mavqt]

dreamgazer wrote...

Eh, just because they pick destroy doesn't mean they don't ponder, consider, and do a bit of soul-searching over the other options on scientific and philosophical levels. Assuming they don't is woefully inaccurate.

So much this.

clennon8 wrote...

EDI is my favorite character in ME3.
And I make peace between the geth and quarians whenever I can. I don't
hate any of the characters in the game, really. They're all cool in
their own ways.

I still choose Destroy. I will not be emotionally manipulated into making the wrong choice.

And this, minus the EDI part. she's alright, but not my favourite.

[Ieldra]

Jonata wrote...
Now, what does that say about gamers as a whole? My answer to this question is simple: nothing that we didnt' already know. Gamers have a straight-forward mind, are often incline to violence, and take everything at face value. Oh, sure, they'll love the s*** out of a man in a red coat behaving like a 13 years old while fighting Space Demons, but please don't try to send them a message that isn't "kill the evil basterds".

Gamers knows only one thing: hate. To make a succesful game you just have to give them someone to hate and someone they can relate with, i.e. someone who's the best dude in the Universe because that's how they want to feel when they play a videogame.

I used to love videogames, and I really think that in their own way, games like Mass Effect 3, Heavy Rain and even Skyrim (from a gameplay perspective) are trying to elevate their genre. But guess what? Gamers are not ready. They don't want to understand the psychological deep of a character, they' don't want to question themselves about morality or what does it takes to be alive. They want to f*** bad people up because that's justified violence, glorified hate.

Gamers never creates. They Destroy.

I'd say this is a undeserving generalization, given the depth of discussion we've had here at times. Look into the character forum to see some really good discussion going on.

But admittedly the people contributing to those appear to be a minority. Discussing the endings of ME3 has indeed been educational, and not in a good way, that I can tell you. Last time I felt as good not belonging to a majority was at school, and that was a few decades ago. Should I suddenly turn into a cynic within the next few months, I'm sure interaction here on BSN will be part of the reason.

Let me just say for the record: I hate this narrow mindset where everything must turn into "kill the bad guys", and I appreciate that ME3 could end in a different way. Those people who say "Destroy should be the only option" or "We don't need to know, we don't need to understand, we just want to kill the Reapers", whose narrow-minded revenge fantasies smother all desire to know, theirs is a mindset I find despicable.

And with that I'm out of here. I don't think this will end well.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 août 2012 - 07:57 .

[AlanC9]

eye basher wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

And posts like this always make me wonder something:

eye basher wrote...

Oh people always with the whole geth and edi thing it's war they are assets hell the whole galaxy is an asset and all assest are expendeble. I'm gonna tell you even more even if destroy sacrificed only humanity i'd still choose it the reapers need to die now not later not in the next cycle now i don't make nice with things that try to kill me i kill them.

Since that's how you figure things should work, how do you handle Rannoch? For consistency, shouldn't you help one side exterminate the other rather than try to make peace? I'm guessing it'd be the quarians there.

that would be a waste i need all the assest i can get against the reapers besides they don't need to know there gonna fry later that's need to know and they don't need to know.

OK. The logic is consistent.

[Boneyaards]

Please tell me you aren't serious...

Choosing the Destroy ending was very uncomfortable, and the consequences were laid out in front of you before you made the decision. Considering the number of deaths and damage your actions would cause, the morality of the destroy ending was very unstable and caused more moral strife within players than any of the other endings. The other two endings kind of give you your eutopia world at the cost of yourself. When picking Destroy, you are sticking to your guns and in doing so, have to sacrifice the lives of some in order to save the lives of many.

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Doesn't Control have even lower costs?

You create an omnipotent dictator in your own image and leave the rest of the galaxy to deal with it...
So no, I don't consider that lower costs...

I consider that Orwellian...

Depends on what kind of person you are, though. 

But yeah, it's a leap of faith -- in yourself. Kinda similar to DA:O's DR, since it might be a disaster, but might not.

[DPSSOC]

dreamgazer wrote...
Eh, just because they pick destroy doesn't mean they don't ponder, consider, and do a bit of soul-searching over the other options on scientific and philosophical levels. Assuming they don't is woefully inaccurate.

This, I spent a good 10 minutes mulling the final choice over, most people I know who played the game took longer.

JunMadine wrote...
I choose destroy when I romance Tali, Jack or Miranda. I know its selfish but I can't stand the idea of leaving them alone. If I am with Liara or any male I choose control (personally think this is best). They seem like they would recover (maybe not so much cortez). With Ashley I take synthesis (which I personally hate as it violates Legions ME2 ideas) simply because she is my least favorite character.

So you make her an immortal cyborg? Hmmm maybe Zeist was on to something.

Raizo wrote...
Actually I've just thought of something, every time I come across one of these 'which ending did you choose' or 'which ending is the best' or 'why synthesis is evil' topics I always come across someone who says that they picked 'Destroy' because that's what Shepard's job was, to destroy The Reapers. To me his mission has always been to STOP the Reapers ( using any means neccesary ), destroying them was just a means to an end, not the be all and end all of everything. The fact that so many of you think this franchise was all about killing Reapers does make me think.

Well destroying them is the most definitive stop. All that has to go wrong in Control is for VI-U to decide the Catalyst was right all along and the cycle starts over again. Synthesis is a bit harder to say how it could go wrong but the fact remains the Reapers are still around and they could start the cycle all over again. Throughout all the games we've been trying to stop the Reapers with minimal success. We've stalled them but they still got here in the end. Wiping them out is the only option that guarantees that the Reapers will never harm anyone again, because they're all gone.

[Pitznik]

As horrible destroy is, I can imagine it, I know what the consequences will be and I can properly predict if the price is worth paying. Control is close enough, but the risk is too heavy, what if it won't work? There can be no other chance, I really can't afford to screw up.

I could consider synthesis if I could read a book about it first, if I could see what will happen, and if Mordin Solus and at least 3 other scientists, preferably some of them synthetics, could confirm for me it is possible and real. But there, in Catalyst's control room, my Shepard still doesn't believe in fairies.

Eterna, it is cool if your Shepard is naive idealist, that's no reason to be ashamed of that. But my Shepard is realist and a very responsible guy, he took this job and will do what he can to get it done. Maybe he would risk if it was him and him alone, but the whole galaxy is relying on him.