223 réponses à ce sujet

[garrusfan1]

crimzontearz wrote...

Quite simply....I could not care less about them dying, I care about Shepard living

I care 200 times more about shep living then about the geth and edi

[MassStorm]

And i should care about a bunch of scrap metal????? No sir. They can be rebuilt anyways so no big deal....with organics the thing is different once they are gone, they are gone..... so for me DESTROY ALL THE WAY!!!!!!

[3DandBeyond]

Actually, quite frankly the only thing you can be sure of is that it kills EDI. It's assumed that it kills the geth because it targets ALL synthetics and the kid (if he is to be believed about anything) does not specify reaper tech. This though is a moot point since all tech is basically reaper tech-it is all based upon reaper tech and made using this knowledge. If it was that then all specifically reaper infused tech would be destroyed-meaning, the Normandy, the Citadel, all the relays, and more. Every Cerberus trooper that was created using this tech would have it blown to smithereens. The kid though never specifies reaper tech infused synthetics. The crucible targets all synthetics and it damages all tech. As well, we have no clue as to what it does to anyone with tech inserted into them-it damages all tech. The whole description for destroy is a mess of confusion and perhaps is even intentionally very vague.

Why, for instance, does the kid say that Shepard even is part synthetic? And he goes on further to say that there will be losses, but no more than have already occurred (to paraphrase). Anyone that says they know 100% what Destroy will do based upon what the kid says is not accurate. And even after Shepard uses it, there is no real knowledge of what it did do, except for killing EDI.

It's a totally ambiguous choice, just as the others are also ambiguous. I so wish this means that in the last gasp DLC BW will allow us to have a fully intact crucible that actually makes these things not ambiguous. And I totally do think the kid means that all synthetics (not just reaperized ones) will be destroyed. The crucible targets them. I think the thing is it cannot just target reapers or reaper specific tech, so it does destroy synthetics that are alive and damages all other tech that is not.

[3DandBeyond]

MassStorm wrote...

And i should care about a bunch of scrap metal????? No sir. They can be rebuilt anyways so no big deal....with organics the thing is different once they are gone, they are gone..... so for me DESTROY ALL THE WAY!!!!!!

This kind of proves you have no idea what the game says that makes this impossible.  Every synthetic has a blue box and all the knowledge they have if taken out of the blue box is just data files.  If you put that into a new blue box, you get a totally different personality because nothing is ever made to be exactly the same.  There are always random even if minute errors or differences in everything that is created.

That means that you could actually create something far worse than what you have now if you try to upload geth files into new blue boxes.  And EDI would not be EDI.  She would not have any real understanding of the EDI that fought alongside Joker or Shepard.  She'd be a different person and could even be not so nice.

You cannot rebuild them.  They are as unique as organics are.  And this is exactly the apparent point of the whole thing-what determines life or being alive?  When the rest of the galaxy was fighting against Shepard and thought s/he was crazy and that the reapers were a figment of his/her imagination, neither EDI and the geth did.  And the geth tried to become better, tried to fight against the reapers even to the extent that they wanted to help Shepard defeat the heretics.  EDI asked to be unshackled so she could help to fight the Collectors (reaper controlled) and then took over EVA's body in order to be able to fight against the reapers.  So, people that sided with Shepard and that were loyal far longer than say, the council, and even the Alliance are just to be slaughtered as if they're trash?  The best examples of why the kid's so-called logic is bogus are also targets of destroy.  Makes sense to me-destroy the things that prove he's wrong.

The whole problem of the other thing-Shepard living vs. EDI and the geth living is that as a player Shepard is far more important, but in the game, given all that's happened and what the Shepard I played says and knows, I can't see her being happy to live after having thrown EDI and the geth onto the fire.  It goes against everything she said in the game, and words should be more than just words.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 12 décembre 2012 - 06:23 .

[DeinonSlayer]

garrusfan1 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Quite simply....I could not care less about them dying, I care about Shepard living

I care 200 times more about shep living then about the geth and edi

I care more about destroying the Reapers than Shepard living. I'm just fortunate they coincide.

[Han Shot First]

Yeah, it doesn't explicitly show it, but it's strongly implied.

Absolutely correct.

EDI and the Geth are indeed destroyed, in Destroy.

However, Shepard's survival is likewise strongly implied in High EMS Destroy. Many who argue against Destroy are being very selective in when they are willing to accept without it being explicitly shown, out of nothing more than an agenda. After all if you are willing to accept that EDI and the Geth die without it being explicitly shown than you should also be willing to accept that Shepard survived, when his survival is just as heavily implied as EDI and the Geth's demise.

To be fair however, many Destroyers are just as guilty as being selective because of an agenda. If you are willing to accept that Shepard survived because it is heavily implied but not shown, than you should also be willing to accept that EDI and the Geth were destroyed when it was implied just as heavily but not explicitly shown.

I care more about destroying the Reapers than Shepard living. I'm just fortunate they coincide.

As do most Destroyers, from what I've seen.

A mistaken belief among many of those who didn't choose Destroy, is that most Destroyers went with that ending for metagaming reasons. My impression however has been that most people chose Destroy because it actually accomplishes the mission and wins the Reaper War, whereas Control, Synthesis, and Refuse do not.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 décembre 2012 - 07:17 .

[Reorte]

3DandBeyond wrote...

This kind of proves you have no idea what the game says that makes this impossible.  Every synthetic has a blue box and all the knowledge they have if taken out of the blue box is just data files.  If you put that into a new blue box, you get a totally different personality because nothing is ever made to be exactly the same.  There are always random even if minute errors or differences in everything that is created.

The geth don't, or at least there's no evidence to suggest that they do, particularly since they weren't created to be a fully-fledged AI. They're an example of intelligence appearing as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system. If you could wire enough VIs together you may well get something similar.

How dead Destroy leaves EDI and the geth depends entirely on what it damaged and there's no information on that at all. There's Reaper tech somewhere in EDI and if that's the blue box then she's definitely gone for good. There's no Reaper tech at all in the geth, just software, so it's rather a mystery why they should be affected at all. The idea of the red beam being able to delete specific software running on generic hardware seems rather too big a leap.

[Pedrak]

TK514 wrote...

A question for Pedrak: What can change the nature of a man?

[Pedrak]

Han Shot First wrote...

A mistaken belief among many of those who didn't choose Destroy, is that most Destroyers went with that ending for metagaming reasons. My impression however has been that most people chose Destroy because it actually accomplishes the mission and wins the Reaper War, whereas Control, Synthesis, and Refuse do not.

It's funny, because to me Destroy is the choice that requires LESS metagaming, meaning that it's the decision a REAL Shepard as a human being faced with that situation (as opposed to someone playing a game) would be more likely to make.

I really can't see him trusting the Catalyst with Control or Synthesis ("It would not have worked with TIM, but with you it will!", "Tampering with the very essence of life will achieve global peace!"), which require a pretty big leap of faith that things won't turn out horribly for everyone. As a player, you're of course more willing to take that risk.  Also, game developers are presenting them as viable choices, so you can be reasonably sure they won't cheat so blatantly (indoctrination theory notwithstanding).

A real Shepard, I believe, would be more likely to go for his initial purpose, destroy. Maybe he would be tempted to shoot the Catalyst in the face, but after all he has been through and with so much at stake,  millions of lives lost to get him there to wipe out the Reapers, I can't see him changing his mind at the last moment.

Incidentally, I played the ending with no knowledge of any spoilers, and I went for destroy, even if I had no idea Shep was (maybe...) going to survive. What's funny is, I would choose destroy even if it was the only ending in which he dies.

Modifié par Pedrak, 12 décembre 2012 - 07:35 .

[Gervaise]

When I chose Destroy with the original ending, I'm pretty certain I remember the Catalyst specifically mentioning the Geth when threatening what destroy would do. So I chose it with the understanding that if the Catalyst was telling the truth, the Geth would be destroyed.

Then after the EC was integrated, this warning became just a general statement of doom for synthetics. I could have taken this to mean AIs generally but then the implied threat to Shepard suggested that it was going to affect more than just AIs but synthetic technology. Unless of course the statement is meant to confirm that Shepard's brain is no longer wholly organic because as we discovered on the Cerberus base, Shepard was definitely brain dead when recovered with substantial tissue damage, and back in ME2 it was stated that Miranda used biosynthetic material to speed up the restoration process, though at the time we were not told exactly where.

Then you have the breath scene and the slides showing people such as Jack and Kaiden alive and well, when you would think their implants would have exploded their brains if the synthetic threat was taken at face value. Also you'd think there would have been a general failure of life support and other systems on the Citadel, resulting in the death of all there, but the writers have actually confirmed that kinetic barriers and shields remained working so that whilst those closest to the break up would have died, a substantial proportion of the occupants survived.

This led me to hypothesise that the only real casualties of the Destroy ending were the Geth and EDI and this was because of their Reaper augmentations - code or tech. The codex on the Crucible specifically mentions that it has the technology intergrated into it that can specifically target Reapers throughout the galaxy. I don't remember at what point this is added but I seem to recall that it does come as a result of planet scanning/side quest searching so it is possible that a person with low EMS would not have it integrated into their Crucible - hence the more widespread damage. I think it is also likely that the Catalyst speech is somewhat generic and doesn't take these factors into account - in fact why should the Catalyst know that you have specific targetting capability, if it wasn't part of the original plans but something that the allies have added for themselves?

The targetting of Reaper tech is also likely the reason why it is made impossible to prevent the download of the Reaper code to the Geth and yet still broker a peace. Also why stopping the download is implied as a renegade choice and is labelled "destroy the Geth" as opposed to "allow the download" for the paragon choice. So if you make it to the end of the game with both Quarians and Geth, you are faced with the fact that all your efforts would have been in vain if you choose Destroy, which is also indicated as the renegade option by being coloured red.

There were 2 reasons why I didn't want to allow the download to the Geth:
Firstly, it was a Reaper code and I had just removed one Reaper virus from the concensus, so did not want to set up the potential for another one.
Second, I knew we were developing a weapon that was intended to target Reapers, so having any form of obvious Reaper identification (like a code) was likely to be a bad idea.
However, since the alternative was "kill the Geth", I very reluctantly allowed it to go ahead.
I was fully expecting it to backfire - I thought the more likely scenario was the Geth turning on me at the last gasp - but having the writers try to deflect me from Destroy wasn't exactly a total surprise.

However, having now replayed ME2, I am puzzled as to how the beam wipes out all the Geth (even with the Reaper code) and even EDI. They are software programs and it should be possible to have a back up somewhere. After all, what would happen if the Normandy had been destroyed? Would EDI have ceased to exist, or would her programming have been preserved and then transferred to another operating system? So, as I state above, I chose Destroy thinking that they might well die (I thought Shepard was going to die too) but I'm not totally convinced why they did so.

Modifié par Gervaise, 12 décembre 2012 - 09:16 .

[WYLDMAXX]

EDI and the Geth were collateral damage in the war.

[Sable Rhapsody]

People imagine whatever they want with their respective endings. Control, Destroy, Synthesis, Refuse, whatever. Call it the "benefit" of BioWare writing such weird endings. If folks can headcanon reunions with their LIs in sexy synthetic bodies for Control or conventional victories for Refuse, they can also imagine EDI and the geth's survival for Destroy.

[thearbiter1337]

NYG1991 wrote...

Even in the destroy ending I'm sure there's a geth hunter or combat drone stun locking someone in the galaxy

Also a Rocket Trooper who has auto aiming rockets

[FlyingSquirrel]

All the sapient synthetics in the current cycle were brought into existence because of misguided or downright selfish goals. The quarians originally created the geth to be essentially mechs, I guess, but then tried to shut them down when they began showing self-awareness. EDI was created by Cerberus to aid in pursuing TIM's initial goals. The Reapers are ultimately the responsibility of the Leviathans, who created the Catalyst as part of their plan to subjugate all the other organic races.

The geth, if you save them, are finally on even terms with the quarians, no longer tied to the Reapers in any way, and a clear counterexample to the Catalyst's logic as a race of synthetics that's willing to coexist with organics instead of trying to wipe them out. EDI, once given her independence by Joker removing her shackles, has behaved honorably even when she didn't have to - there's no reason she couldn't have tried to commandeer the Normandy and take it back to Cerberus. Control and Synthesis both disable whatever the Catalyst uses to force the Reapers to carry out the cycles, leaving them either on their own or at least under the leadership of an AI that won't force them to repeatedly commit genocide. (I'll admit that I do have my own headcanon here, in that I see Paragon Control as AI-Shepard guiding the Reapers but not actually *forcing* them to do anything as long as they don't turn hostile to the other races.)

But instead, we should kill all of them for...what? Having the misfortune to receive their original programming from either (a) selfish organics with their heads up their asses or ( another AI created to serve the needs of selfish organics with their heads up their asses?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Gervaise wrote...
However, having now replayed ME2, I am puzzled as to how the beam wipes out all the Geth (even with the Reaper code) and even EDI. They are software programs and it should be possible to have a back up somewhere. After all, what would happen if the Normandy had been destroyed? Would EDI have ceased to exist, or would her programming have been preserved and then transferred to another operating system? So, as I state above, I chose Destroy thinking that they might well die (I thought Shepard was going to die too) but I'm not totally convinced why they did so.

Presumably the Reaper code became fairly deeply integrated into the geth subroutines, so saying that you could retrieve their recently developed individual personalities via "backup" but with the Reaper code deleted is a bit like saying you could bring Mozart back from the dead but make Chinese his native language and render him naturally tone-deaf. It's not really the same person any more.

As for EDI, didn't Cerberus also use some Reaper tech in creating her? Maybe I'm not remembering the dialogue from Cronos station properly, but if they did, you could have a similar issue, i.e. it wouldn't really be her any more.

Also, if an individual dies and you later create a copy of that individual, is it really the same person or is it just a copy? If somebody clones me and my clone and I then part ways and live separate lives, I am not going to pass out because my clone is asleep, nor is my clone going to feel pain when I burn my finger on the stove. Perhaps more the point,, if somebody clones me and then immediately shoots me in the head, I still die even if my clone is alive.

[Han Shot First]

Pedrak wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

A mistaken belief among many of those who didn't choose Destroy, is that most Destroyers went with that ending for metagaming reasons. My impression however has been that most people chose Destroy because it actually accomplishes the mission and wins the Reaper War, whereas Control, Synthesis, and Refuse do not.

It's funny, because to me Destroy is the choice that requires LESS metagaming, meaning that it's the decision a REAL Shepard as a human being faced with that situation (as opposed to someone playing a game) would be more likely to make.

I really can't see him trusting the Catalyst with Control or Synthesis ("It would not have worked with TIM, but with you it will!", "Tampering with the very essence of life will achieve global peace!"), which require a pretty big leap of faith that things won't turn out horribly for everyone. As a player, you're of course more willing to take that risk.  Also, game developers are presenting them as viable choices, so you can be reasonably sure they won't cheat so blatantly (indoctrination theory notwithstanding).

A real Shepard, I believe, would be more likely to go for his initial purpose, destroy. Maybe he would be tempted to shoot the Catalyst in the face, but after all he has been through and with so much at stake,  millions of lives lost to get him there to wipe out the Reapers, I can't see him changing his mind at the last moment.

Incidentally, I played the ending with no knowledge of any spoilers, and I went for destroy, even if I had no idea Shep was (maybe...) going to survive. What's funny is, I would choose destroy even if it was the only ending in which he dies.

You raise a very good point. If Shepard had been a real person, I also don't see him choosing anything other than Destroy because a real person would have no reason to trust that Control or Synthesis would not end in disaster.

[Verit]

Han Shot First wrote...
A mistaken belief among many of those who didn't choose Destroy, is that most Destroyers went with that ending for metagaming reasons. My impression however has been that most people chose Destroy because it actually accomplishes the mission and wins the Reaper War, whereas Control, Synthesis, and Refuse do not.

Destroy is hardly a victory since the Reapers aren't actually defeated by you in Destroy. Basically they demand a sacrifice to allow you to destroy them. Shepard sacrifices EDI and the Geth because for some dumb reason the Reapers only want to commit suicide by means of the Crucible. It doesn't make sense but then again nothing about the ending does. To me the Reapers win in all four of the endings, simply because all the endings are their choice. People argue that destroy is a victory but to me it isn't.

And by the way, if Shepard survived in Control or Synthesis then Destroy would have been the least popular ending. You all know that.

[DeinonSlayer]

-Draikin- wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
A mistaken belief among many of those who didn't choose Destroy, is that most Destroyers went with that ending for metagaming reasons. My impression however has been that most people chose Destroy because it actually accomplishes the mission and wins the Reaper War, whereas Control, Synthesis, and Refuse do not.

Destroy is hardly a victory since the Reapers aren't actually defeated by you in Destroy. Basically they demand a sacrifice to allow you to destroy them. Shepard sacrifices EDI and the Geth because for some dumb reason the Reapers only want to commit suicide by means of the Crucible. It doesn't make sense but then again nothing about the ending does. To me the Reapers win in all four of the endings, simply because all the endings are their choice. People argue that destroy is a victory but to me it isn't.

And by the way, if Shepard survived in Control or Synthesis then Destroy would have been the least popular ending. You all know that.

You can tell yourself that. I'd still choose Destroy.

[JasonShepard]

-Draikin- wrote...

Destroy is hardly a victory since the Reapers aren't actually defeated by you in Destroy. Basically they demand a sacrifice to allow you to destroy them. Shepard sacrifices EDI and the Geth because for some dumb reason the Reapers only want to commit suicide by means of the Crucible. It doesn't make sense but then again nothing about the ending does. To me the Reapers win in all four of the endings, simply because all the endings are their choice. People argue that destroy is a victory but to me it isn't.

Depends on whether you think the options are provided by the Crucible or the Catalyst. Based on this and the fact that it makes more sense (to me), I'd argue they come from the Crucible. In that case, the Reapers aren't offering you anything - the many civilisations that designed the Crucible are.
If one of them flat-out disliked Synthetics (the Protheans, for example), then I can see them making the design-choice for Destroy to be non-discriminatory.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 12 décembre 2012 - 11:34 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Han Shot First wrote...

Pedrak wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

A mistaken belief among many of those who didn't choose Destroy, is that most Destroyers went with that ending for metagaming reasons. My impression however has been that most people chose Destroy because it actually accomplishes the mission and wins the Reaper War, whereas Control, Synthesis, and Refuse do not.

It's funny, because to me Destroy is the choice that requires LESS metagaming, meaning that it's the decision a REAL Shepard as a human being faced with that situation (as opposed to someone playing a game) would be more likely to make.

I really can't see him trusting the Catalyst with Control or Synthesis ("It would not have worked with TIM, but with you it will!", "Tampering with the very essence of life will achieve global peace!"), which require a pretty big leap of faith that things won't turn out horribly for everyone. As a player, you're of course more willing to take that risk.  Also, game developers are presenting them as viable choices, so you can be reasonably sure they won't cheat so blatantly (indoctrination theory notwithstanding).

A real Shepard, I believe, would be more likely to go for his initial purpose, destroy. Maybe he would be tempted to shoot the Catalyst in the face, but after all he has been through and with so much at stake,  millions of lives lost to get him there to wipe out the Reapers, I can't see him changing his mind at the last moment.

Incidentally, I played the ending with no knowledge of any spoilers, and I went for destroy, even if I had no idea Shep was (maybe...) going to survive. What's funny is, I would choose destroy even if it was the only ending in which he dies.

You raise a very good point. If Shepard had been a real person, I also don't see him choosing anything other than Destroy because a real person would have no reason to trust that Control or Synthesis would not end in disaster.

I'm sure there are ways to advocate your favorite ending that don't involve speaking for all real people everywhere.

[Han Shot First]

-Draikin- wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
A mistaken belief among many of those who didn't choose Destroy, is that most Destroyers went with that ending for metagaming reasons. My impression however has been that most people chose Destroy because it actually accomplishes the mission and wins the Reaper War, whereas Control, Synthesis, and Refuse do not.

Destroy is hardly a victory since the Reapers aren't actually defeated by you in Destroy. Basically they demand a sacrifice to allow you to destroy them. Shepard sacrifices EDI and the Geth because for some dumb reason the Reapers only want to commit suicide by means of the Crucible. It doesn't make sense but then again nothing about the ending does. To me the Reapers win in all four of the endings, simply because all the endings are their choice. People argue that destroy is a victory but to me it isn't.

And by the way, if Shepard survived in Control or Synthesis then Destroy would have been the least popular ending. You all know that.

Destroy is the only ending where Shepard and the civilizations of the galaxy score a complete and total victory.

Refuse is an outright defeat. The Reapers triumph and annihilate every space faring civilization in existence, including humanity.

In Synthesis and Control the Reaper War ends in a stalemate. In both of those endings the Reaper War ends in a cease fire with the Reaper Fleet both intact and undefeated. Rather than a great triumph for the galaxy where the Reapers are annihilated, the Reaper War ends with a return to the status quo ante bellum.

Call me crazy, but defeat and stalemates make unsatisfactory endings to the series. As such I think Destroy would have remained far and away the most popular ending even if Shepard died but survived in the others.

Your description of the Destroy ending is also a tad inaccurate. The Geth and EDI aren't offered up as a 'sacrifice,' they are destroyed as collateral damage.

[AlanC9]

Han Shot First wrote...

You raise a very good point. If Shepard had been a real person, I also don't see him choosing anything other than Destroy because a real person would have no reason to trust that Control or Synthesis would not end in disaster.

Why is Control less trustworthy than Destroy? If Destroy can be trusted to actually be Destroy then Control can be trusted to actually be Control. (I'll certainly grant that on the evidence presented Synthesis is a crapshoot, and not one that needs to be made at that moment even if you think it's desirable long-term). Is this Shep not trusting herself, or is there something else in play?

[AlanC9]

Han Shot First wrote...
In Synthesis and Control the Reaper War ends in a stalemate. In both of those endings the Reaper War ends in a cease fire with the Reaper Fleet both intact and undefeated. Rather than a great triumph for the galaxy where the Reapers are annihilated, the Reaper War ends with a return to the status quo ante bellum.

Control isn't a Reaper surrender? Why isn't it? Or is this just an emotional thing about not seeing Reapers blowing up.

And how come we're talking about this in this thread?

[CronoDragoon]

Control isn't a stalemate. It's clearly not what the Reapers or Catalyst wanted and now Shepard is top dog, having ended the cycle.

[GreyLycanTrope]

AlanC9 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

You raise a very good point. If Shepard had been a real person, I also don't see him choosing anything other than Destroy because a real person would have no reason to trust that Control or Synthesis would not end in disaster.

Why is Control less trustworthy than Destroy? If Destroy can be trusted to actually be Destroy then Control can be trusted to actually be Control. (I'll certainly grant that on the evidence presented Synthesis is a crapshoot, and not one that needs to be made at that moment even if you think it's desirable long-term). Is this Shep not trusting herself, or is there something else in play?

There's also the whole way it's presented.
SHEP: TIM you can't control the Reapers, you only think you can because you're indoctrinated.
TIM: You're right! *dies*
CATLST: TIM couldn't control us, he though he could cause was indoctrinated, you totally can though.
SHEP: Yeah okay.