748 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

The geth are not blameless. That their intelligence was lowered due to loss of runtimes in battles against the quarians doesn't acquit them.

Nevertheless, I did feel they deserved a second chance so I made peace on Rannoch. In a vacuum they could have kept living on Rannoch, but I don't trust an AI version of Shepard to make the right decisions protecting the galaxy, so Control is a worse option for me.

[NT121784]

Because it feels right. I don't have better answer

[xBUMMx]

I came into Mass Effect 3 fully willing to sacrifice this entire cycle if it meant. Could destroy the reapers. I had no other goal. I wanted the reapers gone, dead, destroyed. I thought about the other options my first time there, but Destroy was what I wanted.

I wanted to save life as a whole. Not just the cycle or my friends, the future and safety of life. If the only sacrifice I had to make was all the sentient robots, I was wholly willing. I don't mean to sound cold, I considered EDI to be part of my crew, but in the end she's an AI. She doesn't breathe, she doesn't reproduce, she isn't ALIVE. Neither are the Geth. The Geth could be rebuilt. EDI could be rebuilt, they wouldn't be the same, but they can be remade. You can't just recreate an entire organic species.

[KBomb]

NT121784 wrote...

Because it feels right. I don't have better answer

I think that's a damn fine answer.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

I was referring to the Reapers themselves. Wiping out the geth isn't even worth considering; only a tiny portion of them sided with the Reapers the first time, and the second time, they had to do so or face extinction at the hands of quarian bloodlust. Also, a lot of the programs favoring not siding with the Reapers were killed in the quarian attack on the Dyson sphere, so...

If it was a tiny portion, why do they lose fully 1/3rd of their value as a war asset if you blow the heretics?

Both sides acted under duress in the modern war, I'm not denying the Geth were pressured. It doesn't change the fact that they chose to side with the Reapers, though - that Reaper destroyer was there before the Quarians attacked.

[Reorte]

Simply because the other options are even worse. It requires a ridiculously huge leap of faith to believe that the Reapers will stop killing for good if they're still around. And there's no sound reason for all synthetics to get killed anyway (mind you the same is true for just about everything that happens in the end no matter which choice you make).

[Mike Canary]

Because I really didn't want a straight-up happy ending. True, I didn't want my ending to be numbingly confusing and depressing like the original, but I also like to think that there should be some form of sacrifice and loss, even in a happy ending.

For me, since I destroyed the Geth, Destroy was the logical choice. And I loved EDI, but could my Shepard trust himself to take command of an eternal army of warships, when he'd always straddled the line between Paragon and Renegade? And would my Shepard accept taking control of every husk, marauder, and other monstrosity, knowing they were once good people?

As for synthesis, I think to me the whole idea of synthesis went against everything my Shep fought for. People need conflict to grow, they need choice and challenges. Synthesis just took all of that away.

[Massa FX]

Xilizhra wrote...

Control = Becoming a Reaper, the cycle continues = Not going to happen

No it doesn't. Nothing in the ending indicates in the slightest. In any case, I really don't know why you're clamoring for the death of a race that undertook no actions of its own, and was completely mind controlled when it attacked the galaxy.

Thats the thing. I dont clamor for the death of anyone. If I could make a better choice I would.

There is no better choice. 4 me.

Shepard isnt aware he/she would live in Destroy.  S/he was willing to sacrifice herself. Her job, her orders, her reason for being alive after two years dead... destroy the Reapers. Her sole purpose in life is in front of her(to the slight right) and shes going to let an intelligence she doesnt know derail her objective in 5-10 minutes of odd conversation? 

[Reorte]

Mike Canary wrote...

Because I really didn't want a straight-up happy ending. True, I didn't want my ending to be numbingly confusing and depressing like the original, but I also like to think that there should be some form of sacrifice and loss, even in a happy ending.

To do that the ending should've focussed on all the death and destruction throughout the rest of the galaxy instead of just brushing it off and throwing in some stupidly contrived negatives instead. MEHEM thankfully removes the latter but ideally (but probably not doable) needs to have some of the former. Then we could get an ending that strikes the right emotional balance even if it's impossible to remove all the logical and plot stupidity.

[DecCylonus]

Xilizhra wrote...

If I choose synthesis, I fundamentally alter all life in the galaxy without their consent. If I choose control, I become the monster I set out to stop. Both choices are just as repugnant as wiping out the Geth.

No they're not. Especially since in the second one, it was never the Reapers' nature that was the problem, it was their actions. Don't repeat their actions, no problem.

Their nature as galactic overlords is a major problem. They are all powerful war machines designed to protect life from itself by enforcing one being's idea of what is good. Why should any one being have the power to decide what is good for the galaxy? Even a total paragon Shepard should not be given that kind of power. IMO, of course.

Xilizhra wrote...

Destroy is victory, period. Everyone knew the fight with the Reapers is a fight to the death. The Geth and EDI both chose to fight the Reapers. You don't make that choice without being willing to pay the price. Shepard has the responsibility of command and is used to it from an extraordinary career. In the end, Destroy makes the most sense according to the ruthless calculus of war. You expend some of your soldiers to achieve the objective. That is why I am comfortable choosing destroy with either a Paragon or a Renegade.

Or... you can choose to expend absolutely none of your soldiers for a more total victory, where the only cost is your own life. Which seems a better outcome to me.

The other options are defeat. I already explained my objection to control.

Synthesis is a forced mutation of all life. It is also what the Catalyst envisions as the ideal for all life, and I don't trust the Catalyst to make that judgement. It isn't even alive! In our own world, people protest against mandatory vaccinations and even genetically modified food. I can't believe that all life in the galaxy would be happy to be suddenly transformed into an organic / synthetic hybrid. 

IMO, it's better that some sacrifice so that the rest can have a better world. It's not a storybook ending, but it is how real wars work out throughout history.

[KingZayd]

Because Destroy is the only thing that gets rid of the Reapers. We can't beat the Reapers without a crucible, so this is the only way.

[cerberus1701]

Why?

Nothing else makes sense or is even palatable.

1) For 3 games the goal has been to destroy the Reapers, basically by any means necessary.

2) Control? Over time, a disembodied Shepard. A Shepard who no longer "lives" and has ties to the PEOPLE in the galaxy will, inevitably see its inhabitants as the meaningless ants that they are by comparison. The Shepalyst is no solution.

3) The Geth go into it knowing they may not live. Everyone does.

4) Synthesis is an abomination at LEAST on par with genocide. It's the gross violation of every being in the galaxy without their knowledge or consent.

5) Why should I believe that the Catalyst...this thing that completely botched the one task it was built to perform...is telling me the truth at all when he says, "AIs will die." For all I know, to it, only Reapers are 'true AI.'

6) Destroy is the one option that this insane Reaper catalyst DOESN'T want me to take.

[Ben20530]

It's the final iteration of the sacrifice theme of the game, sacrifice millions to safeguard billions for all time.

I didn't even hesitate.

[crimzontearz]

1 Shepard lives
2 synthetics can be rebuilt
3 that part of MEHEM (no synthetics sacrifice) is purely Fanon and I don't agree with it

[DeinonSlayer]

To quote General Hummel, "you've made a grave mistake, and more of our brothers have died in vain. Damn you for forcing me into this position."

[Applepie_Svk]

Enhanced wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

^ Geth beat the Quarians.

Not in my game they didn't.

Morning War. That's when the Quarians lost their own planet to their creations

Yeah and after 300 years Quarians came back with 17 millions of civilians and soldiers with most of the ships which belongs to museum to took back their homeworld while they´ve managed to made almost killing blow to Geth army which was rested, building a new ships about 300 years and also their Dyson Sphere...

If ME3 managed something then it´s retcon of synthetic species resting and preparing for 300 years into bunch of weak and stupid morons.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 08 mars 2013 - 04:36 .

[Reorte]

cerberus1701 wrote...

2) Control? Over time, a disembodied Shepard. A Shepard who no longer "lives" and has ties to the PEOPLE in the galaxy will, inevitably see its inhabitants as the meaningless ants that they are by comparison. The Shepalyst is no solution.

Don't forget that it's a "Shepard" that has been reproduced from a scanning process which involves frying the original (yeah, that won't interfere with the results) and is running on hardware designed to support the Catalyst, not a fully-fledged simulation of the mind of a completely different species to its creators that didn't even exist at the time of creation. And you don't even know exactly how much control it's got over the Reapers anyway. And some people get angry when I point out those risks (sigh).

[Xilizhra]

If it was a tiny portion, why do they lose fully 1/3rd of their value as a war asset if you blow the heretics?

Because the quarians kill more of them. If the heretics are rewritten, their knowledge gives the geth an edge and they kill more of the quarians. In both cases, it's before Shepard shows up.

Both sides acted under duress in the modern war, I'm not denying the Geth were pressured. It doesn't change the fact that they chose to side with the Reapers, though - that Reaper destroyer was there before the Quarians attacked.

Source?

Shepard isnt aware he/she would live in Destroy. S/he was willing to sacrifice herself. Her job, her orders, her reason for being alive after two years dead... destroy the Reapers. Her sole purpose in life is in front of her(to the slight right) and shes going to let an intelligence she doesnt know derail her objective in 5-10 minutes of odd conversation?

My objective is to stop the cycle. Destroying the Reapers is just a means to an end, and I'm happy to take another one if presented.

Their nature as galactic overlords is a major problem. They are all powerful war machines designed to protect life from itself by enforcing one being's idea of what is good. Why should any one being have the power to decide what is good for the galaxy? Even a total paragon Shepard should not be given that kind of power. IMO, of course.

It's not optimal, just better than the other choices. And my own Shepard is one of the better people to take such power, I feel.

IMO, it's better that some sacrifice so that the rest can have a better world. It's not a storybook ending, but it is how real wars work out throughout history.

And I will make it work better.

2) Control? Over time, a disembodied Shepard. A Shepard who no longer "lives" and has ties to the PEOPLE in the galaxy will, inevitably see its inhabitants as the meaningless ants that they are by comparison. The Shepalyst is no solution.

You're making vast assumptions about a still-organic psychology and applying it to an incredibly advanced computer system with perfect memory. Your comparison is baseless.

5) Why should I believe that the Catalyst...this thing that completely botched the one task it was built to perform...is telling me the truth at all when he says, "AIs will die." For all I know, to it, only Reapers are 'true AI.'

Why believe that Destroy will even work?

6) Destroy is the one option that this insane Reaper catalyst DOESN'T want me to take.

So you assume. If you think it's deceptive, why couldn't it lie?

To quote General Hummel, "you've made a grave mistake, and more of our brothers have died in vain. Damn you for forcing me into this position."

Thus indeed, you have made a grave mistake. Several, actually, if your canon playthrough is any indication.

[Reorte]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

People say that an ending where Shepard survives with his friends in a completely wrecked galaxy a Disney rip-off, but are cool with the galaxy turning into Telletubby Land, minus Shepard?

I've never managed to get my head around why people think that. The idea of someone being able to stop a huge, destructive war with a single action that requires the loss of their own life is ludicrously far-fetched (as well as looking utterly, cheesily messianic). If someone really is that important then you've almost certainly got victory and survival or death and defeat.  What I expected was that Shepard would set enough in motion that victory or defeat might happen, what happens to him after that (taking part in following it through) is just as predictable as for any other person taking part - i.e. anything might happen, would be nice if it depended upon what's gone before, or at least that influence the odds. Saying he has to die and it's Disney otherwise is just ridiculous.

[CronoDragoon]

Xilizhra wrote...
You're making vast assumptions about a still-organic psychology and applying it to an incredibly advanced computer system with perfect memory. Your comparison is baseless.

Assumptions are kinda all we have. In any case, the new Shepard-AI will probably have the same logic-process as the old Intelligence since he's essentially replacing it. That logic programming led the Intelligence to take "preserve life at all cost" and create the Reaper cycle. Paragon Control Shepard's directive is either "ensure all have a voice for their own future" or alternatively "protect the many". It is entirely possible those directives can lead to an MO that would be considered morally reprehensible.

Or maybe not. I don't want to convince Control people that their ending will lead to failure any more than I will try and assert that Destroy will definitely lead to success. The point is that each side understands the reasoning behind the other while still disagreeing.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 08 mars 2013 - 04:48 .

[cerberus1701]

Reorte wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

2) Control? Over time, a disembodied Shepard. A Shepard who no longer "lives" and has ties to the PEOPLE in the galaxy will, inevitably see its inhabitants as the meaningless ants that they are by comparison. The Shepalyst is no solution.

Don't forget that it's a "Shepard" that has been reproduced from a scanning process which involves frying the original (yeah, that won't interfere with the results) and is running on hardware designed to support the Catalyst, not a fully-fledged simulation of the mind of a completely different species to its creators that didn't even exist at the time of creation. And you don't even know exactly how much control it's got over the Reapers anyway. And some people get angry when I point out those risks (sigh).

All true, man.

I can almost see the Catalyst pushing Control simply because he's bored with his "life" and if Shep takes his place the cycles can go on as he has always thought they should, but at least he can die....

knowing that, sooner or later the Shepalyst will start the cycles again.

[Reorte]

Xilizhra wrote...

If it was a tiny portion, why do they lose fully 1/3rd of their value as a war asset if you blow the heretics?

Because the quarians kill more of them. If the heretics are rewritten, their knowledge gives the geth an edge and they kill more of the quarians. In both cases, it's before Shepard shows up.

Do you get fewer quarian war assets if that's the case?

It's not optimal, just better than the other choices. And my own Shepard is one of the better people to take such power, I feel.

And even believing that it is your own Shepard requires an absurdly huge leap of faith.

And I will make it work better.

I'm sure that's been said numerous times.

You're making vast assumptions about a still-organic psychology and applying it to an incredibly advanced computer system with perfect memory. Your comparison is baseless.

Oh, so it isn't your Shepard now...

Why believe that Destroy will even work?

Why believe that Control isn't just asking Shepard to electrocute himself? At least it's (scantily) backed up by the rest of the story instead of just requiring complete trust in what the Catalyst says.

[S.A.K]

Why not MEHEM?

1. It's not made by Bioware and not canon (kind of a fanfic)

2. Destroy was good enough imo. It was clear ME will not have a happy ending from the start.

3. I actually wanted the Geth dead.

PS: I do feel sorry about EDI and hopes that she can be repaired.