324 réponses à ce sujet

[Gravbh]

Not going to get into any big debate or more details but I will say this. I've teared up over a game 3 times.

1) Metal Gear Solid 3 ending when Eva reveals the Boss' true motives and the extent of her sacrifice.
2) Alistair's eulogy at the warden's funeral in DA:O with the sacrifice ending.
3) Joker's reaction to Garrus saying they had to leave Shepard behind in the EC.

2 of them are Bioware games. Just sayin'

[RainbowDazed]

Yesterday it dawned to me that maybe the big theme at the end was not about "organics vs. synthetics" but rather about "organics and synthetics" vs. the "twisted synthesis of organics and synthetics (=reapers)." Meaning that the three choices at the end were about what to do with the reapers and technology built by the reapers that the species of the galaxy have come to depend and thrive upon on.

The advanced state of synthetic life forms is for a big part thanks to reapers and their technology as is the current galactic civilization and it's state. Without that technology most species would still be unaware of each others existence and living either on their own planets of on a few nearby solar systems.

From this perspective the big question at the end is "what to do with the reaper technology." Will we destroy it, try to control it or form a synthesis with it and the current species using the knowledge the catalyst has acquired during the millions of years of it's existence. I'm still processing this idea, but so far I like it and with it the ending does make a lot more sense for me personally.

I'm not ready to say I like the endings, but I'm ready to consider the slight possibility that they might've taken this long for me to understand.

[Dragoonlordz]

I like the pre-EC and post-EC endings.

[CmdrShep80]

I think it was because of all the Geth interactions that I ended up choosing synthesis. After activating/saving Legion I learned a bit about Quarian culture the Quarians werent willing to share. After saving the heretics, which I learned was a bad idea later but I made a choice and couldn't undo it, after saving the Geth on Rannoch which seemed to be a good thing, even though the Geth Primeunits were a little creepy. In the end I had a choice to save Edi and the Geth or a choice to doom an entire (or many civilizations) of synthetics.

Guess the whole Start Trek thing rubs off on me too much i.e. that Data is a sentient belting and the whole "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." In the end I was satisfied

[Seival]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I like the pre-EC and post-EC endings.

+1

[CmdrShep80]

Just to add - Mordin did the same thing. In his ending he died but he died to save the Krogan. I tried to do whatever I could to save him but it was because I saved Wrex and all the things we did that basically prevented me from ordering Mordin to fake the cure

[CmdrShep80]

You know, the whole of mass effect 3 was designed that way or at least I think, to where you have to make a realistic choice based on what you knew at the time and live with the consequences even if it meant dying.

Several little plot points have a yes or no choice but no one argues them (which is good). For example the paranoid but PTSD Asari in Huerta memorial. I gave her the gun thinking ok she's paranoid but I doubt she'd be stupid. I bet there's a basis to her paranoia. Instead she kills herself. I couldn't undo that choice. I figured if I didn't give her the gun she would have let some children die or something because she couldn't defend herself against the reapers on the citadel

Another was the letting all the evacuees on the citadel. Yes it did some things to the war assets negatively but now after finishing the game I have to wonder did I kill them all by gathering them onto the citadel even though the citadel was destroyed

Another was when I allowed the engineering team to be diverted changing a lot of resources thinking I was helping to save a girl from facing her brother in combat. Guess it looked like her comment was not the same as the engineering team division because she was still on the citadel afterwards.

The introduction really exemplifies that when you start out unable to save the kid, find out he safely boarded the transport, and in the end you still couldn't save him, haunting you till the end with the catalyst who somehow used the traumatic memory to define itself.

I thought that the ending really started in the beginning when the game said right when the transport gets destroyed "you'll get to the end but be prepared to lose something. You can't save everyone in war and that includes you. Do whatever you will to survive but death will find you sooner or later."

I do have to give BioWare credit that they were willing to risk the death of a main character to exemplify the realism. If they didn't then that changes the end to mean everyone who is a Shepard goes to war will survive.

This kind of reminds me of World in Conflict where Soviet forces overwhelm the US at Cascade Falls and a plan is made to launch a nuclear strike at the town, ensuring victory but needing volunteers to pin the enemy down. The main character, Bannon accepts. The tactical nuclear missile is fired at the town; annihilating Bannon, his company and the Soviet forces. Even though the game goes on both before and after, the end was the loss of the main character in the middle of the game

[Twinzam.V]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

This kind of reminds me of World in Conflict where Soviet forces overwhelm the US at Cascade Falls and a plan is made to launch a nuclear strike at the town, ensuring victory but needing volunteers to pin the enemy down. The main character, Bannon accepts. The tactical nuclear missile is fired at the town; annihilating Bannon, his company and the Soviet forces. Even though the game goes on both before and after, the end was the loss of the main character in the middle of the game

But World in Conflict was more realistic it wasnt the Russians who made the demand for a sacrifice nor Bannon was forced to be that sacrifice. A volunteer was needed and Bannon decided to step forward. He could have said nothing and someone could take that place.
Same thing works with Mordin, it's his choice to sacrifice himself since you can convince him to give up. He isnt forced to go up the tower.
The ending always fell unatural to me because the sacrifice isnt my choice, but is presented by the supposed enemy.
An enemy that gives you the gun to kill him brings a lot of doubts, specially if he says that everything is going to be alright afterwards. 
My problem isnt the sacrifice of the main character (in war there's always sacrifice).
If i was on the same position has the Catalyst i would do that to trick my oponent.
A real life example (i dont remenber who said it) an air force official said that pilots must sacrifice themselves by crashing their planes if needed to. Later several pilots anwsered by saying that the same oficial must give the example by being the first one to sacrifice himself.
Sacrifice musnt be an option but a choice.

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 02 octobre 2012 - 10:12 .

[Lunch Box1912]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

This is taken from yahoo answers but...

Spacecraft, as well as airplanes, are effectively Faraday cages. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Faraday_cag… So, the equipment and personnel inside are protected since the electricity is conducted on the outer surface of the metal. Only the parts outside the metal "shell" (such as the tiles underneath the space shuttles) and equipment that might be directly exposed to the exterior will be vulnerable.

I think folks don’t realize that aircraft and buildings on the ground are not grounded the same. Every system in a building on the ground is bonded at every possible location and your structure is grounded to the earth to assure a safe path for over current to travel.  As an aircraft is not “literally grounded” in the air there is no path to earth thus little risk of electricity striking you. Whatever static charge etc is created from the drag of the aircraft is typically discharged before you un-board.

I think what I’m trying to say is yeah the electrical beam that damages the Normandy is highly unlikely to do damage if they were flying in earths atmosphere…. However space is a different story.  I’m not sure what the laws of physics are there?

And we can’t forget it is science fiction.

[iTallaNT]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Just to add - Mordin did the same thing. In his ending he died but he died to save the Krogan. I tried to do whatever I could to save him but it was because I saved Wrex and all the things we did that basically prevented me from ordering Mordin to fake the cure

Ugh that was one of the sadest moments in the game, because once again I traded the life of one friend for the life of another. I loved Wrex, and couldn't bring myself to kill him, but in the end Moridin had to die. The only thing that made it ok was the fact that Mordin got his chance at redemption, and through his sacrifice the krogan race was saved.

And while I was still heartbroken over Moridin's death the game took Thane from me too... and that sene at his hospital bed put me in tears. T^T At the very least I got to stab Ki Lang in the gut like he deserved.

[Obadiah]

Ah, science fiction. The synthesis blast reminds me of the genesis wave from Star Trek 2 - except of course that wave destroyed everything first.

[Dendio1]

Pre EC no..

Post EC, thank you

[Comsky159]

dreman9999 wrote...

 I also like the endings ,too.

Also..


Take this character and level him up to get the flame Sheild power....You'll need it.

I would kill for this armor. KILL I SAY!!!!!

I always loved the cerberus armor shape as well, but hated that it still bore the insignia.

Modifié par Comsky159, 02 octobre 2012 - 10:16 .

[CmdrShep80]

iTallaNT wrote...

And while I was still heartbroken over Moridin's death the game took Thane from me too... and that sene at his hospital bed put me in tears. T^T At the very least I got to stab Ki Lang in the gut like he deserved.

at least we knew Thane was going to die due to the disease. We just didn't know when...you're right though that whole Thane wants you to read it for you not him was so heart wrenching. 

[CronoDragoon]

Netsfn1427 wrote...
I don't think they'd sabatoge the relays now. While interesting from a storyline and theme perspective, society is normally practical. And practicality dictates that if you have an efficient means to do something with no viable alternative and no serious drawbacks, do it. With the destruction of the Reapers in destroy, the only reasons not to use the relays are thematic, rather than practical.

While I agree that there are thematic reasons to destroy the relays, there are equally valid thematic reasons to repair them. Choosing to repair and use the relays is still self-determination. The "trap" of the relays doesn't exist now that the Reapers are gone. Saying "develop how you want EXCEPT using the relays" isn't really self-determination, in my opinion.

[CronoDragoon]

Davik Kang wrote...

I think the Crucible still has a lot to do with the narrative.  It's basically a giant space gun that kills the Reapers.  It wasn't introduced at the last minute.  The consequences were, but that was always a danger when preparing to use a superweapon when no-one knows what it actually does.  But I don't agree that it was just there to balance the choices.

I'm sorry, you got the wrong idea because of how I phrased that. I love the Crucible - specifically the idea of the Crucible as the culmination of countless cycles' worth of work - what I find to be thrown in carelessly was specifically Destroy targeting all synthetics. I think the Crucible itself is a fine part of the game.

About your morality of Con/Syn options, all I'll say is that there is conflict in every choice, and contradiction, and that's why the choice is hard.  There is no clearly right answer imo: if there was, it wouldn't be an interesting decision.  Committing genocide is something that everyone will be disgusted by, and so the choice remains: what are you prepared to do?  For me Con / Syn / Ref are worse, but many will disagree.

As for your last question, I don't think the meaning comes from a fable.  It's not a message Bioware is giving us about love or friendship - maybe one about hope, or survival - but I think it's more a test of character, convictions and beliefs, in the face of war, death and extinction.In other words, I don't think they're trying to preach to us, they're just asking us to choose.  Which I think works in an interactive videogame, where in a film or whatever it wouldn't really work.

Hm, I don't know about that, mainly because I feel that Control and Synthesis do have deeper meanings that are consistent and run through both their philosophy and their consequences.

For example, in Control the consequence is Shepard becoming some sort of timeless synthetic god that watches over the galaxy, but you could easily argue that this is what he has been the entire series anyway. He's been a larger-than-life figure that people look to for guidance, to solve conflicts, to make and preserve peace. By the end of the game, the galaxy is putting their fate in the exclusive hands of Shepard, and it seems fitting that this situation becomes prolonged indefinitely. 

In Synthesis, Shepard's essence is dissolved and fed to the universe, and the message seems to be that in Shepard there existed the solution to the organic/synthetic problem, the ultimate problem on the list of seemingly unsolvable dilemmas, going back to the genophage and Rannoch. It is interesting to me that the game suggests that it is only because of his experiences that Shepard is in this position, since it is only because of his death and rebirth with the help of synthetic implants that he can be this blueprint for a new life. It is thus Shepard's experiences that provide the possibility, and the player's morality that provide the conviction to choose Synthesis. The answer to the problem is something inherent in the Mass Effect journey itself.

I have trouble assembling a similar narrative for Destroy that allows me to make sense of the journey. I don't need to be preached to, but I do need that third level, that stuff of which you can write essays; something which I feel Destroy lacks because of the inherent contradiction in the motivation behind choosing it and what actually happens.

Obviously, I am not saying you need to agree with the above interpretations of Control and Synthesis. I only want to show that these interpretations exist in a way I believe they do not in Destroy. But please, if someone would like to make sense of Destroy for me, I want to be at peace with it.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 03 octobre 2012 - 12:30 .

[CmdrShep80]

CronoDragoon wrote...

For example, in Control the consequence is Shepard becoming some sort of timeless synthetic god that watches over the galaxy, but you could easily argue that this is what he has been the entire series anyway. He's been a larger-than-life figure that people look to for guidance, to solve conflicts, to make and preserve peace. By the end of the game, the galaxy is putting their fate in the exclusive hands of Shepard, and it seems fitting that this situation becomes prolonged indefinitely. 

Makes sense.  I like the description for it that Shepard becomes "The Shepard."  Fits with his name too, being a shepard for all of galactic civilization.

CronoDragoon wrote...

In Synthesis, Shepard's essence is dissolved and fed to the universe, and the message seems to be that in Shepard there existed the solution to the organic/synthetic problem, the ultimate problem on the list of seemingly unsolvable dilemmas, going back to the genophage and Rannoch. It is interesting to me that the game suggests that it is only because of his experiences that Shepard is in this position, since it is only because of his death and rebirth with the help of synthetic implants that he can be this blueprint for a new life. It is thus Shepard's experiences that provide the possibility, and the player's morality that provide the conviction to choose Synthesis. The answer to the problem is something inherent in the Mass Effect journey itself.

Probably another reason I chose this path.  Though you know, it could be because the same soul that Shepard was in the first game was still there in the second and third game.  Particularly if you played through all three games.  You may have made choices based on your original game.  Like in ME2 I spent the game proving to people I was still the same person I was from the first game, even if that could be described as a "deluded synthetic" who only thinkis he/she is human.

CronoDragoon wrote...

I have trouble assembling a similar narrative for Destroy that allows me to make sense of the journey. I don't need to be preached to, but I do need that third level, that stuff of which you can write essays; something which I feel Destroy lacks because of the inherent contradiction in the motivation behind choosing it and what actually happens.

Obviously, I am not saying you need to agree with the above interpretations of Control and Synthesis. I only want to show that these interpretations exist in a way I believe they do not in Destroy. But please, if someone would like to make sense of Destroy for me, I want to be at peace with it.

Not a one size fits all, but how about for those folks who love the Renegade path and are willing to destroy the Reapers, destroy the Citidel, destroy the relays, destroy the Geth, destroy Edi, destroy anything that may have the Reaper code (and probably got Anderson shot and killed TIM themselves to boot) all for one selfish reason, to survive.  I'm not much of a renagade player but people can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Renegade options there because you want to make choices that benefit you and your survival, not the galaxy's.  i.e. Renagades would be fine if the Galaxy blew up as long as they survived it in the end.  The same with the destroy ending, so far the only one where Shepard has a chance of breathing at the end.

[CronoDragoon]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Makes sense.  I like the description for it that Shepard becomes "The Shepard."  Fits with his name too, being a shepard for all of galactic civilization.

Another thought on Control: I find it fitting that Shepard and the Reapers become one, having been two sides of the same coin throughout the series. I know it's by now a cliche when comparing a hero to a villain, but the hero is often defined by the villains' actions. Shepard would never have been Shepard without the Reapers. Now he'll never be remembered separately from them. (true for all endings, but a bit more true in this one since it includes his post-war legacy, whatever that may be)

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Not a one size fits all, but how about for those folks who love the Renegade path and are willing to destroy the Reapers, destroy the Citidel, destroy the relays, destroy the Geth, destroy Edi, destroy anything that may have the Reaper code (and probably got Anderson shot and killed TIM themselves to boot) all for one selfish reason, to survive.  I'm not much of a renagade player but people can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Renegade options there because you want to make choices that benefit you and your survival, not the galaxy's.  i.e. Renagades would be fine if the Galaxy blew up as long as they survived it in the end.  The same with the destroy ending, so far the only one where Shepard has a chance of breathing at the end.

I suppose, but then it just comes back to Paragons having trouble with Destroy, whereas my Control and Synthesis interpretations work for both Paragon and Renegades, I feel.

I suppose I have to think about whether or not the "Survival at all costs" theme could possibly be reframed into a topic that works for every type of morality.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 03 octobre 2012 - 01:31 .

[iTallaNT]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Makes sense.  I like the description for it that Shepard becomes "The Shepard."  Fits with his name too, being a shepard for all of galactic civilization.

Another thought on Control: I find it fitting that Shepard and the Reapers become one, having been two sides of the same coin throughout the series. I know it's by now a cliche when comparing a hero to a villain, but the hero is often defined by the villains' actions. Shepard would never have been Shepard without the Reapers. Now he'll never be remembered separately from them. (true for all endings, but a bit more true in this one since it includes his post-war legacy, whatever that may be)

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Not a one size fits all, but how about for those folks who love the Renegade path and are willing to destroy the Reapers, destroy the Citidel, destroy the relays, destroy the Geth, destroy Edi, destroy anything that may have the Reaper code (and probably got Anderson shot and killed TIM themselves to boot) all for one selfish reason, to survive.  I'm not much of a renagade player but people can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Renegade options there because you want to make choices that benefit you and your survival, not the galaxy's.  i.e. Renagades would be fine if the Galaxy blew up as long as they survived it in the end.  The same with the destroy ending, so far the only one where Shepard has a chance of breathing at the end.

I suppose, but then it just comes back to Paragons having trouble with Destroy, whereas my Control and Synthesis interpretations work for both Paragon and Renegades, I feel.

I suppose I have to think about whether or not the "Survival at all costs" theme could possibly be reframed into a topic that works for every type of morality.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well to be honest I've already listed all of my greivances with all of the endings in a previous post (on page 5 or so I think) however I played through all of the endings pre-ec and post-ec. The first time I chose the sythesis option because it seemed the most appealing. Nobody died and suddenly everybody is one and the same, conflict averted, EDI and Joker can now bang boots, and eveybody is happy. But then when I started thinking about what the synthesis option actually entailed... I grew more disgusted and suspicious of it because it had by far the most flaws of the 3. To quote my earlier post:

It sounds like the perfect utopia but it
involves destroying everyones right to choose whether or not they want
synthetics in there lives, it just forces it on them. Also the little
god-child (who I hate... with a passion) says that this solution is the
only way to end conflict between sythetics and organics. Which is
clearly NOT true because of the fact that shep was able to achieve peace
and understanding with the geth. Peace is possible, so long as
relationships with synthetics are not based around slavery and fear.
Also I'm pretty sure the reapers have a perfect understanding of
organics, giving them a little more insight will not really change
anything at all, and unlike the control ending there is no failsafe to
keep that from happening.

Also what kind of blast could literally alter the genetic makeup of every organic species in the galaxy as well as transplant the essence of a human soul into a synthetic's programming at the same time!? And do so by throwing a human body into a power core? It makes no sense unless it's magic (and last time I checked this is not Harry Potter), and when you think about it, it sounds like some sort of cruel trap set up by that creepy ass god-child. "Yes Shepard, if you throw yourself into my power core you will be insinerated however your essence will be spread across the galaxy and peace will rain eternal!" *brainwashes with senes of a happy ending* "Now JUMP!" *insert shep jumping here* "MWAHAHAHAHA! That retard actually did it! Now there is no one to stand in my way! LET THE HARVEST CONTINUE!"  <- facepalm

Modifié par iTallaNT, 03 octobre 2012 - 02:04 .

[CronoDragoon]

iTallaNT wrote...

Well to be honest I've already listed all of my greivances with all of the endings in a previous post (on page 5 or so I think) however I played through all of the endings pre-ec and post-ec. The first time I chose the sythesis option because it seemed the most appealing. Nobody died and suddenly everybody is one and the same, conflict averted, EDI and Joker can now bang boots, and eveybody is happy. But then when I started thinking about what the synthesis option actually entailed... I grew more disgusted and suspicious of it because it had by far the most flaws of the 3. To quote my earlier post:

It sounds like the perfect utopia but it
involves destroying everyones right to choose whether or not they want
synthetics in there lives, it just forces it on them. Also the little
god-child (who I hate... with a passion) says that this solution is the
only way to end conflict between sythetics and organics. Which is
clearly NOT true because of the fact that shep was able to achieve peace
and understanding with the geth. Peace is possible, so long as
relationships with synthetics are not based around slavery and fear.
Also I'm pretty sure the reapers have a perfect understanding of
organics, giving them a little more insight will not really change
anything at all, and unlike the control ending there is no failsafe to
keep that from happening.

Obviously there are reasons not to pick every ending, and the failure of Synthesis to allow people to choose it on an individual basis is why I did not choose it. It reminded me of what the bad guys wanted to do in X-Men.

On the other hand, this does not conflict with the philosophy behind Synthesis as I summarized it above.

Also what kind of blast could literally alter the genetic makeup of every organic species in the galaxy as well as transplant the essence of a human soul into a synthetic's programming at the same time!? And do so by throwing a human body into a power core? It makes no sense unless it's magic (and last time I checked this is not Harry Potter), and when you think about it, it sounds like some sort of cruel trap set up by that creepy ass god-child. "Yes Shepard, if you throw yourself into my power core you will be insinerated however your essence will be spread across the galaxy and peace will rain eternal!" *brainwashes with senes of a happy ending* "Now JUMP!" *insert shep jumping here* "MWAHAHAHAHA! That retard actually did it! Now there is no one to stand in my way! LET THE HARVEST CONTINUE!"  <- facepalm

I really don't understand why people care this much about the Synthesis beam's practicality. If it's too out there for you don't pick it. But the difference between "sci-fi" in Mass Effect and "magic" in Harry Potter is only the language they use to explain things, not the fantastical or impossible events that actually take place. In some ways, Harry Potter is even more realistic than Mass Effect, since in HP they flat out state that it is impossible to resurrect someone.

[CmdrShep80]

iTallaNT wrote...

Also what kind of blast could literally alter the genetic makeup of every organic species in the galaxy as well as transplant the essence of a human soul into a synthetic's programming at the same time!? And do so by throwing a human body into a power core? It makes no sense unless it's magic (and last time I checked this is not Harry Potter), and when you think about it, it sounds like some sort of cruel trap set up by that creepy ass god-child. "Yes Shepard, if you throw yourself into my power core you will be insinerated however your essence will be spread across the galaxy and peace will rain eternal!" *brainwashes with senes of a happy ending* "Now JUMP!" *insert shep jumping here* "MWAHAHAHAHA! That retard actually did it! Now there is no one to stand in my way! LET THE HARVEST CONTINUE!"  <- facepalm

One of my suspcicions about all 3 endings actually that all three endings were just one big hallucination or the catalyst was trying to use us to get us to kill ourselves so it would just continue where it left off with the destruction of Earth.  Hence the refuse ending.  We can refuse to listen to the catalyst and let the cycle continue..  Reminds me of the no win scenario like the Kobyashi Maru.  Another great thing about these endings, such the moral dilemma when left with these choices.  Guess after the credits rolled, it wasn't a hallucination.

[iTallaNT]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iTallaNT wrote...

Well to be honest I've already listed all of my greivances with all of the endings in a previous post (on page 5 or so I think) however I played through all of the endings pre-ec and post-ec. The first time I chose the sythesis option because it seemed the most appealing. Nobody died and suddenly everybody is one and the same, conflict averted, EDI and Joker can now bang boots, and eveybody is happy. But then when I started thinking about what the synthesis option actually entailed... I grew more disgusted and suspicious of it because it had by far the most flaws of the 3. To quote my earlier post:

It sounds like the perfect utopia but it
involves destroying everyones right to choose whether or not they want
synthetics in there lives, it just forces it on them. Also the little
god-child (who I hate... with a passion) says that this solution is the
only way to end conflict between sythetics and organics. Which is
clearly NOT true because of the fact that shep was able to achieve peace
and understanding with the geth. Peace is possible, so long as
relationships with synthetics are not based around slavery and fear.
Also I'm pretty sure the reapers have a perfect understanding of
organics, giving them a little more insight will not really change
anything at all, and unlike the control ending there is no failsafe to
keep that from happening.

Obviously there are reasons not to pick every ending, and the failure of Synthesis to allow people to choose it on an individual basis is why I did not choose it. It reminded me of what the bad guys wanted to do in X-Men.

On the other hand, this does not conflict with the philosophy behind Synthesis as I summarized it above.

Also what kind of blast could literally alter the genetic makeup of every organic species in the galaxy as well as transplant the essence of a human soul into a synthetic's programming at the same time!? And do so by throwing a human body into a power core? It makes no sense unless it's magic (and last time I checked this is not Harry Potter), and when you think about it, it sounds like some sort of cruel trap set up by that creepy ass god-child. "Yes Shepard, if you throw yourself into my power core you will be insinerated however your essence will be spread across the galaxy and peace will rain eternal!" *brainwashes with senes of a happy ending* "Now JUMP!" *insert shep jumping here* "MWAHAHAHAHA! That retard actually did it! Now there is no one to stand in my way! LET THE HARVEST CONTINUE!"  <- facepalm

I really don't understand why people care this much about the Synthesis beam's practicality. If it's too out there for you don't pick it. But the difference between "sci-fi" in Mass Effect and "magic" in Harry Potter is only the language they use to explain things, not the fantastical or impossible events that actually take place. In some ways, Harry Potter is even more realistic than Mass Effect, since in HP they flat out state that it is impossible to resurrect someone.

lol well that little speal about the trap was ment to be somewhat sarcastic, that's just the sort of vibe that I commically got after thinking about just how impractical that ending was. xD (and your right HP deffinitly is more realistic in that reguard)

After choosing the synthesis option I went with destroy because I really REALLY wanted to see those reapers burn, not to mention it was a common theme throughout the 3 games with all the speaches about killing the reapers and getting recenge for what they put you/the galaxy through. However the genocide of the geth and the murdur of EDI in a non-sensical way made that ending a no go for me as well. ;3; In the end I ended up going with controle, since it spaired everyone, was the ultimate sacrifice on shepards part, and ensured that the reapers would never again turn on organics. It still made me mad that I couldn't just downright kill the bastards, but hey if you can't kill them you might as well make them your bi*ches.

Modifié par iTallaNT, 03 octobre 2012 - 02:37 .

[CronoDragoon]

iTallaNT wrote...

lol well that little speal about the trap was ment to be somewhat sarcastic, that's just the sort of vibe that I commically got after thinking about just how impractical that ending was. xD (and your right HP deffinitly is more realistic in that reguard)

After choosing the synthesis option I went with destroy because I really REALLY wanted to see those reapers burn, not to mention it was a common theme throughout the 3 games with all the speaches about killing the reapers and getting recenge for what they put you/the galaxy through. However the genocide of the geth and the murdur of EDI in a non-sensical way made that ending a no go for me as well. ;3; In the end I ended up going with controle, since it spaired everyone, was the ultimate sacrifice on shepards part, and ensured that the reapers would never again turn on organics. It still made me mad that I couldn't just downright kill the bastards, but hey if you can't kill them you might as well make them your bi*ches.

Heh, well, in some ways I think it would have been an intriguing plot twist if the Crucible was indeed a trap. But since I believe conventional victory would have been BS, that probably would have meant a Refuse ending all around!

And I agree that the Reapers dying would have either been justice for the destroyed races or giving whatever those races have been turned into peace. They deserved better than the monstrosities they became.

Control to me is the most intellectually appealing ending, in large part because of the fourth Dune book in which a similar scenario takes place. What would a galaxy look like with a God Emperor? How would it evolve? How would it be allowed to evolve? What forms would rebellion take?

I still choose Destroy.

[iTallaNT]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

iTallaNT wrote...

Also what kind of blast could literally alter the genetic makeup of every organic species in the galaxy as well as transplant the essence of a human soul into a synthetic's programming at the same time!? And do so by throwing a human body into a power core? It makes no sense unless it's magic (and last time I checked this is not Harry Potter), and when you think about it, it sounds like some sort of cruel trap set up by that creepy ass god-child. "Yes Shepard, if you throw yourself into my power core you will be insinerated however your essence will be spread across the galaxy and peace will rain eternal!" *brainwashes with senes of a happy ending* "Now JUMP!" *insert shep jumping here* "MWAHAHAHAHA! That retard actually did it! Now there is no one to stand in my way! LET THE HARVEST CONTINUE!"  <- facepalm

One of my suspcicions about all 3 endings actually that all three endings were just one big hallucination or the catalyst was trying to use us to get us to kill ourselves so it would just continue where it left off with the destruction of Earth.  Hence the refuse ending.  We can refuse to listen to the catalyst and let the cycle continue..  Reminds me of the no win scenario like the Kobyashi Maru.  Another great thing about these endings, such the moral dilemma when left with these choices.  Guess after the credits rolled, it wasn't a hallucination.

Or was it!? dundudndun~

But no seriously there are so many indoctrination theories out there and when you cross it with the puzzle theory it does make you think that we haven't seen the real ending. Until we truly find out what the missions in the multiplayer mean and how the DLC is going to affect things we honestly can't say for certain what the refusal ending could truly entail. Here's to hoping though!

[CronoDragoon]

Indoctrination would have been terrific and one of the greatest endings of all time....had it been implemented from the start. I just don't think it fits with the game as currently constructed.