308 réponses à ce sujet

[goose2989]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Refuse = Reapers still exist.
Control = Reapers still exist.
Synthesis = Reapers still exist.
Destroy = Reapers gone, cycle ends forever.

Destroy = Holding the line.

[The Night Mammoth]

clennon8 wrote...

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.

No, it's my bad. I thought you meant ending as in specific ending of the four, rather than what you actually meant which was the ending as a whole. 

So you're right. 

To the point, destroy is more popular because the goal of the player is to 'stop' the bad guys, and killing them all translates to stopping them better than taking control of them or brainwashing the galaxy and making them friendly. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 16 novembre 2012 - 02:15 .

[N7 Assass1n]

It doesn't compromise the entire Galaxies morals. Its more straightforward than the others by far. They knew they were creating a weapon capable of defeating the Reapers. Not a weapon which also had the capability to eugenically combine every organic in the galaxy alongside Synthetic Understanding of Organics... Oh and Controlling the Reapers, something that Shepard opposed the entire game because of TIM. It doesn't need a real explanation. Its there in black and white.

[DirtySHISN0]

N7 Assass1n wrote...

It doesn't compromise the entire Galaxies morals. Its more straightforward than the others by far. They knew they were creating a weapon capable of defeating the Reapers. Not a weapon which also had the capability to eugenically combine every organic in the galaxy alongside Synthetic Understanding of Organics... Oh and Controlling the Reapers, something that Shepard opposed the entire game because of TIM. It doesn't need a real explanation. Its there in black and white.

I agree with the rest.

[BombThatDeadGuy]

For me there's less problems that come from Destroy.

With Control ending it's hard to accept that everyone would just stop attacking the Reapers even if they are controlled. A large portion of the people fighting are going to want revenge because either their family,friends, or comrades were killed by Reapers or worse turn into Reaper forces like Husks, Brutes, Banshees, etc. That alone is enough reason to warrant people to keep fighting even after the reapers have been controlled and knowing Shepherd's luck he would be one of the first to get attack.

The Reapers just don't deserve to live and Destroy is the only option to successfully kill them off. Synthesis I don't have a whole lot against other than being odd to look at. Refuse COULD have been interesting had they made different ending on it based on your war assets than just then one "you lose" screen "NOBODY REFUSES THE CATALYST" is basically what that ending was. It had potential to be the best but it failed to deliver.

Anyways Destroy is the better choice because it is as mentioned earlier more straightforward, makes more sense, has less problems than the other endings, and most importantly is the one ending that kills every reaper.

Modifié par BombThatDeadGuy, 16 novembre 2012 - 02:52 .

[Random Geth]

"Well, he's wrong. Dead Reapers are how we win this."

Hackett was right. That's why.

[Seishoujyo]

Because I hate Reapers and I want to see them dead six feet under, and even when I m playing multiplayer I m always fighting Reapers.

[Lookout1390]

Cause it's the only one that would make sense even though all 3 endings were pretty full of non-sense and so broad and left for interpretation.

[Shermos]

Dubozz wrote...

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

Controlling the Reapers removes the starbrat and without killing EDI and committing genocide against the Geth. So why don't more people choose control? The answer is because most people are closed minded and unable to consider alternatives. The truth can hurt a bit, but it's still the truth.

I've never understood the assumption that CatShepard would start using the Reapers to Reap again. Not only does the Extended Cut disprove this (even the renegade version), Catshep knows that "uplifting" organic civilisations on a cyclical basis isn't the best solution anymore. The paragon and neutral catsheps only wish to act as a guardian and educator.

Modifié par Shermos, 16 novembre 2012 - 08:07 .

[BatmanTurian]

Shermos wrote...

Dubozz wrote...

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

Controlling the Reapers removes the starbrat and without killing EDI and committing genocide against the Geth. So why don't more people choose control? The answer is because most people are closed minded and unable to consider alternatives. The truth can hurt a bit, but it's still the truth.

Or maybe some of us are intelligent enough to know we just argued against TIM about this 5 mins ago before the choices. Then someone who says they're the leader of your enemy tells you " it's cool, you can do it now, that other guy couldn't cuz we controlled him" , and you buy it hook-line-and-sinker, never once questioning why the thing is in your head taking out an image of the boy you saw dying on Earth.

I think some of us have more open minds than you think, and our eyes are wide open. An enemy who has no reason to make peace with you because he is outgunning you, outmanning you, and slaughtering your forces easily, puts a dagger to your throat and offers you two ways to make a truce and you would take that and not expect any downside? Completely naive and illogical.

Bottom line (unintended pun) is that you are the fish, the "Catalyst" is the fisherman, and Control and Synthesis are the glowy worms hiding a hook, and you chomped on that thing without a second-thought.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 16 novembre 2012 - 08:49 .

[Necrotron]

Because of all the ending choices, it's the least ludicrous?

[Conquerthecity]

 Synthesis: Mass Rape that comes out of nowhere. No Word of God or anything else will convince me otherwise. I am repulsed by this option. Reapers still exist, too. Don't buy that this is inevitable or the most peaceful solution. 
Control: Feels like a betrayal and despite the existence of Paragon control ending, I only think the most renegade of Shepards would take/crave such power. But at least it was foreshadowed in the beginning of the game. Don't buy that everyone would just stop fighting. 
Destroy: Goal of the entire trilogy, for myself and my Sheps. I don't enjoy having to kill the Geth and EDI, but console myself with the idea that they would both accept my choice and their sacrifice if I could ask them before. Don't buy that chaos is inevitable. 

Destroy is my only ending. 

[Zaalbar]

I'm all for Controlling the Reapers myself. With Shepard's control the galaxy will forever have a protector and guardian.

My biggest concern with Destroy is leaving the galaxy wide open for the Leviathans to turn organics into thralls.

It's simply my opinion but control just comes off as the lesser of 4 evils, Synthesis is just unbelievable for a Mass Effect game, Refusal feels like 5 years of effort down the drain and Destroy seems like i'm handing the galaxy over to the leviathans.

That said, I believe of all the endings Destroy would make for the best ending to play off any future ME games as the Reapers are no more and Leviathans could pose a threat.

Modifié par zaalbar76, 16 novembre 2012 - 09:37 .

[InvincibleHero]

It is the most sensible solution. It does not require a leap of faith and is exactly what every species agreed upon in the war alliance. They wanted the reaper threat extinguished and talking wasn't going to cut it.

[thebigbad1013]

You more or less know the outcome of destroy. Control is based upon Shepard "controlling" the reapers despite the fact that he's dead and synthesis...well, it's just horrible. To me it's very simple really (and it's already been posted but here goes):

The Illusive Man wanted control--indoctrinated.

Saren wanted synthesis--indoctrinated.

Destroy is the only way to ensure that the reapers are gone forever. Shepard's mission--at least my Shepard's mission--was always to stop the reapers once and for all and destroy does exactly that. All of the other choices are suspect at best.

[ElSuperGecko]

zaalbar76 wrote...
I'm all for Controlling the Reapers myself. With Shepard's control the galaxy will forever have a protector and guardian.

The galaxy doesn't NEED a protector and guardian.  It doesn't need an omnipotent, omniscient entity watching over it and judging what is right or wrong, good or bad.  Having one being with all that power, immortal, eternal... that's what led to the Catalyst, and the entire nightmare we're facing in the first place.

What the galaxys NEEDS is to be free from oppression, free from fear, free from a predetermined destiny.

[Jagri]

Within a veteran's point of view, destruction was the only option. It was the goal and objective I had set to accomplish by the end of the first game. During the course of the second and third game it was further reinforced by the actions/history of the Reapers. Then during those final moments I was presented with three options...

1) Control Illuminati
2) Merge with Helios Reapers
3) Destroy Communication Hub Reapers

Wait sorry I was getting things confused with the first Dues Ex game.

Option 1 & 2 deals with uncertainty, idealism, and in general a vague notion of what will happen as a result. These two options do not secure life and or liberty in my view. That would leave only option three as a means to secure a victory over the Reapers.

Will there be problems in the future? That might be the case but that is for future generations to handle. A future in which they can decide for themselves and not have the shadows of Reapers hang over them or flowing in their vains.

Modifié par Jagri, 16 novembre 2012 - 10:58 .

[SpamBot2000]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

, there is no guarantee the epilogue slides are truthful.

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

You mean to be facetious, but this in fact is the extent of the failure of the ending. Indoctrination went seriously meta.

[ElSuperGecko]

Jagri wrote...
Will there be problems in the future? That might be the case but that is for future generations to handle. A future in which they can decide for themselves and not have the shadows of Reapers hang over them or flowing in their vains.

EXACTLY.  Some people seem to want to write the fate of the galaxy forever, either by having an immortal ShepAI watch over it, or by involuntary galxy-wide eugenics.  That way lies disaster, because the consequences over time are unknown and malleable.  We can't control everything, forever.  "The best laid plans of mice and men..."

Destroy however solves the problems of the present, and leaves the races free to build and determine their own future and decide their own fate.  What will happen in the future will happen.  Who are we to try to change that?

[RiptideX1090]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

, there is no guarantee the epilogue slides are truthful.

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

You mean to be facetious, but this in fact is the extent of the failure of the ending. Indoctrination went seriously meta.

The real problem here is not indoctrination or it's ilk, it's that what is presented, even with the slides, that Shepard is controlling the Reapers despite ALL accounts to the contrary being otherwise, that Synthesis can even be a thing at all despite all past applicates being abominable, it's still too much for most people to swallow.

Synthesis and Control go against everything presented through the game, both are supported by the two main antogonists, and... I mean... what the hell? How are we supposed to be able to believe it's possible to control the Reapers at all? And how the hell does Synthesis work? Is it brain washing? And how the **** does Shepard throwing himself into a power core make it possible to alter all life in the galaxy?

Synthesis doesn't make any god damn sense, Control seems a little more viable but is still a tough pill to swallow when Shepard is forced to decry controlling the Reapers in the scene before, and that leaves Destroy, which many people hate because it's thematically breaking of the ideal of unity by targeting the geth and EDI.

People fall back on indoctrination theory, people would rather believe it's all a dream, than accept these endings for their face value because they are so poorly constructed that they can't trust the writing or the writer's intentions.

Basically, the writers break suspension of disbelief to the point that the player can't trust what is presented at all. It's at the point where people would rather be able to win without the Crucible. They would have an easier time believing it's possible to fight and win without it, even though it is constantly stated as impossible, than swallow the logic breaking Catalyst logic and how his solution is possible, and how Control is viable after all evidence to the contrary.

[Zaalbar]

Modifié par zaalbar76, 16 novembre 2012 - 12:46 .

[ElSuperGecko]

zaalbar76 wrote...
RANT SNIPPED

Someone clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "open to interpretation".  Or "lateral thinking", for that matter.

The ending slides and Stargazer scene stroke DLC advertisement mean absolutely nothing when it comes to Shepard actually making their final decision.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 16 novembre 2012 - 11:24 .

[RiptideX1090]

zaalbar76 wrote...

Because it wasn't about just ending the Reaper threat, not for me. It was also about freeing the Galaxy from their influence, giving everyone I fought with a future, and building Tali that house on Rannoch.

Destroy is the only ending that offers all that. The loss of the geth is inconclusive, and though their potential loss and EDI's is tragic, we will honor their sacrifice by rebuilding the galaxy and the ideals they died fighting to protect. Namely, self-determination.

[RiptideX1090]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

The ending slides and Stargazer scene stroke DLC advertisement mean absolutely nothing when it comes to Shepard actually making their final decision.

God, that scene was so out of place, so awful.

Buzz mother****ing Aldrin is an American hero. He deserved better than a poorly dialogued, out of place scene for a half baked conclusion to what was supposed to be one of the most incredible, amazing climaxes in storytelling history.

[Zaalbar]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

zaalbar76 wrote...
RANT SNIPPED

Someone clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "open to interpretation".  Or "lateral thinking", for that matter.

The ending slides and Stargazer scene stroke DLC advertisement mean absolutely nothing when it comes to Shepard actually making their final decision.

I apologise,
It wasn't my intention to turn into a rant.