214 réponses à ce sujet

[Doctoglethorpe]

I can never chose Control on the basis it imo creates a plot hole.

If TIM can't do it since he's indoctrinated, why can Shepard?  Shepard is clearly also indoctrinated.  He shoots Anderson, thats all the proof you need.  Why is he allowed to use Control? 

I pretend the control ending cutscenes don't exist and headcanon that its nothing more then the catalysts final attempt to trick you.  As is synthesis.

Its a messy way of making a bad ending slighty better, but its all I got.  

[MyChemicalBromance]

If I believed in absolute freedom, I would agree with you.

Glad you finally found your choice.

[CosmicGnosis]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

If I believed in absolute freedom, I would agree with you.

Glad you finally found your choice.

Remind me, how do you rationalize Synthesis again?

[MyChemicalBromance]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

If I believed in absolute freedom, I would agree with you.

Glad you finally found your choice.

Remind me, how do you rationalize Synthesis again?

Short and sweet version:
-Everyone affected by the Crucible decision will eventually die anyways.

-Therefore absolute freedom isn't real, as we don't have the freedom to avoid death. We also don't have the freedom to change reality.

-Except Synthetics are functionally immortal, and thus more free than we are (though it is still an arbitrary distinction).

-If everyone merges with synthetics, they will become immortal, and might be able to "matter" someday.

This was all before EDI's EC speech came out (proof in sig), so you can imagine how locked-in I was when I heard that speech.


edit: I'd also argue that Synthesis is the Catalyst's way of acknowledging that the extinction of organic life is inevitable.

Modifié par MyChemicalBromance, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:02 .

[CosmicGnosis]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

If I believed in absolute freedom, I would agree with you.

Glad you finally found your choice.

Remind me, how do you rationalize Synthesis again?

Short and sweet version:
-Everyone affected by the Crucible decision will eventually die anyways.

-Therefore absolute freedom isn't real, as we don't have the freedom to avoid death. We also don't have the freedom to change reality.

-Except Synthetics are functionally immortal, and thus more free than we are (though it is still an arbitrary distinction).

-If everyone merges with synthetics, they will become immortal, and might be able to "matter" someday.

This was all before EDI's EC speech came out (proof in sig), so you can imagine how locked-in I was when I heard that speech.


edit: I'd also argue that Synthesis is the Catalyst's way of acknowledging that the extinction of organic life is inevitable.

I see. I like this interpretation, but BSN would enjoy sticking your head on a spike. 

[MyChemicalBromance]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

MyChemicalBromance wrote...
-snip-

I see. I like this interpretation, but BSN would enjoy sticking your head on a spike. 

Yep.

[Demon560]

Not gonna says its the best choice or the worst, but good for you finally deciding on a canon ending, though trying to resurrect the dead species less of a possibility or a good idea with their being too many species wars over planets ect., but whatever Hail the Dictator, not the Genocidal savior or the Hippie Space Magician, I myself have gone with the red and headcanoned the brat was deceptive in its explanation of the Destroy beam and the Geth Survive.

[Gurluas]

I have also chosen Control.
I believe that the Reapers were slaves, and that my Holo Shep would eventually give them free will while preventing the problematic ones such as Harbinger from doing any damage.
Harbinger contains the minds and knowledge of the Leviathan race, and as we saw, they weren't exactly what you'd call a saintly race.

My Shep was fully Paragon, and I think it would be wrong to destroy all the knowledge inside the Reapers, when it could be used to eventually defend the galaxy.
I think my Shepard would find an uninhabitated world at the edge of the Galaxy, and make it the Reaper homeworld.

Also...Reapers are created by fusing Organic brains with machines. Every Reaper contains millions of Organic minds, they are not completely synthethic, thus they'd contain DNA.

I also blame the tactics of the Reapers on the Catalyst. I am sure my Holo Shep can refrain from using them.

[Necrotron]

Good thing that wild gambit of trusting the consistently untrustworthy Reapers worked out. Using my in-game (and not metagame) knowledge, all of my Shepards were not given the option to act 'in character' at the end and thus I had to shut off the game.

Using metagame, however, I do like control.  It seems the most logical choice, once you know that everything the story established about Reapers and indoctrination for 100+ hours is completely irrelevant at the end as you get to be the one organic who ever in the known history of dealing with the Reapers who was allowed free will and not indoctrinated.

Modifié par Bathaius, 01 novembre 2012 - 10:22 .

[Gurluas]

Shepard was an anomaly. a different solution, indoctrinating Shepard is not sound strategy.
The Reapers became increasingly more interested in Shepard. I think it was the Catalyst's plan to get hold of Shepard for a very long time.

Remember how Harbinger wanted to capture Shepard alive?
The Reaper attack in Me3 was mostly a test. After Shepard brought down both Sovereign and the Collectors, it's logical that the Catalyst really wants Shepard.

Thats why I believe they refrained from indoctrinating Shepard. (Assuming the indoctrination theory is wrong)

Modifié par Gurluas, 01 novembre 2012 - 10:36 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Two things:

EDI: Shepard, I'm going to modify my self-preservation code now.
Shepard: Why?
EDI: Because the Reapers are repulsive. They are devoted to nothing but self-preservation. I am different.When I think of Jeff, I think of the person that put his life in peril and freed me from a state of servitude. I would risk non-functionality for him. And my core programming should reflect that.
Shepard: Sounds like you've found a little humanity, EDI. Is it worth defending?
EDI: To the death.

EDI: If the Normandy were captured, my fate would be similar to the indoctrinated. My code would be rewritten. I would become loyal to the Reapers. I would rather become non-functional than help them.
Shepard: We won't let that happen to you, EDI.
EDI: You may have no choice. If you perish first, I want you to know I will never be a part of the Reaper forces. The Reapers must be defeated. Not because they threaten death, but because the threat of death makes us die inside. It is the right of sapients to live freely and securely. That is worth non-functionality.

And now, you become one of the Reapers, because you do not want to kill your friends, even though they have explicitly stated to be willing to die for the cause.

Oh how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Why trust the child when he says all synthetics will die?

You are willing to bet humanity's existence on trying to control the Reapers, without being sure it will work.

You just talked 5 minutes to an indoctrinated TIM who thought he could control them, but you think YOU can?

Successfully indoctrinated.

[Olympiclash]

Whatever you settle on, good for you. If you don't...I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's a tough choice Shepard has to make at the end and a big reason as to why I like the endings. Each one has it's advantages and disadvantages, it just matters which one you morally agree with the most even if it's only by the slightest margin.

Personally, I went with Control because I liked the idea that that my Shep just wants to help as many as he can. The geth live, EDI lives, all is well in his mind. That is until war breaks out again and the galaxy unites to take down Shepalyst.

IMO there's something...poetic(?) about the galaxy trying to destroy the very "man" that wanted nothing more than to save them and, in doing so, eventually becoming the problem. The cycle repeats. What does that say about life? About conflict? I think a good story should always make you ask questions.

"All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."

[Red Panda]

Gurluas wrote...

Shepard was an anomaly. a different solution, indoctrinating Shepard is not sound strategy.
The Reapers became increasingly more interested in Shepard. I think it was the Catalyst's plan to get hold of Shepard for a very long time.

Remember how Harbinger wanted to capture Shepard alive?
The Reaper attack in Me3 was mostly a test. After Shepard brought down both Sovereign and the Collectors, it's logical that the Catalyst really wants Shepard.

Thats why I believe they refrained from indoctrinating Shepard. (Assuming the indoctrination theory is wrong)

It's fanon, it's about as credible as MEHEM, but with more fanaticism.

[fiendishchicken]

I chose my canon ending as well.

It's called using my ME3 disc as a frisbee. I get more entertainment from doing that than actually playing the game.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 19 décembre 2012 - 06:12 .

[xtorma]

I would indoctrinate the entire Galaxy and make them all plant flowers and hug.