348 réponses à ce sujet

[FlyingSquirrel]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

Destroy because Anderson approves and what Anderson approves is paragon.

Anderson does not know that all synthetics will be wiped out when he advocates Destroy. At least, we can assume he doesn't, because Shepard doesn't either until talking to the Catalyst - so how would Anderson know?

Similarly, the "Control is TIM's choice" argument overlooks the (IMO very strong) possibility that TIM would have chosen it even if Control also resulted in the destruction of all other synthetics. Whereas, for a Paragon Shepard, saving the other synthetics would be a major reason for choosing Control.

And I doubt either of them are even aware that Synthesis is possible.

There are arguments for and against all the options, but I don't understand why we put so much emphasis on what Anderson and TIM say, when both of them are dealing with incomplete information at the time.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Destroy is paragon, control is renegade, synthesis is taking a dump in a public bathroom with no toilet paper. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:20 .

[ghost9191]

he would probably still pick destroy even if he knew, sometimes you have to make hard decisions and anderson knows that. TIM might be interested in synthesis, but to fight to protect your way of life and then turn around and turn everyone into something else , changing lives., that just kinda defeats the purpose of the fight maybe, well somewhat, the part about fighting to preserve

but do believe anderson would choose destroy still. i mean shepard knows a lot more about the geth then anyone else, shep was the only one that believed them to be allies, most would probably just see it as taking out 2 enemies at once. two birds one stone, just mean most, not all would still see the geth as enemies, as did hackett and most of the crew. But not that anderson is a bad guy, just that he knows that sometimes the hard choices need to be made, see ME1

But "if it saves the entire galaxy i can live with that just fine"   -Shepard

Modifié par ghost9191, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:24 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

I always assumed the geth were hanging out with the Reapers just because they know it's Shepard inside there and they're grateful and sympathetic towards him. And they're not shown hanging around the quarians because without their organic components they just hang out inside the quarians' suits.

[N7 Lisbeth]

ThaDPG wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

There are no paragon or renegade endings.

All 4 choices are morally reprehensible in some way, so yes, I would agree lol

I would agree that all four choices are reprehensible, but there are some clear, cut and dry definitions that do readily apply to the choices. Control (submit but no sacrifices) and Refuse are ambiguous, Synthesis is definitively Paragon (no one else dies, no submission, self-sacrifice), and Destroy is definitively Renegade (avoidable sacrifices/genocide).

That said, most people will choose Destroy regardless of its Renegade nature, even for full-blooded Paragons. Why? It's not just the fact that Shepard lives, but because the other endings leave a worse taste in our mouths.

Refuse is outright stupid (despite the speech) in its current form. Control is what TIM preached, and actively goes against everything you've been fighting for throughout three games, regardless of alignment. And Synthesis somehow expects us to believe that zombies (husks), Banshees and the other war victims/monsters helping humanity rebuild and sticking around after or otherwise integrating. Ridiculous. Nevermind the ugly green glow and latticework, or the fact that the peace we establish by sacrificing ourselves has *already taken place* when (or if, I suppose) Shepard united the Geth and the Quarians. Thus this isn't a consideration in the Paragon POV. (Until you choose a non-Synthesis ending, of course, which FORCES you to break that peace by destroying your allies. Love that logic.)

I am distinctly unsatisified with the endings as a Paragon player. If I was Renegade, I probably wouldn't care. But I'm not, thus my frustration with the End as it stands. It works directly against Paragon in every choice.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:42 .

[guacamayus]

I think the husks looking confused during the synthesis cinematic represents the reaper controlling it, if I'm wrong then the galaxy it's going to be a very creepy place after shepard walks into the beam... unity and acceptance is not always easy I guess xD

Modifié par guacamayus, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:50 .

[ghost9191]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I always assumed the geth were hanging out with the Reapers just because they know it's Shepard inside there and they're grateful and sympathetic towards him. And they're not shown hanging around the quarians because without their organic components they just hang out inside the quarians' suits.

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

My thesis is based on solid evidence and facts.

And is irrelevant in the light of the question. OP asked which option fits for a full paragon character better. You already admit that even in your theory Renegade can escape indoctrination scott-free, so it is obviously do not follow the balance between Paragon-Renegade actions.

My answer was that Destroy fits all Shepards as it is the only ending that does not result in a Reaper victory. Shepard is a winner.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in regard to "renegades escapng scott-free". Care to elabortae?

The rest of your post is someone else's post. Those aren't my quotes.

[Rommel49]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

ThaDPG wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

There are no paragon or renegade endings.

All 4 choices are morally reprehensible in some way, so yes, I would agree lol

I would agree that all four choices are reprehensible, but there are some clear, cut and dry definitions that do readily apply to the choices. Control (submit but no sacrifices) and Refuse are ambiguous, Synthesis is definitively Paragon (no one else dies, no submission, self-sacrifice), and Destroy is definitively Renegade (avoidable sacrifices/genocide).

That said, most people will choose Destroy regardless of its Renegade nature, even for full-blooded Paragons. Why? It's not just the fact that Shepard lives, but because the other endings leave a worse taste in our mouths.

Refuse is outright stupid (despite the speech) in its current form. Control is what TIM preached, and actively goes against everything you've been fighting for throughout three games, regardless of alignment. And Synthesis somehow expects us to believe that zombies (husks), Banshees and the other war victims/monsters helping humanity rebuild and sticking around after or otherwise integrating. Ridiculous. Nevermind the ugly green glow and latticework, or the fact that the peace we establish by sacrificing ourselves has *already taken place* when (or if, I suppose) Shepard united the Geth and the Quarians. Thus this isn't a consideration in the Paragon POV. (Until you choose a non-Synthesis ending, of course, which FORCES you to break that peace by destroying your allies. Love that logic.)

I am distinctly unsatisified with the endings as a Paragon player. If I was Renegade, I probably wouldn't care. But I'm not, thus my frustration with the End as it stands. It works directly against Paragon in every choice.

Actually, it's debateable (atleast to my mind) that Synthesis is paragon either; this idea of forced evolution was fought against since the beginning too, just as much as the idea of control was - and the two were sometimes linked. Saren was controlled by Sovereign through his implants. There's a certain degree of horror over the Cerberus-husk soldier found on Mars "For all I know that's what Cerberus did to you", or if the good Commander insists he's okay when talking to Joker after the fall of Thessia "the hell you are, you're like half-robot now", etc.

It's still enforcing your view over life in its entirety without its consent. I highly doubt Javik for example would've been find and dandy with the idea of synthesis. Additionally, even EDI remarks on how the Reapers are abominations that need to be destroyed (and the Reapers are effectively synthesized beings as-is).

Now one could try and say the same is true of the destroy option, that it's killing off the Geth/EDI without their consent, but it's not really valid. One basically consents to idea that they may end up dead if they willingly join a war (EDI herself explictly says as much), they do not necessarily consent to be guinea pigs.

Modifié par Rommel49, 07 septembre 2012 - 08:33 .

[Wayning_Star]

NONE of the decision can count if ALL the decisions are canon. Even if head canon. There has to be a correct choice, otherwise there are NO choices at all. How can anyone decide anything, IF they don't know squat about any choices made.

Every choice is an enigmatic guess as to it's validity, as the repercussions of each is barely alluded to. There is no concrete evidence that any choice is a correct choice. Having a metagamed choice of walk away, lends towords the macabre.

All decision leads to player dissatisfaction,as even a 'trade off' scenerio isn't copable, as Shepard is unwares as to what is to be traded for another choice. Shepard cannot choose any of them, but cannot be expected to just .. walk away.

Number 5 Alive!! NEEEED more input!!

[Dmthoth]

DESTROY!!! I WILL DESTROY YOUUUUUU!!!!

[Wayning_Star]

Dmthoth wrote...

DESTROY!!! I WILL DESTROY YOUUUUUU!!!!

[JBPBRC]

Low EMS Destroy is the best option for Paragon Shepard. He spares everyone in the ME universe from continuing on after the Crucible's Crayola wave. Its what Marauder Shields would do.

HE FOUGHT FOR US!

[Subject M]

>OP

Control.
As it is presented and turns out, it preserves the most life and technology. (almost as high potentiality as synthesis, but without forced synthesis and non of the collateral damage of destroy).
From that follows that it will be possible to go ahead with voluntary synthesis for those that are interested in such.

Modifié par Subject M, 07 septembre 2012 - 09:31 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

See I look at this a bit differently. I don't see Synthesis as a paragon choice. I see it as a renegade choice. It is forcing one's ideals on the rest without having to be around to answer for the consequences. You're dead. What if the organics aren't happy about it? Too late to do anything. The only way I can see it remotely being paragon is if your Shepard is on the naive side.

Nor do I see Control as a paragon pretty much for the same reason. She believes she'll be able to accomplish the greater good, and use the reapers to protect and defend the galaxy from its enemies, and help rebuild what was lost. But she is no longer who she was. She is dead. It is now a machine. The Shreapalyst with the directive to preserve the will of the many, and what will the solution to the problem be? And we know a problem will arise in the future. Good intentions pave the road to Hell, and once again Shepard is not around to answer for the consequences.

Destroy? It depends. I usually play a renegon. My attitude at the end is "burn you sons of b*tches" especially if the geth aren't around. But it's only the attitude. The act is paragon in that case. Shepard may be around to answer for the consequences.

[SeptimusMagistos]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Good intentions pave the road to Hell, and once again Shepard is not around to answer for the consequences.

I would just like to point out we've had three games' worth of good intentions turning out absolutely wonderfully.

[Subject M]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

See I look at this a bit differently. I don't see Synthesis as a paragon choice. I see it as a renegade choice. It is forcing one's ideals on the rest without having to be around to answer for the consequences. You're dead. What if the organics aren't happy about it? Too late to do anything. The only way I can see it remotely being paragon is if your Shepard is on the naive side.

Nor do I see Control as a paragon pretty much for the same reason. She believes she'll be able to accomplish the greater good, and use the reapers to protect and defend the galaxy from its enemies, and help rebuild what was lost. But she is no longer who she was. She is dead. It is now a machine. The Shreapalyst with the directive to preserve the will of the many, and what will the solution to the problem be? And we know a problem will arise in the future. Good intentions pave the road to Hell, and once again Shepard is not around to answer for the consequences.

Destroy? It depends. I usually play a renegon. My attitude at the end is "burn you sons of b*tches" especially if the geth aren't around. But it's only the attitude. The act is paragon in that case. Shepard may be around to answer for the consequences.

Renegade or paragon is not so much about facing consequence as it is about sacrificing others life or well-being in order to solve a problem or achieve victory.

The main problems with synthesis and control are that they constitute a leap of faith out into truly unexplored territory. Its unclear if Shepard is alive or dead in control, because we do not know how the mind works in the mass effect universe, nor do we know how the crucible works. But it is clear that the method in keeping the peace and rebuild the galactic community the control-ending differs depending on if your Shepard is paragon or renegade. Either way, the "Shepalyst" assumes a general role that the Reapers and the catalyst probably should have  adopted from the beginning: making sure there are no outbreaks of extinction wars in the galaxy.

[Subject M]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Good intentions pave the road to Hell, and once again Shepard is not around to answer for the consequences.

I would just like to point out we've had three games' worth of good intentions turning out absolutely wonderfully.

All three (four) endings to ME3 are hopefully made with "good intentions".

[N7 Lisbeth]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

See I look at this a bit differently. I don't see Synthesis as a paragon choice. I see it as a renegade choice. It is forcing one's ideals on the rest without having to be around to answer for the consequences. You're dead. What if the organics aren't happy about it? Too late to do anything. The only way I can see it remotely being paragon is if your Shepard is on the naive side.

I really don't understand how you can justify this. At all. Destroy you commit Genocide; Synthesis you don't, you sacrifice yourself and spare *everyone*. Evolution was going to happen anyway. I dislike the green glow and the creepy monsters (husks and cannibals) providing daycare solutions, but tasteless humour aside, there's no escaping Synthesis is definitively Paragon and Destroy is definitively Renegade. Arguing the fact is pointless, it simply is what it is.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 07 septembre 2012 - 09:57 .

[Subject M]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

See I look at this a bit differently. I don't see Synthesis as a paragon choice. I see it as a renegade choice. It is forcing one's ideals on the rest without having to be around to answer for the consequences. You're dead. What if the organics aren't happy about it? Too late to do anything. The only way I can see it remotely being paragon is if your Shepard is on the naive side.

I really don't understand how you can justify this. At all. Destroy you commit Genocide; Synthesis you don't, you sacrifice yourself and spare *everyone*. Evolution was going to happen anyway. I dislike the green glow and the creepy monsters providing daycare solutions, but there's no escaping Synthesis is definitively Paragon and Destroy is definitively Renegade. Arguing the fact is pointless, it simply is what it is.

Its not that simple. For people who value self-determination, Synthesis can never be "paragon" as it is forced on everyone.

[Jamie9]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...
I really don't understand how you can justify this. At all. Destroy you commit Genocide; Synthesis you don't, you sacrifice yourself and spare *everyone*. Evolution was going to happen anyway. I dislike the green glow and the creepy monsters (husks and cannibals) providing daycare solutions, but tasteless humour aside, there's no escaping Synthesis is definitively Paragon and Destroy is definitively Renegade. Arguing the fact is pointless, it simply is what it is.

QFT

[rymajn3]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

See I look at this a bit differently. I don't see Synthesis as a paragon choice. I see it as a renegade choice. It is forcing one's ideals on the rest without having to be around to answer for the consequences. You're dead. What if the organics aren't happy about it? Too late to do anything. The only way I can see it remotely being paragon is if your Shepard is on the naive side.

I really don't understand how you can justify this. At all. Destroy you commit Genocide; Synthesis you don't, you sacrifice yourself and spare *everyone*. Evolution was going to happen anyway. I dislike the green glow and the creepy monsters (husks and cannibals) providing daycare solutions, but tasteless humour aside, there's no escaping Synthesis is definitively Paragon and Destroy is definitively Renegade. Arguing the fact is pointless, it simply is what it is.

But Destroy actually makes sense.

[Jamie9]

rymajn3 wrote...But Destroy actually makes sense.

Walking into a tube doesn't make sense. Being told you'd die then surviving doesn't make sense. Your LI using the Force to know you're alive doesn't make sense.

Destroy has just as much problems as the others, do not fool yourself.

[Volc19]

You know that feel when you come into a thread about Control and Synthesis, and half the posts are still droning on about Destroy?

Because I do.

[Pitznik]

Jamie9 wrote...

rymajn3 wrote...But Destroy actually makes sense.

Walking into a tube doesn't make sense. Being told you'd die then surviving doesn't make sense. Your LI using the Force to know you're alive doesn't make sense.

Destroy has just as much problems as the others, do not fool yourself.

When you think you're going to die anyway, it is not impossible to be at peace with it. Especially that Shepard doesn't really know explosion is going to happen right now, the very moment he will shoot.

Nobody told he'll die, it was suggested - under some circumstances it is true, under some it is not.

Since the LI scene is mute, we don't know if they didn't just got the news that Shepard is alive.

Modifié par Pitznik, 07 septembre 2012 - 10:10 .