128 réponses à ce sujet

[CynicalShep]

Would have definitely made more sense than having the Geth go retard and side with the enemy so the player could make a "meaningful" sacrifice in Destroy and feel better about it.

And no. In spite of leaning more towards the Geth in the Geth vs Quarians debate I won't doom millions of people and trap millions more in space because of an ethical stand. In fact, I'd sacrifice just about any organic race except humans(yup, I'm racist and egotistical like that) if I had to make that choice.

Modifié par CynicalShep, 13 février 2013 - 03:37 .

[MegaSovereign]

I think the Destroy ending would have been better if the dialogue with the Catalyst didn't paint it as the pro-organic choice.

Destroy should have been the Refusal ending, and we should have had dialogue choices that rejected the Catalyst's premise without having to let the Reapers harvest everyone.

[wright1978]

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?

No it would not be more adequate and fitting in either thematically or in terms of player reception. Geth death makes sense, relay destruction doesn't imo.

[eddieoctane]

Saying the relays are bad because the Reapers built them is like saying jet engines are bad because the ****s financed their early. Algebra is bad because it was developed by Muslims. Soccer is wrong because it was originally played with decapitated heads. Do all those arguments sound like total BS? It's because they are. Just like the argument that we need to destroy the relays to be "free of Reaper influence".

The ME universe will never be free of Reaper influence. Babylonia faded from existence 3,600 years ago and still has an influence on our world. An idea, once sent out into the universe, can never be contained again. The Reapers' influence is permanent. All we can do is use their technology to better ourselves.

That all being said, however, keeping the Geth alive and blowing the relays to high hell would have been much better received by the players. ME1 had us at odds with what we though was a massive synthetic AI ship and his little AI minions. ME2 showed us that the Reapers weren't AIs and that the individual Geth were the problem, not the collective "species", just like bin Laden was a tool but another Muslim can be your best friend. Assuming that the player and thus the universe can't come to terms with that is just bad writing. There was a lot of bad writing.

[Alraiis]

The geth would be a LOT easier to rebuild than mass relays.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...
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.

. Once again.  Destroy is about rejecting the cycles, not reaper technology.  It's just a side affect of it.  

It would be about forgoing the Reapers' technology if the Citadel was not rebuilt, or the relays.

[CrutchCricket]

Both "consequences" are bull**** and I'll have none of it. "Thematic concerns" should never override plot consistency, coherentness and logic. Particularly when themes are also bull****.

[NeroonWilliams]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
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.

. Once again.  Destroy is about rejecting the cycles, not reaper technology.  It's just a side affect of it.  

It would be about forgoing the Reapers' technology if the Citadel was not rebuilt, or the relays.

The only ending that is NOT about rejecting the cycles is Control (save the Reapers for a rainy day).  Refuse is a futile attempt to reject the cycles (it repeats itself anyway), and Synthesis is an obsolecense of the cycles.  Destroy is certainly the most anti-Reaper ending, and I think it would be fully appropriate if the Relays (built by the Reapers to ensure organic life develops along THEIR paths) were all fully removed from the galaxy as a result of its selection.

Would it be catastrophic to galactic civilization as we know it?  You bet.  Now that's what I call consequences.

[Steelcan]

NeroonWilliams wrote...
The only ending that is NOT about rejecting the cycles is Control (save the Reapers for a rainy day).  Refuse is a futile attempt to reject the cycles (it repeats itself anyway), and Synthesis is an obsolecense of the cycles.  Destroy is certainly the most anti-Reaper ending, and I think it would be fully appropriate if the Relays (built by the Reapers to ensure organic life develops along THEIR paths) were all fully removed from the galaxy as a result of its selection.

Would it be catastrophic to galactic civilization as we know it?  You bet.  Now that's what I call consequences.

. Why?  Rejecting the cycles does not mean rejecting the Reapers' technology.

[humes spork]

I'd preferred a destroy ending that spared the geth but destroyed the relays, personally, though only as part-and-parcel of the high-EMS ending that also shows the breath scene. That way, you get an even stronger implication the Catalyst was incorrect about the consequences of destroy and therefore Shepard's survival.

[humes spork]

Steelcan wrote...

Why?  Rejecting the cycles does not mean rejecting the Reapers' technology.

I've discussed this thematic element with Ieldra2 on other threads, and the original post is framed specifically around the destroy ending for a reason. That reason being, destroy is a categorical rejection of the Reapers and everything representative of them, including their tech. It represents a complete destruction of the Reapers' technological paradigm, in favor of self-determination.

Control and synthesis represent other viewpoints towards the Reapers and their technological paradigm, most noteworthy being that it is not rejected.

[Mouton_Alpha]

eddieoctane wrote...

Saying the relays are bad because the Reapers built them is like saying jet engines are bad because the ****s financed their early. Algebra is bad because it was developed by Muslims. Soccer is wrong because it was originally played with decapitated heads. Do all those arguments sound like total BS? It's because they are. Just like the argument that we need to destroy the relays to be "free of Reaper influence".

The ME universe will never be free of Reaper influence. Babylonia faded from existence 3,600 years ago and still has an influence on our world. An idea, once sent out into the universe, can never be contained again. The Reapers' influence is permanent. All we can do is use their technology to better ourselves.

Yes, the arguments for "cleansing" ourselves are ridiculous. Intelligent life in ME as we know it exists entirely due to Reapers' design and influence over the aeons. Remove what is directly harmful and live with the rest.

[Fnork]

No and that paradigm is stupid. I don't like the tacked on wipe-out-all-the-Geth but I liked (past tense because the EC changed it) the destruction of the citadel and the relays even less.

Exactly how are the citadel and the relays reaper death traps if there are no reapers ? Further more, both are iconic to the series. Just my opinion ofcourse but ME without the citadel or the relays feels like starwars without the force or the empire.

[CrutchCricket]

humes spork wrote...
destroy is a categorical rejection of the Reapers and everything representative of them, including their tech. It represents a complete destruction of the Reapers' technological paradigm, in favor of self-determination.

Yeah... that's bull****.

To the victor go the spoils.

The audacity of this crap not only being implied, but apparently forced on you is staggering.

[wright1978]

humes spork wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Why?  Rejecting the cycles does not mean rejecting the Reapers' technology.

I've discussed this thematic element with Ieldra2 on other threads, and the original post is framed specifically around the destroy ending for a reason. That reason being, destroy is a categorical rejection of the Reapers and everything representative of them, including their tech. It represents a complete destruction of the Reapers' technological paradigm, in favor of self-determination.

Control and synthesis represent other viewpoints towards the Reapers and their technological paradigm, most noteworthy being that it is not rejected.

No destroy is about rejecting the cycle, not their technology.

[CronoDragoon]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

No.

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

Practically it is worse. I take the substitution here to be one of moral palatabilty: it let's the gamer do more damage to the universe but paradoxically feel better about it.

I also reject the notion that the relays are evil or that they need to be destroyed for the universe to be thematically free. But since I take Destroy to be the ultimate rejection of the Catalyst and by extension the Reaper cycle, then it does make sense to pair the relay destruction with Destroy - at least more sense than destroying all synthetics while playing a pro-peace Shepard.

In that vein, I also reject the notion that Destroy is necessarily pro-organic. Perhaps some did choose Destroy because they are anti-synthetics, but what is really going on here, I think, is that we have an ending that functions simultaneously as the most anti-synthetic and the most anti-Reaper cycle ending. Its message is therefore diluted and confused, and some Destroyers, I think, end up unsure of exactly what message their journey has arrived at.

[Fawx9]

You don't see oppressed people tearing up railroads after a regime has fallen.

The destruction of the relays because of theme is equally as stupid.

Modifié par Fawx9, 13 février 2013 - 05:20 .

[shodiswe]

I would have prefered it it was just the relays that had been destoryed. And that the galaxy would have to find their own way back.

Some would probably build a few relays but only in trafic heavy sectors where it was financialy justifiable. I don't think the realys were that special, just very big and very expensive using a massive amount of Eezo in their construction.

It would also have boosted a massive improvement in ship drivecores and normal FTL

I belive the Citadel/catalyst had a FTL drive core that was far superior to what even the Reaper dreadnaught had fitted. The reapers could travel at twice the speed of citadel ships and didn't need refueling in the same way.
The citadel on the other hand might have jumped half the galaxy in bare moments.

Modifié par shodiswe, 13 février 2013 - 05:23 .

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

If we are saying the relays would be permanently destroyed without causing the nova effect like from Arrival, then es, that would have been a far better ending.  One I think I might have actually been able to accept, even with the lame breath scene. 

We've known since ME1 that the relays and the Citadel are a Reaper trap, designed to keep the organic races complacent and to devleop along the technological  lines the Reapers desired.  By trashing the relays, that trap is broken.  Yes it would likely lead to a galactic dark age, but it would force the rraces to as the geth put it "build our own future"   Plus there's a certain irony in destroying the repaer trap in the process of destroying the Reapers.

The relays themselves are not "bad"  But they have made people complacent.  The younger races were dependant on technology they did not understand.  Heck they didn't even realize how old they were!  Look at what happened to Matriarch Aethyta when she suggested the asari should try building their own.   Even the Protheans, a race more advanced than any of the current ones, were only just starting to build their first prototype mini relay when the Reapers came a-knocking.

In addition, this removes the rather horrific price of outright genocide.  I'm not going to pretend there wouldn't be significant loss of life as a result of the relays being destroyed, but it's a risk shared by all, not targetted to a single race.  Everyone has a chance to survive, even if not everyone will.

I'm not so sure the other two would need balancing.  At least, the chocies would be no more or less balanced than they are already.  Synthesis offers this "perfect understanding" between organics and synthetics, and the reapers/Catalyst offers the galaxy the collected knowledge of all the races that have come before.  Control offers this invincible armada of Reapers guarding the galaxy from all threats.

Destroy actually requires the greatest sacrifice, in breaking the relays and there being no one around who really understands them.  It would be a long, slow process, taking centuries, or even millenia to fully repair.  The galaxy would return to being a frontier, full of isolated colonies and splintered governments.  Islands of civilization in a galactic no-man's land.  Heck, that would be fertile ground for any number of sequels.  

tl:dr  Yes.  While destroying the relays would be a sacrifice,and in the short term be pretty bad for the galaxy, it would allow the races to develop along their own, and earn for themselves the technology.  It's a far slower and more difficult recovery than with the other two endings, but it's the one that lets the galaxy learn on its own.  Synthesis offers knowledge.  Control offers security, Destroy offers freedom.

[Ieldra]

Let me clarify this yet again: This is not about "evil" Reaper tech, but about Reaper technology as a transcendent technology, one that affects us, but which we aren't equipped to understand.

The story repeatedly claims that Reaper technology used by civilizations narrows the possibilities of their technological development, channels development along a certain predetermined path. The thematic question that we answer by choosing an ending, among other things, is: Is this undesirable as such? Do we value our techno-cultural autonomy so much that we destroy that foreign element in order to develop along paths more genuinely our own (Destroy)? Do we take control of it, accepting that it may narrow the possibilities but counting its benefit too high to destroy it for the uncertain prospect of finding another way (Control)? Or do we integrate it, attempt to understand its deepest principles and develop something genuinely our own from them, but at the price of having to change in order to understand it (Synthesis)?

The Reapers and their technology and knowledge are thematically connected, and the endings, conceptually, were designed to do with one as they do with the other. Each ending asks us: is this what you want and will you pay the price? Except that EC Destroys breaks what I'd see as a beautiful symmetry because it was thematically compromised.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 février 2013 - 05:33 .

[Auld Wulf]

Fawx9 wrote...

You don't see oppressed people tearing up railroads after a regime has fallen.

The destruction of the relays because of theme is equally as stupid.

I know. I agree with you. But the thing is is that I think the idea is that, thematically, if a person is paranoid enough to pick Destroy, then they're likely not going to trust anything. It's going to be a Weeping Angels scenario where you run around destroying every statue you see. I mean, from that perspective, it's possibly conceivable that the relays could indoctrinate people, somehow. Or that reaper tech has some nasty booby traps lying in wait.

The theme of Destroy is the penultimate example of unabated paranoia, where you believe that everything about your enemies was evil and thus everything about your enemies is a cancer to your ongoing existence. That's the reason you choose Destroy as opposed to Control. I can understand not everyone picking Synthesis, but if you pick Destroy it is because of paranoia. To be honest? I'd expect a Destroy Shepard, were he to live, to go on a quixotic quest to destroy every last piece of reaper technology, anyway. Paranoia is as paranoia does.

I guess what I'm saying here is that Destroy itself is a cretinous action, a cretinous action borne of paranoia. If you don't suffer with that condition, then you're going to pick Control and use the reapers to your advantage, because you won't believe that every piece of reaper technology is out to get you, ooooo~, so you'll be putting them to your best use. That's why I tend to see Destroy as just, you know... for the people who believe that the Universe is out to get them. Even if Destroy, as a theme, didn't destroy the relays, then I'm sure Destroy Shepard would. It just seems to make sense to me, as does the OP.

The geth aren't reaper tech, after all, and thus not something that will fuel Destroy Shep's paranoia.

Edit: Then again. Reaper code. That might make Destroy Shep go after them. Oooo~, reaper code.

Sigh.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 13 février 2013 - 05:37 .

[CronoDragoon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Let me clarify this yet again: This is not about "evil" Reaper tech, but about Reaper technology as a transcendent technology, one that affects us, but which we aren't equipped to understand.

integrate it into our civilization, adapt to it and make it genuinely our own.

In what sense have the relays not been made our own in an ending where we clearly do understand them, having successfully rebuilt them?

[Ieldra]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Let me clarify this yet again: This is not about "evil" Reaper tech, but about Reaper technology as a transcendent technology, one that affects us, but which we aren't equipped to understand.

integrate it into our civilization, adapt to it and make it genuinely our own.

In what sense have the relays not been made our own in an ending where we clearly do understand them, having successfully rebuilt them?

Well, that was EC Destroy. As I said, EC High EMS Destroy is thematically compromised. It removed the main downside of the Destroy ending, keeping the thematically less significant death of the synthetics instead. To discuss the opinion that this should not have happened, that the relays should've been destroyed, not necessarily the synthetics, is the point of this thread.

BTW, this is based on the acknowledgement of the claim that the Reapers and their technology were more thematically significant to the story than the organic/synthetic conflict. I think most would agree with this.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 février 2013 - 05:42 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I was thinking of posing this question myself.


*watches thread with interest*