120 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

It can be both. There's no good reason to believe that the outcome of refusal will be good, so its basically giving up on the galaxy for principle's sake.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 décembre 2013 - 04:28 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

That's partly why I do it.

I also think of it as a way of rejecting StarKid's nonsense.

[CDTheBookMan]

Really, when you look at it, the endings could not have been different. The whole game is based on choice. That's what Mass Effect is about: Save the Rachni - destroy them. Save the colonists on Feros - kill them. Even helping Tali during her loyalty mission compounded you with choice. Renegade/Paragon, it all built your character up to that one final choice: Would you destroy or control or synthesize with the Reapers? After all you've done, which would you take. I always go with destroy since Shepard survives, or awakens from Indoctrinated dream sequence, and after all, it's what you've fought for the whole trilogy. People were angry because it wasn't what they expected. I personally thought the Citadel would become a giant Hades laser cannon similar to the turret sequences thrown in throughout the game. Then I thought Shepard would return to his/her romantic interest and they'd live happily ever after. Of course, I'm a hopeless romantic that was probably born 2 centuries too late, but that's what I figured. Either way, the ending is what the three games more or less prepared Shepard's character for and, I feel, works perfectly fine.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 To me...

Destroy = romanticism.
Control = compromise.
Synthesis = progressivism.
Refuse = incompetance.

Hmm, interesting. I think I see where you're coming from for the colored choices but how do you see Refusal as 'incompetance'? Personally I always saw it as idealistic.

I've seen some people Refuse not for moral reasons, but thinking the options are not valid simply because Starchild informs us of them, so it's "only" logical to sit on your hands instead and doing otherwise is just player meta-gaming.

[Cainhurst Crow]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

But what does that entail?

I belive that entails that destroy is a chaotic anarchic path with the most freedom, control is a rigid and ordered path with the least freedom, and synthesis is the middle ground of freedom and security, but is also giving up portions of both equally.

None are really better than the other because each asks for upholding of an ideal at the cost of the others. It's up to you, the player or your shepard, what ideal they would uphold the most.

There isn't a "this option is the best everyone else is a retard" type ending, which this fanbase seems desperatly to want.

*sighs* So nostalgic, to see my posts full of passion for a bioware product. How things have changed.

Well, I liked your old post. Perhaps you should try to summon that passion again?

Honestly looking back, the above is an over-analysis at best. Its clear to me now, like studying why the shining has the type of carpeting it does in this shot or that scene, that studying the endings is a practice of nitpicky obssessive compulsive disorder. They are bad, they are poorly thought out, and they require a lot of mental gymnastics and the excuse that symbolism trumphs quality in order to work.

When bioware actually gives me information on their next mass effect game, I will see if I feel optomistic. Until then, no such luck I am afraid.

[Br3admax]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Destroy=Logos, what does my sense of logic want me to do(in my opinion best)?
Control=Ethos, what do my ethics want me to do?
Synthesis=Pathos, what does my empathy tell me to do?

Some people think the Reapers must be destroyed because of "justice" and "revenge". That's not Logos. I think Logos could be attached to Control because you want to preserve the galactic infrastructure, which is good for everybody. Destroy breaks the infrastructure and implies a sense of "damn the consequences".

This is about the arguments for each ending, not the connotations that people want to put on them, themselves, which can never be bound to what one thinks. I for one, do not think that control is in the best interest of anyone, nor does it perserve anything but the Reaper Patrol Squad. Destroy actually perserves the status quo, a lot more than Control does. 

[sr2josh]

 Stop trying to indoctrinate me Starbrat!

[wizardryforever]

Br3ad wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Destroy=Logos, what does my sense of logic want me to do(in my opinion best)?
Control=Ethos, what do my ethics want me to do?
Synthesis=Pathos, what does my empathy tell me to do?

Some people think the Reapers must be destroyed because of "justice" and "revenge". That's not Logos. I think Logos could be attached to Control because you want to preserve the galactic infrastructure, which is good for everybody. Destroy breaks the infrastructure and implies a sense of "damn the consequences".

This is about the arguments for each ending, not the connotations that people want to put on them, themselves, which can never be bound to what one thinks. I for one, do not think that control is in the best interest of anyone, nor does it perserve anything but the Reaper Patrol Squad. Destroy actually perserves the status quo, a lot more than Control does. 

Well it does preserve the relays and all currently existing synthetic life, along with the "Reaper Patrol Squad."  Destroy preserves nothing as far as I'm concerned.  Everything about the galaxy's way of life is thrown away in destroy, at least until it can be re-established after presumably decades of chaos.  The relays are gone, along with anyone who might be able to repair them in a timely fashion, Reaper tech is now lying around for anyone to take, all synthetics are dead and gone. 

[69_Gio_69]

 No OP, 

Destroy = Chaos = Free will = Humanity
Control = Order = No free will = Husks
Synthesis = Order = No free will = Husks

The point is that every time a human synthesised with a machine, the machine eventually dominated the human part. Machines and humans (in the ME world) can't exist. What is possible though is some kind of democracy, as can be seen with the Geth and Quarians. But that, for the Reapers, isn't a viable option. 

[sr2josh]

Modifié par Makai81, 20 décembre 2013 - 12:54 .

[sr2josh]

wizardryforever wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Destroy=Logos, what does my sense of logic want me to do(in my opinion best)?
Control=Ethos, what do my ethics want me to do?
Synthesis=Pathos, what does my empathy tell me to do?

Some people think the Reapers must be destroyed because of "justice" and "revenge". That's not Logos. I think Logos could be attached to Control because you want to preserve the galactic infrastructure, which is good for everybody. Destroy breaks the infrastructure and implies a sense of "damn the consequences".

This is about the arguments for each ending, not the connotations that people want to put on them, themselves, which can never be bound to what one thinks. I for one, do not think that control is in the best interest of anyone, nor does it perserve anything but the Reaper Patrol Squad. Destroy actually perserves the status quo, a lot more than Control does. 

Well it does preserve the relays and all currently existing synthetic life, along with the "Reaper Patrol Squad."  Destroy preserves nothing as far as I'm concerned.  Everything about the galaxy's way of life is thrown away in destroy, at least until it can be re-established after presumably decades of chaos.  The relays are gone, along with anyone who might be able to repair them in a timely fashion, Reaper tech is now lying around for anyone to take, all synthetics are dead and gone. 

The Mass Relays and the Reapers themselves caused more chaos than Destroy ever could.  The galaxy had a constant turnover of civilizations that never got the chance to evolve past conflict with each other and learning to use AI technology responsibly.  Destroy ends that and gives galactic civilization freedom for the first time in millions of years.

[KaiserShep]

wizardryforever wrote...
Well it does preserve the relays and all currently existing synthetic life, along with the "Reaper Patrol Squad."  Destroy preserves nothing as far as I'm concerned.  Everything about the galaxy's way of life is thrown away in destroy, at least until it can be re-established after presumably decades of chaos.  The relays are gone, along with anyone who might be able to repair them in a timely fashion, Reaper tech is now lying around for anyone to take, all synthetics are dead and gone. 

To say that "everything about the galaxy's way of life is thrown away in destroy" is no different from anti-Synthesis people claiming that choosing synthesis turns everyone into a reaper. The epilogue clearly disproves this assertion, as people move on and rebuild just fine without living in the ever-present shadow of the reapers. As for the relays, that was pretty much retcon'd away anyway. The Citadel, being made of the same material as the relays, and is also a mass relay itself, is seen restored at some point over Earth.

I don't see the problem with people reaping (heh) the benefits of salvaging the remains of the reapers for their most valuable parts like power sources, etc., that is, unless you're suggesting that it's still somehow capable of indoctrinating people.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Anyone who chooses Principles over Goals is an idiot in my opinion.

[CroGamer002]

How in the world is Synthesis balance?

[Michotic]

It's...between the two other options? And the Citadel doesn't keel to one side?

[Navasha]

For me its:
Destroy = Freedom/Realism
Control = Oppression
Synthesis = Indoctrination/Servitude

I think you can tell which one I favor.

[Michotic]

At first, that's how I saw Synthesis. Now I just see it as pointless. It doesn't do anything to resolve any conflicts. It does make synthetics 'alive' in a sense, but that feels like a cop-out. Only organic races can truly be alive. If you aren't organic, then you're nothing. I like EDI's personal journey to discover what it means to be alive. Being given life by a green beam of energy isn't really that impressive.

[ImaginaryMatter]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Anyone who chooses Principles over Goals is an idiot in my opinion.

Ouch.

Although what if Principles are the Goal? That's kinda why I play games.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 20 décembre 2013 - 03:45 .

[wizardryforever]

KaiserShep wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
Well it does preserve the relays and all currently existing synthetic life, along with the "Reaper Patrol Squad."  Destroy preserves nothing as far as I'm concerned.  Everything about the galaxy's way of life is thrown away in destroy, at least until it can be re-established after presumably decades of chaos.  The relays are gone, along with anyone who might be able to repair them in a timely fashion, Reaper tech is now lying around for anyone to take, all synthetics are dead and gone. 

To say that "everything about the galaxy's way of life is thrown away in destroy" is no different from anti-Synthesis people claiming that choosing synthesis turns everyone into a reaper. The epilogue clearly disproves this assertion, as people move on and rebuild just fine without living in the ever-present shadow of the reapers. As for the relays, that was pretty much retcon'd away anyway. The Citadel, being made of the same material as the relays, and is also a mass relay itself, is seen restored at some point over Earth.

I was under the impression that the epilogue for destroy was the only one that showed the Citadel being permanently destroyed over Earth.  And even if it is repaired, it is most definitely not a quick process.  Ditto with the relays.  They are disabled (as good as destroyed, since no one alive at that point understands them enough to repair them), rendering long range FTL impossible with current technology.  This severely limits the effective range of ships, now taking years what would have only taken days before.  And people choose this with the intention of "finding your own path?"  That's a nice sentiment, but I fail to see the point in destroying it when you can simply use what you already have.  Don't fix it if it's not broken.  The only problem is the Reapers, not the Citadel, relays, or other synthetics currently living.  Destroy is well named, considering how indiscriminate the destruction of the galaxy's infrastructure is.  Like I said before, decades of chaos at least.

I don't see the problem with people reaping (heh) the benefits of salvaging the remains of the reapers for their most valuable parts like power sources, etc., that is, unless you're suggesting that it's still somehow capable of indoctrinating people.

Doesn't this kind of contradict the whole "We can advance on our own now!" ideal that people spout?  If using Reaper tech is okay, then what exactly is wrong with a Paragon version of Control, or even Synthesis?

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

Doesn't this kind of contradict the whole "We can advance on our own now!" ideal that people spout?  If using Reaper tech is okay, then what exactly is wrong with a Paragon version of Control, or even Synthesis?

It is a path frought with danger, but in Destroy, at least they will elarn to master the technology.

In Control, the technology masters them.

And Synthesis, they become the technology, whether they will it or no.

[JasonShepard]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Anyone who chooses Principles over Goals is an idiot in my opinion.

Depends on the Principles and Goals in question. I prefer to analyse each situation separately, since no two situations are ever the same.