238 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

@Deinon,

I think that is an interesting comparison you've made regarding Bring Down the Sky. I had never considered that before, but you are absolutely right! Destroy is basically the same as the decision to kill Balak, except on a much more massive scale.

On a side note, I spared Balak but destroyed the Reapers. For me at least choosing to save the hostages was an acceptable risk, whereas letting the Reapers survive surpassed my threshold of what level of risk I deemed acceptable.

[Yakko77]

clennon8 wrote...

Control and Synthesis are capitulations. Last minute religious conversions.

Destroy is a rejection of the Catalyst's doctrine. A vote for self-determinism.

And it was the goal for 2.99 games for most players I'd wager, destroying the Reapers.  BW shoehorning in Synthesis/Eugenics ending in the last 5 minutes was about as cheap and lazy as it gets plus you went through ME2 and help Legion differentiate from the Reapers only to find them hiding under the Reapers "skirt" in ME3 because the Quarians were winning.  Those were pretty much the most glaring flaws IMO though I generally liked the rest of the game thanksto EC clarifying some things except for the F U/Reject Ending kick to the balls.

Modifié par Yakko77, 15 janvier 2013 - 12:56 .

[BleedingUranium]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

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.

Not at all. It follows the clear pattern in ME that all organic and synthetics life is equal and alive, but all attempts to combine them are horrible monstrosities. Mordin's talk right after that about uplifting is clearly anti-Control.

[Eryri]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

She made that statement without an awareness of the true reality of the Reapers' circumstances.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but at the time he makes the decision, Shepard has no true awareness of the Reaper's circumstances either. The Catalyst tells him nothing about what it is like for the "ascended" conciousnesses trapped within them. And their circumstances aren't really relevant to Edi's. She has stated a wish that she would rather die than be altered by an outside force. Whether that force is actively malevolent, or sincerely believes that it is doing good is irrelevant. All Shepard has to go on at that moment is his knowledge of Edi's wish to remain herself or die.

Now, Shepard doesn't know much about synthesis when the choices are presented to him, so this argument may stray into metagaming, but the Catalyst tells him that all life, both organic and synthetic will be altered, and synthetics will gain "full understanding of organics" (whatever that means). During the Geth concensus mission in ME2, Legion was ambivalent about reprogramming or destroying the heretics, because altering their conciousnesses was, in his view, tantamount to killing them. They would become something different to what they were before. The old Heretics would "die" and be replaced by something else. This viewpoint is reflected in conversations with the crew afterwards, Samara shares this view - if you change a person's identity, then in a way you have killed them and replaced them with something else.

This view informs my Shepard's decision not to choose synthesis, because that will kill the Edi and the Geth that we know, and replace them with something else. And to use metagaming for a minute, the Edi of the synthesis epilogues sounds very different to the Edi we knew - far more emotional for one thing. The old Edi is dead, long live the new Edi.

To my mind, two of the ending choices (three if you count refuse) result in the "deaths" of Edi and the Geth. I might as well pick the one that kills them more cleanly, rather than the one which replaces them with dopplegangers of their former selves. The only ending that lets them live unchanged is Control, and I can't pick that for other reasons, so I'm afraid its destroy for me.

Modifié par Eryri, 15 janvier 2013 - 01:09 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Han Shot First wrote...

@Deinon,

I think that is an interesting comparison you've made regarding Bring Down the Sky. I had never considered that before, but you are absolutely right! Destroy is basically the same as the decision to kill Balak, except on a much more massive scale.

On a side note, I spared Balak but destroyed the Reapers. For me at least choosing to save the hostages was an acceptable risk, whereas letting the Reapers survive surpassed my threshold of what level of risk I deemed acceptable.

Similar story for The Price of Revenge. I captured Balak, I destroyed the Reapers, but I didn't think stopping Vido was worth the price being asked of me (in my canon playthrough, anyway).

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 15 janvier 2013 - 01:02 .

[BleedingUranium]

Yakko77 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Control and Synthesis are capitulations. Last minute religious conversions.

Destroy is a rejection of the Catalyst's doctrine. A vote for self-determinism.

And it was the goal for 2.99 games for most players I'd wager, destroying the Reapers.  BW shoehorning in Synthesis/Eugenics ending in the last 5 minutes was about as cheap and lazy as it gets plus you went through ME2 and help Legion differentiate from the Reapers only to find them hiding under the Reapers "skirt" in ME3 because the Quarians were winning.  Those were pretty much the most glaring flaws IMO though I generally liked the rest of the game thanksto EC clarifying some things except for the F U/Reject Ending kick to the balls.

That's because the Geth had been "flashbanged" by the Quarians, heavily reducing their intelligence and reasoning abilities. They were basically babies, maybe small children, and the Reapers came in offering candy and warm bankets. It's not their fault at all.

[DeinonSlayer]

Eryri wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

She made that statement without an awareness of the true reality of the Reapers' circumstances.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but at the time he makes the decision, Shepard has no true awareness of the Reaper's circumstances either. The Catalyst tells him nothing about what it is like for the "ascended" conciousnesses trapped within them. And their circumstances aren't really relevant to Edi's. She has stated a wish that she would rather die than be altered by an outside force. Whether that force is actively malevolent, or sincerely believes that it is doing good is irrelevant. All Shepard has to go on at that moment is his knowledge of Edi's wish to remain herself or die.

Now, Shepard doesn't know much about synthesis when the choices are presented to him, so this argument may stray into metagaming, but the Catalyst tells him that all life, both organic and synthetic will be altered, and synthetics will gain "full understanding of organics" (whatever that means). During the Geth concensus mission in ME2, Legion was ambivalent about reprogramming or destroying the heretics, because altering their conciousnesses was in his view, tantamount to killing them. They would become something different to what they were before. The old them would "die" and be replaced by something else. This viewpoint is reflected in conversations with the crew afterwards, Samara shares this view - if you change a person's identity, then in a way you have killed them and replaced them with something else.

This view informs my Shepard's decision not to choose synthesis, because that will kill the Edi and the Geth that we know, and replace them with something else. And to use metagaming for a minute, the Edi of the synthesis epilogues sounds very different to the Edi we knew - far more emotional for one thing. The old Edi is dead, long live the new Edi.

To my mind, two of the ending choices result in the "deaths" of Edi and the Geth. I might as well pick the one that kills them more cleanly, rather than the one which replaces them with dopplegangers of their former selves. The only ending that lets them live unchanged is Control, and I can't pick that for other reasons, so I'm afraid its destroy for me.

Even that, I question. Are they under Shepalyst control?

[CosmicGnosis]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

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.

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.

I keep making threads about this subject because it both intrigues and disturbs me. I guess I'm just bewildered by the fact that so many believe that Destroy is the only valid choice. It carries some traditionalist values that I don't agree with, but somehow it's supposed to be self-evident that Destroy is clearly the only legitimate choice?

And all the while, fans are screaming at BioWare to either validate their perception of Destroy, or make an entirely new ending and toss out Control and Synthesis (especially). My perspective of the Reapers is so unpopular that I sometimes question if I really am delusional. But when I think through my beliefs and come to the conclusion that I'm not, I still have to face the reality that most people here and at some other sites reject my arguments. Those who share my views are ridiculed for at least favoring Control (Synthesis takes it to a whole other level).

I don't know what should be done. I hate the current state of things. Maybe BioWare should scrap everything and redo the ending. I'm sick of the whole situation. I wanted a thoughtful and challenging ending, but if this is all that we get, then it might not be worth it.

[crimzontearz]

DS shares my point of view

[Steelcan]

To be honest the best ending debates I've had are with ITers when talking about the endings literally.

[Eryri]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Eryri wrote...

The only ending that lets them live unchanged is Control, and I can't pick that for other reasons, so I'm afraid its destroy for me.

Even that, I question. Are they under Shepalyst control?

That is another good point. Destroy targets all synthetics, but Control for some reason doesn't? Odd, considering that control is available at relatively low ems, when the crucible is supposedly more unstable and inaccurate, and is in fact the only low ems option if you saved the Collector base.

Modifié par Eryri, 15 janvier 2013 - 01:21 .

[BleedingUranium]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

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.

Not all choices should have good outcomes, it's no different from choosing the wrong people during the suicide mission in ME2, all you have to go on is what you're learned throughout the game.

100% of your allies disagree with you there. In fact, the only people that wanted something that involved the Reapers not dying were indoctrinated.

Two counts of headcanon, and even if it wasn't, you have no hints of any such thing happening before you make your choice, so it can't be a reason you make it.

Every single attempt at using Reaper tech in the past has lead to indoctrination. Also, using technology we don't understand is bad, per Legion, Mordin, and all other allies.

[De1ta G]

Because making the Destroy option require the destruction of all synthetics is what makes the decision the hard decision. Shepard even says it him/herself that the right decision is never the easy one. That's one of the main reasons EDI got a body and you get to have a conversation with it, face-to-face, about if it's more than just a robot or not. That and what Legion tells you is all implemented to try and keep you from picking Destroy. If you didn't have those conversations and if you had a scene that showed it was obvious that Shepard survive, Destroy would be way too easy of a choice to make.

[DeinonSlayer]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I keep making threads about this subject because it both intrigues and disturbs me. I guess I'm just bewildered by the fact that so many believe that Destroy is the only valid choice. It carries some traditionalist values that I don't agree with, but somehow it's supposed to be self-evident that Destroy is clearly the only legitimate choice?

It is for some. "Traditionalism," as I see it, doesn't have anything to do with it. I play different Shepards differently. One chooses Control (mostly to sit on Wreav), one shoots the brat (because he's a ******), and two shoot the tube (for the reasons I've outlined, among others).

And all the while, fans are screaming at BioWare to either validate their perception of Destroy, or make an entirely new ending and toss out Control and Synthesis (especially).

I'm not one of them. For those who are, there's MEHEM.

My perspective of the Reapers is so unpopular that I sometimes question if I really am delusional. But when I think through my beliefs and come to the conclusion that I'm not, I still have to face the reality that most people here and at some other sites reject my arguments. Those who share my views are ridiculed for at least favoring Control (Synthesis takes it to a whole other level).

I don't know what should be done. I hate the current state of things. Maybe BioWare should scrap everything and redo the ending. I'm sick of the whole situation. I wanted a thoughtful and challenging ending, but if this is all that we get, then it might not be worth it.

To be fair, Synthesis is ridiculous, on multiple levels. Still, there's a fair amount of sniping at every ending. Intellectual debate is good, but I don't expect the bitterness on these boards will ever go away. The only real options are to either come to terms with the endings as they stand, or move on.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 15 janvier 2013 - 01:26 .

[Eryri]

Steelcan wrote...

To be honest the best ending debates I've had are with ITers when talking about the endings literally.

 I'll be honest, it can be really confusing sometimes, trying to juggle both the literal and the IT interpretations in your head at once. Confirmation one way or the other would be a huge relief.

[Steelcan]

Jayne Cobb isn't a ******.... He's just....... Enthusiastic?

[crimzontearz]

De1ta G wrote...

Because making the Destroy option require the destruction of all synthetics is what makes the decision the hard decision. Shepard even says it him/herself that the right decision is never the easy one. That's one of the main reasons EDI got a body and you get to have a conversation with it, face-to-face, about if it's more than just a robot or not. That and what Legion tells you is all implemented to try and keep you from picking Destroy. If you didn't have those conversations and if you had a scene that showed it was obvious that Shepard survive, Destroy would be way too easy of a choice to make.

without the latter and taking the other two endings at face value it also has no upsides

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

Jayne Cobb isn't a ******.... He's just....... Enthusiastic?

What can I say? Glowstick is a low-down dirty deceiver.

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Jayne Cobb isn't a ******.... He's just....... Enthusiastic?

What can I say? Glowstick is a low-down dirty deceiver.

Come to think of it, this weekend is my annual Firefly/Serenity marathon.

[BleedingUranium]

crimzontearz wrote...

without the latter and taking the other two endings at face value it also has no upsides

Reapers live
Reapers live
Reapers die
Reapers live

[Wayning_Star]

Boy I'm just glad I chose synthesis and actually save the MEU, not concerned about reveng'n stuff, just the Leviathan becoming a lot less apex... Sure destroy is a kind of neat trick, but takes all the resources spent on the crucible to destroy the Ai and formidable Geth allies. Not to meantion, all those dead reeaperships that could be used to police the hidden Leviathan soldier societies yet unknown. Their thralls might just be having a post destroy party as well.. divying up the star systems and finishing off the recalcitrant Ai that might of escaped the wave.

Yes, destroy, the "Logistical' conclusion..lol

[Wayning_Star]

and a few hundred or so years later,when Ai's are re assembled to find the data regarding loyal and dedicated organics blew them up again..and again...and again... They'll be pure tickled about that..won't bother their circuits one teeeeny bit..or byte..what ever they call it...

[dreamgazer]

What does a Reaper think in a post-synthesis world?

[crimzontearz]

BleedingUranium wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

without the latter and taking the other two endings at face value it also has no upsides

Reapers live
Reapers enslaved
Reapers die
Reapers live (not an ending)

fixed, each ending resolves the conflict, we are not debating the how but the uosides and downsides

[BleedingUranium]

Wayning_Star wrote...

and a few hundred or so years later,when Ai's are re assembled to find the data regarding loyal and dedicated organics blew them up again..and again...and again... They'll be pure tickled about that..won't bother their circuits one teeeeny bit..or byte..what ever they call it...

Headcanon with a sprinkle of just plain wrong.