617 réponses à ce sujet

[justafan]

Indy_S wrote...

justafan wrote...

I'm not sure which ending you are referring to.  In Control, it is more status quo, as the reapers have always been a "guardian" of sorts to the galaxy, shifting the way history played out to suit their needs.  Before control, people were simply ignorant of this, after control it becomes more pronounced.  Destroy allows for this ignorance to become reality, with everything perhaps looking like it used to, but really it is far different now that there are no reapers guiding the way.  And really, everything post ending is "lots of speculation for everyone", each offers potential and a basis for conflict, except maybe synthesis.

Well the conflict can take the form of the galaxy reacting to the changes. In Control, how do the people react to this new police state? In Synthesis, how do people react to becoming partly synthetic? Destroy doesn't have that. The change is the removal of the Geth but the Geth were already outside the scope of most of the setting. Only the Quarians cared about them and they were already braced for the Geth to be wiped out. Rather than having a basis for conflict, there is nothing here but potential. Destroy is a shift in the setting because it can't play off of anything.

How do people respond to the destruction of the relays?  What happens when sectors of the galaxy are cut off from the rest for pontentially centuries (If I recall my EC slides correctly, the only people we know on Earth who are shown returning to other planets are Samara, Grunt, and Wrex/Wreav, which leaves the potential time until the relays are repaired anywhere up to several hundred years given their lifespans)?  And regardless of the Tuchanka outcome, Salarians and Krogan have motivation for being at eachother's throats.

While this leaves no basis for a galactic crisis on par with Reapers, it is just as valid of a "what if" basis as your control and synthesis examples.  "how do people react to reaper police/synthesis" is simply speculation based on the potential offered by their ending, and are just as much a basis for a future conflict as what happened in destroy.  Synthesis even less so because it is implied to lead to a permanent peace.

[MattFini]

I should add: while I did advocate destroy above, I still don't care for any ending.

Once the game hits the decision chamber, I just don't like the way it's written. At all.

I probably would've found piece had Shepard been more proactive in the finale, but the nothing about the game feels terribly climactic.

[ruggly]

Also, I find synthesis utterly, smotheringly boring. We all have our reasons for our endings. For you to turn around and try and dissuade people from their endings when you hate it when people do it to you is...well, you know. I find that destroy presents a lot of opportunities to build a new and exciting future.

[CoolioThane]

Synthesis is wrong. There is only one choice: Destroy

[Indy_S]

justafan wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Well the conflict can take the form of the galaxy reacting to the changes. In Control, how do the people react to this new police state? In Synthesis, how do people react to becoming partly synthetic? Destroy doesn't have that. The change is the removal of the Geth but the Geth were already outside the scope of most of the setting. Only the Quarians cared about them and they were already braced for the Geth to be wiped out. Rather than having a basis for conflict, there is nothing here but potential. Destroy is a shift in the setting because it can't play off of anything.

How do people respond to the destruction of the relays?  What happens when sectors of the galaxy are cut off from the rest for pontentially centuries (If I recall my EC slides correctly, the only people we know on Earth who are shown returning to other planets are Samara, Grunt, and Wrex/Wreav, which leaves the potential time until the relays are repaired anywhere up to several hundred years given their lifespans)?  And regardless of the Tuchanka outcome, Salarians and Krogan have motivation for being at eachother's throats.

While this leaves no basis for a galactic crisis on par with Reapers, it is just as valid of a "what if" basis as your control and synthesis examples.  "how do people react to reaper police/synthesis" is simply speculation based on the potential offered by their ending, and are just as much a basis for a future conflict as what happened in destroy.  Synthesis even less so because it is implied to lead to a permanent peace.

That would have been interesting if the destruction of the relays wasn't retconned with the EC (and high EMS, which is what the OP is specifically commenting on). There is nothing grounding the setting with what we have just went through. There's nothing that has changed because of choosing Destroy that wouldn't happen in another ending.

Neither of my examples were the basis of a galactic crisis, just a conflict that could be explored in the future. The issue is that Destroy offers no equivalent conflict. I'm aware that the other endings rely a lot on the potential for additional conflict but that's the only thing Destroy has.

[Jenonax]

Though my banner is for refuse (for being able to flip off the Catalyst and the feeling of 'Oh there you are Commander Shepard, nice of you to turn up') I am, at my heart, a Destroy girl.

No I don't like having to kill the Geth and EDI, I hate having to invalidate Legion's sacrifice and EDI I quite like, all those questions and developing humanity out the window. Ugh.

Destroy isn't boring, its hopeful something which the actual ending sequence itself is shockingly devoid of. We now live free of a cycle made up by a deranged lunatic, without fear of being harvested, indoctrinated or blown the hell up. Shepard and his crew and the whole Universe can rebuild and grow without an ancient race of sentient puppet machines dictating the terms. Destroy wins us freedom.

I fought for the freedom of the galaxy, I fought to rid us of the Reaper threat. I did not fight to maintain the status quo and the unrealistic (imo) assumption that Shepard (even though he's dead) will keep the peace (how this solves the problem I still don't know). And I certainly didn't fight to impose my will on the entire galaxy, making this momentous decision in isolation without the faintest idea of what exactly the consequences of such an action will be.

If Destroy is boring, Ieldra, then Im boring too. Id rather be boring than stupidly reckless. Do it on your own time, not with the fate of the entire galaxy forever more.

[BleedingUranium]

The relays are still broken in EC.

[XxBrokenBonezxX]

What do you know? A pro-ender trying to force their opinion on others.
Synthesis is a textbook definition of idiocy. To choose synthesis is to doom all life of the future.
And you're thinking "doom them??? No you giies, synthesis saves everyone..it's the greatest mayng!"
You're essentially inflicting upon your cycle what Javik's people did to theirs. There is no diversity, there is no evolution of thinking and ideas, there is no growth of life on an exponential scale. Everyone is the same, and everyone "understands" each other.

Sorry if you think synthesis is a great ending, but I don't believe it is.. Control is the only alternative to destroy, and only if you don't really care that Reapers have murdered millions of trillions of innocents since their inception.

Modifié par XxBrokenBonezxX, 14 février 2013 - 02:24 .

[dorktainian]

BleedingUranium wrote...

The relays are still broken in EC.

yes they are....  

[Indy_S]

dorktainian wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

The relays are still broken in EC.

yes they are....  

They are repaired rather quickly. Still in Hackett's lifetime, if I recall.

[justafan]

Indy_S wrote...

justafan wrote...

How do people respond to the destruction of the relays?  What happens when sectors of the galaxy are cut off from the rest for pontentially centuries (If I recall my EC slides correctly, the only people we know on Earth who are shown returning to other planets are Samara, Grunt, and Wrex/Wreav, which leaves the potential time until the relays are repaired anywhere up to several hundred years given their lifespans)?  And regardless of the Tuchanka outcome, Salarians and Krogan have motivation for being at eachother's throats.

While this leaves no basis for a galactic crisis on par with Reapers, it is just as valid of a "what if" basis as your control and synthesis examples.  "how do people react to reaper police/synthesis" is simply speculation based on the potential offered by their ending, and are just as much a basis for a future conflict as what happened in destroy.  Synthesis even less so because it is implied to lead to a permanent peace.

That would have been interesting if the destruction of the relays wasn't retconned with the EC (and high EMS, which is what the OP is specifically commenting on). There is nothing grounding the setting with what we have just went through. There's nothing that has changed because of choosing Destroy that wouldn't happen in another ending.

Neither of my examples were the basis of a galactic crisis, just a conflict that could be explored in the future. The issue is that Destroy offers no equivalent conflict. I'm aware that the other endings rely a lot on the potential for additional conflict but that's the only thing Destroy has.

The Relays are still broken in high EMS destroy, just because only the rings are destroyed doesn't mean it is a simple matter of rebuilding.  It could take anywhere between a few days and a few centuries to get the relay network back together.  The ending is deliberately vague on this detail, and again, the only people in the slides we see returning home are the incredibly long lived squadmates.

As for what destroy has going for it, it is the only ending free of reaper influence.  It offers a the potential for a galaxy beyond reaper tech, while it appears synthesis and control will keep the galaxy in line with reaper standards.  It's at least as much change as control, if not more.  The reapers never allowed society to advance beyond a certain level, and a destroy future would result in a vastly different route of progress as compared to a control or destroy option.  All the different endings do is allow you to choose how you want society to advance, do you want an unchecked free for all in destroy?  Do you want a reaper monitored and controlled advancement in Control?  Or do you want to jump start the galaxy to the Reaper's level and allow it to continue from there in Synthesis?  Each results in vastly different outcomes, and is unique to each ending.

[d-boy15]

destroy conclusion is boring? yeah, right...

let thinking a little bit more here, we just defeat the most powerful force ever in the galaxy. don't you
think everyone will want a piece of that technology? there could be a new galaxy cold war... every
race gather their strength and rebuild, a lot of refugee to take care off. 

Salarian is the only race that reaper didn't hit them hard, they probably the first race that recovered
and that might let them to hold the most power of influence.

citadel floating in earth orbit, you really think everyone will just let it there? a center of the galaxy is
floating over the home world of human race.

shepard cure the genophage, so now the galaxy won't have anything to hold the krogan anymore if
they making their move to expand their territory.

want more? all government of the major council race is likely to collapse, there might be chaos...
probably civil war.

do you really think after allied defeat hitler and his 3rd reich army, everyone singing kombaya
and live happily ever after? no matter what you choose the galaxy will change forever, it just
destroy choice not seem to match with you trans-humanism taste, that's all.

Modifié par d-boy15, 14 février 2013 - 02:38 .

[Indy_S]

justafan wrote...

The Relays are still broken in high EMS destroy, just because only the rings are destroyed doesn't mean it is a simple matter of rebuilding.  It could take anywhere between a few days and a few centuries to get the relay network back together.  The ending is deliberately vague on this detail, and again, the only people in the slides we see returning home are the incredibly long lived squadmates.

As for what destroy has going for it, it is the only ending free of reaper influence.  It offers a the potential for a galaxy beyond reaper tech, while it appears synthesis and control will keep the galaxy in line with reaper standards.  It's at least as much change as control, if not more.  The reapers never allowed society to advance beyond a certain level, and a destroy future would result in a vastly different route of progress as compared to a control or destroy option.  All the different endings do is allow you to choose how you want society to advance, do you want an unchecked free for all in destroy?  Do you want a reaper monitored and controlled advancement in Control?  Or do you want to jump start the galaxy to the Reaper's level and allow it to continue from there in Synthesis?  Each results in vastly different outcomes, and is unique to each ending.

That's actually why I choose Destroy, funnily enough. But the setting is done in it. Telling another story would be going to another sandbox in the same playground. From a narrative standpoint, I object to that method of continuity. Instead, I prefer the development of existing conflicts alongside the introduction of new ones. Dumping more sand in the same sandbox.

[BleedingUranium]

Indy_S wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

The relays are still broken in EC.

yes they are....  

They are repaired rather quickly. Still in Hackett's lifetime, if I recall.

We have no idea, because the speeches are written in future tense in all three endings. What you see is just what might happen.

[nos_astra]

Ieldra2 wrote...
High EMS Destroy in the EC version is utterly boring and unworthy of the story that came before.

I agree that it's nothing special. And I'd say removing the galactic dark age thing by claiming the relays are totally fixable in the EC (how? um, reasons and stuff) probably made it worse. 

And I readily admit that Synthesis (sillness of how and why aside) is a more interesting premises for a setting (thinking of the sequel now).

However, I'd disagree that Synthesis is a more fitting ending to the story that came before. The story that came before was ... well, nothing special and had serious problems with scale and scope.

Which leads me to:

 The game gives me an opportunity to shape the future of the galaxy, and I do not want the future that Destroy creates. 

Shepard doesn't deserve to be given that power and by extension the player shouldn't have it, too.

Compared to the size and complexity of a whole galaxy the game consists of micro-managing random stuff with predetermined "consequences" that are blown way out of proportion. Sorry, you don't shape the future of a galaxy with dumb luck and ammo (and because everyone else to stupid to tie their shoes).

ME is just a game (well, three games). Even if they were the best games ever (I doubt they are) ... they're still just action oriented games. This kind of games still has a long to go to be taken seriously.

Modifié par klarabella, 14 février 2013 - 02:45 .

[CosmicGnosis]

The biggest problem I have with Destroy is definitely the annihilation of synthetic life. Synthetics are sacrificed for a galaxy that fears and hates them. There is strong potential for a "nothing was learned" message. That is, the galaxy is happy that Shepard blew up the Reapers and the geth. The anti-synthetic prejudice is not challenged. The scary synthetics are dead, and we can all celebrate.

[justafan]

Indy_S wrote...

That's actually why I choose Destroy, funnily enough. But the setting is done in it. Telling another story would be going to another sandbox in the same playground. From a narrative standpoint, I object to that method of continuity. Instead, I prefer the development of existing conflicts alongside the introduction of new ones. Dumping more sand in the same sandbox.

If I am interpreting your analogy correctly, I believe we are in agreement on that point.

[Chashan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

The biggest problem I have with Destroy is definitely the annihilation of synthetic life. Synthetics are sacrificed for a galaxy that fears and hates them. There is strong potential for a "nothing was learned" message. That is, the galaxy is happy that Shepard blew up the Reapers and the geth. The anti-synthetic prejudice is not challenged. The scary synthetics are dead, and we can all celebrate.

I don't quite see that. Hackett's speech is quite reconciliatory in that regard.

Of course, it is fully BW's own failing that, for whatever reason, they would not have the peacemaking-decision on Rannoch be honoured with its own slide for Red. The Quarians were quick to see the benefits of cooperation with their creations, after all, following that...

[d-boy15]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Boy the Pro-Synthesis fans are really coming after us Destroyers this past week.

but to be fair, pro-destroy were coming after them this past year...

Modifié par d-boy15, 14 février 2013 - 02:51 .

[kyles3]

Indy_S wrote...

That's actually why I choose Destroy, funnily enough. But the setting is done in it. Telling another story would be going to another sandbox in the same playground. From a narrative standpoint, I object to that method of continuity. Instead, I prefer the development of existing conflicts alongside the introduction of new ones. Dumping more sand in the same sandbox.

I totally agree with this. I find it frustrating when relationships between characters go back to status quo after some catastrophic interpersonal drama (this happens on many TV shows), but I'm fine with the ME universe not undergoing radical changes. I find such an idea somewhat alienating. The Synthesis ending, to me, proposes a different universe than the one I've been--and continue to be--so drawn into. No, sir, I don't like it. 

But anyone who does like it is totally cool and I'm glad they also got an option that represents an outcome that appeals to them. As much as I was initially resistant towards the idea of choosing your ending, I've really come to see the wisdom in it. Not saying it was handled perfectly, but I think there's something to be said for trying to give as many of your fans what they want as possible. 

[darthnick427]

Cool story bro. Synthesis is still the worst ending

[dorktainian]

darthnick427 wrote...

Cool story bro. Synthesis is still the worst ending

absolutely right. team hugs with reaper killing machines?err.....no thanks.

[CR121691]

This hurts me

[crimzontearz]

right...no I'm entirely good with it and as an option (kill the bad guys and go home) it should always be present...not everyone likes to be forced into suicide ot godhood

It might be boring to you, it was juat right for me

[MegaSovereign]

You think the Destroy ending is boring because the main conflict is resolved without introducing a new one.

I say it's up to the developers to introduce new conflicts, not the player.

EDIT:

Also, there was a significant change.

Pre-Destroy = Reapers alive
Post-Destroy = Reapers dead.


That's a pretty big one.

Modifié par The-Biotic-God, 14 février 2013 - 03:17 .