308 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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

Destroy = Holding the line.

You Neanderthal.  Instead of rejecting the solutions that you killed Saren and TIM for, you should have evolved and recognized the Reaper traps for Reaper truths.  You should have embraced your chum, the Catalyst.  Just look at those poor, misguided Reapers.  You don't really want to hurt them, do you?

[Applepie_Svk]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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

Destroy = Holding the line.

For IT...

Refuse - bullet betwen the eyes
Control - become husk
Synthesis - become husk
Destroy - WAKE UP SHEPUUURD

[Argolas]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

It is the only option that ends this flawed cycle idea for good. It is the only ending that the reapers don't have their hands on. It is the only choice backed by our friends and squaddies. Every indoctrinated character we ever meet rejects Destroy, but most of them would support either Control or Synthesis.
And then there is some more complicated stuff like the dangerous assumption that Holoshep would be beneficial forever or the effects of Synthesis that the Leviathans could abuse.

Your missing the fact that the catalyst tells you once enough generations have forgotten, synthetics will be created again and the cycle begin anew.

Assuming leviathans don't jump onto the scene now that the reapers are gone.


They all have negative outcomes.

I agree that we are safe in NO ending, they are all roughly as dangerous as the others, but I reject this "inevitability" that Holokid talks about. It can't know that the cycle will begin anew after one occurance. Its reasoning has far too many holes and I can't help but believing this is the reaper doctrine, their justification for structual genocide in countless cases, a thing that can't be justified. I won't accept that kind of doctrine.

[Fawx9]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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

Destroy =  securing the present.

Catalyst is insane and the Leviathens probably didn't understand the problem to being with.

Synthetics could see everyone else was controlled and didn't want to end up that way.

[Little Princess Peach]

shepard gets to live (hopeful here) and we giv e the middle finger to the suicidle ghost

[N7KnightSabre]

jstme wrote...

Because two other options are even worse.
Becoming a demi-god or removing organic life from the galaxy? No thank you.

[Argolas]

Fawx9 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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

Destroy =  securing the present.

Catalyst is insane and the Leviathens probably didn't understand the problem to being with.

Synthetics could see everyone else was controlled and didn't want to end up that way.

The catalyst still serves the purpose the Leviathans gave it: Maintaining order. That's the point of Synthesis. Just like the reapers like to point out:

"You represent chaos. We represent order."

[DirtySHISN0]

CDR David Shepard wrote...

I highly doubt that the war with the reapers will be forgotten. It's something that many diffrent species had to deal with.

Anyways...I would definitely be more inclined to believe that the future will learn from the mistakes of the past....then to believe Shepard can actually control the reapers forever without going insane eventually.

It's not impossible if you consider the catalysts timescale. 37million years at least.

Destroy secures the present.
Control prevents the past from occuring again.
Synthesis changes the future.
Refuse wastes your time.

Destroy is the best of a bad bunch, but that doesn't mean we must choose it for lack of a better option.

[Nightwriter]

"Stop" and "kill" are both simply expressions of defiance for me. The terms themselves don't matter -- the core idea is that I am opposing the Reapers, opposing what they want to do to me and my fellow beings, and opposing whatever plan could possibly wreak such unspeakable loss upon the galaxy for so long.

So, even if the objective was just to "stop" the Reapers, the ending still does not satisfy because it does not carry any weight of defiance or opposition, and it is that defiance that they had been building up for three games. It is that defiance that I came there to express.

To illustrate: if I had won a mental battle against Harbinger's indoctrination, beaten him, and locked all the Reapers down completely without destroying them, that would have satisfied me even though I had only "stopped" them instead of "killing" them -- because it was an example of my will triumphing over theirs. On the flipside you've got the actual ending, where I stopped them but did not feel satisfied because my will did not triumph.

[Kel Riever]

Because the ending options are terrible and Destroy is less terrible than either Control or Synthesis. In fact, I think Synthesis might be the cause of instant projectile vomiting.

[CroGamer002]

fil009 wrote...

Destroying the Reapers has been Shepard's goal for several games. EDI and Geth are unfortunate casualties of course. Control is indoctrination. Synthesis is intrusive and suspect. Refuse is blah.

If I must take the Catalyst's words as true Destroy is the best option.

1st

Several games?
Wouldn't you think saying three is shorter?
And "several" kinda says lot more then 3.


2nd

It was a goal before ME3?
No.
In ME1 and ME2 Shepard's goal was to stop and defeat Reapers no matter what.
Not destroy, but to stop and defeat.
Not until ME3 Shepard started to talk to destroy them and there was NOBODY to give opinion for alternatives.
OK, except for Illusive Man but he wasn't even trying to convince Shepard.


3rd

Control is indoctrination?
Eh, no?
You just replace Catalyst and give new purpose to Reapers.
So it's more as a coup.


4th

Even if is indoctrination or still have problem with coup, are those really worse then killing an entire race and a friend by friendly fire?
Just so you can destroy your enemy?
Your enemy suffer in both cases, but only in destroy case your allies suffer too.
So tell me how control is worse in that case?

[epeeist]

SPOILER for Leviathan

I think for most people from the roleplaying point of view, fitting their concept of the character, destruction made the most sense. Plus the image of breathing in the wreckage (character survived). Only downside is destruction of EDI and, if you made peace, the geth (akin to genocide).

From a roleplaying/story point of view, with Leviathan, I think the dynamics have changed somewhat, control (or synthesis) might be justified as the galaxy needing protection against their seeking control in future. Which coupled with not committing geth genocide, I think for my conception of the character this changes the dynamics against destruction and in favour of control (or synthesis).

Note also that with control, not to nitpick, but what actually happens is that Shepard dies, just as with synthesis. That's it, subject to what depends upon one's in-game character's religious beliefs (?). However, an "imprint" of the now-deceased Shepard was taken which becomes the personality of the AI. Somewhat analogous presumably to the Prothean VIs which were imprinted from particular individuals. Even if they'd been full AIs instead of VIs, the Prothean still died.

Or to put it another way, the ending could have been different with an "imprint" taken of Shepard without Shepard dying, the AI would think of itself as Shepard but the original would still grow old, die, etc. The fact that the protaganist dies doesn't make the AI the same "person".

[Veovim]

Two main reasons, I think:

1) The catalyst/author clearly thinks that synthesis is the "best" option (and destroy is the "worst" option), and people are naturally disinclined to do what they are told to.

2) All 3 endings have major logical problems with them, but the destroy ending's problems are the smallest by a fair margin. See below for the tldr version.

Synthesis = space magic. It's never even alluded to as a possible use for the crucible anywhere throughout the course of the game, but rather comes out of nowhere. Yes, I know Saren brought up the idea of becoming cyborgs in ME1, but that was completely outside the context of the crucible, and was never brought up again in ME2 or ME3. Plus, I thought I was building an anti-Reaper weapon, not a magical "do anything" device.

On the other hand, control is mentioned lots of times through the game, but is never established as a viable option--it's always a trap the Reapers have laid for you. A sect of Protheans wanted to control the Reapers, but they were indoctrinated and ultimately cost their race its chance at using the crucible. The Illusive Man wanted to control the Reapers, but he was indoctrinated, and almost cost humanity our chance at using the crucible. Control is never presented as a viable possibility, but then you get to the end of the game, and a magical plot fairy tells you it really will work after all. A magical plot fairy that happens to be the mastermind behind the galactic genocide you're trying to stop. Why exactly are you supposed to trust anything it says?

Not to say that the destroy ending doesn't have its flaws--wiping out the Geth makes little sense as it's presented. The upgrades received via Legion were software not hardware, and if they really did incorporate Reaper hardware into themselves while building a weapon designed to destroy Reaper hardware, well, there's a trope for that--too dumb to live. The obvious fix for this would have been to focus on EDI instead, but maybe the writers felt that didn't represent a big enough sacrifice. Despite these problems, the destroy ending still makes the most sense, plot wise, by far.

[CDR David Shepard]

Mesina2 wrote...

fil009 wrote...

Destroying the Reapers has been Shepard's goal for several games. EDI and Geth are unfortunate casualties of course. Control is indoctrination. Synthesis is intrusive and suspect. Refuse is blah.

If I must take the Catalyst's words as true Destroy is the best option.

1st

Several games?
Wouldn't you think saying three is shorter?
And "several" kinda says lot more then 3.


2nd

It was a goal before ME3?
No.
In ME1 and ME2 Shepard's goal was to stop and defeat Reapers no matter what.
Not destroy, but to stop and defeat.
Not until ME3 Shepard started to talk to destroy them and there was NOBODY to give opinion for alternatives.
OK, except for Illusive Man but he wasn't even trying to convince Shepard.


3rd

Control is indoctrination?
Eh, no?
You just replace Catalyst and give new purpose to Reapers.
So it's more as a coup.


4th

Even if is indoctrination or still have problem with coup, are those really worse then killing an entire race and a friend by friendly fire?
Just so you can destroy your enemy?
Your enemy suffer in both cases, but only in destroy case your allies suffer too.
So tell me how control is worse in that case?

"1st"  You're right...several does say more than 3.

"2nd"  "You're just a machine...and machines can be broken"...so yes...Shepards plan was to destroy the reapers before they destroyed the galaxy ever since ME1.

"3rd" Just an opinion. I also believe that choosing Control and Synthesis means Shepard has become indoctrinated.

"4th" EDI states that she would risk non-functionality for Joker. The Geth...if you did infact save them on Rannoch...and overlook the fact that they all basically went to work for the Reapers...are an unfortunate case. So while you want to find an option to destroy the reapers without the geth falling as well...it may not be possible. It's unfortuante...but you have to accept it.

It's just like how Garrus had to accept that he had to pull fighters away from Palaven to help with the Crucible.

You absolutely don't want it to come down to a "ruthless calculus"...but when all is said and done...I believe that assuming you can control the reapers forever is by far...the worst choice.

[Tonymac]

Liamv2 wrote...

In every poll destruction wins or is second too i hate the ending so why do you like destruction i don’t understand

The writers were not taking their antidepressents.

Destroy  is the one where you feel least bent over getting pumped from behind and defiled.

[ghost9191]

clennon8 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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

Destroy = Holding the line.

You Neanderthal.  Instead of rejecting the solutions that you killed Saren and TIM for, you should have evolved and recognized the Reaper traps for Reaper truths.  You should have embraced your chum, the Catalyst.  Just look at those poor, misguided Reapers.  You don't really want to hurt them, do you?

1) f*ck the reapers, i am not gonna risk the galaxy on the off chance they are "misguided" ( i know it was a joke but making a point d*mn it ) , cerberus and co were indoctrinated , did that stop ppl from " killing " them . no because they were a threat, they were forced but still

2) i didn't pick destroy because it was sheps goal , it was my sheps goal but that can't be said for all sheps. it was however the goal of most good characters , so will give it that. whereas control and synthesis were goals of antagonists


3) Choose it because it was the only way to truly end the reaper threat. too much risk in the other choices ( reaper wise ) and i get the most hope out of that choice .

sad about the geth but i will send their loved ones flowers , oh wait

4) synthesis is not a decision you can really make in 30 secs , not without meta gaming. other reason but will not hate on it , same as control. other reasons but feel that no one should have that power , and doubt the races of the galaxy will simply bow to shepalyst because it demands it
 
^^ again tried not to dip into hate

[CroGamer002]

CDR David Shepard wrote...

"2nd"  "You're just a machine...and machines can be broken"...so yes...Shepards plan was to destroy the reapers before they destroyed the galaxy ever since ME1.

Really?
You're basing that silly little line on Shepard's entire plan to defeat Reapers?

Come on.
That was a border line one-liner.

"3rd" Just an opinion. I also believe that choosing Control and Synthesis means Shepard has become indoctrinated.

Wait, you were talking about IT?

Seriously, IT is debunked by Leviathan DLC alone.

"4th" EDI states that she would risk non-functionality for Joker. The Geth...if you did infact save them on Rannoch...and overlook the fact that they all basically went to work for the Reapers...are an unfortunate case. So while you want to find an option to destroy the reapers without the geth falling as well...it may not be possible. It's unfortuante...but you have to accept it.

It's just like how Garrus had to accept that he had to pull fighters away from Palaven to help with the Crucible.

You absolutely don't want it to come down to a "ruthless calculus"...but when all is said and done...I believe that assuming you can control the reapers forever is by far...the worst choice.

Except it's not the same case.

EDI says she would rather get terminated then captured.
And sacrifise her life to save Joker.
But nobody's life was in danger if Shepard decided to go for Control.
So, why sacrifise her for no good reason?


As for geth?
You do know most geth were force to ally with Reapers, due to quarian onslaught?
They were just looking to survive and had no other possible ally.
So, nice for overlooking that fact.


Also, you're really comparing Garrus pulling fleets from Plaven to join assault on Earth?
REALLY?!
That's a whole different thing, dude.
If he kept those fleets, they would still not liberate Palaven, while on Earth with Crucible they would!
It's nothing but a strategic decision to pull fleets from one frontline to reinforce other fleets in other front.


As for ruthless calculus?
No, just no.
You're using Destroy just because you don't feel well to use Control
Not because alternative is, well, something like Synthesis for example.

[CDR David Shepard]

ghost9191 wrote...
sad about the geth but i will send their loved ones flowers , oh wait

That's messed up haha.

[mackan__s]

Well, isnt that kinda obvius? In all the three games you ar fighting to DESTROY synthesis.. You are fighting indoctrination and hearing bad things about it(Control).

[Denethar]

Control: Power corrupts.
Synthesis: Horrifying on so many levels, like taking away free will.
Destroy: Goal reached!
Refuse: No thanks.

[garrusfan1]

Well for 2.99 games we are working to kill the reapers and then we are supposed to go with synthesis which in my opinion is a disgusting option or control which I still think shep AI would go insane or have something mess up and give him the flawed logic of holo kid or something. Refuse is not an option considering the outcome. So destroy what we have been trying to do the whole time is the only option left and the only one that makes sense to me plus shep lives which is the cherry on top

[thehomeworld]

clennon8 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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

Destroy = Holding the line.

You Neanderthal.  Instead of rejecting the solutions that you killed Saren and TIM for, you should have evolved and recognized the Reaper traps for Reaper truths.  You should have embraced your chum, the Catalyst.  Just look at those poor, misguided Reapers.  You don't really want to hurt them, do you?

Yes the poor laser barring husk making reapers they deserve our love, admiration, and support! Nevermind they wanted to erradicate 90% of the galaxy.

[CDR David Shepard]

Mesina2 wrote...

CDR David Shepard wrote...

"2nd"  "You're just a machine...and machines can be broken"...so yes...Shepards plan was to destroy the reapers before they destroyed the galaxy ever since ME1.

Really?
You're basing that silly little line on Shepard's entire plan to defeat Reapers?

Come on.
That was a border line one-liner.

"3rd" Just an opinion. I also believe that choosing Control and Synthesis means Shepard has become indoctrinated.

Wait, you were talking about IT?

Seriously, IT is debunked by Leviathan DLC alone.

"4th" EDI states that she would risk non-functionality for Joker. The Geth...if you did infact save them on Rannoch...and overlook the fact that they all basically went to work for the Reapers...are an unfortunate case. So while you want to find an option to destroy the reapers without the geth falling as well...it may not be possible. It's unfortuante...but you have to accept it.

It's just like how Garrus had to accept that he had to pull fighters away from Palaven to help with the Crucible.

You absolutely don't want it to come down to a "ruthless calculus"...but when all is said and done...I believe that assuming you can control the reapers forever is by far...the worst choice.

Except it's not the same case.

EDI says she would rather get terminated then captured.
And sacrifise her life to save Joker.
But nobody's life was in danger if Shepard decided to go for Control.
So, why sacrifise her for no good reason?


As for geth?
You do know most geth were force to ally with Reapers, due to quarian onslaught?
They were just looking to survive and had no other possible ally.
So, nice for overlooking that fact.


Also, you're really comparing Garrus pulling fleets from Plaven to join assault on Earth?
REALLY?!
That's a whole different thing, dude.
If he kept those fleets, they would still not liberate Palaven, while on Earth with Crucible they would!
It's nothing but a strategic decision to pull fleets from one frontline to reinforce other fleets in other front.


As for ruthless calculus?
No, just no.
You're using Destroy just because you don't feel well to use Control
Not because alternative is, well, something like Synthesis for example.

I'm sorry...but in my opinion...it's pretty obvious that Shepard has been trying to destroy the reapers since the beginning.

My interpretation of the ending is different than IT...but still involves an indoctrination attempt. If you don't agree with my interpretation, that's fine...as I'm not trying to make you believe it.

My point is that I'm not going to sacrifice the entire galaxy by assuming that I can actually control the Reapers forever.

I'm going to stop the Reapers here and now...and unfortunately it comes with casualties.

So yes...it does come down to "ruthless calculus". Will you sacrifice EDI and the Geth so that the present and future galactic civilizations can be free from the Reapers threat...or will you not sacrifice them and keep the Reapers around...in hopes that you can control them FOREVER and not go insane.

Choosing to sacrifice the Geth and EDI to save the entire galaxy is ruthless calculus...but necessary in my opinion...as there is nothing that would make me believe Shepard can control the Reapers forever with his mind exactly as it is at the time of that choice.

[BrotherCorvid]

Because it's the best way to deal with a terrible situation.  

Mass Effect 3 mirrors life in that sometimes you aren't entitled to make the choice that makes you the happiest; sometimes you just have to make the choice that results in you being the least dead.

In order to properly explain the appeal of the Destroy option to those who cannot understand why it’s the best choice, allow me to provide an example.

Simply think of the Reapers as cancer, while the Milky Way Galaxy is your body.

If you have cancer, you don't stand on principle and refuse it. If you have cancer, then you must confront it or you will die. To do otherwise is to show that you're too timid and afraid to take responsibility for your own life.

You sure as hell don't give in and allow the cancer to overtake your body, thinking that since it’s inevitable you might as well join up with it. It’s another defeatist, delusional attitude. All of the evidence is there staring you in the face that you’re afflicted by a very hostile disease. You won’t attain anything greater by allowing it to overtake you—you'll simply cease to exist as a person. If being alive was ever even close to being your goal, then you lose if you choose this course of action.

You don't try to control cancer unless you have no better option available, as controlling it is simply stalling the inevitable. It buys you time, sure, but it doesn't make the cancer go away; it's still there, and should something happen to break the method of control, it's going to come right back and keep trying to kill you.

Therefore, the best course of action is to try to eradicate the cancer. You cut it out, and you burn it out, and you do everything in your power to ensure that all traces of it are utterly wiped out so you don't risk getting it again. If that means you have to amputate a limb or cut out an organ, then you do it, because each alternative eventually leads to death for the whole body in one way or another. If your goal is to live, then you make the sacrifice for the good of the whole.

That's why people like destroy. It’s the ultimate way to survive on our own terms.

Modifié par RobotWalk, 15 novembre 2012 - 05:48 .

[Clayless]

It probably isn't, BSN is scewed for certain things.

FemShep for example is incredibly popular here, whereas in the general populace she isn't.