108 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Reap_ii wrote...

citadel was pro-party, not pro-ending anything.

I feel like this should be the new dividing line on this board. You are either a pro-partier or an anti-partier.

"I chose....to party."

[Modius Prime]

I choose destroy because it is the most consistent with Shepard's beliefs. The fact that you can survive in the end did not have a strong affect on my decision to destroy all synthetics. Since ME1, you wanted to destroy the Reapers, and during war, you can't save everyone--even if that is EDI and the Geth we're talking about. EDI willingly says that she will die for Joker if it means his safety, so I think it is safe to choose destroy. I loved EDI and the Geth and I blame bad writing. I mean why would the Geth build a machine that would kill them? I feel like the Crucible should have only targeted the Reapers if you had high EMS. It is very intact, unlike the scene where it is damaged with low EMS. Also, destroy leaves the galaxy the least changed by the effect of the Crucible, unlike control and synthesis which I believe go completely 360 on Shepard's beliefs. I really don't know how they are going to make a new game if they don't cannon destroy (it would be 4 different games, presuming it is a sequal). Shepard isn't a god and he doesn't have the right to act like one like he does in control, or change the galaxy forever with synthesis. If you are paragon, Shepard consistently refers himself as just an ordinary soldier, not some Alliance/Council hot-shot. The themes of Mass Effect have shown that synthetics and organics can cooperate peacefully!

Citadel DLC did not change my decision about picking destroy. If anything, it prevented me from picking any of the other decisions because I didn't want Shepard to die on the LI (I know, selfish right? But I'm human). The end was just too sad for me to die on Kaidan again, especially when Farewell and Into The Inevitable played. Bioware played with my heart strings ;(

Modifié par Modius Prime, 18 mars 2013 - 04:36 .

[KwangtungTiger]

Eterna5 wrote...

The Citadel strengthened my conviction to Control. My Shepard sacrifices herself to protect them forevermore. If I choose Destroy I kill some of my friends to accomplish a temporary fix just so I can live, I cannot do that.

And frankly, the people who choose Destroy just so they can live... what kind of hero are you?

 This is so full of moronic thinking I hardly know where to begin.......

.......Destroy was the most popular choice well before it was meta-gamed (Shepard living)

........And how does control STOP the chaos again?Wait.....It doesn't. It only helps to stop potential uprisings. The conflict between synthetics and organics can/will continue.

 If your a fanboy of control thats cool and all.......But keep your ignorant generalizations of people choosing destroy to yourself. Or atleast provide proof before spewing your ignorance.

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Reap_ii wrote...

citadel was pro-party, not pro-ending anything.

I feel like this should be the new dividing line on this board. You are either a pro-partier or an anti-partier.

"I chose....to party."

Lmfao i just picture Shepard saying that and starts dancing with a troll face and the catalyst gets scared 

[KwangtungTiger]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Reap_ii wrote...

citadel was pro-party, not pro-ending anything.

I feel like this should be the new dividing line on this board. You are either a pro-partier or an anti-partier.

"I chose....to party."

 Party all the way.......There's time enough for relaxing in the grave.

[Iakus]

The Citadel strengthened my conviction for MEHEM. Ash tells my Shepard "You'll find a way to beat the odds. And when you do, hero-man, I'll be waiting"

I choose...to beat the odds.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

JillBSuiT wrote...

The star child says in destroy that our tech will be affected due to the massive power surge caused. He also goes on to say that our Techs will be able to rebuild with minor trouble. So their you go everything can be rebuilt or reactivated with time. Of course its really all on how we take it in our minds, since we all think different.

My problem with the "they can be rebuilt" -argument is that, while I'm sure they can be rebuilt, it fails to account for politics behind actually doing that.

Again, the Citadel Council has a ban on the creation of AIs. No organic races that we know of seem to want to contest that ban, either. The only one that could have been it is the quarians, given Rannoch peace (provided you actually did it), but in Destroy that goes down the drain. The fact that peace was brokered, and the geth helped in the war, is really not even close to enough to get anyone to change their mind about that. To that end, I had made a nice little thread about post-Destroy Rannoch here, take a looksie -- most of us agreed that nobody, not even the quarians, will change their opinions of them overnight.

So, you're not only working against those standing prejudices and cultural disapproval, but now you have the Reapers to compound those societal fears. At least with Control and Synthesis, the galaxy has to learn to accept them. In Destroy, they will only ever know the Reapers as what happens if you let synthetics become powerful, and fuel more fear. If anything, it'll probably make most glad that the geth died rather than sorry for them.

So yeah, given all those factors, you're probably not seeing the synthetics we knew in the ME-U again post-Destroy. You're probably not seeing another AI for a very long while.

darthnick427 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.

Damn right.

classic BSN: giving kudos to posts that have been argued against, not addressing outstanding argument. LOL!

I should make it clear, again, since it seems this point is being misunderstood: I have no issue with Destroy on a moral-level. I get it, "collateral damage," I can live with that. What I don't like is this: it sets us back. We made progress to overcome social issues between organics and synthetics, but that gets wiped clean. Then you have the war, putting the whole galaxy through a bad experience with AI, and that will only fuel more fear of their kind among organics.

All in all, it does not bode well for the future. Let's be real here: organics' track-record with synthetics in this alternative-universe is NOT good! Anyone who says otherwise is projecting their own attitudes onto them. Without checking that fear, we're bound to make/repeat mistakes we've made before with synthetics. Unless, of course, we avoid building them altogether. That's even worse, we gain nothing and lose all the benefits in their help. And again, it's shortsighted and foolish to believe the Reapers are the end of our problems. An enemy does not need to be as numerous and powerful as the Reapers to be a galactic menace. We've seen it first-hand: Collectors (a fraction as powerful of the Reapers), krogan, rachni (Leviathan possibly the culprit, and they're still out there), Cerberus, rogue Spectre w/ an army, Leviathan-era synthetics. Save for the last, none of those things are hard to duplicate.

Again, let's just take this 'Clone. How much did Shepard rely on EDI and Glyph to stop it? What if he surfaced after the war, with all AI dead? This thing probably goes very differently: the Spectres have a new member in their ranks that makes Saren look downright peachy. Now imagine if Leviathan gets his number...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Ashley/Kaidan for Shepard, the other five squadmates, the crew of the Normandy, a Salarian STG squad, and the success of the mission.

EDI, the Geth, the Alliance Infiltration Units, and likely some other synthetic life, for the Humans, Asari, Salarians, Turians, Krogan, Quarians, Drell, Batarians, Rachni, Volus, Elcor, Hanar, Vorcha, the last Prothean, likely some other organic life, and the success of the mission.

It is a valid comparison.

So it's scale, you say?

I can accept that. Except for one thing. Big thing.

You're not accounting for two options that exist allowing all allied forces to survive the war. Virmire had no such options.

[DirtyPhoenix]

KwangtungTiger wrote....

 If your a fanboy of control thats cool and all.......But keep your ignorant generalizations of people choosing destroy to yourself. Or atleast provide proof before spewing your ignorance.

You know if you read his post properly, you'd find that he didn't say every destroyer chooses that so his/her Shepard might live, but his statement was aimed at only those destroyers who do that. There's a difference!

[CronoDragoon]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I should make it clear, again, since it seems this point is being misunderstood: I have no issue with Destroy on a moral-level. I get it, "collateral damage," I can live with that. What I don't like is this: it sets us back. We made progress to overcome social issues between organics and synthetics, but that gets wiped clean. Then you have the war, putting the whole galaxy through a bad experience with AI, and that will only fuel more fear of their kind among organics.

Whether or not Destroy "sets us back" it at least reaffirms - at least from my Shepard's point a view - a willingness to believe that differences can be respected. Synthesis denies this belief in the process of diplomacy, and instead forces a change on everyone to fix the issue. Now, perhaps that will indeed lead to a better future, but it's also the equivalent of a parent watching two kids fight over a sandwich, then eventually giving up and just buying a crapload more sandwiches to solve the issue. Sure, everyone is better off, but nothing has been learned, no deeper nature explored, and ultimately telling the story about the conflict is pointless.

From my Shepard's PoV of course. I'm not trying to say people don't have good reasons to choose Synthesis.

[Wayning_Star]

the DLC to me seemed to try and reinvent the story through association with the varied personalities, but gave little to that actual story it's self. OOOhy Ghooowy stuff..almost to the point of daytime drama/soap's.

The clwone thing cracked my immersion totally... lost me to the game and it's connection to that story.

Omega, I understood as taking back that place and whipping another Cerberus baddie. Other DLC's adds some contextuals, but Citadel led me to believe it were about "The Citadel" and it's innerds, to find it were a clwoned mimic of the entire game, seemed even more cynical, even IF not intended.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Whether or not Destroy "sets us back" it at least reaffirms - at least from my Shepard's point a view - a willingness to believe that differences can be respected. Synthesis denies this belief in the process of diplomacy, and instead forces a change on everyone to fix the issue. Now, perhaps that will indeed lead to a better future, but it's also the equivalent of a parent watching two kids fight over a sandwich, then eventually giving up and just buying a crapload more sandwiches to solve the issue. Sure, everyone is better off, but nothing has been learned, no deeper nature explored, and ultimately telling the story about the conflict is pointless. From my Shepard's PoV of course. I'm not trying to say people don't have good reasons to choose Synthesis.

My understanding of Synthesis was that it worked by making the learning process easier for all sides.

Organics, aside from not having "hardware limitations" as before, are otherwise the same.

I do see how that can be discomforting. That said, it's not something I'd cry over. Like... losing obseity-related genes.

[LtBashkar]

Meh.

I pick based on whichever character I'm playing.

I can't see how my paragon Shepard could choose Destroy (annihilation of a fully sentient, unique race + Reapers are totally gone) over Synthesis (symbiosis of tech and flesh, everyone survives, can reap the benefits of advancement).

There's no mind control aspect, no 'synthesis = reaper abominations' or everyone giving in to indoctrination in Synthesis nor is there the Geth surviving in Destroy unless you viciously headcanon.

Making everyone glow green and changing their existence overall for the better while having access to cycles worth of knowledge sure beats wiping out a race just to kill the Reapers and gain no other benefit.

[CronoDragoon]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

My understanding of Synthesis was that it worked by making the learning process easier for all sides.

Organics, aside from not having "hardware limitations" as before, are otherwise the same.

I do see how that can be discomforting. That said, it's not something I'd cry over. Like... losing obseity-related genes.

How I understand it: Synthetics can now understand organic thought processes better, and organics don't have to rely (as much?) on synthetics anymore for advancement of technology.

Here is what I want: I want interactions like those between Shepard and Legion, where organics and synthetics learn to respect each other on their own, without the hand of god erasing the cause of the difference.

You'll notice this is mostly a meta-complaint in that I'm essentially discerning what I consider to be a meaningful end to the Mass Effect story. To me, Synthesis precludes a meaningful end because what I wanted was two kids learning to split a sandwich, not being saved from punching each other by a bunch more sandwiches coming their way.

YMMV.

[Wayning_Star]

did nature "choose" by invoking some call 'evolution' in relation to intellect?
as far as the OP is concerned the DLC didn't pose any new questions or answers to canon, but did "seem" to reassure by way of acquaintance, the "idea" of comradery as canon of sorts. But, that leaves for speculation of/on synthesis, as if there is NO friends if nature of those associations are forced through nature and it's effect on intellect through evolution. IN other words, are friends forced to choose who's qualified as a 'friend' and what that might be decisional in regard to their destruction, with 'survival' being the motivation.

 Ralph Waldo Emerson: 'The only way to have a friend is to be one.'

[TNT1991]

Eterna5 wrote...

And frankly, the people who choose Destroy just so they can live... what kind of hero are you?

 

Who said my Shepard was a hero? She's a  partier! Booyah! 

 

Modifié par TNT1991, 18 mars 2013 - 05:59 .

[tg0618]

I pick destroy because to me it's the best one that completes the mission. Destroy is the only choice that ensures the Reapers are gone forever.

Control: they are controled (obviously) by a Shepard VI or AI, whose to say VI Shep won't get a virus or evenually come to the same conclusion as the catalyst? Or any number of things that could cause the Reapers to come back and "harvest" again.

Synthesis: the Reapers are still there, and what's to stop them from still attacking, do they still lack free will? If so, since we are "all the same" now won't we? Do they get their free will? If so what's to stop them from deciding to conquer the galaxy?

Destroy: while yes, Edi and the Geth die The Reapers are gone. Period. They won't ever be back. You don't have to worry about the threat of the Reapers ever again.

These are just what I think. Others have there own opinions and that's fine I'm not discrediting theirs just saying my rational behind why I pick destroy

[Wayning_Star]

everyone seems to 'trust' the catalyst while not trusting the catalyst to destroy that what they cannot trust to end the reaper threat?

do the math?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Tony0618 wrote...

Synthesis: the Reapers are still there, and what's to stop them from still attacking, do they still lack free will? If so, since we are "all the same" now won't we? Do they get their free will? If so what's to stop them from deciding to conquer the galaxy?

Assumes human reaction! [/Mordin]

The Reapers have no motive to conquer us.

(I'll let other Controllers tackle your Control analysis).

[Hadeedak]

"The image that keeps coming out of [their] songs is tragic; the figure of the lonely fighter in a hopeless place who goes down without a flare of regret. A haunting loneliness is the profoundest note, as at the heart of fierce exultation there was a deep sense of loss, of nothing more in a shifting world." Jack Lindsay on the Saxons.

I grew up on too many of those, so I happen to be particularly biased towards that sort of hero. And that's why I'm a control freak. Shepard goes down trying to save the world she loves, alone and in pain. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. (I happen to think it does.) But she's trying her best, and she dies doing it. What's born from her sacrifice is something new, and something different, something neither Catalyst nor Shepard.

And no, I don't think it will get a virus and go BLARGH DESTROY ALL HUMANS one day.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 18 mars 2013 - 06:30 .

[Rommel49]

Modius Prime wrote...

I choose destroy because it is the most consistent with Shepard's beliefs. The fact that you can survive in the end did not have a strong affect on my decision to destroy all synthetics. Since ME1, you wanted to destroy the Reapers, and during war, you can't save everyone--even if that is EDI and the Geth we're talking about. EDI willingly says that she will die for Joker if it means his safety, so I think it is safe to choose destroy. I loved EDI and the Geth and I blame bad writing. I mean why would the Geth build a machine that would kill them? I feel like the Crucible should have only targeted the Reapers if you had high EMS. It is very intact, unlike the scene where it is damaged with low EMS. Also, destroy leaves the galaxy the least changed by the effect of the Crucible, unlike control and synthesis which I believe go completely 360 on Shepard's beliefs. I really don't know how they are going to make a new game if they don't cannon destroy (it would be 4 different games, presuming it is a sequal). Shepard isn't a god and he doesn't have the right to act like one like he does in control, or change the galaxy forever with synthesis. If you are paragon, Shepard consistently refers himself as just an ordinary soldier, not some Alliance/Council hot-shot. The themes of Mass Effect have shown that synthetics and organics can cooperate peacefully!

Citadel DLC did not change my decision about picking destroy. If anything, it prevented me from picking any of the other decisions because I didn't want Shepard to die on the LI (I know, selfish right? But I'm human). The end was just too sad for me to die on Kaidan again, especially when Farewell and Into The Inevitable played. Bioware played with my heart strings ;(

Ditto. I picked Destroy because it's the only option that affirms that organics can "self-determinate" as Legion puts it. Because it's the only ending in which the Reapers are actually gone. At the time, I figured every option ended in death.

Do I hate the fact that destroying the Reapers also kills EDI and the Geth? You bet. I still saw it as the best option. To paraphrase Anderson himself on the matter, there's a balancing act - knowing when to sacrifice soldiers for the sake of the mission. The mission was to destroy the Reapers; Hackett shoots down any other option: "Dead Reapers is how we win this".

Control and Synthesis? Both basically require you to concede that organic life does actually need the Reapers to get by. To hell with that noise.

The fact that I can potentially survive Destroy when there's people that care about me and want to see me again? That was an unforseen bonus. To quote Patton: "Nobody wins a war by dying for their country, you win it by making the other poor, dumb SOB die for his country".

Modifié par Rommel49, 18 mars 2013 - 06:34 .

[Eterna]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The Citadel strengthened my conviction to Control. My Shepard sacrifices herself to protect them forevermore. If I choose Destroy I kill some of my friends to accomplish a temporary fix just so I can live, I cannot do that.

And frankly, the people who choose Destroy just so they can live... what kind of hero are you?

 This is so full of moronic thinking I hardly know where to begin.......

.......Destroy was the most popular choice well before it was meta-gamed (Shepard living)

........And how does control STOP the chaos again?Wait.....It doesn't. It only helps to stop potential uprisings. The conflict between synthetics and organics can/will continue.

 If your a fanboy of control thats cool and all.......But keep your ignorant generalizations of people choosing destroy to yourself. Or atleast provide proof before spewing your ignorance.

You do of course realize that the whole entire purpose of this thread is contesting that Destroy is the more appealing choice because you live? Did you even read the OP?

Also, Control doesn't need to stop the conflict because the galaxy gets a safety net. In Destroy your left with nothing. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 18 mars 2013 - 06:39 .

[Eterna]

Tony0618 wrote... 

Control: they are controled (obviously) by a Shepard VI or AI, whose to say VI Shep won't get a virus or evenually come to the same conclusion as the catalyst? Or any number of things that could cause the Reapers to come back and "harvest" again.

A virus? Lol, how on earth would it get a virus? it is not like it's hooked up to the extranet. Also, the new Catalyst is a synthetic representation of your Shepard, As far as I know, all Shepards view the cycle as disgusting and wrong, thus so does the new Catalyst.  

[Bio90]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Tony0618 wrote...

Synthesis: the Reapers are still there, and what's to stop them from still attacking, do they still lack free will? If so, since we are "all the same" now won't we? Do they get their free will? If so what's to stop them from deciding to conquer the galaxy?

Assumes human reaction! [/Mordin]

The Reapers have no motive to conquer us.

(I'll let other Controllers tackle your Control analysis).

But who's to say that the reapers won't develope a motive? They are more clearly the supprior force in the galaxy. What's would happen if they realised this after the merge since they would be self aware as an organic would? Looking at humans in real life, what has happened when a group has supprior power? They try to control and dominate. Who's to say this wouldn't happen with the reapers.
I'm not trying to bash on the synthetic or control, just trying to see what makes others drawn to them since I have only beaten the game once with destroy and just about to finish again to see the others.

[Rommel49]

Eterna5 wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The Citadel strengthened my conviction to Control. My Shepard sacrifices herself to protect them forevermore. If I choose Destroy I kill some of my friends to accomplish a temporary fix just so I can live, I cannot do that.

And frankly, the people who choose Destroy just so they can live... what kind of hero are you?

 This is so full of moronic thinking I hardly know where to begin.......

.......Destroy was the most popular choice well before it was meta-gamed (Shepard living)

........And how does control STOP the chaos again?Wait.....It doesn't. It only helps to stop potential uprisings. The conflict between synthetics and organics can/will continue.

 If your a fanboy of control thats cool and all.......But keep your ignorant generalizations of people choosing destroy to yourself. Or atleast provide proof before spewing your ignorance.

You do of course realize that the whole entire purpose of this thread is contesting that Destroy is the more appealing choice because you live? Did you even read the OP?

Also, Control doesn't need to stop the conflict because the galaxy gets a safety net. In Destroy your left with nothing. 

Control doesn't leave you with a safety net, simply because the Reapers are still around. Destroy's the only option with a real safety net, because it's the only one in which the Reapers actually end up dead.

Shepard only concluded the cycles were wrong when he was organic; that Shepard is gone in the Control ending. Incidentally, organic-Shep was informed of his beliefs, etc. by friends, colleagues, etc. for all practical purposes he loses all of those in Control too. The Catalyst makes no bones about this when he says that you can remember them, but you'll always be isolated from them.

That last point is one of the most critical. The only intelligent creatures Catalyst-Shep would be able to theoretically communicate with are Reapers. Anyone you potentially cared about, everyone you knew? Best you can do is watch them all die off of old age, then watch their remains crumble to dust over the next few million years. It's something right out "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" from the AI's POV; if that didn't drive anyone who experienced it nuts, it's only because they'd already gone cuckoo for cocoa puffs beforehand.

[BleedingUranium]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Ashley/Kaidan for Shepard, the other five squadmates, the crew of the Normandy, a Salarian STG squad, and the success of the mission.

EDI, the Geth, the Alliance Infiltration Units, and likely some other synthetic life, for the Humans, Asari, Salarians, Turians, Krogan, Quarians, Drell, Batarians, Rachni, Volus, Elcor, Hanar, Vorcha, the last Prothean, likely some other organic life, and the success of the mission.

It is a valid comparison.

So it's scale, you say?

I can accept that. Except for one thing. Big thing.

You're not accounting for two options that exist allowing all allied forces to survive the war. Virmire had no such options.

Not available to the player, no. The other choices would be to use the facility to study indoctrination and make an army of Krogan clones for yourself, or to join Saren when he offers at the encounter at the end of the mission. I'd still nuke it.

Many situations can be looked at with a theoretical Destroy/Control/Synthesis choice, even if all the options aren't given to the player. The vast majority of them, Shepard picks the Destroy-equivalent with no choice given to the player, Arrival is a good example. One of the few were the player actually has the choice is the Collector Base, which is obviously Destroy/Control. Geth Heretics is also Destroy/Control.

Plenty of Synthesis-equivalent desicions can be found, but the player is never allowed to pick them until the end of ME3. Most obviously working with the Reapers to further their goals.