108 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 (do not read this section of OP as a continuation of thread title).

When I say the DLC was "pro-Destroy," I mean, they (deliberately, I'm sure) played favorably to Destroy themes. Makes sense, if you think about it: rough past year, helping fans get their chin back up over the ending would go a long way, and catering to Destroy is going to cater to the majority of them (where the ending is concerned).

They did this in a number of different ways, but putting our friends at the center-stage was by far the most prominent.

In my case, it was pretty effective! I definitely came around to seeing Destroy in a considerably more appealing light than I had before. Control, Synthesis, and Refuse... a fair bit less, with the added weight to my Shepard's death.


(you may now read OP as continuation of thread title).

... it also played to some themes that ultimately turn me away from Destroy. What's more, I do not believe they did this deliberately. That is, I think they kind of shot Destroy undertones in the foot a bit, and probably don't even realize it.

"Can you imagine your life without them?"

We know where that quote is from. The Catalyst. I realize I do myself no favors by quoting him to support my claim, but let's work with this line for a minute. Afterall, even a stopped clock can be right a couple times a day.

The "them" is synthetics, and it involves Synthesis specifically. Without high enough EMS, you don't get the option. And without high enough EMS, you don't get a very peachy catalyst -- in describing organic-synthetic conflict, he displays clear disdain towards the organic side ("You bring it on yourselves"). If he sees organics as the problem, it's doubtful he'd see fit to convince you of anything down the lines of Synthesis. Why would he, if he believes we don't have the capacity to give a damn?

Now, can we imagine life without them? Well, we can. I think the better question is, are we okay with that? Some clearly are, for one reason or another (e.g. -- the Reapers *have* to die, synthetics aren't *really* alive if you ask me, 'had to stick to the mission, etc.). I'm not here to dispute those claims; people can believe whatever they want to.

For me, though, (accepting that all options functionally stop the cycles) the answer was "no, I'm not okay with that."

That's not a question of ethics to me, the morality involved with Destroy is justifiable in my eyes. However, I had seen how much synthetics can do for us after working with EDI, Legion, and brokering peace on Rannoch. In fact, Rannoch hits close to home, when one considers that the Reaper invasion has essentially tuned every planet into a "Rannoch." Our worlds have been decimated by those that seek not to use them, and even upon successfully getting them back, we'll have new problems to deal with as we put it all back together again (James says something to this effect). Besides, progress on Rannoch is still working against a galaxy that mostly distrusts AI (Citadel Council bans them). So take away the geth, and that progress has all but gone down the drain. So, while I can "live with" Destroy on a moral level, I don't shake off the feeling of throwing away both that progress and our most valuable allies so easily.


That was all my thinking before Citadel DLC. After it... I think I can let the story do the talking.

It raised a lot of questions. Questions that, before I can jump ship from Synthesis and into Destroy's, make me think long and hard about the new set of consequences I'm accepting. Those questions being: ...

(1) Could we have gotten the job done against Clone!Shep without the help of EDI? Without even Glyph?
(2a) How would this story end if Clone!Shep surfaces *after* the war, and I chose Destroy?
(2b) What does 2a say about post-Reaper conflicts or other problems we may come across post-war? Thane in ME2: "There's always another mission."
(3a) If "the power of friendship" is what seperates the messed-up man from the good man, why come back alive at the expense of some friends?
(3b) Shouldn't "the power of friendship" make me support an ending that brings everyone back?
(3c) If what makes me "special" is still intact after my death, have I really "died?"

Oh, and what was one of the first things that Clone!Shep did to shut us down when he reached the Normandy? He disabled EDI. And then we were at the mercy of a toothbrush (!) becuase our ship's resident AI was shut down.

The trade-off involved by choosing Synthesis instead comes down to whether or not folks want the change and everything that comes with it. I have no fear of controversy, I welcome it. Aside from that, it's sending my avatar to its death to achieve it, which Citadel DLC has made really damn hard to do. I am known to often indulge my selfish side over my altruistic side. However, I stay standing firmly behind principle in the end: which is in itself self-serving, but for my own good. It's more important to stand for something than win. Otherwise, what have you won?

There were other points aside from this, but I'll leave it at that!


tl;dr: Citadel DLC reminded me of my friends. It also reminded me of the value of our synthetic allies. I can imagine life without them. I do not like it. I rather not put this society in place to repeat the mistakes of its past (where these issues are concerned) either.

[Samtheman63]

just like the rest of the trilogy

[Calibrations Expert]

I don't see how having more time with EDI and Joker means the game is leaning more toward having you kill her.

[Deathsaurer]

Calibrations Expert wrote...

I don't see how having more time with EDI and Joker means the game is leaning more toward having you kill her.

Various lines the other characters have, most notably the LI, are clearly pro Destroy fanservice. That said spending more time with EDI has had an impact on several people.

[Stakrin]

Good read actually, I always thought destroy, and weighing heavily in my mind was Synth (IRL I would never trust myself to love forever as an all powerful being even if I believe I am a good person now) but Iiked how destroy shows us that, in the end, Shepard was more human than what TIM did to him, but synthetics have done just as much to defeat the reapers as we have, so they don't deserve death, so after Citadel emphasized how much they do, I think Synth may be my canon.

[Calibrations Expert]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Calibrations Expert wrote...

I don't see how having more time with EDI and Joker means the game is leaning more toward having you kill her.

Various lines the other characters have, most notably the LI, are clearly pro Destroy fanservice. That said spending more time with EDI has had an impact on several people.

Oh, well I wouldn't really know about most of that yet. But I do know Citadel Thane LI was totally leaning towards Shepard dying.

[Auld Wulf]

Sigh. Black and white again.

There are a lot of things in the main game and in every DLC which support every mindset. Paragon Shepard even goes so far as to say, at one point: I can't kill our friends, when I do that I become a murderer. I won't cross that line. Thus, Destroy immediately becomes a choice that Paragon Shepard would never choose, because Destroy would turn Paragon Shepard into a murderer.

Depending on your input, what your companions say can differ, and it depends on which companions you talk to, too. Based upon past actions dialogue can change, too. So there are a lot of different perspectives on display, and many of those perspectives are posed out of ignorance. Many see the Reapers as faceless, cthulhu-like killers. Not many realise that the Reapers are actually entire civilisations enslaved by a control program, and that they have no control over their own actions. Knowing that, the perspective of any non-sociopathic person should be sympathy.

So it's all about perspectives. Saying that anything presents a singular perspective when there are many characters with many perspectives (some borne of ignorance) is silly, and a sweeping generalisation.

[Steelcan]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

EDI's death doesn't dissuade me from Destroy any more than Ashley's death makes me want to not blow up Saren's base on Virmire.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Calibrations Expert wrote...

I don't see how having more time with EDI and Joker means the game is leaning more toward having you kill her.

It's kind of like, where the catalyst coaxes Synthesis with "Can you imagine your life without (synthetics)?" this DLC coaxes Destroy with "Can you imagine leaving your friends?" EDI's loss is tragic, yes, but you've already lost some.

[Auld Wulf]

Calibrations Expert wrote...

I don't see how having more time with EDI and Joker means the game is leaning more toward having you kill her.

That's the response of a reasonable person with a conscience, a person who's able to sympathise with EDI and Joker. You can't expect that of all people, it's definitely a higher function thinking thing, and not everyone is capable of it. So some are just not going to care, due to the lack of a conscience.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

EDI's death doesn't dissuade me from Destroy any more than Ashley's death makes me want to not blow up Saren's base on Virmire.

'Must be nice in that Collector Vessel you're still stuck in.

[Steelcan]

Auld Wolf you make me laugh.

[Stakrin]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

EDI's death doesn't dissuade me from Destroy any more than Ashley's death makes me want to not blow up Saren's base on Virmire.

'Must be nice in that Collector Vessel you're still stuck in.

I love most of the Squad, but I would kill Liara to save the war. Asari freak me out, and she is a bit irritating. I liked Kaidan, but I would sacrifice him to destroy the base. Honestly though, it is easier to kill yourself to save everybody than a friend.

[Sovereign330]

I tend to choose control as a paragon. I trust my Shepard to do what is right. After rebuilding the galaxy, who knows. Shep and the reapers might just up and leave and only step in when they're needed. I like the feeling of getting to watch over my friends without having to kill any of them. Same token, while synthesis and destroy have their appeal, I don't know if I want to change the galaxy even though it's essentially the perfected version of the reaper conversion process more or less. Destroy for the reasons above. Can't kill geth or EDI and if I chose the quarians earlier on, I still don't think I should kill EDI when I know I have options that ensure her survival as well as the survival of my crew..

[Mr.House]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Calibrations Expert wrote...

I don't see how having more time with EDI and Joker means the game is leaning more toward having you kill her.

Various lines the other characters have, most notably the LI, are clearly pro Destroy fanservice. That said spending more time with EDI has had an impact on several people.

EDI was ready to die to destory the Reapers.

[Stakrin]

I don't trust anybody to have an army with nearly infinite power following them as they live immortally to see all.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

EDI's death doesn't dissuade me from Destroy any more than Ashley's death makes me want to not blow up Saren's base on Virmire.

'Must be nice in that Collector Vessel you're still stuck in.

Considering that Destroy would have killed the Collectors (had they still been around) too, that wouldn't be a problem.

Woefully missing the point.

First off, I get that you're not going to like *everybody* in the group. It doesn't undermine my assertion, though, that EDI is valuable and saves your life. I'd say that's enough to at least accept the person and not wish for their death. I'd question your judgment for puting "liking" above... practicality.

Second, even if we're to grant the notion that the Crucible/Destroy was available at that time (it wasn't) and all is well since it killed the enemies... what about the next enemy? What if Clone!Shep surfaced after the war? What if Leviathans rise and are more formiddable than we realized. What if the catalyst is right, and problem-synthetics arise and invade from the other galaxies?

I said this in the OP. Thane said it in ME2: "There's always another mission."

[d-boy15]

Let me tell you this...

Bioware was heavily pro-destroy until the ending with Catalyst, even Leviathan is a bit pro-destroy
if you think about it.

But Citadel is just a piece of fan service, if it had anything to do with ending, it will reinforce you
reason to choose it (unless you pro-refuse...) and to be fair when you hook in to your choice of
ending you won't change you mind, you simply find another reason to choose it again.

Modifié par d-boy15, 17 mars 2013 - 11:21 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

And I certainly don't trust synthesis http://social.biowar...9404/4#16076107

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 mars 2013 - 11:20 .

[KingNothing125]

I'm all for pro-Destroy messages, because the other options are awful.

Control is thematically awful because you end up siding with the Illusive Man, the guy you've been trying to stop this whole time. Control is mechanically awful because you become a soulless, detached guardian of the galaxy for who knows how long. Eternity? Who knows. Listen to Shepard during the Control epilogue. He talks about himself in the 3rd person. He's not even himself anymore. Added benefits: getting to linger on while all your mortal friends and love ones die off.

If you thought Will Turner becoming the new Davy Jones at the end of Pirates 3 was a good ending, you'd probably like Control. And you'd be a crazy person.

Synthesis is thematically awful because you accept the Reapers' flawed premise that the cycle of organic-synthetic violence is inevitable (even after you've proven that it isn't, by brokering peace between the Geth and the Quarians, and fostering a relationship between Joker and EDI... two obvious examples of organics and synthetics living harmoniously). Synthesis is mechanically awful for a number of reasons, including having a hand-wavy, nonsensical explanation of how it works. Add your energy to the Crucible? How? What energy? Shepard is nought but flesh and bone. But I digress; let's talk about other flawed mechanics. Forget about Citadel DLC for a moment. Let's take a trip back to Leviathan. The Leviathan says the intelligence is just doing what it was made to do. The "intelligence" admits as much at the end if you tell it that the Leviathans have joined the war. The "intelligence" says it welcomes their involvement because it's just doing what they made it to do. Furthermore, the "intelligence" goes on to say that synthetics seek perfection through understanding. Hello? the "intelligence" just admitted that its kind doesn't understand everything. How does it know this is the way it has to be? It's just a machine, working with parameters it was given over a billion years ago. How does it know conflict is inevitable? It doesn't, quite simply.

Don't go kill yourself and change every living thing in the galaxy into some kind of weird organic-synthetic hybrid just because a limited machine told you to. Use your critical thinking skills.

If you thought the ending of Matrix 3 was a good ending, where Shepard Neo sacrifices himself and organics and synthetics humans and machines learn to live peacefully with one another, then you'd probably like Synthesis. And you'd be a crazy person.

Being pro-Destroy doesn't necessarily mean you're anti-Synthetic. I certainly am not. I am sad the Geth and EDI had to die. But EDI was, at least unofficially, a member of the Alliance military. And the Geth volunteered to fight against the Reapers. They were not victims of genocide, they are casualties of war. It is not Shepard's fault the Crucible doesn't discriminate between forms of synthetic life. That is a design flaw by the Crucible construction team, or the Protheans, or whoever added that functionality in a cycle long past.

And synthetics don't have to be dead forever. We can make new ones. And we will be free to do so without the spectre (no pun intended) of genocidal machines coming to stop us. We will be wholly responsible for the outcome, good or ill. And Shepard will be there to see it because he survives, gorramit.

Modifié par KingNothing125, 17 mars 2013 - 11:30 .

[Xilizhra]

Mr.House wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Calibrations Expert wrote...

I don't see how having more time with EDI and Joker means the game is leaning more toward having you kill her.

Various lines the other characters have, most notably the LI, are clearly pro Destroy fanservice. That said spending more time with EDI has had an impact on several people.

EDI was ready to die to destory the Reapers.

EDI was ready to die in battle against the Reapers, when it seemed that destruction was the only viable option. None of the people you're killing have gotten the information you have; you can't rely on past statements with incomplete information to gain their consent here. It's like getting married, having sex with your spouse, getting AIDS somehow, then continuing to have sex with your spouse without telling them because they'd agreed to do so before.

[Xilizhra]

Control is thematically awful because you end up siding with the Illusive Man, the guy you've been trying to stop this whole time. Control is mechanically awful because you become a soulless, detached guardian of the galaxy for who knows how long. Eternity? Who knows. Listen to Shepard during the Control epilogue. He talks about himself in the 3rd person. He's not even himself anymore. Added benefits: getting to linger on while all your mortal friends and love ones die off.

Ridiculous. Using the same methods as TIM doesn't mean you side with him, any more than killing Cerberus means that you'd side with the Blood Pack for also using guns. Additionally, possibly feeling sad about the passage of time is a tiny, tiny sacrifice to save so many lives.

If you thought Will Turner becoming the new Davy Jones at the end of Pirates 3 was a good ending, you'd probably like Control. And you'd be a crazy person.

I did, actually.

And synthetics don't have to be dead forever. We can make new ones. And we will be free to do so without the spectre (no pun intended) of genocidal machines coming to stop us. We will be wholly responsible for the outcome, good or ill. And Shepard will be there to see it because he survives, gorramit.

Completely irrelevant. It changes nothing of the ones you've already murdered.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Calibrations Expert wrote...

I don't see how having more time with EDI and Joker means the game is leaning more toward having you kill her.

Various lines the other characters have, most notably the LI, are clearly pro Destroy fanservice. That said spending more time with EDI has had an impact on several people.

EDI was ready to die to destory the Reapers.

EDI was ready to die in battle against the Reapers, when it seemed that destruction was the only viable option. None of the people you're killing have gotten the information you have; you can't rely on past statements with incomplete information to gain their consent here. It's like getting married, having sex with your spouse, getting AIDS somehow, then continuing to have sex with your spouse without telling them because they'd agreed to do so before.

Please don't tell me you just compared a video game conflict to AIDS......