639 réponses à ce sujet

[Kais Endac]

 I think all the endings can be seen as war crimes 
Control - Shepard takes over the reapers and restores peace at the cost of his own life, I think this ending is perhaps the better one for the rest of the galaxy simply because it does not commit genocide or force evolutionary change. However there is no telling what AI Shepard could do in the future he might eventually come to the same conclusion as the catalyst and start the cycles again. 

Synthesis - Yea no way you can sugar coat it, this ending forces the change on the galaxy for the "greater good". I know I would be pretty annoyed if someone did that to me
Destroy - Genocide of an entire race (if the geth live in your playthrough) and EDI 

Refuse - You have just doomed the current cycle but ensured future cycles have a fighting chance.
In the end your personal choice is one that you may think is the optimal ending. And everyone uses some sort of head canon in how they think the galaxy will turn out I dont think any of the choices are better than the others it's all about perspective.

tbh though my head canon is the MEHEM happy ending (yup guilty I just feel better with that ending, its more in line with how i thought Mass Effect would end). But I can see what Bioware wanted to do and I think it was a really good idea I just didn't like how they implemented it. 

They wanted people to speculate on the endings and perhaps wanted each person to discuss what ending they chose and why they chose it(discussion is good right everyone has their own opinions and perspective), after all given the apparent split in the fanbase over who chose what ending and why, why this ending sucked and that ending was better I think it worked just not entirely according to plan.

Modifié par Kais Endac, 08 novembre 2012 - 11:30 .

[Ieldra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
OP - you can headcanon your choice of ending and justify it to yourself however you want to.

But if you ignore the empirical evidence as presented through the Mass Effect lore, conversations with in game characters and the situations you face throughout the series as a whole to do so, don't be surprised if you're laughed at.

The problem is those present a muddled picture. Also, characters are just that - characters. They have opinions and those opinions can be wrong. Last but not least, there are differences of opinion about the most prevalent themes of the ME trilogy pre-ending.

As I see it, there are three levels of expanding on the story using your imagination:

(1) Plausible speculation based on evidence from the games.
(2) Filling empty spaces with consistent stuff that doesn't have evidence but doesn't contradict anything in the game.
(3) Contradicting things shown or told in the games.

Only (1) can be used in arguments, and only (3) should be laughed at, and only if it's not acknowledged as what it is or used as an argument.

[Kais Endac]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...
Destroy - Genocide of an entire race (if the geth live in your playthrough) and EDI 

Post extended cut? Synthetic is not exclusive to Geth and Reaper, and we know in the extended cut that not all synthetics are destroyed.

Unless I've forgotten something, because it has been a while since I played, genocide is not conclusive.  It's a likely consequence at most.  From meta or non-meta perspectives.

True I took the destruction of the geth solely from the fact that they are missng from the ending slides. but that is not conclusive given that there are a lot of things missing from the slides.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Everybody headcanon away. Certainly beats taking the endings as handed to you.

[malakim2099]

xsdob wrote...

So the op is wrong and not wrong at the same time. Rather that destroy being headcanoned, it's that people who pick destroy headcanon negative consequences onto the other endings and treat it as actual lore.

So the OP is Schrodinger's cat?

Not exactly sure how you can head-canon something good out of forcing your DNA upon the entire galaxy without even buying it dinner first, but hey, if that floats your boat.

Though if Synthesis gave everyone head cannons, I'd reconsider it.

Modifié par malakim2099, 08 novembre 2012 - 12:12 .

[Karrie788]

By all means, headcanon away. There's always going to be people who will disagree with you anyway, so better decide of your own ending and be done with it.

[Sable Rhapsody]

malakim2099 wrote...
Though if Synthesis gave everyone head cannons, I'd reconsider it.

LOL.  Head cannons might be a bit impractical.  I want laser eyes.  And flight.  Telekinesis.  And maybe an arm cannon that changes into an enormous omnitool blade.  And a sexy, ageless body.

If the Starbrat can give me all that, I'll totally pick Synthesis next time 

[dorktainian]

just wake up shepard. that'll do me.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Eterna5 wrote...

You choose what you can live with, you choose what you think is best for the galaxy. You don't have the luxury of holding a galatic wide vote.

Bullsh*t, you choose what others have, to live with(and in the case of synthetics whether they live at all) 2/3 options don't even have Shepard live and own up to what s/he's helped enforce on the galaxy.

[Ieldra]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

malakim2099 wrote...
Though if Synthesis gave everyone head cannons, I'd reconsider it.

LOL.  Head cannons might be a bit impractical.  I want laser eyes.  And flight.  Telekinesis.  And maybe an arm cannon that changes into an enormous omnitool blade.  And a sexy, ageless body.

If the Starbrat can give me all that, I'll totally pick Synthesis next time 

Telekinesis - I guess it won't be a problem to make yourself an artificial biotic like Miranda. You'll get something like "mechanical telepathy", too. And you'll be able to to reshape your body into a sexy one if you aren't already, though everyone else will, too, so that doesn't make you any more special. Longevity is in line for the future.

Not everything you wanted, but we're getting close.

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The problem is those present a muddled picture. Also, characters are just that - characters. They have opinions and those opinions can be wrong. Last but not least, there are differences of opinion about the most prevalent themes of the ME trilogy pre-ending.

As I see it, there are three levels of expanding on the story using your imagination:

(1) Plausible speculation based on evidence from the games.
(2) Filling empty spaces with consistent stuff that doesn't have evidence but doesn't contradict anything in the game.
(3) Contradicting things shown or told in the games.

Only (1) can be used in arguments, and only (3) should be laughed at, and only if it's not acknowledged as what it is or used as an argument.

That's absolutely fine, and I agree with everything except the point about the characters.

The characters are voicing an opinion, true, but they are also being used as a storytelling device.  The writers are using them to give voice to ideas, elaborate on in-game scenarios and to drop hints.  You may consider a character's opinion to be "wrong", but it gives you valuable perspective into the bigger picture regardless.

A lot of the dialogue between you and your squad mates, superiors and even enemies foreshadows the ending choice, and this is deliberate.  You are being given important insights (and warnings) into your final decision, and they shouldn't be ignored.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...
That's not genocide, though.  If all synthetics were indeed destroyed, then nothing synthetic would exist afterwards.  We know that's not the case with the extended cut.  "Synthetic" is not exclusive to Geth and Reaper. 

All syntehthic life is destroyed. Side with the Geth over the Quarians at Rannoch, pick destroy and you will recieve a slider that shows an empty and vacant Rannoch. Couple that with EDI's name on the wall and I think we got a pretty clear picture what Bioware's intentions are regarding destroy.

Does it make sense that the destroy wave can somehow tell the difference between ships, their VI's and the Geth or EDI? No, but that does not matter, what matters is what Bioware wanted. And they wanted the destroy wave to kill all synthethic life.

[LilLino]

I don't headcanon anything except Shepard alive, which is heavily implied anyway.

I have no problem with my former-enemy-allied-with-the-Reapers dying, expecialy such quick and painless dead. Add to that, they are robots, we can rebuild robots.
EDI? I'm sorry about her, but I won't let everyone's else's sacrifices go to waste just because of her.

I don't also head-canon any synthesis nor control either. Epilogue tells me all I want to know to reject these choices.

Control -> Shepard AI is not Shepard, he only has his memories and tries his best to act like him 'Through my birth, his thoughs are free, they guide me now, give me reason, direction'. I don't want my legacy to be a robot forcing my POV on the universe.

Synthesis? It's clear that everyone is co-existing with the Reapers now, also shown in epilogue. If treating your former mass-murderers like your friends is not a sign of a brain-mind-fix/change/f*ck or whatever, then I don't f*cking know what is.

Lizardviking wrote...


Does it make sense that the destroy wave can somehow tell the difference between ships, their VI's and the Geth or EDI? No, but that does not matter, what matters is what Bioware wanted. And they wanted the destroy wave to kill all synthethic life.

I think it's just because if you destroy the brain of an AI you remove everything that he/she learned/developed making it completely brain-dead, thus effectivily killing it. You can rebuild it, but the 'person' (or however you call it) is dead.

VIs on the other hand, are just very advanced computers which can be easily rebuild&restarted after being fried.

Modifié par LilLino, 08 novembre 2012 - 12:52 .

[LilLino]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Shepard is as much alive as a spider is after you break it's legs off.

Except Shepard doesn't get his legs broken and Shepard is not a spider.

S/he's a man/woman shown breathing, cutscene is called 'Shepard alive' Guide says that s/he is alive in destroy and Wall-plate scene (One case out of 3 possible destroy scenarios) implies s/he is alive.

One of the Bioware guys said s/he is alive too, another just said it 'may' be his/her dying breath, which would be exhale not an inhale.

Anything else you wanna try to annoy/depress me with? You don't like the game, I see, but I ain't gonna dislike the facts that aren't even facts.

Modifié par LilLino, 08 novembre 2012 - 12:59 .

[Yate]

hey guys how about we accept that everyone's morality and personal idea of a utopia are different and rather than argue who's interpretation is better we just accept NOPE WE'RE JUST GOING TO YELL AT PEOPLE FOR CHOOSING BAD CHOICES IN A GAME WITH AN AMBIGUOUS ENDING WITH NOTHING BUT BOGUS SPECULATION TO SUPPORT OUR ARGUMENTS? OK.

[AlexMBrennan]

[quote]Destroy ending headcanons.
1. people are okay with no longer having synthetics.
[/quote]
Not necessary for picking Destroy
[quote]
2. all of your squadmates approve of it, joker fine with losing edi, quarians fine with losing geth.
[/quote]
Not necessary for picking Destroy[quote]
3. catalyst is lying, this is not provable with any in game content.
[/quote]
You're on to something here because the epilogue proves that Godchild is telling the truth... but again, it's not necessary for picking Destroy - it's enough for *Shepard* (who doesn't know about the epilogue) to have reasonable doubt (hint: the head Reaper is telling you that not destroying/mind-controlling the Reapers is the best idea - if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell)[quote]
4. that it's the only solution
[/quote]
Again, that's not necessary for picking Destroy - all you need is for *Shepard* to have reasonable doubt about the other options given by Godchild [if you had gotten the information about the three choices from *any other source*, it would be a totally different matter][quote]
5. that the other endings are traps
[/quote]
Not necessary for picking Destroy - all you need is for Shepard to have reasonable doubt about the other endings. Get this into your head: I pick Synthesis because I don't believe that Shepard would believe Godchild rather than because I believe that Godchild is lying.[quote]
6. that the other endings are bad[/quote]
There's no need to head-canon anything:

Godchild did not build the Reapers and start the cycles out of malice but because a cold, logical AI could not comprehend why this might be wrong - so putting another AI in charge (Control) is questionable at best.

Synthesis leaves the Reapers intact and in control of their own actions, and you have no guarantee that they will stop killing you.
[quote]
7. that the other endings are somehow playing into the reapers hands and doom the galaxy.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Not necessary for picking Destroy. Stop meta-gaming - absolute truth is irrelevant, all that matters is whether or not Shepard would pick the other endings.

[quote]hey guys how about we accept that everyone's morality and personal idea of a utopia are different and rather than argue who's interpretation is better we just accept NOPE WE'RE JUST GOING TO YELL AT PEOPLE FOR CHOOSING BAD CHOICES IN A GAME WITH AN AMBIGUOUS ENDING WITH NOTHING BUT BOGUS SPECULATION TO SUPPORT OUR ARGUMENTS? OK.[/quote]
Well, you're wrong. It's objective fact that Bioware picked the least trustworthy expositor conceivable (the head Reaper) to give you the information about the endings.

It's objective fact that you are only told about the tech singularity (which Synthesis is supposed to solve) by the least trustworthy expositor conceivable (the head Reaper).

Because Bioware screwed up, you don't have three ambiguous endings that only differ in morality; instead, two endings require Shepard to just take the designated villain at his word, and pass the only opportunity to permanently disable his forces: That's stupid. Shepard is not stupid.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 08 novembre 2012 - 01:18 .

[Yate]

dude

if catalyst is lying you're screwed no matter what you pick

you think the lying AI would say OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT

haha no

pick destroy if you want, just don't act like it's the only valid option

you're doing exactly what you accuse BW of doing: railroading players into following a predetermined, linear path

[Yate]

Well, you're wrong. It's objective fact that Bioware picked the least trustworthy expositor conceivable (the head Reaper) to give you the information about the endings.

It's objective fact that you are only told about the tech singularity (which Synthesis is supposed to solve) by the least trustworthy expositor conceivable (the head Reaper).

Because Bioware screwed up, you don't have three ambiguous endings that only differ in morality; instead, two endings require Shepard to just take the designated villain at his word, and pass the only opportunity to permanently disable his forces: That's stupid. Shepard is not stupid.

1. I have yet to see one possible reason to believe the Catalyst is lying or has any reason to lie, and if it is lying then all is lost anyway.

2. Synthesis doesn't solve the tech singularity, it improves synthetics and organics.

3. You can't seriously believe BW 'screwed up'. What, do you think this was some sort of mistake? That they wasted the entire dev cycle without coming up with an ending?

4. Control disables his forces.

[Yate]

and BTW, it IS possible to destroy AIs without damaging ships or VIs or anything else

and the logic for it has been around since ME1

that's all I'm gonna say

[Ieldra]

Yate wrote...
hey guys how about we accept that everyone's morality and personal idea of a utopia are different and rather than argue who's interpretation is better we just accept NOPE WE'RE JUST GOING TO YELL AT PEOPLE FOR CHOOSING BAD CHOICES IN A GAME WITH AN AMBIGUOUS ENDING WITH NOTHING BUT BOGUS SPECULATION TO SUPPORT OUR ARGUMENTS? OK.

So true.

Each ending is liked or disliked because of how we think about it and how we interpret it. I understand why many people choose Destroy even though it's not my favorite. What's not ok, that's to re-interpret the whole scenario in a way that your favorite comes out as the only sensible option. You want to be right in any objective sense? Not here, not in ME3's ending. Go somewhere else, there's nothing to see here. We don't want any fundamentalists here.