286 réponses à ce sujet

[StarcloudSWG]

The Catalyst presents a choice at the end of the game. That choice is meant to tempt Shepard away from destroying the thousands of genocidal tech-zombie machines that have been repeatedly wiping civilizations off the face of the galaxy.

In Control, Shepard is offered the chance to take the place of the Catalyst. In a way, Shepard is *agreeing* with the Catalyst that having a bunch of tech-zombies capable of wiping out all civilizations is a good thing, and that the only thing 'wrong' with that is who's in charge. Shepard agrees with the means, but not the end.

In Synthesis, Shepard not only agrees with the Catalyst, Shepard capitulates and *joins* the Reapers, allowing the Catalyst to hijack the Crucible to turn *everyone* into part of the Reaper Mind Control Network. In this ending, Shepard agrees that Reaperization is a good thing, but that the method used is a bad thing. Shepard agrees with the end, but not the means.

It's only in Destroy where the Reapers are eliminated and the galaxy is free to progress on its own without interference from a genocidal AI directing tech-zombie monstrosities. Shepard rejects both the ends and the means. as the Catalyst defines them.

Oh, and in Refuse, Shepard completely gives up in the face of the utter stupidity that is the Catalyst.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 21 janvier 2013 - 08:00 .

[Volc19]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

"A likes B."
"A is a bad person."
"This must mean B is bad as well."

This argument isn't an argument. It is inherrently wrong. It is a logical fallacy.

Ideas aren't made bad by the people that hold them. Control and Synthesis aren't tainted as ideas because of who liked them. It is alright to still think that they are bad choices, but not primarily because of who liked them best. Likewise, saying Destroy is right because a well liked character supports it is equally wrong.

No one likes control or synthesis, apart from those who are indcotrinated.  fact.

why would those who are indoctrinated try to influence their ideas up on others?

they wouldn't, you know why?  because they are not their ideas, they are not in control, it all comes from the reapers, the every ones that are slaughtering the galaxy that you have been trying to stop for 3 games.  do not listen to them.

It doesn't matter. What did I just say? Ideas aren't tainted by those who hold them. I don't care if Hitler and the Daleks like an ending, that doesn't make it bad. What you are arguing is incorrect. There isn't anything else to it.

It's like I'm smashing my head against a brick wall.

of course it ****ing matters, why would the reapers try and influence you to do something that would defeat them?

you have been trying to stop the reapers for 3 games now, they have been trying to kill/capture/indoctrinated you, the reapers are the enemy, anything they do to you is an attempt to defeat you, everything you are doing is an attempt to defeat them.  why would they suddenly turn around and say "here you go shepard this is how you control us as to how you see fit, and this is how you turn everyone into organic/synthetic hybrids so we can all be friends, even though weve just been trying to kill every living thing in the galaxy, YAAAAAAAAAAY!!"

So, what, you're attempting to tell me that the Control and Synthesis options are non-viable, even though we have the EC to show us that everything works out in the short term?

If so, tell me this. Why would the Catalyst give you the option to Destroy in the first place. I know you are going to respond with "but he says it won't work", but why even present it as an option? Why didn't he just say "Oh, the Crucible has two functions. It will either let you replace me, or do some illigical wibblt wobbly beam thing."?

If you want to argue about why Control is bad, state actual examples of Control attempts gone wrong, like Overlord or saving the Heretics. If you want to argue against Synthesis, use the examples provided by the uplift of the Krogan, or the cultural stagnation evidenced by the Collectors. But don't through illogical half baked non arguments at me and expect me to engage you in debate that is anything more than me telling you "No, that isn't how logic works."

I really want to have a civil conversation about these topics, but every attempt I have made has felt like playing chess with a seagull.

[CynicalShep]

IIEquillibriumII wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Who cares either way? It's your game and your choice at the end of the day.

This. Haters gonna hate. In the end its your game and your choice. That said, destroyers definitely seem to be the most arrogant bunch. ITers are among the front-ranking destroy-fanatics.

I personally believe all the three (or four) endings are good/bad depending on your interpretation. There is no objectively best or worst ending. But hey, this is BSN. Hating on other's chosen ending is the "in" thing these days.

And this is where it goes wrong, when we start trashing eachother, can we keep it clean and civilised? i found that disturbing to be called ¨most arrogant bunch¨ I like the IT, it gives me some clarity to the ending, but im not trashing Control / Synthesis? i just can't make myself choose them. its like my point of religion, i admire and respect that people can believe in those things, but i can't make myself believe it.

Make love, not war 

[Reorte]

Samtheman63 wrote...

The wrong things can be done for the right reason though. The idea that your enemy might have a point but is simply going about it in completely the wrong way isn't that terrible (I don't think that that's the case with the Reapers but the concept isn't invalid). "They're my enemy and therefore they can't possibly say anything right" is a dangerous, foolish path. The clearest example of that are politicians - they'd rather do anything than admit that an opposition politician could have a good idea (other than claim that they pinched it from them) no matter how clearly good an idea it is to everyone else.

but the idea of controlling the reapers is coming from the reapers themselves, no one else!  if indcotrination didnt exist, and TiM/Saren/a few other bad guys said controlling the reapers was an option, then yes maybe we should listen to what they have to say and consider it.  but it doesn't, the only source of the control/synthesis ending is coming from the every ones you have been trying to defeat, the reapers, both of which end with the reapers still alive and shepard dead. 

(pick destroy)

In this example I agree with you (although not for quite the reasons you give) but I thought that we were speaking in generalities - the very idea of not simply rejecting everything your enemy (whoever that is) says at you. Even in this case there are possible explanations for still believing the Catalyst (personally I believe that it believes what it says, I just think that it's a load of codswallop), they're just unlikely to be true and honest and therefore anything claiming that they're OK after all is also something that I'll treat with a great deal of suspicion. That's where fiction can have a tougher time than reality. Odd things happen in reality sometimes that you'd simply not be able to sell properly in fiction - a stupid-sounding idea in reality may turn out right but if it does in fiction then I'm more inclined to believe that there's something else going on (or the author has messed up).

Modifié par Reorte, 21 janvier 2013 - 07:52 .

[StarcloudSWG]

The Catalyst offers Destroy as an option, because at this point it's offering to surrender. It realizes that if it's happened once, it could happen again, and sooner or later some civilization is going to figure out a way to bypass it entirely and destroy the Reapers *without* letting the Catalyst offer a choice.

It very much prefers not to surrender. It would rather let itself be replaced so that its 'work' in 'preserving' previous civilizations isn't destroyed. Never mind that there's really nothing left of said civilizations. "No music, replaced by tech. No art, replaced by tech. No soul, replaced by tech." as Mordin put it.

And ultimately it would prefer to win, reaperizing or 'synthesizing' the entire galaxy.

It's trying to snatch victory from the jaws of imminent defeat, in that conversation.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 21 janvier 2013 - 07:57 .

[The Night Mammoth]

OperatingWookie wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

And there aren't arrogant pro-controllers and Synthesis Supporters? And Seival?

Let's be fair, Seival is one of the most rational people on the forums.

Oho, that's a very unique brand of rationality. 

[LTKerr]

Volc19 wrote...

"A likes B."
"A is a bad person."
"This must mean B is bad as well."

This argument isn't an argument. It is inherrently wrong. It is a logical fallacy.

Ideas aren't made bad by the people that hold them. Control and Synthesis aren't tainted as ideas because of who liked them. It is alright to still think that they are bad choices, but not primarily because of who liked them best. Likewise, saying Destroy is right because a well liked character supports it is equally wrong.

That argument is a fallacy indeed but actually Control or Synthesis are about who must be trusted:

"A killed trillions"
"A manipulates/mind-controls B"
"B says A is good"
"This must mean B's judgement is untrustworthy"

We know TIM is indoctrinated so we know his judgement is untrustworthy. He could be right about controlling the Reapers, yes, but it's unlikely. We also know Starchild is an IA who ordered the murder of trillions of people and has a creepy concept of what life means. Besides he wants Shepard to get killed as well so his judgement is also untrustworthy. Then we know everyone who is not indoctrinated wants the Reapers destroyed, that's Shepard's mission since the first Mass Effect. Their judgement could be untrustworthy as well but that's improbable. Who is right here? TIM, Starchild and Anderson could be right, but the most probable option is Anderson.

Modifié par LTKerr, 21 janvier 2013 - 08:03 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Since A isn't manipulating/mind-controlling B for the vast duration of the time we know TIM... so what? You're still invoking a fallacy of association.

[LTKerr]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since A isn't manipulating/mind-controlling B for the vast duration of the time we know TIM... so what? You're still invoking a fallacy of association.

TIM is absolutely mind-controlled by the time he's at the Citadel with Shepard and Anderson. If he's still so sure he can control the Reapers then the Reapers allow him to believe it. If you trust the Reapers then you should trust TIM as well.

Modifié par LTKerr, 21 janvier 2013 - 08:14 .

[dreamgazer]

LTKerr wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since A isn't manipulating/mind-controlling B for the vast duration of the time we know TIM... so what? You're still invoking a fallacy of association.

TIM is absolutely mind-controlled by the time he's at the Citadel with Shepard and Anderson. If he's still so sure he can control the Reapers then the Reapers allow him to believe it. If you trust the Reapers then you should trust TIM as well.

Not defending the trust issue here, but you don't have the same context during the TIM conversation that you have after the chit-chat with the Catalyst.

[Mcfly616]

I'm not "Pro" anything. I prefer Destroy, but I like to choose the other choices on any given playthrough. I like them all in their own way.


However OP, arrogance isn't solely reserved for the Pro-Destroy crowd. I've been to many a thread where Pro Synthesizers and Pro-Controllers bash Destroyers because its "genocide/murder" etc etc blah blah bullsh*t.

Arrogance runs deep here on the BSN. Doesn't matter what the ending choice is.

[Yate]

saying a large group of people are all arrogant is pretty arrogant

[Eckswhyzed]

I'd like to point out that the existence of arrogant Synthesis/Control supporters doesn't necessarily mean that every ending has equal proportions of arrogant fans.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The whole thing is going to depend upon one's play of the game in ME2.

* one has fought Geth the entire time until one meets Legion.
* one has had bad experiences with synthetics the entire time until EDI.
* one's interaction with EDI depends upon how one treats EDI. Most people will treat EDI well and thus everything goes well. Treat EDI poorly and then the only reason EDI will ally herself is because you share a common goal. You can discourage the relationship with Joker and still treat EDI well otherwise, too.
* Legion presents an interesting case. Most people will do Legion's loyalty mission and will take the "paragon" path and rewrite the heretics. Take Jack along with you and you get a different view of the situation: "great choice, genocide or brainwashing. Put a bullet in my head and kill me while I'm still me." Or Samara: "Rewriting them is the same as killing them. They will not be the same as they were." Or Thane who gives similar advice. Does this not foreshadow synthesis? A rewrite down to the molecular level?

So if you destroy the Heretic base, you make the Geth consensus weaker, now you have another problem: the Tali vs. Legion dispute. You have done nothing but fight the Geth. You know that the Quarians have tried to settle on another world, but were driven off it by the Council for failure to file proper documents first and they gave it to the Elcor. It wasn't even that suitable for the Quarians. So they're going to take back Rannoch. The Reapers are coming, but by reasonable estimates you might have delayed the invasion by 9 years (pre Arrival space magic -- don't get me going). So you may have said "good luck in the war." lolz. Right. You paragons. No, you said, "don't go to war." If you have a loyal Tali, and you now have a loyal Legion.

So Legion is the ONLY Geth that hasn't been hostile. Tali has been a loyal friend to you for 3 years, of course you were dead for two of them. Now if you were able to resolve this peacefully all is fine, but if you weren't, one of them will have issues. First time? Machines have emotions? No. "Legion, don't send the data." -- oooo, you renegade! *smack* Of course machines have feelings! You don't know this, but the game does. So who do you send down the tube? Legion can hack its way through anything. Legion close that door!!!! Pop right in the flashlight! *le sigh* It was "distracted* by its feels.

So in ME3 you now have Geth VI -- and the not so cuddly huggy squeezy Geth, but instead the genocidal Geth who are temporarily helping you because they can't wait to get their mitts on that reaper program upgrade and wipe out the Quarians once and for all. And all of this because Legion never made it back to the Consensus. And they ally with you because the Reapers are a threat to them, but will they remain allies after? This is not the Legion faction Geth. This is the Hate All Organic Geth, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" for now. Tali continues to remind you "this is not Legion!" throughout the mission, even though Shepard insists on calling it Legion. Oh, you lost Tali's loyalty too and got her killed? Admiral Ra'an is useless. You're screwed, and if you choose the Geth, the blood of the Quarian race is on your hands and yours alone.

I strongly urge you to play through the game having had Legion killed in ME2. Peace will not be possible. You have to choose one or the other.

This puts a different perspective on Destroy. It's a different Geth. The Geth here are a likely enemy, unlike the Legion faction Geth. And EDI? Did your Shepard view EDI as equipment or as a sapient/sentient being? I personally think if Shepard viewed EDI as a dumb piece of equipment she was an idiot, but that's my own view.

OE? You had three choices.

* Control: you die + reapers live
* Synthesis: you die + reapers live + everyone is rewritten
* Destroy: (you die + reapers die; (H EMS) you gasp (live?) + reapers die) + (Geth (if any) die + all synthetic life die)

EC? They added refuse which has a nice speech, and a "twitter canon" otherwise the endings are the same but with slide shows an speeches.

* Control -- the reapers are hard at work repairing the mass relays and defending the "will of the many" but which many? Will you protect the will of the many or will you destroy those who threaten? You are no longer you.
* Synthesis -- no one is themselves any longer. There is no rejoicing. Everyone has been rewritten. Once the rewrite has fully taken effect, and they have been assimilated, they will forget what they once were.
* Destroy -- Basically remains the same. Love interest remains hopeful that you're still alive on high EMS. You are still laying under the pile of rubble.

Hardcore destroyer? No. I hate all of them. Pick your poison. MEHEM FTW unless BW decides to give us a dynamite extended ending where Shepard walks away smoking a cigar for the final or alternate DLC.

[xsdob]

OP, I congratulate you and proving your thesis correct with the extremist destroy post that have been posted into the thread.

I apologize however, in that this thread will likley be locked when ninja stan comes in a few hours and does his "complaining about complainers is unproductive" spiel, despite the fact that complaining about complainers is the only way people who complain will see that others are sick of their ****.

Modifié par xsdob, 21 janvier 2013 - 09:07 .

[Auintus]

@sH0tgUn jUliA
The bit with the Geth VI vs Legion is evidence that the Catalyst is correct. Organic-synthetic war being the inevitable result of attempted coexistence. The geth, through Legion, made the first step towards attempted understanding. In allowing his death, they have reason to assume that coexistence is impossible. Faulty evidence, to be sure, but they don't know the conditions of his demise. They could easily see it as extending a hand in friendship only to have it lopped off.
@OP
I dunno. I assume they missed the Catalyst's explanation for the existence of the Reapers. So they still see them as just abominations to be destroyed, which doesn't happen in the other endings. So, therefore, they are correct. From their viewpoint, anyway.
I think that most "Destroyers" reason for their choice comes around to bringing about the end of the Reapers. That decision is very black-white, very right-wrong. The real goal is stopping them, but they've been hearing "destroy" from the beginning. Old dog, new tricks, all that.

[Zack56]

Still surprised that nobody sees the reapers as victims too...

[LTKerr]

dreamgazer wrote...

LTKerr wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since A isn't manipulating/mind-controlling B for the vast duration of the time we know TIM... so what? You're still invoking a fallacy of association.

TIM is absolutely mind-controlled by the time he's at the Citadel with Shepard and Anderson. If he's still so sure he can control the Reapers then the Reapers allow him to believe it. If you trust the Reapers then you should trust TIM as well.

Not defending the trust issue here, but you don't have the same context during the TIM conversation that you have after the chit-chat with the Catalyst.

Personally I do. I don't trust the Catalyst for two reasons: first, he's a malfunctioning IA who killed trillions of people and is also killing the organics of Shepard's own cycle, he always used manipulation to do so and I see no reason why he shouldn't this time. Furthermore, he took the form of a child, this is manipulative to say the least.
Second, this whole situation is too much unbelievable, too much out of place, too much symbolic. I feel disconnected from the story and from the game, I'm no longer making a decision thinking "what Shepard would do?" but thinking "what is this game about?". I don't care what that child who comes from nowhere says, I believe him as much as I would believe a flying unicorn. What I know is that this game has always been about killing the Reapers so here it is: let's see if there's some way to do so... yes, here it is, the red one.

Zack56 wrote...

Still surprised that nobody sees the reapers as victims too...

Actually I don't see them as victims but I don't see them as a "civilization" that must be killed no matter what either. It's just that Control or Synthesis are too much out of place and I cannot accept them, I don't want to brainwash them or destroy every existing form of life. My option would be somethink like make them realize they don't need to harvest anythink and luckily they would leave the organics and synthetics alone.

Modifié par LTKerr, 21 janvier 2013 - 09:40 .

[Demon Velsper]

Not arrogant, just better.

[BD Manchild]

It's scary the level of fanaticism that surrounds any of these endings, but in my observations Destroy supporters definitely have become the most obnoxious in recent months; some of the responses in this thread alone are evidence of that. I suppose that goes with the territory, since it's apparently the most popular ending.

I'm one of those that thinks all the endings suck massive amounts of dong, so I don't single out the Destroy ending for anything, but frankly some of the hardcore fanatics of any of the endings have made me wish that I never meet them in a dark alley. Hearing them come out with increasingly insane justifications for why their ending is the "only right one" is like listening to a serial killer come up with ever more crazy reasons for doing what he does.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 21 janvier 2013 - 09:39 .

[AlanC9]

LTKerr wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since A isn't manipulating/mind-controlling B for the vast duration of the time we know TIM... so what? You're still invoking a fallacy of association.

TIM is absolutely mind-controlled by the time he's at the Citadel with Shepard and Anderson. If he's still so sure he can control the Reapers then the Reapers allow him to believe it. If you trust the Reapers then you should trust TIM as well.

I'm not quite sure I'm following this. What proposition is it we're evaluating?

Is the proposition here that grasping the terminals will indeed produce the Control result? If that's a matter of trust, well, so is the proposition that shooting the tube will lead to the Destroy result.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 janvier 2013 - 09:47 .

[AlanC9]

LTKerr wrote...
Second, this whole situation is too much unbelievable, too much out of place, too much symbolic. I feel disconnected from the story and from the game, I'm no longer making a decision thinking "what Shepard would do?" but thinking "what is this game about?".

I get the feeling that the design intent was for Shepard to experience being outside of the cycles and outside of history itself. Hero's journey, enlightenment, blah, blah, blah. So it sounds like they almost got you to the right head-space there.

[LTKerr]

AlanC9 wrote...

LTKerr wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since A isn't manipulating/mind-controlling B for the vast duration of the time we know TIM... so what? You're still invoking a fallacy of association.

TIM is absolutely mind-controlled by the time he's at the Citadel with Shepard and Anderson. If he's still so sure he can control the Reapers then the Reapers allow him to believe it. If you trust the Reapers then you should trust TIM as well.

I'm not quite sure I'm following this. What proposition is it we're evaluating?

Is the proposition here that grasping the terminals will indeed produce the Control result? If that's a matter of trust, well, so is the proposition that shooting the tube will lead to the Destroy result.

Hahaha no In short tems we are evaluating if TIM can be right even if he's a bad person (Repaers can be controlled because he says so), and I'm saying TIM's judgement is affected by Reaper's indoctrination so his opinion is untrustworthy.

[AlanC9]

LTKerr wrote...

Hahaha no In short tems we are evaluating if TIM can be right even if he's a bad person (Repaers can be controlled because he says so), and I'm saying TIM's judgement is affected by Reaper's indoctrination so his opinion is untrustworthy.

Gotcha... but isn't that the same thing?  We don't have any better evidence for "Reapers can be controlled by the Crucible" than for "Reapers can be destroyed by the Crucible."