108 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

Everyone seems to have their own takeaway from the DLC. Destroy was already my canon ending. Personally, I think if someone chooses Destroy solely because it gives Shepard a shot at survival, they're doing it for the wrong reasons. With that established, the DLC does reinforce the idea that there is a life waiting for Shepard after the war if you do make that choice.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 18 mars 2013 - 03:28 .

[Han Shot First]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Everyone seems to have their own takeaway from the DLC. Destroy was already my canon ending. Personally, I think if someone chooses Destroy solely because it gives Shepard a shot at survival, they're doing it for the wrong reasons. With that established, the DLC does reinforce the idea that there is a life waiting for Shepard after the war if you do make that choice.

I agree with that. It is also metagaming.

I had Shepard choose Destroy because it is the only ending that annihilates the Reapers. It is the only ending that can truly guarantee (from Shepard's POV, not the players) that the continued survival of galactic civilization will no longer be threatened by the Reapers. As such I see it as the only ending that truly accomplishes Shepard's mission, while Synthesis and Control are stalemate endings that kick the can down the road.

I'd have chosen Destroy even if it was the only ending where Shepard dies. That Shepard could survive High EMS Destroy was a great bonus, but Shepard's survival was never as important as the fate of galactic civilization.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 18 mars 2013 - 03:35 .

[Delacruz]

Han Shot First wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Everyone seems to have their own takeaway from the DLC. Destroy was already my canon ending. Personally, I think if someone chooses Destroy solely because it gives Shepard a shot at survival, they're doing it for the wrong reasons. With that established, the DLC does reinforce the idea that there is a life waiting for Shepard after the war if you do make that choice.

I agree with that. It is also metagaming.

I had Shepard choose Destroy because it is the only ending that annihilates the Reapers. It is the only ending that can truly guarantee (from Shepard's POV, not the players) that the continued survival of galactic civilization will no longer be threatened by the Reapers. As such I see it as the only ending that truly accomplishes Shepard's mission, while Synthesis and Control are stalemate endings that kick the can down the road.

I'd have chosen Destroy even if it was the only ending where Shepard dies. That Shepard could survive High EMS Destroy was a great bonus, but Shepard's survival was never as important as the fate of galactic civilization.

Comepletly agree. I chose destroy first time i finished ME3 and have done so every single time since. And yes i do like the geth and i'm sad that they have to be sacrificed to destroy the reapers but thats the reality of war.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

CronoDragoon wrote...

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.

(... I somehow missed this response last time).

I agree that in a perfect world, we'd get something more like this what you've described (or something more like the last link in my sig).

But, this is not a perfect world, so I go with the next best thing.

Bio90 wrote...

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?

I am to say it.

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.

Again, we cue in Mordin: "Assumes human reaction!"

Humans are motivated by factors that need not apply to Reapers. The Reapers have no material needs and their individual civilizations are confined to a synthetic shell forever. I'd say that about sums it up for any potential "ambitions."

BleedingUranium wrote...

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,

And I would take that option!

or to join Saren when he offers at the encounter at the end of the mission. I'd still nuke it.

Eh, we need not contrive a third choice. Two are fine. As you said, sometimes we only have two choices, or no choice.

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.

I wouldn't qualify a handful of decisions as "vast majority."

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.

If it can't be picked, it's not a "decision" now is it?

And that's false. Rannoch peace outcome fits the bill for a Synthesis-equivalent decision, as well as also having a pro-organic and pro-synthetic choice to accompany them.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

OP: You might have a point if Shepard had some reliable source of exposition on the Crucible's function - but since he does not it is ultimately irrelevant and Citadel changes nothing. It all comes down to "Do I believe the head reaper that not killing the reapers is a good idea moments after shooting the last guy they tricked into believing the exact same thing"

I have true hate for this argument, I tell you. TRUE HATE!!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 18 mars 2013 - 06:59 .

[Rommel49]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@Tony

The Reapers are all slaves to a control program. With Synthesis, you are satisfying the goals of the control program (the Catalyst tells you that itself). Thus, the Reapers will finally have achieved freedom. What each Reaper then chooses to do is their business. And it appears that, according to the Synthesis ending, the Reapers have chosen to help.

With the Reapers now having free will, bodies could be created for the peoples stored within the Reaper consensuses, too. So those civilisations could be slowly restored over time. Given that possibility I see no reason why most of them would choose to attack. Sure, you might have one or two bad Reapers, but I think that the majority consensus of each Reaper is going to be rebuilding their bodies, and rebuilding their civilisations.

This is also why I don't like Destroy. It's putting a bullet in the head of a slave, when their only crime was that they were being mind-controlled. My compassion is too great, my sympathy too understanding, and my sense of ethics is too refined to do so. For a military jarhead, I suppose pulling the trigger on a bunch of innocent people is acceptable. But for me it is not.

The issue being, that it assumes the Reapers were actually "innocent", just because they were forced to obey the Catalyst doesn't mean they didn't agree with it. They could've learned to enjoy it. Given the stakes, it's not a risk any sane person should take.

"I was just following orders" wasn't a defense at Nuremburg, despite the fact that refusing to follow orders in the German military at the time typically ended up with that poor shmuck on the opposite end of the firing squad.

Hell, arguably Destroy could be the most humane option for the Reapers themselves. It lets whatever civilization of people that were liquified alive and screaming to make them finally rest in peace. In Control, they remain enslaved.

[Xilizhra]

Hell, arguably Destroy could be the most humane option for the Reapers themselves. It lets whatever civilization of people that were liquified alive and screaming to make them finally rest in peace. In Control, they remain enslaved.

I plan on releasing the ones I determine are sufficiently stable to be released.

[Bio90]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Bio90 wrote...

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?

I am to say it.

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.

Again, we cue in Mordin: "Assumes human reaction!"

Humans are motivated by factors that need not apply to Reapers. The Reapers have no material needs and their individual civilizations are confined to a synthetic shell forever. I'd say that about sums it up for any potential "ambitions."

<_<...

back to what you were saying before...
It isn't an exclusive human thing, it's organics in general that seem to want to always have dominance over another. Animals have been known to show this.The Reapers are self aware as any organic, have the most powerful weapons, have a lot of knowledge of the preivous cycles, and your saying that they wouldn't figure that they could rule over all others as time progressed? "Ambition" wouldn't be part of it. Since they are partialy still synthetic, they may find flaws or things counter perductive to the flow of the new hybrids. Then maybe a new cycle would start but to eliminate the inferrior hybrids compared to the old cycle of the superior beings getting assimilated and becoming extinct.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Bio90 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Bio90 wrote...

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?

I am to say it.

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.

Again, we cue in Mordin: "Assumes human reaction!"

Humans are motivated by factors that need not apply to Reapers. The Reapers have no material needs and their individual civilizations are confined to a synthetic shell forever. I'd say that about sums it up for any potential "ambitions."

<_<...

back to what you were saying before...
It isn't an exclusive human thing, it's organics in general that seem to want to always have dominance over another. Animals have been known to show this.The Reapers are self aware as any organic, have the most powerful weapons, have a lot of knowledge of the preivous cycles, and your saying that they wouldn't figure that they could rule over all others as time progressed?

There's no question they could rule, the question is: why would they want to? What do they get from it?

Again, being a Reaper knocks out a lot of big potential motives: material wants, racial biases.

"Ambition" wouldn't be part of it. Since they are partialy still synthetic, they may find flaws or things counter perductive to the flow of the new hybrids. Then maybe a new cycle would start but to eliminate the inferrior hybrids compared to the old cycle of the superior beings getting assimilated and becoming extinct.

Or maybe they can work out that hypothetical issue without violence, but with cooperation?

I mean, that was the kind of point, to help these sorts of conflicts non-violently.

Especially if both sides have achieved better understanding, they should understand that the cycles sucked for the victims.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.

I wouldn't qualify a handful of decisions as "vast majority."

Oh and BTW, 'just thought of something: you can pencil in the Geth Consensus as a Synthesis-equivalent Only mission.