1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Fawx9]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/368/index/14795358

You completely ignored the "on par with existing benefits/consequences" part of his post.

It is.

All it adds is a reunion scence. Same consequences and benefits as current Destroy, unless you mod it further with optional files/slides.

[thefallen2far]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why would there be any bombings?

Why are there bombings now? Again, you're talking about giant civilization wiping out robots with horrible logic cores that apparently could be reprogramed with an device that can be made in the span of a few months. It's like saying to german fascists, "it's okay, you guys can fly flags around, drive your tanks up and down the streets. You're allowing our mayor to keep his position, so we feel perfectly safe with your presence and influence."

I really wish people wouldn't toss around "nihilism" so sloppily. I get what you're saying there... yep, you don't get to punish the bad guys without causing bad consequences. But that isn't at all the same thing as nihilism. Just a language quibble, though.

But how did you feel about the ending of Watchmen?

I wish the ending wasn't nihilistic, we both can't get what we want. Nihilism is apt when if you actually attempt to hold true to the themes and beliefs of hope and defiance against corruption, all civilization gets wiped out. Nihilism.

As for Watchmen.... eh. I was 5 when it came out, so I've seen every iteration of the theme to the point I'm bored of it. I wouldn't want to waste my time with anything like that again.

For all intents and purposes, Ozymandeus was a basic villain who succeeded in getting away with mass murder without repurcussions. Owlman and Silk Spector where cowards, but they were lame heroes to begin with. Rorchach's death was a shame, but at least he dropped off his journal, that's a little solace. Basically, if someone tells me, "read this, it ends like Watchman," I wouldnkt.

[Iakus]

thefallen2far wrote...

 Basically, if someone tells me, "read this, it ends like Watchman," I wouldnkt.

+1

[crimzontearz]

iakus wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

 Basically, if someone tells me, "read this, it ends like Watchman," I wouldnkt.

+1

+2

[Mad-Hamlet]

thefallen2far wrote...


I wish the ending wasn't nihilistic, we both can't get what we want. Nihilism is apt when if you actually attempt to hold true to the themes and beliefs of hope and defiance against corruption, all civilization gets wiped out. Nihilism.

Nihilim is nothing of the sort. To have a philosphy is to have values; an aspect of having values is living up to the responsibility of testing those values against oneself and other ideas. Should a value fail it must be discarded and a new one established.


Nihilsm is not a philosphy per se. It is the devaluation of all values. Similar to extreme reletivism in that it attempts to make all values equal- worthless. The devestation of galactic civilization in any ending of ME3 would not be the truimph of Nilihism, it would be the victory of The REAPERS values...whatever those are.

At no point before the Catalyst did Shepard fail his values, however established by the player.

The nihilism is the writers, for some insane reason, perhaps, as I've mentioned in other threads, they want to 'educate us'. Point being, your definition of nihilism is in error.

And I'm not touching your Watchmen arguments with a thirty foot barge pole.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

I think I saw some people in this thread say that they do not want bittersweet or downer endings in their video games because they are just "entertainment" or that one should always win in a video game. Which is in my opinion just a poor and narrow viewpoint IMO.

Despite what my complaints about the ME3 ending might make people think, I am okay with bittersweet or downright dark endings. I thoroughly enjoyed Spec Ops: The Line, and the endings in that game fitted the tone of the story.

Mass Effect 3's endings compared to the rest of the trilogy on the other hand...

[GimmeDaGun]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

...problem is: it's not on par with the existing endings in terms of benefit-consequences.

Yet again, the question arises: Why exactly would this be a problem again?

Oh, and inb4 "No one is allowed to be satisfied, because life is grim!" 

Context, man... look for the context!  Your answer is there. 

[Redbelle]

For me the endings didn't vary in a sliding scale. Imagine the best ending being earned as a result of getting the best ending's to all the missions that effect how the end play's out.

Or an average ending where you may have nailed mission's to the max but fluffed a few mission's so you don't get everything handed to you to play out in the ending.

Or a fail ending where you have failed every important mission, haven't got enough resource's to pull through and your skill's aren't up to the job of compensating. Reaper win.

When I saved the Krogan I imagined charging side by side with Krogan battalion's, or watching as Asari gunship's strafe enemy unit's with weapon's fire. All of which, at the end, made possible by fufilling certain criteria in the mission's before the end.

ME3's ending didn't branch out enough. And because of ME2's suicide mission I expected it would. Thing's done before the end impacting directly on the end.

[Kel Riever]

crimzontearz wrote...

iakus wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

 Basically, if someone tells me, "read this, it ends like Watchman," I wouldnkt.

+1

+2

I would.  Because that would mean that it ended in a way that made sense, even if it was unhappy.  It would mean that it ended in a way that was consistent with the medium expressed, and not try to be something that wasn't.

So, Mass Effect didn't end like the Watchmen.  Because Mass Effect tried to be a movie instead of a video game, and on top of that, a really poorly written movie that made not one iota of sense and deserves all the raspberry awards it got.

Having said that, The Watchmen movie, and comic, were overrated.  I would call them both good, even excellent compared to most comics.  But certainly not legendary.  Maybe legendary in the sense that the vast majority of comics are drivel and nonsense.  So a relevant level of fame, and not universal.  ME3 is not even excellent compared to most video games, well, at least in SP mode.  And the ending might be the worst ever.  Well, unless we go back to, um, say Bad Dudes.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 28 janvier 2013 - 06:28 .

[Dr_Extrem]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/368/index/14795358

...problem is: it's not on par with the existing endings in terms of benefit-consequences.

It's a lot more traditional happy ending which has no real weight to it compared to the others. Shepard miraculously saved by Joker, Crucible turns into a simple reaper off switch, reunion with love interest... a strange memorial scene for Anderson (everybody is too emotionally moved in that scene... and it's Anderson... some of them didn't even know him really... anyway, that's the only thing that makes it "bitter"(sweet)), and there's no moral dilemma at all... none. The only thing that stops it being a traditional true-happy ending is the limited resourses which were at the modder's disposal. But the overall message is: reapers are killed (with no strings attached), everybody (who survived) lives happily ever after (most importantly Sheppard and LI), but the whole final act has no (moral) weight to it... there's no responsibility of choice.

... so it's not a good example. 

i have to disagree.

the original destroy ending is not on par in terms of benefit-consequences.


let me elaborate:

1) in destroy (especially with the geth intact), the seed of the conflict of organics vs. synthetics is already in place. according to the catalyst. conflict between those groups will arise one day. without the synthetics, new ones would have to be build, to have the prequisite for this conflict in the first place.

2) the reapers under shep-ais, are the perfect guardiens of society - especially, if shepard was a paragon. if we put the social and moral implications aside, the society will be in "navigable water". the yagh arise and try to take over the galaxy? shep-ai will help out. in a synthesised world, the chances of conflict are reduced - knowlegde reduces the fear of the unknown (the main reason for conflict).

3) the relay network is destroyed and the colonies are cut off. many colonies are not self sustaining - horizon in example, is an agrarian world, where sterile terminator seeds are used to grow crops. those seeds are imported from earth. in destroy, it will take a very, very long time to rebuild the network. you need a pair for working ftl-transit. the relays on the opposite side, would have to be reached with standard ftl drives - and they need power (He3) and stellar bodies with magnatic fields (discharge). in control, the reapers (who are in every system) will rebuild the network in the nick of time and parallel. in synthesis, the uniformed dna would allow life to prosper even on otherwise non-nutricious worlds - the reapers are still around to help with the rebuilding as well.


from this pov, destroy only gets the downsides. letting the geth and edi live, while shep gets a reunion, would satisfy a lot of people and even the endings.


edit: the memorial scene is not only for anderson - hs name is just the last one to be placed there. legion, thane, mordin. a lot of friends died on the way - the list could even be longer. anderson name is a "proxy" for all the people who died on the way. there was no time to mourne them before. its "turian"-style mourning - they do it after the war.

it is a memorial for all the brave people, who gave their lives for the victory.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 28 janvier 2013 - 07:05 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

thefallen2far wrote...

I wish the ending wasn't nihilistic

It wasn't. None of them were.

[OdanUrr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

A curious thing about the EC. In the original endings I picked Control. Since there was no depiction of the result of my choice beyond Shepard successfully gaining control of the Reapers, I figured my Shepard would do either of two things: deactivate the Reapers' shields so the fleet could take them out, or take the Reapers into dark space and cut all ties with galactic civilization. What I did not envision, however, is what happened in the EC, where Shepard can become a sort of "benevolent" God using the Reapers to help civilizations develop. To my mind, that scenario will eventually result in some civilizations turning against the Reapers, simply because they don't want a police force controlling and directing their fate (in fact, in my Catalyst origin story I think I posited this as the reason why the Reapers eventually destroy all civilizations, so that this scenario doesn't come to happen). Needless to say, the EC version of Control makes me a bit hesitant.

As for Destroy, the problem I have with it is not that it destroys EDI and the Geth, but why that happens. How come destroying the Reapers affects all technology, not to mention it destroys synthetics in the process? Where's the connection? To me, it doesn't sound plausible, but the worst of it is that nobody bothers to explain it. Ugh... we are coming perilously close to me ranting about the Crucible and I've done that already (link below if you're interested).

[TheRealJayDee]

thefallen2far wrote...

Basically, if someone tells me, "read this, it ends like Watchman," I wouldnkt.

I absolutely love Watchmen, it's just all around great. If someone whose judgement I trust tells me "read/play/watch this, it's as good as Watchmen" I would definitely give it a try. Watchmen is more than it's ending, but it's ending is part of what makes it as good as it is, because it is a crucial part of a very well thought out and equally well executed narrative. And what is very very important is that Watchmen isn't an interactive experience.

If Watchmen was a video game that started out as a regular superhero story with a more upbeat setting than the comic and the promise of having a major influence on how the story turns out, then lacked all the symbolism and foeshadowing of the comic and in the end hit the player/character in the face with a completely inevitable surprise squid it would probably be received differently, Watchmen was from start to finish a non-interactive deconstruction of the superhero genre. And btw, the villain behind it all is revealed at the end of the story, not introduced on the last 10 pages. ^^

Again, the problems with Mass Effect 3 endings are not neccessarily that people have a problem with endings that aren't completely happy in general (which ME couldn't be even with MEHEM). Many who dislike ME3 like The Walking Dead or the aformentioned Spec Ops: The Line, personally I love both games. One of the problem is that Mass Effect 3 and with it Shepard's whole story ends only in ways that many perceive as too bleak, which just disregards a lot of the variety of themes that were very prominent througout the entire trilogy.

I encourage everyone to watch Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, btw:


Anti-Spiral: You continue to struggle, even knowing what you know?
Simon: Of course we do! The tomorrow that we're trying to grab for ourselves... is not the tomorrow that you've set out for us! It's the tomorrow that we choose for ourselves: a tomorrow that we choose out of all the infinite universes. We'll fight our way through. We'll keep fighting and protect the universe! We'll stop the Spiral Nemesis too!
Anti-Spiral: You can't possibly accomplish all that!
Simon: Just watch us!!

[AlanC9]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/368/index/14795358

...problem is: it's not on par with the existing endings in terms of benefit-consequences.

I think he was denying the premise of Allan's question -- he doesn't want something with the same benefit-consequences as the existing endings in the first place. The "HE" in MEHEM means something, right?

Although it's possible Dr_Extrem read him better than I did. I guess wwinters99 will have to clear that up.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2013 - 06:49 .

[Iakus]

Kel Riever wrote...


I would.  Because that would mean that it ended in a way that made sense, even if it was unhappy.  It would mean that it ended in a way that was consistent with the medium expressed, and not try to be something that wasn't.

Let me rephrase:

I would not watch a Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, or Farscape episdode, especially a finale, that read like Watchmen.  It simpy doesn't fit the tone, even those shows' darkest moments. 

And that's precisely what ME3's ending did.  Worse, because I was playing the role of Captain Sheridan, Colonel O'Neill, etc.  And I got to watch the character and galaxy I loved burn away because a Starchild said "it's this or the galaxy dies anyway"

Modifié par iakus, 28 janvier 2013 - 07:11 .

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Why would there be any bombings?

Why are there bombings now? Again, you're talking about giant civilization wiping out robots with horrible logic cores that apparently could be reprogramed with an device that can be made in the span of a few months. It's like saying to german fascists, "it's okay, you guys can fly flags around, drive your tanks up and down the streets. You're allowing our mayor to keep his position, so we feel perfectly safe with your presence and influence."

So you're saying that Control isn't actually Control?

I really wish people wouldn't toss around "nihilism" so sloppily. I get what you're saying there... yep, you don't get to punish the bad guys without causing bad consequences. But that isn't at all the same thing as nihilism. Just a language quibble, though.

But how did you feel about the ending of Watchmen?

I wish the ending wasn't nihilistic, we both can't get what we want. Nihilism is apt when if you actually attempt to hold true to the themes and beliefs of hope and defiance against corruption, all civilization gets wiped out. Nihilism.

That isn't the meaning of "nihilistic." It just isn't. Unless you're saying that the Catalyst really is right, and it's either the cycles or AIs exterminating organics. That would be nihilistic, all right.

As for Watchmen.... eh. I was 5 when it came out, so I've seen every iteration of the theme to the point I'm bored of it. I wouldn't want to waste my time with anything like that again.

For all intents and purposes, Ozymandeus was a basic villain who succeeded in getting away with mass murder without repurcussions. Owlman and Silk Spector where cowards, but they were lame heroes to begin with. Rorchach's death was a shame, but at least he dropped off his journal, that's a little solace. Basically, if someone tells me, "read this, it ends like Watchman," I wouldnkt.

So you're just philosophically opposed to works where bad guys don't get punished?

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2013 - 07:36 .

[DeinonSlayer]

OdanUrr wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

A curious thing about the EC. In the original endings I picked Control. Since there was no depiction of the result of my choice beyond Shepard successfully gaining control of the Reapers, I figured my Shepard would do either of two things: deactivate the Reapers' shields so the fleet could take them out, or take the Reapers into dark space and cut all ties with galactic civilization. What I did not envision, however, is what happened in the EC, where Shepard can become a sort of "benevolent" God using the Reapers to help civilizations develop. To my mind, that scenario will eventually result in some civilizations turning against the Reapers, simply because they don't want a police force controlling and directing their fate (in fact, in my Catalyst origin story I think I posited this as the reason why the Reapers eventually destroy all civilizations, so that this scenario doesn't come to happen). Needless to say, the EC version of Control makes me a bit hesitant.

As for Destroy, the problem I have with it is not that it destroys EDI and the Geth, but why that happens. How come destroying the Reapers affects all technology, not to mention it destroys synthetics in the process? Where's the connection? To me, it doesn't sound plausible, but the worst of it is that nobody bothers to explain it. Ugh... we are coming perilously close to me ranting about the Crucible and I've done that already (link below if you're interested).

Simple. EDI and the Geth are built on Reaper tech. That's what the Crucible targets in Destroy. If it targeted tech in general, biotics galaxy-wide and the entire Quarian race would have spontaneously dropped dead owing to their cybernetics being stripped out. Same applies to Shepard.

[Iakus]

"The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetic life will be targetted"

If that weren't the case, I'd be fine with EDI and teh geth beign reduced to pre-reaper upgrade intelligence.

[Dr_Extrem]

iakus wrote...

"The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetic life will be targetted"

If that weren't the case, I'd be fine with EDI and teh geth beign reduced to pre-reaper upgrade intelligence.

in me1 + 2, ais did not need reaper tech to be sentient.

in me2, edis only reaper-tech parts were the reaper codes from sovereign, which she used, to hack into other systems or harden the normandys. only her cyberwarfare suites ant later, the iff were based on reaper tech. in me3, this was in fact retconed.

so .. edi would only loose her superior hacking and cyber warfare abilities (the iff would not be needed anymore) and the geth could be able to choose their path - just like they wanted to do in me2.

[AB Souldier]

Codename_Code wrote...

About a happy ending : The sentence " is impossible to stop the reapers" is repeated a lot in the series, and you start to believe it. I went into ME3 hoping for a massive and well thought twist to stop the reapers and not just some brute force deus ex cannon, But I also went into it thinking " god, this looks impossible" I was ready to see Shepard die, and maybe a grim ending where the war is lost.

Right now, My ending is the following : Shepard suffered an indoctrination attempt, she rejected successfully ( first organic to do this ), but the war is still unfolding in favor to the reapers since she is apparently hurt and hopeless. My Shepard is still lying in that debris in London, trapped in a narrative twist that Bioware wants to push as an ending... my shepard is alive, defeated, but with a free mind and I´ll probably never see when she stands up and keeps fighting.

that is a sad lame ending.

And if we take the ending in a literal way. Well, it is an abysmal disaster.

About the destroy ending : The space justin bieber tells you that if you pick destroy your friends the geth will die, EDI will die, and shepard will die, this little piece of crap is blackmailing you with his innocent voice. Well, what if I get there with the geth killed by the quarians ? plus, he is just lying, Shepard is alive ( only way to save her ), and EDI, that conversation with her in the Normandy is foreshadow to that destroy decision " it is worth defending to the death"It is so obvious that EDI would give her life so bravely if that would kill the reapers "The Reapers are repulsive. Their only goal is self-preservation. I am different." Everybody in the Normandy is ready to give their lives for Shepard, everybody in the damn galactic fleet. There is no reason not to pick destroy, Unless you reaaally like the puke inducing synthesis and control endings.

Giving up your life for the war is understandable, but commiting genocide is an unfair consequence for the people like you and me who wants to stick to the original plan to destroy the reapers.

[MaldororAzrael]

There was nothing preventing ME3 from having a happy ending apart from the writers who decided that they didn't want one.

To be honest, I wasn't even expecting a happy ending the first time I played the game. In fact I wanted my Shepard to die; die in a heroic way, guns blazing and all. This, I hoped, would be one of many possible endings, all of them in different shades of grey, affected by choices I made during gameplay. Oh, and there would also be a relatively happy ending, only possible to obtain if certain choice were made and progress imported from ME 1 and ME 2. In my next game, I thought, I will play a completely different Shepard and who knows, maybe I will decide that a happy ending would be a fitting one for this character.

In other words, I wasn't expecting much, more or less a repeat of what Bioware did in Dragon Age: Origins.

It is true that a happy ending is not what every player wanted and there is no way to make everybody happy, but when a game offers multiple endings and a large number of players find none of them satisfying, then the writer(s) responsible for that clearly didn't do a very good job.

[CommanderVyse]

AlanC9 wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/368/index/14795358

...problem is: it's not on par with the existing endings in terms of benefit-consequences.

I think he was denying the premise of Allan's question -- he doesn't want something with the same benefit-consequences as the existing endings in the first place. The "HE" in MEHEM means something, right?

Although it's possible Dr_Extrem read him better than I did. I guess wwinters99 will have to clear that up.

Let's see, since the end is the result of choices from all three games:

Deaths in the MEHEM ending caused by the current Reaper cycle (excuse me if I forget any):

• Large portion of Eden Prime
• Scientists at Peak 15
• Liara's mom
• ExoGeni on Feros
• Virmire
• Citadel Fleet

The crew of the SR1

• Bakari, Jamin
• Barrett, Germeen
• Chase, Addison
• Crosby, Silas
• Draven, Rosamund
• Draven, Talitha
• Dubyansky, Alexei
• Emerson, Hector
• Felawa, Robert
• Gladstone, Harvey J.
• Grenado, Caroline
• Grieco, Marcus
• Laflamme, Orden
• Lowe, Helen M.
• Negulesco, Monica
• Pakti, Abishek
• Pressly, Charles
• Rahman, Mandira
• Tanaka, Raymond
• Tucks, Carlton
• Waaberi, Amina

• Freedom's Progress
• Half the colony of Horizon
• The Alarei
• Tali's dad
• Garrus's face
• The entire Bahak System

• The rest of Batarian Space
• 10 million people/day on Earth
• Palaven, Thessia, Dekunna, in short every planet in the know galaxy
• Arcturus Station
• Thane
• Mordin
• Legion
• People on the Citadel either from Sovereign, Cerberus, or all the other Reapers
• The other half of Horizon
• Seemingly, the entire Hammer force
• Joker's Family
• Samara's daughter
• Anderson

Deaths in the Destroy ending:

• See Above
• The Geth
• EDI
• Shepard gets put in Schrodinger's Box

I'd say in the brutal calculus of war, the number of casualties in the two endings are within the margin of error.

[MegaSovereign]

wwinter, that's not the point.

Allan was talking about the consequences of the choices in the domain of the ending itself.

[OdanUrr]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

A curious thing about the EC. In the original endings I picked Control. Since there was no depiction of the result of my choice beyond Shepard successfully gaining control of the Reapers, I figured my Shepard would do either of two things: deactivate the Reapers' shields so the fleet could take them out, or take the Reapers into dark space and cut all ties with galactic civilization. What I did not envision, however, is what happened in the EC, where Shepard can become a sort of "benevolent" God using the Reapers to help civilizations develop. To my mind, that scenario will eventually result in some civilizations turning against the Reapers, simply because they don't want a police force controlling and directing their fate (in fact, in my Catalyst origin story I think I posited this as the reason why the Reapers eventually destroy all civilizations, so that this scenario doesn't come to happen). Needless to say, the EC version of Control makes me a bit hesitant.

As for Destroy, the problem I have with it is not that it destroys EDI and the Geth, but why that happens. How come destroying the Reapers affects all technology, not to mention it destroys synthetics in the process? Where's the connection? To me, it doesn't sound plausible, but the worst of it is that nobody bothers to explain it. Ugh... we are coming perilously close to me ranting about the Crucible and I've done that already (link below if you're interested).

Simple. EDI and the Geth are built on Reaper tech. That's what the Crucible targets in Destroy. If it targeted tech in general, biotics galaxy-wide and the entire Quarian race would have spontaneously dropped dead owing to their cybernetics being stripped out. Same applies to Shepard.

And what about the part where Destroy affects all technology?

[AlanC9]

MaldororAzrael wrote...

There was nothing preventing ME3 from having a happy ending apart from the writers who decided that they didn't want one.

Shouldn't this have been followed with a /thread?

Not that it isn't a fun thread, but you're right that the title incorporates a false premise.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2013 - 11:29 .