223 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonShepard]

Greylycantrope wrote...

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.

Well yeah, but you can navigate that conversation without picking those dialogue choices. (Although it isn't clear from the dialogue wheel that you can.) Try Blue, Red, Red, Blue next time.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 12 décembre 2012 - 11:54 .

[Fedi.St]

I'm ok discussing whether geth or edi or both died in destroy ending. What really bothers me its the synthesis kids coming with a (eat it you son of ****) mentality and troll the discussion hard.

Someone kick them out into ieldra's thread.

As far for the op's point i think he cannot prove or disprove any fate of the geth. actually nobody can prove or disprove anyone's fate in the game except bioware. In a sequel that is.

they acftually said that they won't change the endings but they did.
It's old news it's been told again its boring to even mention it but it's there, it happened .

[Verit]

JasonShepard wrote...
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.

The Catalyst controls the Crucible. I'm not sure why people think it reprogrammed the Catalyst. Like the Catalyst said, the Crucible is essentially nothing but a huge battery, a tool for the Catalyst to use. That's what also so humiliating for Shepard. He/she helps build a superweapon and hands it over to the enemy, and then that very enemy looks at the thing, goes "well, it's nothing sophisticated, but I guess I can use it". All that effort into improving it is work you spend for a gift to the Catalyst, so that it can decide how it can be used to end the game.

And again, the refuse ending also shows who's really in control of the Crucible: the Catalyst simply shuts down the beam when Shepard refuses to use the Crucible.

[Fedi.St]

-Draikin- wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...
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.

The Catalyst controls the Crucible. I'm not sure why people think it reprogrammed the Catalyst. Like the Catalyst said, the Crucible is essentially nothing but a huge battery, a tool for the Catalyst to use. That's what also so humiliating for Shepard. He/she helps build a superweapon and hands it over to the enemy, and then that very enemy looks at the thing, goes "well, it's nothing sophisticated, but I guess I can use it". All that effort into improving it is work you spend for a gift to the Catalyst, so that it can decide how it can be used to end the game.

And again, the refuse ending also shows who's really in control of the Crucible: the Catalyst simply shuts down the beam when Shepard refuses to use the Crucible.

hey don't tell synthesis kids about this. you're gonna break their world. Then politicians would have to spend for reparations 

[GreyLycanTrope]

JasonShepard wrote...
Well yeah, but you can navigate that conversation without picking those dialogue choices. (Although it isn't clear from the dialogue wheel that you can.) Try Blue, Red, Red, Blue next time.

See the thing is it's not just that one conversation, we've spent much of the game confronting TIM because controling the Reapers seemd crazy, and now suddenly it's not, just like that.

[JasonShepard]

-Draikin- wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...
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.

The Catalyst controls the Crucible. I'm not sure why people think it reprogrammed the Catalyst. Like the Catalyst said, the Crucible is essentially nothing but a huge battery, a tool for the Catalyst to use. That's what also so humiliating for Shepard. He/she helps build a superweapon and hands it over to the enemy, and then that very enemy looks at the thing, goes "well, it's nothing sophisticated, but I guess I can use it". All that effort into improving it is work you spend for a gift to the Catalyst, so that it can decide how it can be used to end the game.

And again, the refuse ending also shows who's really in control of the Crucible: the Catalyst simply shuts down the beam when Shepard refuses to use the Crucible.

The exact wording the Catalyst uses is "The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source". Note: it doesn't say 'just a power source'. I can use the same phrase to describe a Space Rocket as 'little more than a power source', or a human as 'little more than a bag of water'. Both those phrases come across as arrogant, but well, the Catalyst is arrogant. So I'd argue that the phrase is up for debate.
By all means, accuse me of grabbing at threads, but I prefer my interpretation.

As for the refuse ending - that's meta-gaming slightly, but everyone seems to be doing that with the endings these days (including the OP). Perhaps the Crucible only has a brief viable period after docking in which it can be used. That would certainly explain why the Catalyst refers to running out of time during the conversation. And before you say 'but I can wait around as long as I want before making the choice': this is a videogame running on videogame time. It's related to Hollywood time. Also, did they leave in that Critical Mission Failure if you do hang around too long?

EDIT: Also, until the Crucible came along, the Catalyst did not believe Synthesis was possible. So Synthesis definitely came from the Crucible.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:14 .

[Verit]

JasonShepard wrote...
EDIT: Also, until the Crucible came along, the Catalyst did not believe Synthesis was possible. So Synthesis definitely came from the Crucible.

If it didn't believe Synthesis was possible, then why did it try Synthesis before? The Catalyst even states that the reason Synthesis will work now is because they're now "ready" for it (or something along those lines). Not that that's supposed to makes any sense, it's just another dumb aspect about a nonsensical ending. Everything in the ending essentially happens "just because". Shepard's death is another such example, there's really no reason for Shepard to die in Control and Synthesis. It's done because the writers demand it and they couldn't even be bothered to have it make sense.  That's what makes the ending feel hollow, it completely ruins the immersion.

Modifié par -Draikin-, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:28 .

[JasonShepard]

-Draikin- wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...
EDIT: Also, until the Crucible came along, the Catalyst did not believe Synthesis was possible. So Synthesis definitely came from the Crucible.

If it didn't believe Synthesis was possible, then why did it try Synthesis before?

It didn't believe Synthesis was possible because it had tried Synthesis before. And Synthesis had always failed.

The Catalyst even states that the reason Synthesis will work now is because they're now "ready" for it (or something along those lines). Not that that's supposed to makes any sense...

I'd say that it illustrates the Catalyst's misunderstanding of free will. It doesn't see a difference between one person choosing Synthesis (Shepard) and everyone choosing Synthesis. Although, admittedly, that interpretation paints the Synthesis ending as one doomed to fail, since it was forced after all (by Shepard instead of the Catalyst). Then again, we don't really know what failed about the Catalyst's previous attempts. Perhaps it tried turning everyone into mindless husks, and didn't understand when people complained.

Shepard's death is another such example, there's really no reason for Shepard to die in Control and Synthesis. It's done because the writers demand it and they couldn't even be bothered to have it make sense.  That's what makes the ending feel hollow, it completely ruins the immersion.

Synthesis... let's not go there.

Control: One way or another, by gaining direct, mind over matter control over the Reapers, Shepard would be irrevocably changed. And it's quite likely that to maintain control over such a large group, to handle that much input/output data, you need more processing power than the human brain can provide.
The Crucible is offering a way for Shepard to replace the Catalyst. The Catalyst even says that it dislikes this choice if you pick the Renegade dialogue. 
Anyway, I think we've wandered far enough from the OT at this point... Truce and agree to disagree? (You're welcome to put in a final word.)

Modifié par JasonShepard, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:14 .

[Han Shot First]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

The Reapers don't surrender, they just stop attacking the galaxy in the same way that North Korea stopped attacking South Korea at the end of the Korean War. 

In Control and Synthesis the war ends without any decisive battlefield victory scored by the galaxy over the Reapers. There isn't any Waterloo or Zama moment. The peace that follows is just a return to the status quo ante bellum. Galactic civilization continues to exist, but so do the Reapers. The main war aim of both sides had been the complete destruction of the other, and the war ends without either side having achieved their main war aim. That is pretty much the textbook definition of a stalemate.

In contrast the Reaper War ends in a total victory in Destroy, because the civilizations of the galaxy do end up achieving their main war aim. The final battle of the war is also a decisive victory where the Reapers are annihilated. Destroy has its Waterloo moment.

[thehomeworld]

I've never heard that opinion yet with destroy OP. That's weird people would think that maybe because the catalyst says shep would die too because of his reaper coding and tech implants yet shep can live with high ems so maybe they think he lied on the geth and Edi as well but there is no EDI coming out of the ship and no geth in the epilogue of destroy.

[DeinonSlayer]

thehomeworld wrote...

I've never heard that opinion yet with destroy OP. That's weird people would think that maybe because the catalyst says shep would die too because of his reaper coding and tech implants yet shep can live with high ems so maybe they think he lied on the geth and Edi as well but there is no EDI coming out of the ship and no geth in the epilogue of destroy.

That's not what people are saying. There's nothing saying Shepard had "reaper coding and tech implants." Shepard had extensive cybernetics - just like every biotic and every Quarian in the galaxy. None of them are killed by Destroy. EDI and the Geth, on the contrary, have Reaper architecture incorporated into themselves, and they drop dead when the wave hits them.

The theory on Destroy is that, instead of targeting "synthetics," it targets Reaper tech.

[thehomeworld]

-Draikin- wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...
EDIT: Also, until the Crucible came along, the Catalyst did not believe Synthesis was possible. So Synthesis definitely came from the Crucible.

If it didn't believe Synthesis was possible, then why did it try Synthesis before? The Catalyst even states that the reason Synthesis will work now is because they're now "ready" for it (or something along those lines). Not that that's supposed to makes any sense, it's just another dumb aspect about a nonsensical ending. Everything in the ending essentially happens "just because". Shepard's death is another such example, there's really no reason for Shepard to die in Control and Synthesis. It's done because the writers demand it and they couldn't even be bothered to have it make sense.  That's what makes the ending feel hollow, it completely ruins the immersion.

It tried failed and then gave up beliving it could be done until shep showed up for no other reason then shep was a cyborg which is odd because the reapers already had those they were just called husks, TIM, and Saren. <_<

Modifié par thehomeworld, 13 décembre 2012 - 02:32 .

[Han Shot First]

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?

Control is asking Shepard to trust that turning into a Reaper A.I. (or rather an AI mimicing him or her) is going to turn out for the benefit of the galaxy. It basically deletes the old Catalyst and replaces it with Catalyst 2.0, and requires Shepard to trust that the new Catalyst won't eventually come to the same conclusions as the last. It also requires Shepard to trust that the still intact Reaper fleet will never again be turned against the galaxy.
 
It would be a bit like the Terminator series ending with the humans having the ability to replace Skynet with a new A.I, and trusting that Skynet 2.0 is going to be kinler and gentler.

Realistically the only guarantee that the galaxy would be safe from the Reapers and the Catalyst for all time, is the destruction of both.

CronoDragoon wrote...

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.

That isn't really Shepard. Shepard dies in Control. The new Catalyst is just an A.I. that is attempting to mimic Shepard.

But even if Bioware had gone another route and made it so that it actually was Shepard, could it still be trusted? After all every Reaper that was ever created would be made from organic minds that had once raged against the destruction of their own civilizations. Once they became Reaperfied, they viewed things a bit differently. Their 'humanity' and old loyalties were as dead as their organic bodies.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 13 décembre 2012 - 02:39 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

@ OP:

Dude look, the Reapers are exploiting the number one weakness in humans: the fact that they want to always save everyone.

In the nightmares, you hear voices from dead crew mates and you chase this boy who, no matter how hard you try, always burns right in front of you.

They want you to feel guilty about the ones you couldn't save, so they can manipulate you in the ending by suggesting that wanting to destroy the Reapers will kill your friends.

Omega even explains this:

Aria: "Nyreen's code of ethics won't let her sit by if civilians are exposed. It's what makes her utterly predictable and easy to manipulate."

They're manipulating you. Period.

Garrus: "If just one survivor is left standing at the end of the war, then the fight was worth it. But humans want to save everyone. In this war, that's not going to happen."

Shepard: "It's hard enough you're fighting a war, but it's even worse knowing that no matter how hard you try, you can't save them all."

Salarian councilor: "Sometimes Spectres have to make sacrifices. I hope you're ready to do that when the time comes."

As a military leader, you can't always win without taking casualties.

When a Reaper Overlord suggests you a solution, you can be sure it's a deal with the devil.

In that case you need to be prepared to sacrifice the few to save the many.

It's that simple.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 13 décembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

...And this was disputed when?

My argument is that it's an incredibly arbitrary minus to make Destroy seem like a weaker option (why does Destroy affect all Reaper-derived synthetics, but Control only targets the Reaper themselves?). Part of why it doesn't even factor in my favouring of Destroy; it seems petty, like Bioware (or rather, Super Mac as some call him) saying ''oh, you wanna pick that ending? Well that means the Geth die for no real reason because of you. Meanie. Now pick Synthesis! Is good!!''

[Yalision]

What bothers me more than anything about Destroy is that you don't see the Geth and EDI die. It's like government whitewash of war-time brutality and death since the end of Vietnam. People can block out the heavy cost of war because they are disconnected from it emotionally. War and death become words and numbers of the lowest capacity for the majority of individuals involved.

We should have seen the Geth and EDI short-circuit and die and the weight of the decision. Did they suffer? Did they cling to life trying to keep their systems from failing? At least let us see their ruin and give us a reason to cry. It was a missed opportunity which could have been on the level of Mordin's sacrifice, which did wring a few tears from my eyes. The way Destroy's cost was handled only helps legitimize the argument that the decision to have A.I. companions die at all was to make Destroy less of an obvious choice over the other two options. Pathetic.

Modifié par Yalision, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:18 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Han Shot First wrote...
 
It would be a bit like the Terminator series ending with the humans having the ability to replace Skynet with a new A.I, and trusting that Skynet 2.0 is going to be kinler and gentler.

Well, yes. There is no practical way to stop the rise of an AI like Skynet. The humans' only hope to be safe permanently is to install a human-friendly AI to keep any other kind from taking power.

That was a side plot in the Sarah Connor Chronicles.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Greylycantrope wrote...
See the thing is it's not just that one conversation, we've spent much of the game confronting TIM because controling the Reapers seemd crazy, and now suddenly it's not, just like that.

This.  Despite being one set of bat wings short of Satan in ME3, TIM is powerful, intelligent, and resourceful.  But no, he doesn't get to control the Reapers because he's not the special snowflake hero.  That is seriously the in-game justification for Control working, and IMO a waste of what could've been a very interesting plot conflict.

[Pedrak]

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?

Because it gets rid of the Reapers for good, which was Shepard's primary intent , the thing he had been trying to do until two minutes before and which millions of people died to allow him to do (including his mentor Anderson, who had been so far the moral compass of the story and who has just bled to death downstairs to stop TIM from controlling the Reapers and to allow you to destroy them), and, as far as Shep knows, the whole purpose of the Crucible when it was built. Problem solved, tabula rasa, we'll deal with the next organics/synthetics conflict when it will arise again. No creepy "what if the Reapers become a threat again, what if my mind gets corrupted by the process in some way, what if it's just tricking me as it was influencing TIM?" vibe. I don't know about you, but if I was on Shepard's shoes the whole business about TIM being unable to control the Reapers "but you can!", the idea of space Cthulhus still sticking around but with a Benevolent Software installed, would set my alarm bells ringing, would all sound awfully like an attempt to dissuade me from achieving what had always been my main goal and was now literally a few feet away.

Control actually turns out just fine, but if a real person instead of someone playing a game (who can always reload, and who knows devs aren't going to trick him when presenting a final choice as perfectly viable) was faced with that dilemma I believe he'd think: "Damn, I'll stick to the original plan, instead of playing God or doing something I had been stopping TIM from doing this whole time, or just refusing to do anything".
That's why I said Destroy is actually the ending which requires less metagaming: because it's the kind of choice a person would make even if he wasn't playing a game.

Modifié par Pedrak, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:29 .

[Jadebaby]

Tomwew wrote...

this is in dispute?

[SpamBot2000]

Always thought it does. If you believe the game, that is. The story is so badly handled, though, that it feels like being a sucker for allowing the kind of suspension of disbelief we normally take for granted in fictional settings. This is quite an achievement for BioWare. They broke fiction.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 13 décembre 2012 - 10:23 .

[TheProtheans]

You're really just speculating OP.
We don't know for sure that EDI and the Geth are dead.

[Pedrak]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

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

Well, I can't certainly claim to speak for every living person in the world  
Even because I'm pretty sure there are people who, in Shepard's shoes, wouldn't choose Destroy if it killed only Shepard and his crew, and, on the other side of the spectrum, who would choose Destroy if it killed everyone buy Shepard and his crew.

What I can do is say that, based on my personal and thus limited life experience and contacts with human beings, if 100 wildly different persons who have spent the last part of their life, sacrificing everything and watching people die left and right ,to achieve goal X, and now this goal is literally a few seconds away, and at the last moment they are approached by a mysterious and possibly untrustworthy individual who says X is flawed, but they can also go for the radically different Y and Z, or do nothing (oh, and choice Y involves doing something they have been actively stopping another person from doing until a few minutes before)...

...well, the majority of those people sticking to goal X (even if it appears to have previously unknown drawbacks) and doing what everyone, including personal mentor and friends, expected,  actually strikes me as more inherently plausible and compatible with average human behaviour. That's why I disagree when people claim Destroyers are metagaming - to me, it's actually the choice that feels LESS like a stretch for a real person. Which, I'd add, is different from claiming that it is "the best ending", the one where things turn out better, or the most moral one, or whatever.

I'm sure some other people feel differently, though.

Modifié par Pedrak, 13 décembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[CosmicGnosis]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Always thought it does. If you believe the game, that is. The story is so badly handled, though, that it feels like being a sucker for allowing the kind of suspension of disbelief we normally take for granted in fictional settings. This is quite an achievement for BioWare. They broke fiction.

This post killed me. :lol: