128 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I think Destroy was intended to carry the message "We need to break the Reapers' technological paradigm", so it should have destroyed all of the Reapers' technological legacy in the galaxy. At the same time, I think Destroy was alos intended as a "pro-organic" choice. So there is a point to positing that ideally, it should really do both - Destroy the relays and the synthetics - as in the lower EMS endings.

But: the effect of the Reapers' technological paradigm was a major theme of the trilogy as a whole, AND, considering what I've read on forums, this was mostly well-received by the players and accepted as plausible, while the "pro-organic" undercurrent is rather less supported in the story, and, maybe as a consequence, less well received by the players. In fact, if you're not ideologically predisposed against synthetics, you can't avoid learning that they're just as valid life as organics. 

So, my question: would it have been better if Destroy irrevocably destroyed the relays but spared the geth? I think it would've been much better. And had that happened, what do you think would've needed to be done to the other endings to keep them, or make them, plausible choices? I guess "make something else than the Catalyst the source of their exposition" would feature prominently here, and I agree, but in the context of this topic, I'm more concerned with the content of the choices.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 février 2013 - 01:00 .

[crimzontearz]

depends on 2 additional things

[wright1978]

No i don't think the relays should have been destroyed in any ending. Relays are a tool and i don't think trying to drive some symbolic BS via their destruction is needed or wanted. Making the relays need repair, sending a message of the galaxy having to gain greater understanding of the technology they rely on is fine.

As to the price of destroy. Personally i can cope with the Synhetics with reaper upgrades as a price that makes sense from a story perspective. It is up to player interpretation whether the choice is made in a pro-organic manner or just reluctant ends justify the means.

[Mouton_Alpha]

No.

Dark age and chaos for everyone is worse. Also, I always rejected the notion that Reaper technology is somehow innately evil.

[Seboist]

No, preserving the relays is more desirable than keeping a bunch of murderous machines intact.

[Sailfindragon]

 I do agree to some degree. 

"We need to break the Reapers' technological paradigm"

Should that have included ALL reaper technology/code. Mass relays included? As much as I wanted EDI and the Geth to survive in the Destroy ending, they both contain reaper tech/code. Who's to say in the future that this reaper tech wouldn't affect us on a grant scale again. 

Modifié par Sailfindragon, 13 février 2013 - 02:03 .

[MattFini]

I'm fine with Destroy's 'consequences'.

[jstme]

Yes. It most certainly would.
No reason to kill Geth and EDI when trying to break free from Reaper cycle induced by Reaper tech.
Plus, relays are in the technological scope of races in ME universe. Meaning - they can get that technology in very short time.

[DeinonSlayer]

What MattFini and Seboist said.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 13 février 2013 - 02:12 .

[Steelcan]

Seboist wrote...

No, preserving the relays is more desirable than keeping a bunch of murderous machines intact.

[Nerevar-as]

Sailfindragon wrote...

 I do agree to some degree. 

"We need to break the Reapers' technological paradigm"

Should that have included ALL reaper technology/code. Mass relays included? As much as I wanted EDI and the Geth to survive in the Destroy ending, they both contain reaper tech/code. Who's to say in the future that this reaper tech wouldn't affect us on a grant scale again. 

Destroy kills all synthetic life, not just EDI, Geth and Reapers (and hopefully Starbrat). No discrimination, just an idiotic AI´s tantrum.

[Argolas]

I still highly doubt at least the "pro-organic" part because the most critical information, the future of Synthetics in the galaxy, is not revealed- and if ME4 is was a Sequel based on Destroy, I am certain there will also be synthetic life there if only because it should be part of the MEU.

The Reapers' "technological paradigm" as you put it was not a factor in my first Destroy decision either, however, reflecting and analyzing the choices (which I didn't do back then), this is something I agree with- to a certain extend. The Relays are broken and the Reapers are not there to fix them for us, that forces us to learn how it works if we want to use them again. Considering that the Protheans already managed to construct a small prototype Mass Relay, it is safe to assume that the galaxy will be able to master that technology on its own terms, and indeed the Relays are fixed rather quickly. Of course, from an idealistic POV, it might be better if all Reaper tech was gone forever and we had to learn about the Mass Effect again from scratch, but that is an extreme opinion that I would never share.
Forcing us to repair these Relays by ourself is the only thing I need to consider the Reapers' "technological paradigm" broken because we are already able to construct other technology based on the Mass Effect, like ships and weapons, by ourself.

So no, I prefer it that way. The Geth and EDI are unfortunate, but their blood is on the catalyst's hands who could have destroyed the Reapers without collatoral damage.

About your other questions, here is what would make the other endings acceptable:

Control: The possibility that Shepard VI destroys the Reapers without collatoral damage like Reaper kid should have. The EC proves that Shepard is going to preserve and use the Reapers.

Synthesis: No forced "evolution" (I don't even want to call it that). If Synthesis is to happen, then it should happen naturally and gradually. Forcing it on the Galaxy is not acceptable. If the Synthesis option was "we Reapers simply stop fighting, retreat to dark space and only interfere if Synthetics are about to wipe out organic life" and I knew that this wasn't a trick, I may have considered it.

Refuse: Never acceptable unless victory, and victory is impossible. So never.

[Beever_Boy]

I don't think they should've taken away all repercussions of your choices. Each should have had drawbacks, after EC, it's just a matter of how you want to go about defeating the Reapers. I would have preferred if it functioned as originally intended by destroying the relays and Geth. It actually makes it a tough choice instead of, "Oh, everything will be ok for everybody, just choose which epilogue you want to see."

[Ieldra]

Nerevar-as:
You assume there was any choice in the matter.

@all:
Perhaps I didn't phrase my question well: what I meant with "better", was two things: (a) Better for thematic coherence of the story, and ( better for player reception. Specifically, I did not mean "Better for the galaxy", because judgment of that was the point of making a decision about it.

In other words: would you, as a player who played through the story, find it more adequate and fitting with the themes of the story, had Destroy destroyed the relays irrevocably but spared the geth?

[cyrslash1974]

Destroying the reapers without destroying relays / other synthetics should be possible, but the catalyst is a stupid software...

[AlanC9]

"Irrevocably" means until organics learn how to build relays for themselves, right? It's not like Destroy would "cornhole the laws of physics" like the magic whatsis on Revolution.

I can see this as being somewhat better. Leaving the galaxy shattered for centuries works as a setting for me; I always wanted ME4 to go this route anyway.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 février 2013 - 03:18 .

[Auld Wulf]

@OP

I'm not sure anyone will actually understand what you're getting at, there.

Destroy as a paradigm shift away from reaper reliance is an interesting concept. Yes, I do think it would have been a little better if the geth had survived and the relays were destroyed. I'd still be against it personally though as it also destroys al of the species preserved within the reaper consensus (including the protheans). But it would carry a more cohesive message. Right now, I feel that Destroy doesn't really say anything other than "LOL Hitler Shepard" and that's one of the biggest reasons I'm against it. Especially when you consider that the geth have done nothing to deserve dying that way.

Now, I'm sure that "LOL Hitler Shepard" is popular with some people (they should have allowed for the moustache in character customisation to complete the fantasy for those who wanted it), but what does it do, really? It leaves the galaxy lying in ruins and it leaves everyone vulnerable to attack. Say the leviathans choose now to invade, you wouldn't even have the geth around to protect people from themselves (from leviathan enslavement). So it's a very gloomy ending. Plus, if the relays are still active in Destroy, that just makes it easier for the leviathans to get around so that they can start planting their orbs.

All it takes is one orb for the enslavement of an entire planet. With the galaxy in a state of disarray and having been thoroughly beaten, the leviathans could use that chaos to have thralls slip orbs onto various planets. In Destroy, everyone's likely been enthralled and they just don't know it yet. What kind of ending is that? Now, the geth could prevent that, if they were alive. That would provide some kind of continuation for the Destroy story. But all that's likely to happen with them gone is the leviathans dominating the galaxy again.

So I agree with you. For what it's worth. Right now, I really don't feel that Destroy amounts to anything more than a "LOL Hitler Shepard" sentiment. It has no nobility to it, it's a shameful thing.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 13 février 2013 - 03:19 .

[Ironhandjustice]

Destroy should have been the unique choice in first place. The alternative should have been presented by the illusive man, not the ghost-kid only if you PRESERVED collector base. De degree of control AND destroy should have been determined by your choices, including your death if you picked the wrong ones.

The worst part of the endings is the "your skill does not matter, you loose in 3/4 cases and the last one is genocide/dark age. Cool.

This could be triggered by a conversation with him on the last encounter with him if you didn't played ME2.

That discounting that he current endings have escaped from Deus Ex and Asimov's novels.

[Argolas]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In other words: would you, as a player who played through the story, find it more adequate and fitting with the themes of the story, had Destroy destroyed the relays irrevocably but spared the geth?

Yes.

[Ieldra]

Beever_Boy wrote...
I don't think they should've taken away all repercussions of your choices. Each should have had drawbacks, after EC, it's just a matter of how you want to go about defeating the Reapers. I would have preferred if it functioned as originally intended by destroying the relays and Geth. It actually makes it a tough choice instead of, "Oh, everything will be ok for everybody, just choose which epilogue you want to see."

I think the perceived need for balance as well as appeasement of the majority who "just wanted to destroy the Reapers" was the reason they thematically compromised Destroy in the EC. My main criticism of the original endings was that  I didn't have a choice about avoiding the dark age, and now, I don't have one about "breaking the Reapers' technological paradigm by destroying their complete technological legacy", which really should have been an option given how much attention was drawn to that in the story, no matter that it would appear superficially worse than the other two outcomes.

[cyrslash1974]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

I'm not sure anyone will actually understand what you're getting at, there.

Destroy as a paradigm shift away from reaper reliance is an interesting concept. Yes, I do think it would have been a little better if the geth had survived and the relays were destroyed. I'd still be against it personally though as it also destroys al of the species preserved within the reaper consensus (including the protheans). But it would carry a more cohesive message. Right now, I feel that Destroy doesn't really say anything other than "LOL Hitler Shepard" and that's one of the biggest reasons I'm against it. Especially when you consider that the geth have done nothing to deserve dying that way.

Now, I'm sure that "LOL Hitler Shepard" is popular with some people (they should have allowed for the moustache in character customisation to complete the fantasy for those who wanted it), but what does it do, really? It leaves the galaxy lying in ruins and it leaves everyone vulnerable to attack. Say the leviathans choose now to invade, you wouldn't even have the geth around to protect people from themselves (from leviathan enslavement). So it's a very gloomy ending. Plus, if the relays are still active in Destroy, that just makes it easier for the leviathans to get around so that they can start planting their orbs.

All it takes is one orb for the enslavement of an entire planet. With the galaxy in a state of disarray and having been thoroughly beaten, the leviathans could use that chaos to have thralls slip orbs onto various planets. In Destroy, everyone's likely been enthralled and they just don't know it yet. What kind of ending is that? Now, the geth could prevent that, if they were alive. That would provide some kind of continuation for the Destroy story. But all that's likely to happen with them gone is the leviathans dominating the galaxy again.

So I agree with you. For what it's worth. Right now, I really don't feel that Destroy amounts to anything more than a "LOL Hitler Shepard" sentiment. It has no nobility to it, it's a shameful thing.

All the endings could be interpreted with a "hitlerian" interpretation, but it would be a Godwin point.

[Argolas]

Auld Wulf wrote...
[...]

I won't even bother with most of your posts, it's full of speculation and your headcanon considered official canon, but comparing Shepard to Hitler is just wrong. Hitler was a real-world example of an textbook evil villian trying to assume control over the whole world by any means. Shepard is a fictional soldier trying to save the galaxy from the Reapers which are the agressors in this war beyond any doubt.

You can rather compare Hitler with the Reapers than Shepard:

- Both have/had a doctrine that they consider true beyond doubt
- Both consider "their kind" the supreme "race" ("" because Hitler wasn't even actually German and the Reapers aren't really a race)
- Both employ manipulation as one of the most important means to advance their goals (massive propaganda/indoctrination)
- Both occupie foreign territory and bring terror to it, there are even Reaper concentration camps

[Nerevar-as]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nerevar-as:
You assume there was any choice in the matter.

@all:
Perhaps I didn't phrase my question well: what I meant with "better", was two things: (a) Better for thematic coherence of the story, and ( better for player reception. Specifically, I did not mean "Better for the galaxy", because judgment of that was the point of making a decision about it.

In other words: would you, as a player who played through the story, find it more adequate and fitting with the themes of the story, had Destroy destroyed the relays irrevocably but spared the geth?

Political collapse of the galaxy vs multiple genocides... I think I´d go with the former. Retroengineering Reaper´s drives should turn the galaxy into something similar to Earth during Modern Age, so not so bad.


Thematic-wise, too. The Mass Relays represent the Reapers path for the galaxy to follow. Their removal would mean the galaxy getting free from their cycle more completely.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 13 février 2013 - 03:34 .

[cyrslash1974]

Godwin's Rule of **** Analogies: as a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving ****s or Hitler approaches one...