348 réponses à ce sujet

[Venom man4]

Hearing my Shepard say this will probably be the last time we have a party followed by Tali straight up saying no to that idea and saying you will find a way has me on the destroyed side, hope that when its over Tali and Shepard will be together again.

[PnXMarcin1PL]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I remember Ieldra listing a theme for each ending as: autonomy (Destroy) stability (Control) advancement (Synthesis). I think that characterization of the endings is something everyone can live with. OP, for example, wants to keep the current cycle as intact as possible, which I see as a variation on the stability theme.

Couldn't have said it better myself. After seeing how this current cycle operates (within the Citadel DLC), I've decided to forgo autonomy in favor of stability of the current cycle. My reasoning is because any other choice feels like a betrayal to my friend family, PARTICULARLY after Citadel DLC.

Do you even mind to anwser my pm?  I've asked you about that stuff in the DLC that makes Control the only ending. I've asked for spoilers too! Where are they ? Unless someone else wants to describe it to me in PM, feel free.

[chefcook90]

Venom man4 wrote...

Hearing my Shepard say this will probably be the last time we have a party followed by Tali straight up saying no to that idea and saying you will find a way has me on the destroyed side, hope that when its over Tali and Shepard will be together again.

Again, why can't the ShepAI just make a new body for himself?
On top of that, what's to stop Shepard coming back from the Synthesis ending Dr. Manhattan style?

Modifié par chefcook90, 06 mars 2013 - 09:43 .

[goose2989]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I don't see how EDI dying does any more harm to Shepard's little family than Shepard him/herself dying does. And personally, as much of a moron as he can be sometimes, I like Shepard a lot more than EDI.

Speaking of which, there was a hilarious moment in the DLC where EDI actually made a comment about how I never used her.

I got the same line

[wright1978]

PainCakesx wrote...

goose2989 wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

I'm sort of the opposite. It cemented my choice of Destroy.

After that, it's hard to go "and now it's time to commit suicide." Shepard has too much to live for, and synthetics can be rebuilt.

The same Geth and the same EDI may never exist again, but dammit Shepard deserves to live in his new  apartment with Tali!

It may be the selfish choice, but Shepard deserves to reap the fruits of his labor as far as I'm concerned.

I personally don't view destroy as at all selfish.

[ruggly]

chefcook90 wrote...

I don't get why there's all this love for the Destroy ending just because there's a chance that Shepard is still alive at the end.

I'm pretty sure there was already a thread about how ReaperShep could just build an awesome cyborg body, upload his/her consciousness into it, and go back to living life as usual. 

Plus we still don't know if the Shepard waking up at the end is the real Shepard or the CLONE Shepard.

At the bolded part, you probably could.  But from what I've gathered from the description of control from the catalyst, you essentially lose your connection to humanity and everyone else.  The body would really be nothing but a shell.

Of course, you can always fix that with headcanon.

[Althix]

:S op there is no way i will throw my shep live away for a sexbot.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 06 mars 2013 - 09:46 .

[adayaday]

Bill Casey wrote...

Control is a disgustingly horrible ending...

Unlike the other 3?

[Bill Casey]

adayaday wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Control is a disgustingly horrible ending...

Unlike the other 3?

Refuse isn't disgustingly horrible, just painfully depressing and cynical...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 06 mars 2013 - 09:51 .

[Steelcan]

Not really, in fact I'm determined to come home.

[Dragoonlordz]

I picked control originally, I see no reason to change that now. What I did was to save all races, all friends could even if means I have to become something else to do it and might never hang out with them (though I like to think I could get a body built like EDI's and use that as my avatar to the outside world).

*In case someone says blah blah Shreaper is no Shepard yadda yadda*... So what? Does not matter what others think their Shepard would become when changed, because that's not what my Shepard became in my game.

People keep using the term Shreaper but I could be a tellitubbie in my new form for lack of what it matters. What I do is more important and what I did I explained. Regardless of who I am, everything remains the same as I described in my endgame. Every race is alive, everyone is as free as ever was. I (whoever I may be) is protecting all races and the only freedom I took away was the right to wipe out another species or mass murder each other on whims. Everyone carries on their lives, the galaxy is still run by the races in it, I only step in to prevent war and use mere threat of conflict first which if fails only individuals are brought to justice not wiping out races or planets. Which is no different than I would of done as Shepard originally even if had no forces to back me up on such missions in past but now do).

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 06 mars 2013 - 09:54 .

[daigakuinsei]

It actually made me consider Synthesis as more viable. Shep said his goodbyes, the team has each other, and the world will go on without Shep.

That said, I think I'll still probably choose Destroy - hard though because my Shep sees EDI as a daughter.

Modifié par daigakuinsei, 06 mars 2013 - 09:54 .

[CptData]

OP: no. And no to synthesis. (Although I try to understand why people prefer those options)
Stuff's still the same: take down the Reapers, free the Galaxy, even if that means you have to sacrifice something. That's the deal.

And tbh: if you -really- don't like the Geth-EDI-part, use your imagination *g*
In my little canony world, not all Geth get destroyed. They stored their programs when the shockwave hit them and need the Quarians to reactivate most of their data centers. Maybe some enclaves even survived without any help from the outside.
And EDI? I'm sure she found a way to shut herself down before the Normandy got hit by the "ending". Maybe that ship crashed on the planet because she went down?
Joker will find a way to bring her back online. And if he can't do it, Tali will. And Liara. With a bit help of Adams and his crew.

Period. ^^

Modifié par CptData, 06 mars 2013 - 09:57 .

[Daniel_N7]

«The Citadel DLC makes Control the ONLY choice»

And so it begins!...

We had what? Two days without "ending" discussions? A record for the BSN. And we now resume our regularly scheduled programming...

[Knight of Dane]

I want Shepard to live.

If the future involves the same mistakes then it is up to them to correct them as well.
Shep can't predict everything, might as well get something good out of a life s/he sacrificed everything to preserve.

[Subject M]

PainCakesx wrote...

I'm sort of the opposite. It cemented my choice of Destroy.

After that, it's hard to go "and now it's time to commit suicide." Shepard has too much to live for, and synthetics can be rebuilt.

Just as any group wiped out can be ressurected in one for or the other wia cloning or other types of genetic engineering. The question is, is it right to wipe out an entire category of beings just because some of them are a gigantic threat when there are the options of siezing control of their ability to be a threat, or remove their reason for agression by adding technological functions to the targeted groups being?

[Bill Casey]

All of the endings are wrong...
Genocide is the least monstrously evil...

[CptData]

Bill Casey wrote...

All of the endings are wrong...
Genocide is the least monstrously evil...

Was about to write something similar:

Which ending is the right one if you can pick one out of three wrongs and one horribly wrong one?

[Subject M]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I remember Ieldra listing a theme for each ending as: autonomy (Destroy) stability (Control) advancement (Synthesis). I think that characterization of the endings is something everyone can live with. OP, for example, wants to keep the current cycle as intact as possible, which I see as a variation on the stability theme.

Its not really that simple, but such qualities can indeed be associated with the different endings.
Destroy might guarantee Autonomy from the Reapers, but not from future synthetics or other external threats relative to some group that wants to self-determine. Control can be said to be a stabilizing factor just as any power-group such as a police force within a society can stabilize relations (a police force can either "protect and serve" the people and their interest as self determining people, or some elite telling people how to live. But as I have already pointed out, with control also comes the potential of synthesis, but under other other "ordered" forms.

[CptData]

Subject M wrote...

Its not really that simple, but such qualities can indeed be associated with the different endings.
Destroy might guarantee Autonomy from the Reapers, but not from future synthetics or other external threats relative to some group that wants to self-determine. Control can be said to be a stabilizing factor just as any power-group such as a police force within a society can stabilize relations (a police force can either "protect and serve" the people and their interest as self determining people, or some elite telling people how to live. But as I have already pointed out, with control also comes the potential of synthesis, but under other other "ordered" forms.

... as long as AI!Shepard retains enough humanity to keep his/her role as a guardian. As soon as s/he starts to think about becoming a guardian!dictator or starting the cycle anew, your theory falls apart.

And given the fact Shepard went through more than just sh*t for in three years of his/her life (two of 'em dead), I -highly- doubt his/her neural pattern is a good basis for such AI.

Just saying.

Sure, autonomy isn't the best solution. But it's the best for organics. It's freedom, it's what most people want! Give up freedom for security and you don't deserve neither - that's what Benjamin Franklin said. And he was right.

[Bill Casey]

The 20,000 cycles of life that are the reapers led similar existences to the ones experienced in the citadel DLC...
They don't deserve more forced alteration or control in the name of preservation...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 06 mars 2013 - 10:13 .

[Althix]

yeah blow them to bits

[Revanor]

 You people all forget that control is under no circumstances an option, because of indoctrination.
It doesn't matter if it's an all loving Shepard leading the Reapers or Harbinger, indoctrination is online as long as a Reaper's mass effect core is online. Indoctrination turns organics into mindless husks, it directs them to worship the reapers, if the Reapers' motivation is good, all the better, but they would still get indoctrinated.
There is no evidence at all if reapers can turn it off or not, after all, it's online even after they've died.