348 réponses à ce sujet

[Subject M]

Pitznik wrote...

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 explosions is going to happen right now, at once.

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.

They could have made 3 unique endings in how the crew reacts when they hold the "cermony".

1 High EMS Destroy: Shepards name is not put up, LI or best buddy looks "up and away".
2.Control: Shepards name is put up, but EDI looks like she hears or sees something and smiles.
3.Synthesis and low EMS destroy: Shepards name is put up.

[Pitznik]

Subject M wrote...

They could have made 3 unique endings in how the crew reacts when they hold the "cermony".

1 High EMS Destroy: Shepards name is not put up, LI or best buddy looks "up and away".
2.Control: Shepards name is put up, but EDI looks like she hears or sees something and smiles.
3.Synthesis and low EMS destroy: Shepards name is put up.

That would be cool.

[seitani]

EntropicAngel wrote...

seitani wrote...

I'm playing through ME 3 full paragon(savior of Krogan, savior of geth..blah..blah...) and im halfway through the game and already pondering which ending to choose. For renegade characters destroy was easy choice but now i don't which one fits for a full paragon character better. I picked synthesis in the past for Tricia Helfers excellent voice acting.

How exactly is destroy good for renegades? Renegades prefer order through control, so Control would be the best.

...

What I mean by that is, each choice can be valid for any alignment Shepard. It's all in how you RP him, motivations, beliefs, etc.

Destroy is perfect for pure renegade because you achieve you goal sacrificing almost nothing that is important to you...well maybe EDI. Pure renegade hate synthetics so he will destroy geth on Rannoch so sacrificing the already scrapmetal geth at the end...no harm, he destroys reapers like his goal has been from day one & the infamous breathing scene so Shep lives that's gotta be a +. Now list me cons for pure renegade choosing destroy ending.

Modifié par seitani, 07 septembre 2012 - 10:29 .

[Rommel49]

Subject M wrote...

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.

Exactly. For example, when I enlisted, there's the implicit (if not explicit) understanding and consent you can end up dead if the crap hits the fan. This goes double when enlisting while a war is actually ongoing. However, I did not agree to have Uncle Sam implant me with glowing green circuitry at their leisure when I signed my enlistment contract. The same holds true here.

Ironically (and tragically) enough, the Geth themselves believe in the right of self-determination - Legion says as much: "We build our own future". Destroy questionably deprives the Geth of that right without their consent, whereas Synthesis deprives everyone of that right without their consent.

[Pitznik]

Rommel49 wrote...


Exactly. For example, when I enlisted, there's the implicit (if not explicit) understanding and consent you can end up dead if the crap hits the fan. This goes double when enlisting while a war is actually ongoing. However, I did not agree to have Uncle Sam implant me with glowing green circuitry at their leisure when I signed my enlistment contract. The same holds true here.

I like that logic. Shepard has right to do what is necessary to stop the Reapers, but synthesis does MUCH more than just that, it changes the universe, probably forever. It is so much bigger thing, bigger than even such big problem as Reapers. Nobody allowed Shepard to do that.

Modifié par Pitznik, 07 septembre 2012 - 10:20 .

[Subject M]

Rommel49 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

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.

Exactly. For example, when I enlisted, there's the implicit (if not explicit) understanding and consent you can end up dead if the crap hits the fan. This goes double when enlisting while a war is actually ongoing. However, I did not agree to have Uncle Sam implant me with glowing green circuitry at their leisure when I signed my enlistment contract. The same holds true here.

Ironically (and tragically) enough, the Geth themselves believe in the right of self-determination - Legion says as much: "We build our own future". Destroy questionably deprives the Geth of that right without their consent, whereas Synthesis deprives everyone of that right without their consent.

Of course, but its more than that. Destroy deprives all synthetics of everything (by destroying them). Synthesis deprives everyone of self-determination in how they "evolve" but it has no other clear negative consequences, sorta like giving everyone super-powers without their consent.  Anyway, I go with control.

[seitani]

As for the Anderson being renegade red at the ending. He wanted to destroy Reapers but did he know that he would be committing genocide or call it whatever "Destruction of substantial numbers of synthetics" by doing so, no he was already dead, he didn't even know that Catalyst was AI. The one shooting the tube could have been "Shepard 5 minutes before ending scene" as well because your goal was exactly same as Andersons before the catalyst.

So the Anderson & IM renegade/paragon thing at the end is pointless and i'm not trying to shove down to your throat which is pure renegade/paragon ending just ask your opinion which fits best for paragon and i should have put destroy option in OP as well.

Althought as i wrote before with pure renegade you get the ending where you don't sacrifice anything important to you (to renegade EDI was just another robot designed to serve and to paragon she was living being with feelings and free will)  and you live so....maybe nice guys just have to sacrifice more.

Modifié par seitani, 07 septembre 2012 - 11:05 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Destroy.

It's the only way to be sure.

[Volc19]

In many regards, Destroy is pretty renegade. You sacrifice multiple synthetic beings (in the case of the Geth surviving Rannoch), and end up surviving in the end. Some put the value of their life over the lives of an entire species, and that or a companion. I'm not saying that everyone goes in with that reasoning, but it can be very renegade in that manner.

As for Control, I see it more as a blank slate. It is Para/Rene based on the player, because the player is the biggest factor in the ending. Para!Shep will protect the Galaxy against destruction, with Rene!Shep will raise an army and police the galaxy. Some may claim that Shepard would go insane, although the Catalyst was still completely functional as of his meeting with Shepard. Even the Leviathans said that it still serves it's purpose. The whole "genocide" bit came from it's reasoning that cyclical genocide was the best way to serve it's purpose. The Shepalyst is just an AI created after Shepard. It really doesn't have a strict purpose it has to adhere to, meaning it will act closer to how Shepard would, rather than the Catalyst.

I don't really like Synthesis, but it is the most "Paragon" in theme. Even the Reapers and Husks get to skip merrily into the equinox in the end, and Shepard completely sacrifices himself for it, rather than living on as an AI or simply living on unchanged. The science is shoddy, and if you look at it too hard you can see the origin story of the Antispirals, but it's Paragon on paper.

Modifié par Volc19, 07 septembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

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.

There is a special case for Destroy where you don't commit genocide. Destroy Ending w/o Geth. And this can happen should Legion die in ME2, and you choose the Quarians. If this happens, burn Starboy

Synthesis: I happen to value an individual's free will and freedom of choice. Synthesis takes that away. If the evolution is going to happen that way anyway, let it happen via nature. If people are going to elect to become part synthetic, let them elect to do it as individuals. I have no right to force everyone to do it.

[Rommel49]

Subject M wrote...

Of course, but its more than that. Destroy deprives all synthetics of everything (by destroying them). Synthesis deprives everyone of self-determination in how they "evolve" but it has no other clear negative consequences, sorta like giving everyone super-powers without their consent.  Anyway, I go with control.

It has no apparent consequences, but if you look at the view of forced change elsewhere (e.g. in the case of what was done to the good commander after the destruction of the first Normandy), it's clear that not everyone considers it a good thing.

The Geth gave implied consent that they might be destroyed (as did everyone else) when they joined the war. Period. That was the objective, to destroy the Reapers. Lt. Victus doesn't want to lose his men to complete his objective on Tuchanka, Lt. Kurin doesn't want to lose her troops so that the relic on Thessia can be reached, etc. and they're all convinced to do just that by the good commander, Paragon or Renegade.

As I've noted previously, even if you assume Control goes off without a hitch and works exactly as advertised, it's not a "clean" option either... far from it. If you believe synthetics are alive, that applies to the Reapers themselves (they're clearly stated to be intelligent, sapient beings). The Reapers never had the option to do anything besides what they were directed to do by the old catalyst - even the Geth can't make that claim since they willingly sided with the Reapers. If you believe the Geth shouldn't be held culpable for what they did under Reaper control, the same has to apply to the Reapers themselves. All control does is keep intelligent beings in shackles, it just gives them a new master.

seitani wrote...

As for the Anderson being renegade red at the ending. He wanted to destroy Reapers but did he know that he would be committing genocide or call it whatever "Destruction of substantial numbers of synthetics" by doing so, no he was already dead, he didn't even know that Catalyst was AI. The one shooting the tube could have been "Shepard 5 minutes before ending scene" as well because your goal was exactly same as Andersons before the catalyst.

Actually, Anderson did know full well there were risks and potential collateral damage when it comes to using the Crucible. It was aluded to due to the fact nobody was entirely certain what the Crucible did and whether it would wipe out everybody or just the Reapers (hence the hunt for the Catalyst). Nobody was even certain if, or how, it would work.

Modifié par Rommel49, 08 septembre 2012 - 12:25 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Synthesis: I happen to value an individual's free will and freedom of choice. Synthesis takes that away. If the evolution is going to happen that way anyway, let it happen via nature. If people are going to elect to become part synthetic, let them elect to do it as individuals. I have no right to force everyone to do it.

Hey! Synthesis doesn't take away free-will and freedom of choice. It violates it. 

There's a difference!!! 

[Micon2]

Subject M wrote...

>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.

I quite agree, you have voiced my thought after I chose and watched the Synthesis ending.
It was good, everyone survives 'cept you.
But it did not feel like a victory had been achieved.

Power was what TIM always wanted.
Garrus says that the Galaxy needs a benevolent dictator, ....
I;m about 2 hrs from finishing a different Shep, this one saved the quorians not witnessed their destruction,
so I hope to have collected enough allies to get me a different result.
What saddens me is that Destroy appears to be the option to keep Shep alive and that in itself give much kudos to this decision

[Rommel49]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Synthesis: I happen to value an individual's free will and freedom of choice. Synthesis takes that away. If the evolution is going to happen that way anyway, let it happen via nature. If people are going to elect to become part synthetic, let them elect to do it as individuals. I have no right to force everyone to do it.

Hey! Synthesis doesn't take away free-will and freedom of choice. It violates it. 

There's a difference!!! 

Well, it's hard to know either way actually. It could well violate free will and take it away.  I mean, I highly doubt Javik would've been cool with both keeping the Reapers around becoming part-synthetic.

It's important to remember that after the good commander himself can raise the question of whether or not he's the genuine article after being brought back by Project Lazarus, pretty much anybody brought on Legion's loyalty mission will say that rewriting the Heretics is basically the same as killing them, etc.

The simple, undeniable fact is that at their core, both the Control and Synthesis options outright concede that we need to keep the Reapers around to make the best of our future. Again I say to hell with that noise.

Modifié par Rommel49, 08 septembre 2012 - 03:56 .

[zambot]

Rommel49 wrote...

The simple, undeniable fact is that at their core, both the Control and Synthesis options outright concede that we need to keep the Reapers around to make the best of our future. Again I say to hell with that noise.

Nah.  Pick control, rebuild the relays, then fly the reapers into a black hole.  A winner is you.

[xxBabyMonkeyxx]

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

[SeptimusMagistos]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Destroy.

It's the only way to be sure.

Paragon is not about being sure.

It's about doing what's right without regard for the possible consequences.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Rommel49 wrote...
I mean, I highly doubt Javik would've been cool with both keeping the Reapers around becoming part-synthetic.

He may not, and he probably will do something drastic. Just because you see him standing quietly for a couple of seconds doesn't mean he is all happy and accepting.

[DirtyPhoenix]

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

So do I.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Pitznik wrote...

I like that logic. Shepard has right to do what is necessary to stop the Reapers, but synthesis does MUCH more than just that, it changes the universe, probably forever. It is so much bigger thing, bigger than even such big problem as Reapers. Nobody allowed Shepard to do that.

Yet it stops the war. Shepard's mandate was to stop the war by any means necessary. What if the said Shepard doesn't believe he can handle that much power (afterall he just told TIM exactly that thing minutes earlier) and yet he doesn't want to sacrifice the geth and sure as hell doesn't want the reapers to continue reaping. Synthesis becomes a justifiable choice to him then.

It all depends upon perspectives. Nobody gave Shepard permission wipe the galaxy clean of synthetics either, or elect himself as the galaxy's undying god-emperor with unlimited powers. Both of these do way more than just stopping the war. Nobody permitted him to do that. All endings have a nobody-permitted-you-to clause added to it. Which is why people hate them. Yet all the ending stop the war, as was Shepard's goal. Some people like the effect synthesis has on the galaxy (myself included) and its a major factor why they choose it.

Bottomline is that Shepard had the permission to use the crucible, and he is within his rights and judgements to do that. Now the consequences are his to bear. Anything above that becomes mired in opinions and headcanons. What is justifiable to me may be injustifiable to you and what is excusable to you may be inexcusable to me.

Modifié par pirate1802, 08 septembre 2012 - 05:24 .

[movieguyabw]

seitani wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

seitani wrote...

I'm playing through ME 3 full paragon(savior of Krogan, savior of geth..blah..blah...) and im halfway through the game and already pondering which ending to choose. For renegade characters destroy was easy choice but now i don't which one fits for a full paragon character better. I picked synthesis in the past for Tricia Helfers excellent voice acting.

How exactly is destroy good for renegades? Renegades prefer order through control, so Control would be the best.

...

What I mean by that is, each choice can be valid for any alignment Shepard. It's all in how you RP him, motivations, beliefs, etc.

Destroy is perfect for pure renegade because you achieve you goal sacrificing almost nothing that is important to you...well maybe EDI. Pure renegade hate synthetics so he will destroy geth on Rannoch so sacrificing the already scrapmetal geth at the end...no harm, he destroys reapers like his goal has been from day one & the infamous breathing scene so Shep lives that's gotta be a +. Now list me cons for pure renegade choosing destroy ending.

Well, it's different for everyone.  Pure Renegade doesn't necessarily mean you hate Synthetics - My Renegade is maxed out at just about 100% Renegade points (maybe 1 or 2 points Paragon), and she sided with the Geth.  Why?  Because she saw a race of machines with Reaper-tech upgrades to be more useful than a species who would die without the use of enviro-suits, and whose armada consisted of a large amount of Live Ships.

The whole Organics vs. Synthetics debate never was an issue with any of my Shepards - they were always treated the same as any living species.  The only difference is my Renegade Shepard has no problem slaughtering anyone - Synthetic or Organic.

Even still - I wasn't such a fan of the Destroy ending with her.  Didn't fit her character, as she was always hot-headed.  Actually, the entire game seemed very out-of-character for her, but what can you do, other than headcanon, really? 

[xxBabyMonkeyxx]

pirate1802 wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

So do I.

Hooray for you??

[calvinocious]

Refuse. Paragon Shepard would never choose the enemy's solution, especially after supporting freedom of choice and self-determination for all beings in the galaxy.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rommel49 wrote...
Well, it's hard to know either way actually. It could well violate free will and take it away.  I mean, I highly doubt Javik would've been cool with both keeping the Reapers around becoming part-synthetic.

Javik didn't seem to think anything was wrong with the quarians, who are part-synthetic. And the Zha'til having VIs run the Zha's body wasn't an issue until the Reapers corrupted them.

Besides, he'd choose Control anyway. Imperialists gonna imperialize. 

It's important to remember that after the good commander himself can raise the question of whether or not he's the genuine article after being brought back by Project Lazarus,

Not mine! 

pretty much anybody brought on Legion's loyalty mission will say that rewriting the Heretics is basically the same as killing them, etc.

I said they're not like organics, so our morality need not apply, and both Mordin and Legion agreed with me.

Renegade FTW! 

The simple, undeniable fact is that at their core, both the Control and Synthesis options outright concede that we need to keep the Reapers around to make the best of our future. Again I say to hell with that noise.

And I say I'm glad they're on our side. Valuable assets to society.

[Rommel49]

pirate1802 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

I like that logic. Shepard has right to do what is necessary to stop the Reapers, but synthesis does MUCH more than just that, it changes the universe, probably forever. It is so much bigger thing, bigger than even such big problem as Reapers. Nobody allowed Shepard to do that.

Yet it stops the war. Shepard's mandate was to stop the war by any means necessary. What if the said Shepard doesn't believe he can handle that much power (afterall he just told TIM exactly that thing minutes earlier) and yet he doesn't want to sacrifice the geth and sure as hell doesn't want the reapers to continue reaping. Synthesis becomes a justifiable choice to him then.

It all depends upon perspectives. Nobody gave Shepard permission wipe the galaxy clean of synthetics either, or elect himself as the galaxy's undying god-emperor with unlimited powers. Both of these do way more than just stopping the war. Nobody permitted him to do that. All endings have a nobody-permitted-you-to clause added to it. Which is why people hate them. Yet all the ending stop the war, as was Shepard's goal. Some people like the effect synthesis has on the galaxy (myself included) and its a major factor why they choose it.

Bottomline is that Shepard had the permission to use the crucible, and he is within his rights and judgements to do that. Now the consequences are his to bear. Anything above that becomes mired in opinions and headcanons. What is justifiable to me may be injustifiable to you and what is excusable to you may be inexcusable to me.

The Commander's orders from his C.O.'s were to destroy the Reapers actually, not just end the war. "We destroy them or they destroy us", "Dead Reapers is how we win this" - both of those quotes came from the guys higher in the chain of command, both of whom the Commander reported to. That was his mandate, not to simply end the war. Seriously, by that reasoning, intentionally ensuring an Allied loss would've been within his mandate too (hey, it would've ended the war).

It's also noteworthy that Destroy is the only option in which he can potentially be held accountable for the decision, for better or worse. He conveniently can't or doesn't have to answer to anyone for with the other two options.