238 réponses à ce sujet

[Norwood06]

Han Shot First wrote...

Norwood06 wrote...

Something I never understood:

Does Destroy kill all synthetics? Or all synthetics with Reaper code?

So if the geth hadn't uploaded the Reaper AI code into themselves, would they have survived?

Both.

Technically it just destroys all Synthetics with Reaper code, but unfortunately by the end of ME3 that includes all known Synthetics.

Ok.  That's what I thought but wasn't sure. 

It makes a big difference to me re: Destroy.  For if the geth had stayed true to their ME2 philosophy of 'making our own future', they would have been unaffected by Shep's final decision.  But they didn't.  They made the wrong choice, and paid the price. 

If the geth were screwed either way, then yeah, Destroy feels very anti-synthetic. 

Modifié par Norwood06, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:11 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Ugh.... This is the exact quote:

"But be warned: Others will be destroyed as well. The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic."

ALL SYNTHETICS. Even the older script says that organics will prevail at the expense of synthetics.

Shepard's survival doesn't mean that certain synthetics can survive as well. Also, in Low-EMS Destroy, the Catalyst accurately predicts that Shepard "will surely die". In High-EMS Destroy, his death is merely a possibility.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:20 .

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

Because i headcannon it wasn't just like you head cannon it was

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Ugh.... This is the exact quote:

"But be warned: Others will be destroyed as well. The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic."

ALL SYNTHETICS. Even the older script says that organics will prevail at the expense of synthetics.

Just because Shepard survives doesn't mean that certain synthetics could have theoretically survived. In Low-EMS Destroy, the Catalyst accurately declares that Shepard "will surely die". In High-EMS Destroy, his death is merely a possibility.

. "Targeted". That doesn't mean destroyed. 

[Wayning_Star]

Steelcan wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Ugh.... This is the exact quote:

"But be warned: Others will be destroyed as well. The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic."

ALL SYNTHETICS. Even the older script says that organics will prevail at the expense of synthetics.

Just because Shepard survives doesn't mean that certain synthetics could have theoretically survived. In Low-EMS Destroy, the Catalyst accurately declares that Shepard "will surely die". In High-EMS Destroy, his death is merely a possibility.

. "Targeted". That doesn't mean destroyed. 

maybe the cat will miss a few?

Targeted seems rather absolute..

[Wayning_Star]

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

Because i headcannon it wasn't just like you head cannon it was

one 'n' in canon.. an actual head cannon could be problematic?

[Meltemph]

"But be warned: Others will be destroyed as well. The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic."

In context of the setting of ME, that statement doesnt make a whole lot of sense, so it isnt hard to see why people would find it easy to think the child was very...miss leading. It doesnt say how or in what way "all" synthetics will be effected, and if it effects all syntehtics, then all technology will be affected.

IF all that is the case, then that is a "means nothing" explanation", seeing as how the ships obviously kept working long enough and technology wasn't hamstrung in any major way. "Synthetics" is an incredibly vague term that has no meaning unto itself in a situation like this, so without specifics there is no way to really have a clue what is going on.

So all you have with destroy is what you "think" he meant, and I think for a lot of people theo nly way to really make sense of the mess was to assume that only the reaper based synthetic/technology was going to be destroyed... Even then though we dont even know what exactly "reaper code" is in terms of why the crucible effected them.

In short, the ending was so vague that the only real conclusion you can come to is that reaper based synthetics were destroyed, everything else was just...damaged in some way shape or form.

Modifié par Meltemph, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:59 .

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

Wayning_Star wrote...

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

Because i headcannon it wasn't just like you head cannon it was

one 'n' in canon.. an actual head cannon could be problematic?

eh waht nac i yas mi a trireble seplerlr dna sey ti nac eb yrev crelbiomtap  

 

Modifié par IMNOTCRAZYiminsane, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:55 .

[CosmicGnosis]

I'm just so tired of this endless battle on BSN. Control and Synthesis are bad no matter what, and Destroy is the best no matter what. It seems that the majority of Destroyers accept the fact that synthetics are killed. But some of them actually call this into question, which I think is merely an excuse to ignore the ethical problems of the choice and demonize those who choose Control and Synthesis.

And why is it that these people can say, "The synthetics are probably alive", and I can't say, "The Shepard AI is more reasonable than the Catalyst"? After all, we never see the Shepard AI killing people. We never see the Shepard AI put down a resistance.

[Han Shot First]

Destroyers aren't unique in creating their own head canon that flies in the face of what is said or shown in the game.

Prior to the EC many people who chose Control were claiming that Reaper Shep ordered all of the Reapers to fly into a star or a black hole, and called it a day. They in effect, wanted the results of Destroy without the consequences. The EC of course largely did away with this head canon by showing that the Reaper fleet remains intact, but it does show that the people who chose Destroy were no more prone to being in denial.

[CosmicGnosis]

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroyers aren't unique in creating their own head canon that flies in the face of what is said or shown in the game.

Prior to the EC many people who chose Control were claiming that Reaper Shep ordered all of the Reapers to fly into a star or a black hole, and called it a day. They in effect, wanted the results of Destroy without the consequences. The EC of course largely did away with this head canon by showing that the Reaper fleet remains intact, but it does show that the people who chose Destroy were no more prone to being in denial.

Yeah, the EC pretty much ruined that headcanon. But assuming that Paragon Control and Renegade Control are basically the same thing is incredibly boring. Shepard rules with an iron tentacle in both endings? Really? It renders the moral alignment utterly meaningless.

I don't agree with some fundamental aspects of Destroy. I'm not even sure that I believe that "natural" evolution is ideal. It produced the Leviathans, after all.

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I'm just so tired of this endless battle on BSN. Control and Synthesis are bad no matter what, and Destroy is the best no matter what. It seems that the majority of Destroyers accept the fact that synthetics are killed. But some of them actually call this into question, which I think is merely an excuse to ignore the ethical problems of the choice and demonize those who choose Control and Synthesis.

And why is it that these people can say, "The synthetics are probably alive", and I can't say, "The Shepard AI is more reasonable than the Catalyst"? After all, we never see the Shepard AI killing people. We never see the Shepard AI put down a resistance.

I never said that.  And I pick Control in a few play throughs as well.  The only synthetics who may be alive are the virtual aliens from Cerberus Network.  I'm not going to contest the status if the Geth, they are deader than the dodo

[dreamgazer]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I'm just so tired of this endless battle on BSN. Control and Synthesis are bad no matter what, and Destroy is the best no matter what. It seems that the majority of Destroyers accept the fact that synthetics are killed. But some of them actually call this into question, which I think is merely an excuse to ignore the ethical problems of the choice and demonize those who choose Control and Synthesis.

The "battle" will likely exist in one form or another until BioWare figures out what they're going to do with the universe for the next game. Everybody's currently both right and wrong, and we won't know until then which it is---if at all. It also doesn't help that the writing is plagued with gaps in logic and both technological and thematic inconsistencies, so you're deciphering an obscured ink-blot of an ending that facilitates several interpretations. 

It'll continue to deflate, but the perception will remain.

[CosmicGnosis]

Steelcan wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I'm just so tired of this endless battle on BSN. Control and Synthesis are bad no matter what, and Destroy is the best no matter what. It seems that the majority of Destroyers accept the fact that synthetics are killed. But some of them actually call this into question, which I think is merely an excuse to ignore the ethical problems of the choice and demonize those who choose Control and Synthesis.

And why is it that these people can say, "The synthetics are probably alive", and I can't say, "The Shepard AI is more reasonable than the Catalyst"? After all, we never see the Shepard AI killing people. We never see the Shepard AI put down a resistance.

I never said that.  And I pick Control in a few play throughs as well.  The only synthetics who may be alive are the virtual aliens from Cerberus Network.  I'm not going to contest the status if the Geth, they are deader than the dodo

Oh no, I know that you didn't say that. But others have.

[Han Shot First]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroyers aren't unique in creating their own head canon that flies in the face of what is said or shown in the game.

Prior to the EC many people who chose Control were claiming that Reaper Shep ordered all of the Reapers to fly into a star or a black hole, and called it a day. They in effect, wanted the results of Destroy without the consequences. The EC of course largely did away with this head canon by showing that the Reaper fleet remains intact, but it does show that the people who chose Destroy were no more prone to being in denial.

Yeah, the EC pretty much ruined that headcanon. But assuming that Paragon Control and Renegade Control are basically the same thing is incredibly boring. Shepard rules with an iron tentacle in both endings? Really? It renders the moral alignment utterly meaningless.

I don't agree with some fundamental aspects of Destroy. I'm not even sure that I believe that "natural" evolution is ideal. It produced the Leviathans, after all.

From a metagaming perspective we know the results of all three of the original endings aren't going to blow up in the face of the player. Bioware simply isn't going to troll the fanbase by having certain endings result in a destroyed galaxy in Mass Effect 4. No one is going to insert the ME4 disc and be told that if they picked a certain ending, civilization has been destroyed they'll have to go back and play ME3 to get the correct one.

But of course what the player knows isn't the same thing as what Shepard or other characters in the universe would know. In Universe they don't have Casey and Mac acting as 'gods' who guarantee that whatever decision is made regarding the Crucible (minus Refuse), pays off in the long wrong.

So for Shepard and the rest of the galaxy, Control and Synthesis represent a massive leap of faith where they must trust that the Reapers will play nice and peacefully coexist with the civilizations of the galaxy. I like Destroy because if I were in Shepard's boots and knowing only what he would realistically know, Destroy seems to be the most logical decision regarding the Crucible and it involves the least amount of risk. It is the only one, from his perspective, that truly guarantees that the galaxy will be safe from the Reapers for all time.

I also see it as a bit of a mercy killing, freeing all the organics whose minds were indoctrinated and combined with A.I. processes to create the Reapers. The Reapers are in effect, a form of slavery.

Destroy is also the only ending that doesn't have some version of the Catalyst appointed to manage the galaxy. I think the civilizations of the galaxy should have a right to determine their own fates, for good or ill, without being managed by an A.I. overlord. Destroy in many respects is all about freedom, both in giving the civilizations of the galaxy the ability to determine their own futures and in freeing the countless billions (trillions?) who were stripped of free will, turned into partially synthetic abominations, and forced to participate in the genocide of their own species and countless others.

[Keatstwo]

I guess you could argue that destroy is, in a way, the most pro-synthetic ending. If you take it as read that synthetics are going to get built again then picking destroy is saying that you think you can manage peace this time around.

You could argue that by picking control you're admitting that you don't think synthetic / organic peace is possible without the reapers to step in and that by picking synthesis you're saying that you don't believe that synthetics can ever assign value to organic life without being suddenly imbued with full understanding of organics.

So yeah. If you love synthetics...destroy them? Hmmm.

EDIT: I'm actually stood at the choices right now after a full trilogy playthrough trying to decide what to do. Bleh. If I were to metagame then control is pretty attractive, but as you say, destroy is the option that I think I would make in Shepard's shoes. After watching Shepard die the last few times I kinda want him to live for a change :{ Maybe I'll be an optimist for a change and trust the galaxy to not destroy itself without reapers / synthesis.

Modifié par Keatstwo, 15 janvier 2013 - 12:07 .

[Vigilant111]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I'm just so tired of this endless battle on BSN. Control and Synthesis are bad no matter what, and Destroy is the best no matter what. It seems that the majority of Destroyers accept the fact that synthetics are killed. But some of them actually call this into question, which I think is merely an excuse to ignore the ethical problems of the choice and demonize those who choose Control and Synthesis.

And why is it that these people can say, "The synthetics are probably alive", and I can't say, "The Shepard AI is more reasonable than the Catalyst"? After all, we never see the Shepard AI killing people. We never see the Shepard AI put down a resistance.

I don't think that is true, and don't give me " not you... OTHER people". I am a loyal destroy picker, and I don't think destroy is the right choice no matter what, there are moral dilemmas to consider and burdens to bare. I do not think we can know what is the "right" choice as the future is ununforeseen

The big problem for me abou synthesis and control is that their price to pay for galactic peace is too low compared to destroy, almost as if they are easy options. You kill yourself then leave all the problems to the future

[evilgummybear]

only a 100% hero would choose synthysis and sacrafice himself for the greater good.

In reality i would choose destroy since robots can be rebuilt anyways, and also you have a % of surivival in the destroy option.

Seriously who would sacrafice themselves for robots, its just a machine.

[BleedingUranium]

Because the fact that it's synthetics that die isn't the important part. It could've been all Asari, or all Elcor, or all Quarians, or even half of the galactic population. It wouldn't affect the theme of Destroy, which is "victory through sacrifice"; nothing more specific than that.

It's also the only ending where the Reapers die. That makes it the only acceptable ending, and no cost is too great to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat once and for all.

[CosmicGnosis]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Because the fact that it's synthetics that die isn't the important part. It could've been all Asari, or all Elcor, or all Quarians, or even half of the galactic population. It wouldn't affect the theme of Destroy, which is "victory through sacrifice"; nothing more specific than that.

It's also the only ending where the Reapers die. That makes it the only acceptable ending, and no cost is too great to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat once and for all.

It's this dogma that I can't stand. Talk about lack of player choice. And as I've stated, I reject the notion that the Reapers themselves deserve death. Synthesis suggests that the species within them are restored in some way. I like to think that they can be restored in Control as well. This possibility is very important to me. I also like the prospect of seizing the Reapers' technology and harnessing it for the benefit of the galaxy.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 15 janvier 2013 - 12:33 .

[Eryri]

Keatstwo wrote...

I guess you could argue that destroy is, in a way, the most pro-synthetic ending. If you take it as read that synthetics are going to get built again then picking destroy is saying that you think you can manage peace this time around.

You could argue that by picking control you're admitting that you don't think synthetic / organic peace is possible without the reapers to step in and that by picking synthesis you're saying that you don't believe that synthetics can ever assign value to organic life without being suddenly imbued with full understanding of organics.

That's a good point. You can approach Destroy with the mindset, that Shepard has faith that future synthetics can coexist peacefully with organics without Big Brother watching over them, or something akin to divine intervention in synthesis. You can repudiate the Catalyst's assertion that "the chaos will come back".

I played my Shepard as a paragon who saved both the Geth and the Quarians and encouraged Edi in her relationship with Jeff, but I still think that Destroy is an appropriate choice for him, precisely because he believed that synthetics were an equally valid form of life. He honoured Edi's belief that non functionality would be preferable to re-programming by the Reapers. He treated Edi and the geth as he would any other soldiers under his command, who knew that they may be called to sacrifice their lives for the good of the galaxy. 

[Alessar1288]

Why destroy? I believe organics can eventually grow by themselves and learn to live with synthetics. If the singularity is meant to happen it should happen organically and not forced upon every being.

I refuse to just become catalyst 2.0 and still control the reapers, how is that any better than just destroying them?

And finally I keep being told by Mordin that forced changes such as the uplifiting of the Krogan and the various genetic enhancements to the collectors are bad. Yet I'm supposed to just rush to a singularity and just listen to something that tells me everything will be ok?

[CosmicGnosis]

Eryri wrote...

That's a good point. You can approach Destroy with the mindset, that Shepard has faith that future synthetics can coexist peacefully with organics without Big Brother watching over them, or something akin to divine intervention in synthesis. You can repudiate the Catalyst's assertion that "the chaos will come back".

I played my Shepard as a paragon who saved both the Geth and the Quarians and encouraged Edi in her relationship with Jeff, but I still think that Destroy is an appropriate choice for him, precisely because he believed that synthetics were an equally valid form of life. He honoured Edi's belief that non functionality would be preferable to re-programming by the Reapers. He treated Edi and the geth as he would any other soldiers under his command, who knew that they may be called to sacrifice their lives for the good of the galaxy. 

She made that statement without an awareness of the true reality of the Reapers' circumstances. I should also note that if you side with the quarians on Rannoch, she isn't happy with the choice, but she accepts it because she understands that organics tend to side with the familiar. Destroy is arguably siding with the familiar, which is not necessarily a good thing. Destroy is obviously the most favored choice of organics, but the most popular choice isn't necessarily the right one.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 15 janvier 2013 - 12:45 .

[DeinonSlayer]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Because the fact that it's synthetics that die isn't the important part. It could've been all Asari, or all Elcor, or all Quarians, or even half of the galactic population. It wouldn't affect the theme of Destroy, which is "victory through sacrifice"; nothing more specific than that.

It's also the only ending where the Reapers die. That makes it the only acceptable ending, and no cost is too great to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat once and for all.

It's this dogma that I can't stand. Talk about lack of player choice. And as I've stated, I reject the notion that the Reapers themselves deserve death. Synthesis suggests that the species within them are restored in some way. I like to think that they can be restored in Control as well. This possibility is very important to me. I also like the prospect of seizing the Reapers' technology and harnessing it for the benefit of the galaxy.

If you reject the premise that the reapers deserve death (and the premise that death is a mercy to those trapped within them, forced (if you believe that) to commit genocide over and over again), then nothing we say will convince you. I've lost track of how many of these threads you've started - not that it's an invalid topic for discussion, but it's old turf.

If that's your interpretation, you're welcome to it. It isn't mine. In fact, as I interpret it, Control seizes EDI and the Geth as well (a fate arguably worse than death).

Personally, I think Destroy is the BDtS scenario, writ large. Let Balak escape after he tried to asteroid-bomb a planet populated by millions, or sacrifice three hostages to ensure he never hurts anyone ever again? Sacrifice EDI and the Geth (if they're alive) to ensure the Reaper problem never comes back to bite us, or (insert negative connotations of Control and Synthesis here)?

Shepard's past actions and attitudes, expressed throughout the trilogy, establish whether (s)he chooses destroy out of some sort of anti-synthetic racism. To me, it's just the fortunes of war. Acceptable losses. Like the three engineers in BDtS. Like half of the Normandy crew in my latest ME2 playthrough, where the choice was either addressing N7: Javelin Missiles Launched or hitting the Omega-4 Relay.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 15 janvier 2013 - 12:53 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Alessar1288 wrote...

Why destroy? I believe organics can eventually grow by themselves and learn to live with synthetics. If the singularity is meant to happen it should happen organically and not forced upon every being.

I refuse to just become catalyst 2.0 and still control the reapers, how is that any better than just destroying them?

And finally I keep being told by Mordin that forced changes such as the uplifiting of the Krogan and the various genetic enhancements to the collectors are bad. Yet I'm supposed to just rush to a singularity and just listen to something that tells me everything will be ok?

Mordin's "replaced with tech" argument is odd for the Mass Effect story, considering that the geth and EDI are completely made of tech. This suggests that they aren't really alive.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 15 janvier 2013 - 12:48 .