308 réponses à ce sujet

[darthnick427]

Destroy is the best ending for various reasons. Most of which have been stated already.

[Shermos]

It comes down to people being narrow minded and unable to consider alternatives. I won't be very popular for putting it like that but after a few months of reading posts on this board, I think it's true. Destroying the Reapers was never my Shepard's primary goal. Stopping them was. A lot of the dialogue in all three games has Shepard saying he wants to stop them. There's more than one way to stop a threat.

[DirtySHISN0]

 Squad responses to legions loyalty mission provide a pretty accurate analogy for the endings.

Either way the question is irrelevant, we make a decision before the decision makes us.
It just feels wrong having to choose between bad, bad, bad or give up.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 16 novembre 2012 - 01:01 .

[clennon8]

Ah, yes, the "you should be more open minded" argument. I should be open-minded about walking into a trap. A trap that has been thoroughly demonstrated throughout the game as being a trap. I should open my mind up so far that my brains fall out onto the floor.

[ElSuperGecko]

Shermos wrote...
It comes down to people being narrow minded and unable to consider alternatives. I won't be very popular for putting it like that but after a few months of reading posts on this board, I think it's true. Destroying the Reapers was never my Shepard's primary goal. Stopping them was. A lot of the dialogue in all three games has Shepard saying he wants to stop them. There's more than one way to stop a threat.

....and that argument bites both ways.  Many Control and Synthesis supporters clearly exhibit the Ostrich Defence Mechanism, and refuse to accept or even acknowledge the plentiful evidence, lore, conversations and situations from the Mass Effect series that suggests that they may well have been making a grave mistake.

No, it's all roses and flowers and happiness for a lot of players, regardless of the ending they prefer.  There couldn't possibly be ramifications and consequences to their decision, no sir.

[BatmanTurian]

Control appeals to the Greedy, Synthesis appeals to the Naive, Refuse appeals to the Nihilistic, and Destroy appeals to the Logical Pragmatic. Plus what Riptide posted.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 16 novembre 2012 - 01:15 .

[DirtySHISN0]

clennon8 wrote...

Ah, yes, the "you should be more open minded" argument. I should be open-minded about walking into a trap. A trap that has been thoroughly demonstrated throughout the game as being a trap. I should open my mind up so far that my brains fall out onto the floor.

classic misdirection.


You walked into the beam. You gave shepard to the reapers no matter what you chose.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 16 novembre 2012 - 01:16 .

[DirtySHISN0]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Control appeals to the Greedy, Synthesis appeals to the Naive, Refuse appeals to the Nihilistic, and Destroy appeals to the Logical righteous. Plus what Riptide posted.

Logical people know all of the endings are flawed.

[BatmanTurian]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Control appeals to the Greedy, Synthesis appeals to the Naive, Refuse appeals to the Nihilistic, and Destroy appeals to the Logical righteous. Plus what Riptide posted.

Logical people know all of the endings are flawed.

Logic says the Catalyst doesn't want destroy. When your mortal enemy is trying to talk you out of something because it would hurt him, logic says you should choose it.

[DirtySHISN0]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Logic says the Catalyst doesn't want destroy. When your mortal enemy is trying to talk you out of something because it would hurt him, logic says you should choose it.

"oh noes don't destroy us, no totally don't pick that option"

You lose shepards perspective, there is no guarantee the epilogue slides are truthful. If the catalyst was lying he would want to misdirect you, either way he gets shepard.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 16 novembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[BatmanTurian]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Logic says the Catalyst doesn't want destroy. When your mortal enemy is trying to talk you out of something because it would hurt him, logic says you should choose it.

"oh noes don't destroy us, no totally don't pick that option"

You lose shepards perspective, there is no guarantee the epilogue slides are truthful. If the catalyst was lying he would want to misdirect you.

Which he does. He uses a salesman technique by showing you the option he wants less first, then showing options that he's trying to sell you, hoping you'll forget the first one. He shows you Synthesis last because it's the one he wants you to buy the most. The last item shown makes the most impact on the customer.

Crucible was meant to destroy the Reapers. That's what it was built to do. But we won't agree that all the choices are lies. That's a nihilist view I won't accept.

[clennon8]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Ah, yes, the "you should be more open minded" argument. I should be open-minded about walking into a trap. A trap that has been thoroughly demonstrated throughout the game as being a trap. I should open my mind up so far that my brains fall out onto the floor.

classic misdirection.


You walked into the beam. You gave shepard to the reapers no matter what you chose.

classic avoidance

[AlexMBrennan]

, there is no guarantee the epilogue slides are truthful.

Right, I guess the omniscient viewpoint non-person entity got indoctrinated as well...

[DirtySHISN0]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Which he does. He uses a salesman technique by showing you the option he wants less first, then showing options that he's trying to sell you, hoping you'll forget the first one. He shows you Synthesis last because it's the one he wants you to buy the most. The last item shown makes the most impact on the customer.

Crucible was meant to destroy the Reapers. That's what it was built to do. But we won't agree that all the choices are lies. That's a nihilist view I won't accept.

You don't have to accept it because its not a view, it's a possibility.

It's just as possible that all options are lies as it is that all options are truthful. When making statements about  possible consequences you have to consider possible consequences that are hidden from you aswell.

[BatmanTurian]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Which he does. He uses a salesman technique by showing you the option he wants less first, then showing options that he's trying to sell you, hoping you'll forget the first one. He shows you Synthesis last because it's the one he wants you to buy the most. The last item shown makes the most impact on the customer.

Crucible was meant to destroy the Reapers. That's what it was built to do. But we won't agree that all the choices are lies. That's a nihilist view I won't accept.

You don't have to accept it because its not a view, it's a possibility.

It's just as possible that all options are lies as it is that all options are truthful. When making statements about  possible consequences you have to consider possible consequences that are hidden from you aswell.

Then you can't even choose refuse, so this is a useless view.

[DirtySHISN0]

clennon8 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Ah, yes, the "you should be more open minded" argument. I should be open-minded about walking into a trap. A trap that has been thoroughly demonstrated throughout the game as being a trap. I should open my mind up so far that my brains fall out onto the floor.

classic misdirection.


You walked into the beam. You gave shepard to the reapers no matter what you chose.

classic avoidance

I try to discredit and defend all endings, what exactly am i avoiding.
Its a fair comment. the reapers have been longing for shepard for some time now.

[clennon8]

As much as I dislike it when others make assumptions about writer intent, I think we can safely assume Bioware didn't give us a No Win ending.

[DirtySHISN0]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Then you can't even choose refuse, so this is a useless view.

A useless, but considered and logical view. 
The endings are equally morally detrimental, choosing from a selection of bad decisions doesn't seem like the right thing to do. 

[The Night Mammoth]

clennon8 wrote...

As much as I dislike it when others make assumptions about writer intent, I think we can safely assume Bioware didn't give us a No Win ending.

Refuse isn't that? 

[N147]

Maybe because people don't want to win the war, yet have the enemy flying around as if nothing happened. An enemy that wanted nothing more than to pasteurize every sentient being in the Galaxy up until a few moments ago.....

[DirtySHISN0]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

As much as I dislike it when others make assumptions about writer intent, I think we can safely assume Bioware didn't give us a No Win ending.

Refuse isn't that? 

Agreed. As principled as it is, everything you have done has meant nothing.

[Sparbiter]

I started playing Mass Effect a month before ME3 released, so I had one singular playthrough, a paragon Shepard, who made the "paragon" choices whenever possible, only going for renegade options when it seemed necessary, which was very rare.

I debated on the Rachni Queen, but ultimately thought that they deserved to live. I saved the council, despite their lack of faith in me.

In ME2, I never trusted the Cerberus crew, but still did their loyalty missions and steered them on the right path. I destroyed the collector base, and I rewrote the Geth, and I turned my nose at Cerberus and TIM every time I had the chance (for example, the side mission where you send data to Cerberus or the Alliance).

In ME3, I would not betray the Krogan, despite the threat they posed. My Shepard have already set this precedent with the Rachni, and once again, he spared the Rachni. He turned away Salarian aid, even though they were undoubtedly more valuable to the crucible than the diminished Krogan population. He stayed true to Garrus and Tali, the two squadmates that were always loyal, and I always sided with them and took them on my quests. He made peace with the Geth and Quarians, but I was willing to put the Geth down if necessary.

I stayed off the forums. I only had one playthrough, and to me, it WAS the Mass Effect story. My Shepard was a good guy, not without faults, but a good guy who did the right thing.

When the ending choice was presented, I was hugely disappointed, but I was determined to see it through.

The Catalyst explained Control, Destroy, and Synthesis. I dismissed Synthesis instantly; my Shepard doesn't play God, and in no way was that an acceptable end to my story. I saw that Control was the "blue" ending, the paragon ending, and it was here that I first made my "renegade" choice.

How on earth was controlling these creatures better than destroying them? I had to pick between these three choices? They were all awful.

I picked destroy because ironically I thought it would demolish my beloved universe the least. Synthesis, to me, was evil, and never an option. Control was foolish. I sacrificed the Geth to finish the story in what I thought was the best end-game.

I didn't know that the breath scene was only in destroy, so Shepard living has nothing to do with it.

There you have it, my reason. My good guy, at the end, couldn't pick the "good" choice.

[clennon8]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

As much as I dislike it when others make assumptions about writer intent, I think we can safely assume Bioware didn't give us a No Win ending.

Refuse isn't that? 

Debatable.  But I think you misunderstood me.  Or rather I wasn't clear.  I should have said "situation" instead of "ending."  Bioware wouldn't put us in a situation where we lose no matter what choice we make.

[DirtySHISN0]

"Many decisions lie ahead...none of them easy"

Its improbable, but not impossible. It doesn't hurt to consider all possibilities.

[Dubozz]

Starbrat is the main reason destruction is the most popular ending. I can't allow such being to exist. ****ing Starbrat.