102 réponses à ce sujet

[Phatose]

No, I still choose Synthesis. For me, It's always been about what's best for the Galaxy as a whole.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

You didn't word your poll very well.

Assuming that a Refuse/Conventional victory is now possible, I'd pick that.

Otherwise, I'd stick with Destroy. Canonically, I wrote my own ending.

I don't believe that condemning the galaxy to an ultimate existence of being perpetually under the Reapers thumb in control is a desirable thing, especially with an AI involved that could eventually lose compassion or care for those it "protects". I can't believe in Control in being anything as a police state, and I certainly don't believe in the Reapers to maintain that peace or the Shepalyst's long term integrity. I also fundamentally disagree with the logic and motive of the current Catalyst. I'd be controlling for the wrong reason. And yes, I would rather destroy the Reapers than control them.

Why Synthesis is bad:

How it's presented: You ascend a beam into a room openly exposed to vacuum and meet a strange glowing child who is the creator of the machines that are hellbent on annihilating galactic civilization every 50,000 years. He doesn't say much at all, yet you are inexplicably compelled to listen to him and accept his idea's that the cycle, or one of it's presented equivalents are necessary so that you can solve a minor plot theme that was already solved 4 main missions ago, and that a choice that requires your death will somehow alter the fabric of all existing life to make the cycle irrelevant because life has been fundamentally changed forever.

The lore, or 'science' (and lack of it I mean) behind it: "Essence of who you are"? Sounds like vitalism, a theme of mysticism, which is basically superstitious belief in inanimate objects. "New DNA"? How does that even work? Most aliens have a different form of DNA from humans. All synthetics don't even have DNA. How does a big, green energy wave cause everyone, every living thing for that matter, to become a cyborg? How is this carried out across space and time in the galaxy? How can it be the final evolution of all life? Isn't that non-sensical since evolution is not equated to perfection but to mutation and adaptation to changing environments?

Who the presenter of it is: The Reapers, the main enemy throughout the entire trilogy who have been consistently shown to be ired by the mere existence of other beings to the point they feel the need to annihilate them, and how they are known to control and manipulate other beings through indoctrination. Why should I start listening to them (especially their creator) now? Haven't they always tried to kill me or manipulate me into doing their bidding before?(protip: using the antagonist as the mouthpiece to present all the final ending options is a narrative no-no). Even if the Catalyst believes in it's own mission and logic, I don't. I see it as an AI tasked to solve an impossible problem (the nature of the problem is logically at fault) stipulated on faulty logic written by an organic (thus faulty being) and given the ordered logic to enforce its cycle without empathy or remorse. I'm fundamentally opposed to the Catalyst on these grounds.

Why it's being presented: The belief that order vs chaos, or organics and synthetics will fundamentally destroy each other in every circumstance, which I don't believe in. Synthesis may well be possible in the future, but if it's going to be induced, it needs to be for more than a reason to end an infinite cycle of destruction that was started to prevent another infinite cycle of destruction. More like a desire to experience and be more than just a human. The baseline concepts to it is pretty much in line with transhumanism. Transhumanism is a real thing, and it's actually where the technological evolution that we've created and are overseeing today will eventually take us.

What the implications of it are: Shepard's non-sensical and contrived death, forcing it on a galaxy without knowledge or consent, how it somehow gives synthetics understanding to an organic. The implications to Synthesis shouldn't be any of these. They should be a voluntary upgrade if you will, and as an outcome of the evolution of technology via the increasing capabilities of all species. And it really only needs to apply to organics. Ieldra said earlier that the implication of it is also to raise the level of organics to a level of comparison to synthetics so that they aren't left in the dust and thus destroyed in a future conflict. Yet that's not how synthesis is explained. It's explained to be the final evolution of all life everywhere and that everything is somehow better through uniformity. Organics and synthetics will no longer kill each other, for reasons that are not elaborated upon by the developers.

The sheer lack of understanding of the concept on the part of the developers: "But there's no more distinction to life anymore. It's all just life!" - Michael Gamble, everyone.

Plus the sheer lack of information that BW has released on it. It's eminently clear to me that the writers behind Synthesis really had no idea what they were going for, besides trying to assuage Casey Hudson's ego and trying to create an idea that was "deep" and "out there". If they had even half the base knowledge of the actual concept, then it would have been carried out in a way similar to the science that Ieldra has come up with. I still wouldn't pick it since I don't agree with it (presentation by the Reapers bit), but I wouldn't be constantly deriding it as complete bull**** or space magic.


So yeah. Destroy is good, minus forced Geth death and relay destruction. And I will admit: I want a happy ending for Shepard. That is a factor into why I choose Destroy.
Morally opposed to Control.
Morally, logically, and physically repulsed by Synthesis.
Refuse is ideal of the situations presented, but alas, I cannot do it knowing that it is futile as presented.

The whole ending concept itself is just plain bad in my opinion. Inconsistent narrative, faulty logic, terrible execution, and it just plain insults my intelligence.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 15 avril 2013 - 04:45 .

[S.A.K]

PirateMouse wrote...

Olooka wrote...

I will never chooe Destroy, no matter what. Hell, even if you gave me 10 bucks, I still wouldn't pick Destroy.

This.

How about 11bucks?

[mtmercydave09]

Destroy all the way. Shepard living through it is icing on the cake though and does make feel even better than just destroying the Reapers alone.

[Dunabar]

I think its safe to say that the Reapers are screwed lol

[Examurai]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

So that means Shepard lives in refuse therfore conventinal victory.

What are you talking about?

Shepard always lives when picking refusal. H/She dies(with the rest of the galaxy) BECAUSE they tried fighting the reapers conventionally. Thus a new cycle is born.

Modifié par Examurai1, 15 avril 2013 - 07:53 .

[Dieb]

Interesting one.
I believe that you indeed have a point, suggesting that Shepard's sole chance of survival tempted many to choose Destroy.
In my case, it's a lot more clear than in some others though, I suppose. My notion is a simple one:

I do not consider synthetics to be equal forms of life.

It sounds rough, and probably is. But it's my honest, and more importantly, unintentional conviction. But please take the time and let me explain.

It doesn't mean I don't mourn their destruction; it's rather very much like Ashley says - though in a different context: "You love your dog, but you'll leave it behind if you get attacked by a bear."
I don't want my dog to die, and I think animals should be treated with care and respect. I also think many animals are nicer than many people. However, if I found myself in the situation of being able to only either save some strangers' kid or my own dog, I would try to save the kid. All the love for my dog suddenly wouldn't matter, simply because he's just none of my kind. I'm sure there is a proper scientific term for that kind of behaviour, regardlessly it's exactly how I feel about the matter.

Control is the cardinal supervillain-mistake, and Synthesis creates a different galaxy. I'm fighting for this one, though. (Both explanations almost offensively stupid in their simplicity, but it would drag the thread too far in the wrong direction to flesh out a fair answer here)

These are my reasons why I picked Destroy. In my first playthrough, I had no reasonable evidence to belive I would survive the encounter regardless of my choice.

So no, it would not change my descision.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 15 avril 2013 - 09:01 .

[Aaleel]

Shepard living has never been a part of why I chose destroy, and Shepard not living has never been a part of why I didn't chose any of the other choices.

Only group where living or dying was a large factor in my decision was the reapers. Only way the galaxy would truly be free to stand on their own and make their own way without ever having to worry about anyone else ever dying to this illogical, ill conceived cycle again is no more reapers.

"Dead reapers is how we win this"

Damn straight

Modifié par Aaleel, 15 avril 2013 - 11:09 .

[crimzontearz]

If Shepard survived regardless I would pick control because at that point
1: SHEPARD and not the SHEPALYST is in control of the reapers and
2: everyone lives just as they are with no galactic wide genetic rape and
3: the council (or humanity if your Shepard is that way) has a super army

[Lars10178]

Mark Alarton wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

No, destroy all the way

Damn right.

3rded

[wright1978]

Shep living isn't why i choose destroy. It is just icing on the cake, or more aptly that i get to speculate whether there might possibly be icing on a cake i won't ever see.

[Mangalores]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
....

Why Synthesis is bad:

How it's presented: You ascend a beam into a room openly exposed to vacuum and meet a strange glowing child who is the creator of the machines that are hellbent on annihilating galactic civilization every 50,000 years. He doesn't say much at all, yet you are inexplicably compelled to listen to him and accept his idea's that the cycle, or one of it's presented equivalents are necessary so that you can solve a minor plot theme that was already solved 4 main missions ago, and that a choice that requires your death will somehow alter the fabric of all existing life to make the cycle irrelevant because life has been fundamentally changed forever.
...

Out of curiousity. Do you mean Geth and Quarians? In essence the Geth are proof that the starchild is completely wrong (aside of the obvious logic flaws). Even if you do not settle a peace they do not try to kill anyone any more than organics do.

The Starchild is so incoherent that sticking to what you planned to do (kill the Reapers) is really the only sensible option no matter whether Shepard dies or survive. To me the death of a hero really isn't as important as how and why he chooses death.
It's the Starchild element that is terrible.

The destroy option with varying degrees of sacrifice should be enough variation. e.g. do you sacrifice Earth to rescue the rest of the galaxy, do you sacrifice yourself, your squadmates, the fleet or kill everyone else in the galaxy?

[Bizinha]

Destroy ever.

[shodiswe]

Control seems to work for me. Since it worked for me in the past it will work even if shepard survivs an there would be two shepards, thon orihinal and the AI one, maybe they would be one and the same.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Mangalores wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
....

Why Synthesis is bad:

How it's presented: You ascend a beam into a room openly exposed to vacuum and meet a strange glowing child who is the creator of the machines that are hellbent on annihilating galactic civilization every 50,000 years. He doesn't say much at all, yet you are inexplicably compelled to listen to him and accept his idea's that the cycle, or one of it's presented equivalents are necessary so that you can solve a minor plot theme that was already solved 4 main missions ago, and that a choice that requires your death will somehow alter the fabric of all existing life to make the cycle irrelevant because life has been fundamentally changed forever.
...

Out of curiousity. Do you mean Geth and Quarians? In essence the Geth are proof that the starchild is completely wrong (aside of the obvious logic flaws). Even if you do not settle a peace they do not try to kill anyone any more than organics do.

The Starchild is so incoherent that sticking to what you planned to do (kill the Reapers) is really the only sensible option no matter whether Shepard dies or survive. To me the death of a hero really isn't as important as how and why he chooses death.
It's the Starchild element that is terrible.

The destroy option with varying degrees of sacrifice should be enough variation. e.g. do you sacrifice Earth to rescue the rest of the galaxy, do you sacrifice yourself, your squadmates, the fleet or kill everyone else in the galaxy?

The "How it was presented" argument is a meta-argument against the in-game presentation of the ending, with synthesis being the key focus. I summarized it to show how... illogical, impossible, and just plain silly the execution of the ending is. I'm being presented with something completely new, and told to make a judgement based on this little glowboys idea and listening to how he's right.

By that meta-example, I was highlighting how BW was recycling a resolved plot theme that, while definitely an important theme, was never and should never hae been the central theme to Mass Effect. They were back-pedalling on their idea's because they were running out of time on their schedule and doubtless didn't want to tempt fate by asking EA if they could have another extension. 

And SuperMac and Hudson isolating themselves to make the ending they wanted without input from the rest of the writing team was just unprofessional. If I were an Exec. at EA or BW, they'd have been fired.

[Ecrulis]

I think this poll sufficiently shows that choosing destroy had more to do with wanting the reapers dead than shep surviving, thanks for dispelling that myth

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ecrulis wrote...

I think this poll sufficiently shows that choosing destroy had more to do with wanting the reapers dead than shep surviving, thanks for dispelling that myth

I won't lie, I went into the ending hoping I'd be able to earn my happy ending for Shepard.

Although, even with destroy, I still don't feel I'm able to do that.

[Ecrulis]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Ecrulis wrote...

I think this poll sufficiently shows that choosing destroy had more to do with wanting the reapers dead than shep surviving, thanks for dispelling that myth

I won't lie, I went into the ending hoping I'd be able to earn my happy ending for Shepard.

Although, even with destroy, I still don't feel I'm able to do that.

Oh I agree, I am one who believes an ending can be both happy and well written. I personally think there should have been a full gamit of endings, from complete loss (think current refusal) to bittersweet to happy, my problem with every ending being tragic/bittersweet is that shepard is not intrinsicly a tragic hero, nor is he inherently an epic hero; he can be either of those depending on how the character is played but there is no reason, narrative wise, to force a shepard that did everything right into a tragic ending any more than a shepard that did a lot wrong into an ending where they are happy and completely won.

Modifié par Ecrulis, 15 avril 2013 - 03:39 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ecrulis wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Ecrulis wrote...

I think this poll sufficiently shows that choosing destroy had more to do with wanting the reapers dead than shep surviving, thanks for dispelling that myth

I won't lie, I went into the ending hoping I'd be able to earn my happy ending for Shepard.

Although, even with destroy, I still don't feel I'm able to do that.

Oh I agree, I am one who believes an ending can be both happy and well written. I personally think there should have been a full gamit of endings, from complete loss (think current refusal) to bittersweet to happy, my problem with every ending being tragic/bittersweet is that shepard is not intrinsicly a tragic hero, nor is he inherently an epic hero; he can be either of those depending on how the character is played but there is no reason, narrative wise, to force a shepard that did everything right into a tragic ending any more than a shepard that did a lot wrong into an ending where they are happy and completely won.

Yeah. That's how I feel.

I don't play as a Shepard that doesn't do any less than everything right. And it makes absolutely no difference from some dweeb who bought only ME3 and doesn't import at all but happens to play MP a bit.

[Ecrulis]

Exactly, no matter how you play shepard the character is shoehorned into an ending that may not fit the character that has been played

[cljqnsnyc]

How bout this:

None of the above!

As for as MY trilogy goes, the only ending I could choose is the one provided by the MEHEM.

The "Control" ending would sort of work, if Shepard was able to be with his friends again. Actually, now that I think of it, if he has the level of power and "Control" afforded him by the EC, wouldn't he be able to just simply "appear" or create a human likeness of himself ala "Lazarus Project?" If TIM could do it, and he was a mere mortal, why wouldn't Zeus-Shep?

Since the topic is Shep lives, I guess I can retract my "none of the above" stance and go with the god-like Shep of the "EC Control."

He was already god-like in my playthroughs anyway, the EC just makes it official. 

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 17 avril 2013 - 07:25 .

[Mangalores]

Oops, sorry for not being clearer. I meant, what minor plot theme were you refering to?

[Killdren88]

Shepard living is only the icing on the cake. I still choose destroy. The Reapers deserve to die. They murdered countless other beings. If they really wanted synthesis to happen they would have presented the option to us instead of going straight to extermination. They were only willing to compromise when Shep had a finger on the kill switch. I refuse to allow the Reapers to live. They will not be given the galactic version of community service in the form of picking up their mess. Only when it came to their continued existence that they opened to negotiations. They are manipulative bastards and they deserve no mercy. Infact I'll change my choice to refuse. Since Shep lives conventional victory is possible and I am not going to give the catalyst a minute of my time.

Modifié par Killdren88, 15 avril 2013 - 04:06 .

[cljqnsnyc]

As far as I'm concerned, I never saw the catalyst, I never heard of the catalyst, I don't give a damn about the catalyst! It doesn't exist in my games.

86 the catalyst, Shep alive, Hell, I'm open to anything.