543 réponses à ce sujet

[Legion of 1337]

Well, I'm jumping into the middle of this and I've only read the firts two pages, so I'll just respond to the OP.

Control is the paragon option - everyone keeps their form (aren't turned into cyborgs, in other words), everyone is still alive, and Shepard does what TIM wanted to do: control the Reapers and use them to advance ourselves. Sinc ethe Reapers follow the commands of the Catalyst, they are, as TIM says, tools, not enemies. The only true enemy is the Catalyst, and in Control you do worse than kill him: you overwrite him, delete him, take all his stuff and use it for good (if you're Paragon - Renegade shep's control ending makes him seem like he's considering conquering the Galaxy). Unlike the other two endings, no one dies (well, it depends on your definition of death - Shepard's mind is converted into an AI; does that mean Shepard has died and this is a new being, or that he has simply been converted form one form to another?).

Yes, Destroy is supposed to be Renegade: win at all costs and give the bad guys what they deserve (death), even if you kill every other synthetic to do so. Thing is, it leaves the Galaxy closest to that way it was before (and people like familiarity), and it kills all the Reapers, who a lot of people would argue deserve to die. Thus, even predominantly Paragon players end up choosing Destroy because it leads to a familiar Galaxy afterwards and satisfies our demand for justice.

Synthesis? Well, it's the Catalyst's idea and leads to a hippie-like utopia Galaxy. It's not really either morality side, it's...it's own thing, I guess. I guess if you were a Reaper sympathizer the whole time? Or you're high? Or you are/were a hippie? Or maybe communist? Those are the only people I think of that would support this insanity. Oh yeah, and it's the only ending where Shepard permanently dies and also the only one where the Catalyst lives, if there wasn't enough reasons not to pick it already.

[MB957]

the endings are unfair to people who believed it when told they wouldnt get "ABC" endings for their beloved game and characters...

the endings are unfair to people who spent their hard earned cash because it couldn't be like DA2, because it was a different set of writers...

the endings are unfair to people who played thru ME1 and 2 and thought, surely, their choices would matter in the end of ME3...

and of course, the endings are unfair to Marauder Shields, who just wanted to live a nice quiet life, but instead was forced to become a meme

[Getorex]

@Legion of 1337 says, "Since Reapers follow the commands of the Catalyst..."

This is a nice demonstration, again, as to why ALL offered endings are losing endings. The CATALYST can choose to stop the Reapers on his own say-so. He can but he wont. He dictates to YOU, Shepard, how it will go down: "You have these choices that I will permit you to make, Shepard. I could easily do two of the three (destroy or control) AND I could very likely do the third (synthesis which is just another way of making Husks but without the loonybrains). But I wont. Instead YOU have to choose and do it. The cost of your choice is you die." If this were a proper negotiation where you could argue and reason with the supposedly advanced/intelligent Catalyst (and his Reapers) then you could simply get the Catalyst to do what you would choose to do. The end result is the same so it's no skin off the kid's nose. It's just that you, the organics, are LOSERS and LOSERS don't get to make deals or negotiate. Losers lose.

If any or all of the 3 choices on offer are acceptable to the Catalyst, then they are acceptable without the death of Shepard as a price. Unless the kid is a psycho and just wants blood. "I'll accept whatever choice you make so long as I see you die."

Psycho.

[Kidd]

When playing through ME3, if you pick only paragon options when talking to TIM, Shepard will not question the worth of control. She will only question whether TIM will be capable of pulling it off and how risking the entire galaxy isn't a very nice gamble. So basically, you can agree with the method but disagree with the risks. When the Catalyst tells Shep how she can perform control herself, she has no reason to mistrust TIM's ability and if she trusts in the Catalyst and the Crucible then there is no risking deaths in the galaxy either.

A purely played paragon Shepard does not oppose control in itself at all.

[Legion of 1337]

Getorex wrote...

@Legion of 1337 says, "Since Reapers follow the commands of the Catalyst..."

This is a nice demonstration, again, as to why ALL offered endings are losing endings. The CATALYST can choose to stop the Reapers on his own say-so. He can but he wont. He dictates to YOU, Shepard, how it will go down: "You have these choices that I will permit you to make, Shepard. I could easily do two of the three (destroy or control) AND I could very likely do the third (synthesis which is just another way of making Husks but without the loonybrains). But I wont. Instead YOU have to choose and do it. The cost of your choice is you die." If this were a proper negotiation where you could argue and reason with the supposedly advanced/intelligent Catalyst (and his Reapers) then you could simply get the Catalyst to do what you would choose to do. The end result is the same so it's no skin off the kid's nose. It's just that you, the organics, are LOSERS and LOSERS don't get to make deals or negotiate. Losers lose.

If any or all of the 3 choices on offer are acceptable to the Catalyst, then they are acceptable without the death of Shepard as a price. Unless the kid is a psycho and just wants blood. "I'll accept whatever choice you make so long as I see you die."

Psycho.

Incorrect. He does not dictate terms - he presents the ways in which the Crucible can be used. He even says himself that he can't activate it - Shepard has to do that himself.  And it's made clear that the Catalyst is programmed to do what he's doing - he's completely and utterly convinced what he's doing is correct, and there is no arguing with him. What he DOES do is try to persuade you to go along with his Synthesis plan - but you can ignore that completely. He doesn't stop you. He doesn't shut the Crucible off if you choose destroy. The Catalyst doesn't dictate what Shepard can do, the Crucible does. The Catalyst serves as the expositor for the various ways in which you can use it.

He's not all to thrilled about Destroy because it prevents him from completing his mission. Control is more acceptable to him since all the tools for enacting Synthesis, or more cycles if need be, are still there, though he isn't thirilled about Shepard being in control because it's unlikely Shepard will do what the Catalyst would do. The different endings, which amount to the three functions of the Crucible, are bulit into the device - if the Catalyst didn't exist, those would still be the only options Shepard has, so he is not being dictated to. And last time I checked, the Catalyst dies in two of the three endings - Synthesis is the only one you can say the Reapers 'win', because you do what they want. In the other two, you defeat them, but in different ways - in one, you kill  them all, in the other, you kill their commander and take his place. That sounds like victory to me.

Modifié par Legion of 1337, 04 octobre 2012 - 01:17 .

[drayfish]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Incorrect. He does not dictate terms - he presents the ways in which the Crucible can be used. He even says himself that he can't activate it - Shepard has to do that himself.  And it's made clear that the Catalyst is programmed to do what he's doing - he's completely and utterly convinced what he's doing is correct, and there is no arguing with him. What he DOES do is try to persuade you to go along with his Synthesis plan - but you can ignore that completely. He doesn't stop you. He doesn't shut the Crucible off if you choose destroy. The Catalyst doesn't dictate what Shepard can do, the Crucible does. The Catalyst serves as the expositor for the various ways in which you can use it.

He's not all to thrilled about Destroy because it prevents him from completing his mission. Control is more acceptable to him since all the tools for enacting Synthesis, or more cycles if need be, are still there, though he isn't thirilled about Shepard being in control because it's unlikely Shepard will do what the Catalyst would do. The different endings, which amount to the three functions of the Crucible, are bulit into the device - if the Catalyst didn't exist, those would still be the only options Shepard has, so he is not being dictated to. And last time I checked, the Catalyst dies in two of the three endings - Synthesis is the only one you can say the Reapers 'win', because you do what they want. In the other two, you defeat them, but in different ways - in one, you kill  them all, in the other, you kill their commander and take his place. That sounds like victory to me.

Well, the Catalyst doesn't need to stick around because in every one of those endings he has proved that we humans are willing to do his work for him.  He's not needed by the galaxy anymore.

If we've Synthesised everyone (the option he likes bestest) we've obliterated diversity anyway and proved we agree with his racist nonsense.

If we pick Control then we have taken the ghoulishly egomaniacal step of becoming an unstoppable totalitarian force.  He can rest easy knowing that we have already agree to 'do what needed to be done' to keep the 'peace'.

And even if we pick Destroy we have agreed with his premise, and proved that we are willing to commit genocide (on a now peaceful race, no less) to stop the imaginary threat of synthetics.  He's delivered us the technology to do it again if we want, and we've proved that we will definitely go through with it.

In the end, if we choose any one of his options, thereby agreeing to his argument, then the Catalyst tosses us the keys and bows out gracefully.  We prove that we share his morals and are willing to go to his extremes.

We become the thing we fought to stop.

Reapers win.

Modifié par drayfish, 04 octobre 2012 - 01:31 .

[Legion of 1337]

drayfish wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Incorrect. He does not dictate terms - he presents the ways in which the Crucible can be used. He even says himself that he can't activate it - Shepard has to do that himself.  And it's made clear that the Catalyst is programmed to do what he's doing - he's completely and utterly convinced what he's doing is correct, and there is no arguing with him. What he DOES do is try to persuade you to go along with his Synthesis plan - but you can ignore that completely. He doesn't stop you. He doesn't shut the Crucible off if you choose destroy. The Catalyst doesn't dictate what Shepard can do, the Crucible does. The Catalyst serves as the expositor for the various ways in which you can use it.

He's not all to thrilled about Destroy because it prevents him from completing his mission. Control is more acceptable to him since all the tools for enacting Synthesis, or more cycles if need be, are still there, though he isn't thirilled about Shepard being in control because it's unlikely Shepard will do what the Catalyst would do. The different endings, which amount to the three functions of the Crucible, are bulit into the device - if the Catalyst didn't exist, those would still be the only options Shepard has, so he is not being dictated to. And last time I checked, the Catalyst dies in two of the three endings - Synthesis is the only one you can say the Reapers 'win', because you do what they want. In the other two, you defeat them, but in different ways - in one, you kill  them all, in the other, you kill their commander and take his place. That sounds like victory to me.

Well, the Catalyst doesn't need to stick around because in every one of those endings he has proved that we humans are willing to do his work for him.  He's not needed by the galaxy anymore.

If we've Synthesised everyone (the option he likes bestest) we've obliterated diversity anyway and proved we agree with his racist nonsense.

If we pick Control then we have taken the ghoulishly egomaniacal step of becoming an unstoppable totalitarian force.  He can rest easy knowing that we have already agree to 'do what needed to be done' to keep the 'peace'.

And even if we pick Destroy we have agreed with his premise, and proved that we are willign to commit genocide to stop the imaginary threat of synthetics.  He's delivered us the technology to do it again, and we've proved that we will definitely go through with it.

In the end, if we choose one of his options and agree to his premise, then the Catalyst bows out gracefully.  We become the thing we fought to stop; we prove that we share their morals and are willing to go to their extremes. 

Reapers win.

Again, they aren't HIS options. And regardless of whether we end up doing something he'd do, the fact is he still prefers Synthesis, he still wants you to do it, and in Control and Destroy, the Catalyst is killed. He clearly has  little to no emotion so it's not like he 'dies happy' or something. Last time I checked, destroying your enemy and his army (or, destroying him and taking over this army for your own purposes) is victory. Synthesis is the only ending where the Reapers 'win'.
 
You can argue to the end of time whether the ending options are morally right, but we still win and the Reapers still lose (except in Synthesis, where the Reapers win because, according to the Catlyst's logic, everyone wins).

[Getorex]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

@Legion of 1337 says, "Since Reapers follow the commands of the Catalyst..."

This is a nice demonstration, again, as to why ALL offered endings are losing endings. The CATALYST can choose to stop the Reapers on his own say-so. He can but he wont. He dictates to YOU, Shepard, how it will go down: "You have these choices that I will permit you to make, Shepard. I could easily do two of the three (destroy or control) AND I could very likely do the third (synthesis which is just another way of making Husks but without the loonybrains). But I wont. Instead YOU have to choose and do it. The cost of your choice is you die." If this were a proper negotiation where you could argue and reason with the supposedly advanced/intelligent Catalyst (and his Reapers) then you could simply get the Catalyst to do what you would choose to do. The end result is the same so it's no skin off the kid's nose. It's just that you, the organics, are LOSERS and LOSERS don't get to make deals or negotiate. Losers lose.

If any or all of the 3 choices on offer are acceptable to the Catalyst, then they are acceptable without the death of Shepard as a price. Unless the kid is a psycho and just wants blood. "I'll accept whatever choice you make so long as I see you die."

Psycho.

Incorrect. He does not dictate terms - he presents the ways in which the Crucible can be used. He even says himself that he can't activate it - Shepard has to do that himself.  And it's made clear that the Catalyst is programmed to do what he's doing - he's completely and utterly convinced what he's doing is correct, and there is no arguing with him. What he DOES do is try to persuade you to go along with his Synthesis plan - but you can ignore that completely. He doesn't stop you. He doesn't shut the Crucible off if you choose destroy. The Catalyst doesn't dictate what Shepard can do, the Crucible does. The Catalyst serves as the expositor for the various ways in which you can use it.

He's not all to thrilled about Destroy because it prevents him from completing his mission. Control is more acceptable to him since all the tools for enacting Synthesis, or more cycles if need be, are still there, though he isn't thirilled about Shepard being in control because it's unlikely Shepard will do what the Catalyst would do. The different endings, which amount to the three functions of the Crucible, are bulit into the device - if the Catalyst didn't exist, those would still be the only options Shepard has, so he is not being dictated to. And last time I checked, the Catalyst dies in two of the three endings - Synthesis is the only one you can say the Reapers 'win', because you do what they want. In the other two, you defeat them, but in different ways - in one, you kill  them all, in the other, you kill their commander and take his place. That sounds like victory to me.

Then the Reapers and the Catalyst are NOT advanced anythings.  They have no intelligence, no volition.  They are toasters. Nothing more.

Also, design flaw (more like design STUPIDITY): the destroy option means you have to DESTROY the control interface for the crucible.  You don't simply flip a switch (good design).  You don't do a set of actions to activate it (more complex so you don't accidently activate an option).  No, you have to blow the crap out of the control interface to get "destroy" and Shepard, being a retard, walks quickly TOWARDS the interface while he is seeking to blow it up.  You know who does something like that?  Idiots or the suicidal.  No one else does that.  So, bad design on this device that NO ONE understood, NO ONE could know needed to be combined with the Citadel (eve at the beginning process of the design), NO ONE could know the software language used in the Reaper code, could not know their APIs so that a crucible thing could tap in and work via that API.  They just started tossing components together under the belief in magic, that in the end magic would do its thing and this device that no one understands in any practical way, will do magic stuff that is Good™.  Baloney.

Also: a control interface is not going to be designed to de-rez a user.  No way, no how.  There's NO WAY the people making this thing, in the past or present, would make it with the intention that the person using EITHER control or synthesis option has to de-rez and be killed.  Again, whackos and suicidal would design a device that way.  Control means: access control buttons, joysticks, keyboard, WHATEVER, and do the control thing.  Then walk away, mission accomplished.  These things, these Reapers, are just toasters that do what they are programmed to do so all you do in control is enter "go away" and they will obey their dumb code.  Like a good toaster.

Synthesis is pointless since the Reapers and the Catalyst already know how to do that because they've been making husks for a ******'s age.  They are ALWAYS making a synthesis between organic and synthetic.  No magic involved, just mix and match parts and interfaces.  They're doing it all the time.  Just do it DIFFERENTLY from the way they were doing it.  Then there'd never be any reaping afterwards (presumably) because everyone would be synths.  Of course, there would be no more evolution but...presumably these synth people are still perfectly capable of building AIs just like before.  Surely they don't lose some basic mental and physical capability just because they've had their color changed to a greenish hue.

Modifié par Getorex, 04 octobre 2012 - 01:42 .

[Davik Kang]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...
Honestly, full renegade Shepard gets a perfect ending an ending that more closesly aligns with the renegade options presented throughout the series. He removes all synthetics and even survives. Unfortunatey, paragon Shepard can't make an ending decision without making a violation of morals, from genocide, to forced change, to totalitarian order. Isn't this kinda unfair towards most paragon Shepards?

Destroy is a renegade option, yeah.  I agree with a lot of people who've posted here and say that the game is always hinting you have to make tough choices.  Pure Paragon and Pure Renegade are legitimate ways to play the game, but a lot of players will have been trying to make the ME choices on merit, rather than always red or always blue.  So no I don't think it's unfair because I think the enjoyment out of the choice part of the game comes from thinking about the consequences, not from always picking red or blue.

[BerzerkGene]

Getorex wrote...

@Legion of 1337 says, "Since Reapers follow the commands of the Catalyst..."

This is a nice demonstration, again, as to why ALL offered endings are losing endings. The CATALYST can choose to stop the Reapers on his own say-so. He can but he wont. He dictates to YOU, Shepard, how it will go down: "You have these choices that I will permit you to make, Shepard. I could easily do two of the three (destroy or control) AND I could very likely do the third (synthesis which is just another way of making Husks but without the loonybrains). But I wont. Instead YOU have to choose and do it. The cost of your choice is you die." If this were a proper negotiation where you could argue and reason with the supposedly advanced/intelligent Catalyst (and his Reapers) then you could simply get the Catalyst to do what you would choose to do. The end result is the same so it's no skin off the kid's nose. It's just that you, the organics, are LOSERS and LOSERS don't get to make deals or negotiate. Losers lose.

If any or all of the 3 choices on offer are acceptable to the Catalyst, then they are acceptable without the death of Shepard as a price. Unless the kid is a psycho and just wants blood. "I'll accept whatever choice you make so long as I see you die."

Psycho.

Yeah thats my biggest issue, you are allowed to win. Nothing you ever did meant a damn because he just lets you win.
Because he has no real reason to offer you these options unless he could lose, which he can't. Its like folding with an unbeatable hand in poker. with THE GALAXY as the pot. Of course its perfectly logical that he could lose when you have the entire remaining might of the galaxy backing you. But nah man, choose or lose. Choose how you lose?

[Legion of 1337]

Getorex wrote...
Then the Reapers and the Catalyst are NOT advanced anythings.  They have no intelligence, no volition.  They are toasters. Nothing more.

Also, design flaw (more like design STUPIDITY): the destroy option means you have to DESTROY the control interface for the crucible.  You don't simply flip a switch (good design).  You don't do a set of actions to activate it (more complex so you don't accidently activate an option).  No, you have to blow the crap out of the control interface to get "destroy" and Shepard, being a retard, walks quickly TOWARDS the interface while he is seeking to blow it up.  You know who does something like that?  Idiots or the suicidal.  No one else does that.  So, bad design on this device that NO ONE understood, NO ONE could know needed to be combined with the Citadel (eve at the beginning process of the design), NO ONE could know the software language used in the Reaper code, could not know their APIs so that a crucible thing could tap in and work via that API.  They just started tossing components together under the belief in magic, that in the end magic would do its thing and this device that no one understands in any practical way, will do magic stuff that is Good™.  Baloney.

Also: a control interface is not going to be designed to de-rez a user.  No way, no how.  There's NO WAY the people making this thing, in the past or present, would make it with the intention that the person using EITHER control or synthesis option has to de-rez and be killed.  Again, whackos and suicidal would design a device that way.  Control means: access control buttons, joysticks, keyboard, WHATEVER, and do the control thing.  Then walk away, mission accomplished.  

Synthesis is pointless since the Reapers and the Catalyst already know how to do that because they've been making husks for a ******'s age.  They are ALWAYS making a synthesis between organic and synthetic.  No magic involved, just mix and match parts and interfaces.  They're doing it all the time.  Just do it DIFFERENTLY from the way they were doing it.  Then there'd never be any reaping afterwards (presumably) because everyone would be synths.  Of course, there would be no more evolution but...presumably these synth people are still perfectly capable of building AIs just like before.  Surely they don't lose some basic mental and physical capability just because they've had their color changed to a greenish hue.

Yes, I'll admit the Crucible is a contrived MacGuffin. There were better ways to do the super-mega-weapon-of-doom thing. The ways that the Crucible are activated appear to be designed on symbolism rather than logic - destroying something to enact destroy (the tube appears to be some kind of safety lock or something that prevents it from firing); disovling Shepard to show he's been turned into something else.

With Synthesis, the Catalyst doens't realize that the Crucible can achieve his dream until he interfaces with it. How he doesn't come up with the idea beforehand I don't know. And AIs created after Synthesis would not be a threat because everyone is connected and understands eahc other. You know, the whole utopia thing.

And the Catalyst is advanced, but it's the synthetic equivalent of someone with deeply held, core beliefs it's convinced of. Thus, it will always do what it does.

[BerzerkGene]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

@Legion of 1337 says, "Since Reapers follow the commands of the Catalyst..."

This is a nice demonstration, again, as to why ALL offered endings are losing endings. The CATALYST can choose to stop the Reapers on his own say-so. He can but he wont. He dictates to YOU, Shepard, how it will go down: "You have these choices that I will permit you to make, Shepard. I could easily do two of the three (destroy or control) AND I could very likely do the third (synthesis which is just another way of making Husks but without the loonybrains). But I wont. Instead YOU have to choose and do it. The cost of your choice is you die." If this were a proper negotiation where you could argue and reason with the supposedly advanced/intelligent Catalyst (and his Reapers) then you could simply get the Catalyst to do what you would choose to do. The end result is the same so it's no skin off the kid's nose. It's just that you, the organics, are LOSERS and LOSERS don't get to make deals or negotiate. Losers lose.

If any or all of the 3 choices on offer are acceptable to the Catalyst, then they are acceptable without the death of Shepard as a price. Unless the kid is a psycho and just wants blood. "I'll accept whatever choice you make so long as I see you die."

Psycho.

Incorrect. He does not dictate terms - he presents the ways in which the Crucible can be used. He even says himself that he can't activate it - Shepard has to do that himself.  And it's made clear that the Catalyst is programmed to do what he's doing - he's completely and utterly convinced what he's doing is correct, and there is no arguing with him. What he DOES do is try to persuade you to go along with his Synthesis plan - but you can ignore that completely. He doesn't stop you. He doesn't shut the Crucible off if you choose destroy. The Catalyst doesn't dictate what Shepard can do, the Crucible does. The Catalyst serves as the expositor for the various ways in which you can use it.

He's not all to thrilled about Destroy because it prevents him from completing his mission. Control is more acceptable to him since all the tools for enacting Synthesis, or more cycles if need be, are still there, though he isn't thirilled about Shepard being in control because it's unlikely Shepard will do what the Catalyst would do. The different endings, which amount to the three functions of the Crucible, are bulit into the device - if the Catalyst didn't exist, those would still be the only options Shepard has, so he is not being dictated to. And last time I checked, the Catalyst dies in two of the three endings - Synthesis is the only one you can say the Reapers 'win', because you do what they want. In the other two, you defeat them, but in different ways - in one, you kill  them all, in the other, you kill their commander and take his place. That sounds like victory to me.

A few things, one, he is an AI, while he has a core programming which he follows, he can make decisions. He does dictate the terms because he is basically giving up, for no actual reason. He's already doing control, destroy would kill him and the reapers, he doesn't want that and synthesis...his explanation of why it didn't work before is just crap.

"The Catalyst doesn't dictate what Shepard can do, the Crucible does." *maaarp* incorrect. The Crucible is a battery. That is it. It provides power and nothing else.

The 'functions' of the Catalyst(don't say the crucible, its just a battery) don't make a lot of sense. Control would be an override command, so thats fine, but the synthetic destroying tube? That...theres no possible explanation for that. Especially since it only targets ais and husks, somehow.
Synthesis cannot make any sense, you literally jump into a beam of energy. You know what happens if you do that? You are vaporized. That should be it. None of this mystical crap, its friggin sci fi!
Also the Reapers win in Refuse, because bioware wanted to be dicks.

[clarkusdarkus]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Incorrect. He does not dictate terms - he presents the ways in which the Crucible can be used. He even says himself that he can't activate it - Shepard has to do that himself.  And it's made clear that the Catalyst is programmed to do what he's doing - he's completely and utterly convinced what he's doing is correct, and there is no arguing with him. What he DOES do is try to persuade you to go along with his Synthesis plan - but you can ignore that completely. He doesn't stop you. He doesn't shut the Crucible off if you choose destroy. The Catalyst doesn't dictate what Shepard can do, the Crucible does. The Catalyst serves as the expositor for the various ways in which you can use it.

He's not all to thrilled about Destroy because it prevents him from completing his mission. Control is more acceptable to him since all the tools for enacting Synthesis, or more cycles if need be, are still there, though he isn't thirilled about Shepard being in control because it's unlikely Shepard will do what the Catalyst would do. The different endings, which amount to the three functions of the Crucible, are bulit into the device - if the Catalyst didn't exist, those would still be the only options Shepard has, so he is not being dictated to. And last time I checked, the Catalyst dies in two of the three endings - Synthesis is the only one you can say the Reapers 'win', because you do what they want. In the other two, you defeat them, but in different ways - in one, you kill  them all, in the other, you kill their commander and take his place. That sounds like victory to me.

Well, the Catalyst doesn't need to stick around because in every one of those endings he has proved that we humans are willing to do his work for him.  He's not needed by the galaxy anymore.

If we've Synthesised everyone (the option he likes bestest) we've obliterated diversity anyway and proved we agree with his racist nonsense.

If we pick Control then we have taken the ghoulishly egomaniacal step of becoming an unstoppable totalitarian force.  He can rest easy knowing that we have already agree to 'do what needed to be done' to keep the 'peace'.

And even if we pick Destroy we have agreed with his premise, and proved that we are willign to commit genocide to stop the imaginary threat of synthetics.  He's delivered us the technology to do it again, and we've proved that we will definitely go through with it.

In the end, if we choose one of his options and agree to his premise, then the Catalyst bows out gracefully.  We become the thing we fought to stop; we prove that we share their morals and are willing to go to their extremes. 

Reapers win.

Again, they aren't HIS options. And regardless of whether we end up doing something he'd do, the fact is he still prefers Synthesis, he still wants you to do it, and in Control and Destroy, the Catalyst is killed. He clearly has  little to no emotion so it's not like he 'dies happy' or something. Last time I checked, destroying your enemy and his army (or, destroying him and taking over this army for your own purposes) is victory. Synthesis is the only ending where the Reapers 'win'.
 
You can argue to the end of time whether the ending options are morally right, but we still win and the Reapers still lose (except in Synthesis, where the Reapers win because, according to the Catlyst's logic, everyone wins).

Gotta disagree, not one of the options felt like i " Won "....Drayfish sums up the reasons why i felt that way aswell, the only slight feeling of winning for me personally is the breath scene but even thats debatable as im then forced to imagine what happens which is good for those with a vivid imaginaiton, but the reason i havent replayed the game a 2nd time is because simply i wanna win at videogames and ME3 doesnt give that.

[drayfish]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Again, they aren't HIS options. And regardless of whether we end up doing something he'd do, the fact is he still prefers Synthesis, he still wants you to do it, and in Control and Destroy, the Catalyst is killed. He clearly has  little to no emotion so it's not like he 'dies happy' or something. Last time I checked, destroying your enemy and his army (or, destroying him and taking over this army for your own purposes) is victory. Synthesis is the only ending where the Reapers 'win'.
 
You can argue to the end of time whether the ending options are morally right, but we still win and the Reapers still lose (except in Synthesis, where the Reapers win because, according to the Catlyst's logic, everyone wins).

In a way you are just repeating my argument. 

Whether he created those options or not, he offers them as 'solutions' to his problem.  Indeed, those are his very words.

You can put whatever weight on each choice you choose, but they each answer the problem that he was programmed to resolve, and if Shepard proves him/herself willing to use the Crucible at his instruction (and thereby show that human beings are willing to do the Reaper's dirty work from now on), then he and the Reaper armada are no longer required.

We become the Reapers - judgemental overlords, prepared to arrogantly subject the universe to our will.

Training wheels are off, and we are ready to rule the universe in the name of 'self-preservation'.

Modifié par drayfish, 04 octobre 2012 - 02:02 .

[Getorex]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Gotta disagree, not one of the options felt like i " Won "....Drayfish sums up the reasons why i felt that way aswell, the only slight feeling of winning for me personally is the breath scene but even thats debatable as im then forced to imagine what happens which is good for those with a vivid imaginaiton, but the reason i havent replayed the game a 2nd time is because simply i wanna win at videogames and ME3 doesnt give that.

I'm actually only now, 7 or so months after I quit playing ME3 the first time, giving the game another go.  It's real hard to buy into the characters this time and hard not to wax sarcastic when you are pushed to get all the races on board to help (help do WHAT?  Lose).  In any case, I will play only through the last bit where you chat with everyone who still survives.  I liked that part.  Anything beyond that is a nonstarter.  I MIGHT give a try to online again at some point to see if I can make myself enjoy it.  We'll see.

Oh, an addendum: It is REAL hard on this go to tolerate the damned dream sequences with the little turd.  It is MADDENING that I cannot skip those bits.  I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE KID!  I am not dreaming about the kid, I don't care about him, he's of no consequence but you just can't skip that nonsense.  Ugh.

Modifié par Getorex, 04 octobre 2012 - 02:05 .

[drayfish]

Getorex wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

I'm actually only now, 7 or so months after I quit playing ME3 the first time, giving the game another go.  It's real hard to buy into the characters this time and hard not to wax sarcastic when you are pushed to get all the races on board to help (help do WHAT?  Lose).  In any case, I will play only through the last bit where you chat with everyone who still survives.  I liked that part.  Anything beyond that is a nonstarter.  I MIGHT give a try to online again at some point to see if I can make myself enjoy it.  We'll see.

I tried to replay the game myself a month or two back, and literally felt ill and had to give up when the characters started talking about 'hope' and 'unity'.  The idea of spruiking that concept of strength through diversity for the entire game only to overtly disregard and belittle it in the final moments of the journey was either one of the clumsiest, most artless shifts in theme ever, or a hideous piece of narrative trolling.

[Dr_Extrem]

drayfish wrote...

I tried to replay the game myself a month or two back, and literally felt ill and had to give up when the characters started talking about 'hope' and 'unity'.  The idea of spruiking that concept of strength through diversity for the entire game only to overtly disregard and belittle it in the final moments of the journey was either one of the clumsiest, most artless shifts in theme ever, or a hideous piece of narrative trolling.

mhmm .. strength through diversity, ending in the amalgamation of life. irony is a ****.

[clarkusdarkus]

Getorex wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Gotta disagree, not one of the options felt like i " Won "....Drayfish sums up the reasons why i felt that way aswell, the only slight feeling of winning for me personally is the breath scene but even thats debatable as im then forced to imagine what happens which is good for those with a vivid imaginaiton, but the reason i havent replayed the game a 2nd time is because simply i wanna win at videogames and ME3 doesnt give that.

I'm actually only now, 7 or so months after I quit playing ME3 the first time, giving the game another go.  It's real hard to buy into the characters this time and hard not to wax sarcastic when you are pushed to get all the races on board to help (help do WHAT?  Lose).  In any case, I will play only through the last bit where you chat with everyone who still survives.  I liked that part.  Anything beyond that is a nonstarter.  I MIGHT give a try to online again at some point to see if I can make myself enjoy it.  We'll see.

Oh, an addendum: It is REAL hard on this go to tolerate the damned dream sequences with the little turd.  It is MADDENING that I cannot skip those bits.  I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE KID!  I am not dreaming about the kid, I don't care about him, he's of no consequence but you just can't skip that nonsense.  Ugh.

I can admire those that can look past such thing as you mention, as i wish i could muster the desire again to replay it, even the insanity achievement doesnt make me want to go through it again, to be honest it's an ordeal thinking of it let alone playing it, the fetch quests dont help matters but your right, those dream sequences will make me cringe again, but nothing will be more dissapointing then reaching the end again and not feel like i won or we won kinda thing.

[clarkusdarkus]

drayfish wrote...

Getorex wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

I'm actually only now, 7 or so months after I quit playing ME3 the first time, giving the game another go.  It's real hard to buy into the characters this time and hard not to wax sarcastic when you are pushed to get all the races on board to help (help do WHAT?  Lose).  In any case, I will play only through the last bit where you chat with everyone who still survives.  I liked that part.  Anything beyond that is a nonstarter.  I MIGHT give a try to online again at some point to see if I can make myself enjoy it.  We'll see.

I tried to replay the game myself a month or two back, and literally felt ill and had to give up when the characters started talking about 'hope' and 'unity'.  The idea of spruiking that concept of strength through diversity for the entire game only to overtly disregard and belittle it in the final moments of the journey was either one of the clumsiest, most artless shifts in theme ever, or a hideous piece of narrative trolling.

Yeah it's those moments when your squadmates start talking about hope and togetherness that you cant help just feel dissapointed, i mean way back in 2007 this started, its not like we havent invested alot into the story ourselves, but to have that taken away because someone somewhere thought it would be fun to disregard all what u  thought was possible just makes ME3 ruin the  series i was hoping to replay again if i felt i won.

[Getorex]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Getorex wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Gotta disagree, not one of the options felt like i " Won "....Drayfish sums up the reasons why i felt that way aswell, the only slight feeling of winning for me personally is the breath scene but even thats debatable as im then forced to imagine what happens which is good for those with a vivid imaginaiton, but the reason i havent replayed the game a 2nd time is because simply i wanna win at videogames and ME3 doesnt give that.

I'm actually only now, 7 or so months after I quit playing ME3 the first time, giving the game another go.  It's real hard to buy into the characters this time and hard not to wax sarcastic when you are pushed to get all the races on board to help (help do WHAT?  Lose).  In any case, I will play only through the last bit where you chat with everyone who still survives.  I liked that part.  Anything beyond that is a nonstarter.  I MIGHT give a try to online again at some point to see if I can make myself enjoy it.  We'll see.

Oh, an addendum: It is REAL hard on this go to tolerate the damned dream sequences with the little turd.  It is MADDENING that I cannot skip those bits.  I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE KID!  I am not dreaming about the kid, I don't care about him, he's of no consequence but you just can't skip that nonsense.  Ugh.

I can admire those that can look past such thing as you mention, as i wish i could muster the desire again to replay it, even the insanity achievement doesnt make me want to go through it again, to be honest it's an ordeal thinking of it let alone playing it, the fetch quests dont help matters but your right, those dream sequences will make me cringe again, but nothing will be more dissapointing then reaching the end again and not feel like i won or we won kinda thing.

I'm undecided about the side quest chores.  I'm assuming I will continue long enough to have to decide at the time whether to find some toiletry on some space station and hand it to some tourist on the Citadel, if I can even remember who I was getting the toiletry for in the first place that is. 

I always play on hardest level and did so my first time through but for some reason THIS time it seems harder than I remember.  I'm wondering if some software update did something?  Nah, probably not.

I've played DEHR about 15 times or so.  I'm pretty much played out on that thing right now so that left me with Alan Wake: American Nightmare or trying ME3 one more time.  I'm just not in the mood for Alan Wake.  If I drop out of playing ME3 early, I'll like give DEHR a 16th run.  That one doesn't disappoint me (and I so enjoy watching multi-opponent nonlethal takedowns in that game ).

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Getorex wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

I'm actually only now, 7 or so months after I quit playing ME3 the first time, giving the game another go.  It's real hard to buy into the characters this time and hard not to wax sarcastic when you are pushed to get all the races on board to help (help do WHAT?  Lose).  In any case, I will play only through the last bit where you chat with everyone who still survives.  I liked that part.  Anything beyond that is a nonstarter.  I MIGHT give a try to online again at some point to see if I can make myself enjoy it.  We'll see.

I tried to replay the game myself a month or two back, and literally felt ill and had to give up when the characters started talking about 'hope' and 'unity'.  The idea of spruiking that concept of strength through diversity for the entire game only to overtly disregard and belittle it in the final moments of the journey was either one of the clumsiest, most artless shifts in theme ever, or a hideous piece of narrative trolling.

The hope/unity thing was for actually getting to this point, for building the Crucible and assembling fleets to protect it. They were still vitally important things. In any case, I don't really see how the endings actually repudiate it, except for maybe Refusal. Certainly life goes on, although rather diminished in the case of Destroy. Even Synthesis doesn't destroy individual or species identity. Diversity of doctrine was still vital for getting the galaxy as far as it did, farther than the Protheans. Your themes haven't lost, in reality.

[dreman9999]

Maxster_ wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification of...Renegade-ness...

Yes, I supposed I oversimplified the issue. However, I still stand by my statement that renegade Shepard gets an ending that more closesly aligns with the renegade options presented throughout the series than what paragon Shepards can get.

No he does not.
Unconditionally surrendering to an enemy whim is as unrenegadeish as it could ever be.

Enslaving or destroy the enemy is surrendering?

[dreman9999]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Getorex wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

I'm actually only now, 7 or so months after I quit playing ME3 the first time, giving the game another go.  It's real hard to buy into the characters this time and hard not to wax sarcastic when you are pushed to get all the races on board to help (help do WHAT?  Lose).  In any case, I will play only through the last bit where you chat with everyone who still survives.  I liked that part.  Anything beyond that is a nonstarter.  I MIGHT give a try to online again at some point to see if I can make myself enjoy it.  We'll see.

I tried to replay the game myself a month or two back, and literally felt ill and had to give up when the characters started talking about 'hope' and 'unity'.  The idea of spruiking that concept of strength through diversity for the entire game only to overtly disregard and belittle it in the final moments of the journey was either one of the clumsiest, most artless shifts in theme ever, or a hideous piece of narrative trolling.

Yeah it's those moments when your squadmates start talking about hope and togetherness that you cant help just feel dissapointed, i mean way back in 2007 this started, its not like we havent invested alot into the story ourselves, but to have that taken away because someone somewhere thought it would be fun to disregard all what u  thought was possible just makes ME3 ruin the  series i was hoping to replay again if i felt i won.

But the ending does not detur that. All endings have bright furtures for the majority. Nothing betrys you allies but the geth in destroy or there free will in synthesis.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Again, they aren't HIS options. And regardless of whether we end up doing something he'd do, the fact is he still prefers Synthesis, he still wants you to do it, and in Control and Destroy, the Catalyst is killed. He clearly has  little to no emotion so it's not like he 'dies happy' or something. Last time I checked, destroying your enemy and his army (or, destroying him and taking over this army for your own purposes) is victory. Synthesis is the only ending where the Reapers 'win'.
 
You can argue to the end of time whether the ending options are morally right, but we still win and the Reapers still lose (except in Synthesis, where the Reapers win because, according to the Catlyst's logic, everyone wins).

In a way you are just repeating my argument. 

Whether he created those options or not, he offers them as 'solutions' to his problem.  Indeed, those are his very words.

You can put whatever weight on each choice you choose, but they each answer the problem that he was programmed to resolve, and if Shepard proves him/herself willing to use the Crucible at his instruction (and thereby show that human beings are willing to do the Reaper's dirty work from now on), then he and the Reaper armada are no longer required.

We become the Reapers - judgemental overlords, prepared to arrogantly subject the universe to our will.

Training wheels are off, and we are ready to rule the universe in the name of 'self-preservation'.

But it's not so clear cut. The catalyst goal is to only do it's programing.Though it maybe using you to do it, the truth is it place it's fate to you. It gives you the abilty to destory it or enslave it.

It not us being turned into a tool, it just it giving up the fight in the end.

[3DandBeyond]

silentassassin264 wrote...

No. Synthesis was incredibly Paragon. Sacrifice yourself, save everyone and make life for everyone better. Paragon Control is also obviously Paragon. Paragon Shepard gets to become the guardian of the galaxy a be a selfless protector forever.

Paragon Shepard is totally ignored at the end.

Synthesis is not paragon.  It's got a corollary with the genophage.  A paragon wouldn't put something in other people's bodies without their permission, especially since some people wanted no tech in them at all.  Shepard also would be doing to the geth something Legion said they did not want.  They didn't want to be given full understanding, they wanted to learn and earn it-that's part of why the heretics left.  There are also too many questions left unasked about it-it's not known what it will do to people.  A paragon would ask every last question about it before doing it.  And the basis for thinking people want it or that it would happen is ridiculous and it's what the kid thinks people want and what the kid (a really messed up AI) thinks will one day just somehow magically happen.  It denies people self-determination and paragon Shepard spoke out against synthesis in many different ways as well as came to care about people that spoke out against it.

Control is totally not paragon.  That is no longer Shepard, it's the uploaded consciousness of Shepard-like data that's it.  The music for it is ominous and Shepard AI says some things that are so not paragon.  It also means reapers are roaming around with people goo inside them and people have to live with that horror.  I don't care how nice they now act, they still have killed trillions of people.  And no one would know Shepard is controlling the reapers, so all of a sudden they're just going to stop fighting them?  And let's just say the Krogan and the Salarians get into a fight-which Many will the reapers fly in and defend?  Shepard isn't a god and Shepard no longer even has feelings, just memories and thoughts.  So, Shepard remembers the Krogan were used before.  But Shepard remembers one good Salarian who tried to do better and a lot of other Salarians that didn't care.  Good luck being a Salarian.  Also, I am pretty sure there are a whole lot of Turians, Humans, Quarians, Salarians, and so on that would still want to kill reapers-I have no doubt that Hackett would.  I'm pretty sure Liara and a lot of Asari would as well.  Good luck with that.  Paragon Shepard consistently spoke out against control.

Destroy also is not paragon for obvious reasons.  It is however the one thing everyone with their own brains intact wanted to do in the game.  But, a paragon Shepard spoke out about doing this kind of thing all over the place in the games.  It is the only thing that leaves people on their own to self-determine, but it is gained by denying the autonomy of people (and a friend) that Shepard just helped to gain their own autonomy.