208 réponses à ce sujet

[fr33stylez]

Because when you make 2 of 3 endings have absolutely no relevance the preceding narrative of the trilogy, you need to arbitrarily invoke a gameplay penalty in order to persuade gamers to even considering the other options. From this, people can make up their on philosophical discussions justifying why they chose these options, when the true answer is simply 'I didn't want to nuke my friends'.

lol.

[AlanC9]

Vortex13 wrote...
2. Shepard's beliefs and values are not the villian here, its the crazy person with the gun pointed at the galaxy. I've seen many posts concerning Refuse saying that if only Shepard had compromised, if only he/she had not been so idealistic then no one would have died. Now it is true that by not picking Refuse the current cycle will not die but the point I'm getting at here is that its not the beliefs/convictions' faults that everyone died, its the Catalyst and the Reapers.

So Shepard isn't responsible for the forseeable consequences of his own choice? If a man follows some good moral principles that lead to disaster, he's blameless for the disaster?

[robertthebard]

Robosexual wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

K. S. Black wrote...

Not sure if the OP has his/her answer since I did not go through all 5 pages, but I think the answer is that Shepard is told by the Catalyst that these are solutions to ITS problem, hense destroy wipes out Synthetics instead of just destroying the Reapers. Because the Catalyst doesn't see the Reapers as a problem, just the conflict between Organic's and Synthetic's. This is why I dislike the ending(s) because you/Shepard are not really solving the Reaper problem, but a problem that was a minor plot, that was wrapped up earlier in the game, and forced to be the main one in the last 10 minutes of the game.

Yes, and at the same time, no.  The premise of the series is the Reaper threat, and they are Synthetic.  We can use hybrid, but, they were manufactured, not born, and we saw how that works.  So the concept is there, and my biggest LoL moment is the Kid's self fulfilling prophecy.  "But, Synthetics will wipe out Organics if my Synthetics don't wipe out Organics".

That's not how it works, the Reapers are preserving life, not wiping it out. They're harvesting, even their name implies it. Simply trying to pretend the Reapers were doing otherwise means you didn't understand anything in the series or are simply lying.

Basically, Xzibit isn't a good source of information if you want to make fun of Mass Effect.

I was on the Collector base in ME 2, and I saw how Reapers are made.  I can store a crap ton of data on this computer, but that does not make it alive, nor does it make the civilization I preserve the data on alive.  I realize it's simpler to want to believe the Kid about this, but frankly, I've seen what it considers life.  The Collectors, which are essentially Prothean husks, husks, banshees, etc etc.  So do you believe the people turned into these abominations are happy to be what they are now?  Because they are, by definition, Reapers too.  The game even has a name for them, Reaper Variants.  Believing that the ships are any different is to take a huge leap of faith in the Kid, and it's one that I'm not willing to take.  Falere's sister was willing to blow herself up rather than become a banshee.  Do you think the civilizations that got melted into the Reaper ships would feel any differently about it, if they were able to feel at all?  When I reap wheat, it's no longer alive, and I've actually done that, so I know it to be true.  When you harvest corn, it's dead.  This is kind of like saying that making sausage gravy means that the pig is still alive.

[mass perfection]

Destroy kill s quadrillions of lives and maybe even quintillions. Destroy kills ALL synthetic life in the galaxy.Think about it.

[WhiteKnyght]

mr.brightside4u wrote...

Why do I have to kill my friends if I want to kill the Reapers, but not if I want to control them or do synthesis. Wouldn't the question of what ending is the right one and the moral dilemma be the same even if the geth and EDI would survive. I'd say everybody who picked Control or Synthesis would have picked Control or Synthesis even if EDI and the geth would have survived Destroy, so why do only "Destroyers" have to kill their friends, or at least their allies.

Edit: OK, I may have worded it wrong... there are "catches" in the other endings as well. But we first of all don't know if Shepard survives Destroy, so we're just gonna assume he dies in every ending. Secondly, I was just referring to what the Catalyst told Shepard: Control: Shepard gets control over the Reapers...
                                               Synthesis: Organic and Synthetic strenghts united (with the Reapers still around) ..
                                               Destroy: The Reapers die, BUT you have to kill your friends...
Of course you can think further ahead and create your own problems with Control and Synthesis as well. I, for example, think Control is wrong, since no human mind can have so much power without abusing it in some way, and Synthesis is wrong, since if organics and synthetics are one there's no evolving and everything will stand still, which will doom all live. But that's just what I think of. As far as the Catalyst tells me, they will live happily ever after in either ending. So if I don't come up with my own "catches" for Control and Synthesis, Destroy is the only option which has a "catch", since I am told I have to kill my friends....

Lol

Control Catch: You lose all of your relationships as an organic.

Synthesis Catch: You die.

Refuse Catch: EVERYONE DIES!

The Destroy choice does involve sacrifcing EDI and the Geth(if you didn't destroy them earlier,) but to be fair, the choice is no different than Virmire where you were forced to choose between which of your friends to save/sacrifice.

You sacrifice Kaidan or Ashley to stop Saren.
You sacrifice synthetics to stop the Reapers.

Also there's no conceivable reason why the Crucible wouldn't target synthetics and technology in Destroy, since all modern technology and synthetics are based on the Reaper's technology. Sovereign even said so all the way back in ME1. If you had a problem with it, you should have whined about it back then.

[WhiteKnyght]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

K. S. Black wrote...

Not sure if the OP has his/her answer since I did not go through all 5 pages, but I think the answer is that Shepard is told by the Catalyst that these are solutions to ITS problem, hense destroy wipes out Synthetics instead of just destroying the Reapers. Because the Catalyst doesn't see the Reapers as a problem, just the conflict between Organic's and Synthetic's. This is why I dislike the ending(s) because you/Shepard are not really solving the Reaper problem, but a problem that was a minor plot, that was wrapped up earlier in the game, and forced to be the main one in the last 10 minutes of the game.

Yes, and at the same time, no.  The premise of the series is the Reaper threat, and they are Synthetic.  We can use hybrid, but, they were manufactured, not born, and we saw how that works.  So the concept is there, and my biggest LoL moment is the Kid's self fulfilling prophecy.  "But, Synthetics will wipe out Organics if my Synthetics don't wipe out Organics".

That's not how it works, the Reapers are preserving life, not wiping it out. They're harvesting, even their name implies it. Simply trying to pretend the Reapers were doing otherwise means you didn't understand anything in the series or are simply lying.

Basically, Xzibit isn't a good source of information if you want to make fun of Mass Effect.

Aye, the Reapers help 'oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life' by 'harvesting' them with big old space lasers (when they are not 'storing' them in Reaper form, or 'helping them ascend' by genetically rewriting their DNA in the manner of the Collectors of course).

Right?

You see, the only solution to the apparent problem of inevitable war between organics and synthetics is to create a cycle where the Reapers (a synthetic representation of their creators) 'harvest' each and every advanced sentient species in the Galaxy. You know, to stop 'conflict' in the interests of bringing 'order to chaos'.

The Reapers don't see organic races as individual beings, but as nations.

Sacricing a few organics to become needed resources like footsoldiers and laborers is a necessary sacrifice in their eyes if it means preserving the nation, the buik of the species, their technology, and knowledge.

To them, the ends justify the means. Which is not too different from how Cerberus thinks, and so many people like to defend them before ME3 when they started showing that they actually were terrorists.

[Varzin]

 Play through with a fully renegade Shepard, then at the very end  choose Control. Note the difference between this and a Paragon control. There's your catch. The gslaxy has to trust that Shepard will make all the right decisions, after all, absolute power corrupts absolutly. Synthesis isn't supposed to have a catch, it's the pardise option, thats's why you have to have more preparation than the other options to achive it.

[Bill Casey]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The Destroy choice does involve sacrifcing EDI and the Geth(if you didn't destroy them earlier,) but to be fair, the choice is no different than Virmire where you were forced to choose between which of your friends to save/sacrifice.

You sacrifice Kaidan or Ashley to stop Saren.
You sacrifice synthetics to stop the Reapers.

It's not the same at all...
It would be the same if Saren told you to shoot either Ashley or Kaidan or he'd blow everyone up, and if you don't shoot one of them he actually does blow everyone up...

Also they were an entire race...

I can't begin to fathom how you think that's the same thing...
It's not...

In one, the player is a complete monster...
And it's not Virmire...

Do you understand the difference between killing one of them and saving one of them?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 avril 2013 - 05:09 .

[Indy_S]

Bill Casey wrote...

It would be the same if Saren told you to shoot either Ashley or Kaidan or he'd blow everyone up, and if you don't shoot one of them he actually does blow everyone up...

That was the ending to Army of Two: the 40th Day. Except none of the characters were named Saren, Ashley or Kaidan.

[Bill Casey]

Also, if that was the ending to Mass Effect 1, instead of the end of the second act...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 avril 2013 - 05:14 .

[Lieutenant Kurin]

I just did the ending again and the catalyst says nothing about needing LIVE DNA for Synthesis, so headcanon:

Shep: Okay, I'll choose, but send me down first.
Catalyst: Sure... but what?

Shep comes back up with Anderson's body

Shep: I'm... sorry Anderson, but Kahlee will KNOW you're a hero

Shep tosses Anderson into the shaft

Shep: Alright, send me down again, I'm getting off this station and back to Kaidan! Let's do this!
Catalyst: THE CYCLE WILL CONTINUE
Shep: Seriously?
Catalyst: Fine, Synthesis, whatever!

And there we go. In the end all the endings, and ME3 in general were all too focused on centering everything on Shepard, making him/her a "legend". Kinda ruined the series for me, Shep always was fun because he was "just a soldier". I was like "I could be Shepard", he could be anyone, he was real, ME3 came around with "you're the only one who could ever do this" at every hour on the hour, and made it just a game rather than truly immersive.

Anyhoo, enough about that, I always found like they wanted you to NOT choose destroy. Because over the course of the entire game they made it seem more and more like a hate crime. Then they go and tell you that unless it's Destroy, you'll become a martyr legend each and every time. See? It always comes back to making Shepard a "legend" a GOD. Even refuse became a Shepard saved every one through osmosis sort of thing.

And I often picked Destroy. Control (which seems to be a new favourite for a surprising amount of people) seemed like a crime to me. And even more "Shepard is really a god" than all the other endings. Plus, I think TIM trying to figure out Control teaches well enough that all that power changes you, even before the indoctrination. Synthesis seems like the more "safe" option, but seriously, what are the long term side effects? Will understanding really cause less tension, what about if this further convinces Sythetics that Organics are all much more flawed than they are? Too wild-cardy. Destroy, well they ruined it to make it more of a bad choice.

[Bill Casey]

Synthesis is a far greater crime than Control...
It's the only option that actually manages to be a more unethical action than the cycle...
Even the Reapers never violated and experimented on everything at once...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 avril 2013 - 06:36 .

[robertthebard]

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis is a far greater crime than Control...
It's the only option that actually manages to be a more unethical action than the cycle...
Even the Reapers never violated and experimented on everything at once...

Yep, we never see any husks, or scions, or banshees or...

[Bill Casey]

There is a husk in the synthesis ending...

[robertthebard]

Bill Casey wrote...

There is a husk in the synthesis ending...

There are husks in ME 1.  That's my point.  They are the results of the Reapers experimenting, trying to get Synthesis to work on their own.  I'm fairly certain it took them a few tries to get it right, which means, they surely did experiment on everything at once.

[Bill Casey]

No, they never experimented on everything at once...
They always leave some life alone...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 avril 2013 - 07:01 .

[Xamufam]

It's easy to put a catch on synthesis: changes creates genetic instability slow death & when the body changes the body usually goes into an immune response of every single cell of the body

It has to account every form of genetic code in the galaxy (yes there is more than DNA) & have to work at a subatomic level or further it has to hit every string & subatomic particle exactly
change the genetic code & it would become unstable
50-90% in the galaxy would die during the transformation that Bioware didn't think about it it's just Stupid
Other would survive but have side effects

There isn't any perfection it's an universal rule we would not exist otherwise all matter would otherwise be spread perfectly holding each other in place

& the facts that the reapers are there brings up questions
Aren't they made to destroy
Why would people be working with them

"Stephen W. Hawking - "It is all right to make mistakes; nothing is perfect because with perfection, we would not exist."

“One of the basic rules of the universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesn't exist.....Without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist”

Even suns & galaxies would not exist
And perfection would be boring in the long run life & the universe is interesting because of its flaws
Unless Shepard has every variabel of genetic code in the galaxy it wont work
:devil:Not even Disney would have wanted such an ending like Biowares synthesis it's too happy

Modifié par Troxa, 27 avril 2013 - 04:08 .

[Ageless Face]

Why? Because if it didn't have one then it would have been far to easy to pick destroy without even consulting on the other solutions. If Destroy had no catch, then what exactly would have made you to second guess it? It's far to easy to do so for control and Synthesis on a moral issue. Not to mention you fought against control during the whole game, so it's even harder to accept.

Notice that even with the huge catch to destroy, many people still deem it as the best solution of the four. So the catch might not be so out of place. Just saying...

Modifié par HagarIshay, 26 avril 2013 - 11:29 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Robosexual wrote...
That's not how it works, the Reapers are preserving life, not wiping it out...

I'd love someone to tell me what exactly the Reapers "preserved" from the Prothean cycle...

Oh wait.  Someone DID.

[Mangalores]

Lieutenant Kurin wrote...
....

And there we go. In the end all the endings, and ME3 in general were all too focused on centering everything on Shepard, making him/her a "legend". Kinda ruined the series for me, Shep always was fun because he was "just a soldier". I was like "I could be Shepard", he could be anyone, he was real, ME3 came around with "you're the only one who could ever do this" at every hour on the hour, and made it just a game rather than truly immersive.
...

Actually, it's TIM who started this cult of Shepard as the clone puts it. Resurrecting some special forces soldier where seemingly two Alliance cruisers and a company of infantry grunts could have done the same.

[Vortex13]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...
2. Shepard's beliefs and values are not the villian here, its the crazy person with the gun pointed at the galaxy. I've seen many posts concerning Refuse saying that if only Shepard had compromised, if only he/she had not been so idealistic then no one would have died. Now it is true that by not picking Refuse the current cycle will not die but the point I'm getting at here is that its not the beliefs/convictions' faults that everyone died, its the Catalyst and the Reapers.

So Shepard isn't responsible for the forseeable consequences of his own choice? If a man follows some good moral principles that lead to disaster, he's blameless for the disaster?

What if all of the endings except refusal was the Catalyst saying "We are now going to indoctrinate the entire galaxy, even the less advanced species, but we will not kill anyone go doesn't resist." Would Shepard, standing by his/her princibles still be considered the idiot for Refusing? 

In real life our courts wouldn't hold a person responsible if some maniac walked up to them and said "Rennounce God or I'll kill this baby!" and the person refused. Granted, refuse is on a much grander scale, and it (like the ending to the game overall) is lacking in many areas, but the notion behind it is still the same: not compromising your beliefs and convictions.

The enitre movie 300 is about refusal, if only the Spartans had compromised and accepted king Xerxes rule then none of then would have had to die, but they refused. I don't see an uproar of people calling them stupid for resisting futilely, against an overwhelming force.

[Vortex13]

Lieutenant Kurin wrote...

I just did the ending again and the catalyst says nothing about needing LIVE DNA for Synthesis, so headcanon:

Shep: Okay, I'll choose, but send me down first.
Catalyst: Sure... but what?

Shep comes back up with Anderson's body

Shep: I'm... sorry Anderson, but Kahlee will KNOW you're a hero

Shep tosses Anderson into the shaft

Shep: Alright, send me down again, I'm getting off this station and back to Kaidan! Let's do this!
Catalyst: THE CYCLE WILL CONTINUE
Shep: Seriously?
Catalyst: Fine, Synthesis, whatever!

And there we go. In the end all the endings, and ME3 in general were all too focused on centering everything on Shepard, making him/her a "legend". Kinda ruined the series for me, Shep always was fun because he was "just a soldier". I was like "I could be Shepard", he could be anyone, he was real, ME3 came around with "you're the only one who could ever do this" at every hour on the hour, and made it just a game rather than truly immersive.

Anyhoo, enough about that, I always found like they wanted you to NOT choose destroy. Because over the course of the entire game they made it seem more and more like a hate crime. Then they go and tell you that unless it's Destroy, you'll become a martyr legend each and every time. See? It always comes back to making Shepard a "legend" a GOD. Even refuse became a Shepard saved every one through osmosis sort of thing.

And I often picked Destroy. Control (which seems to be a new favourite for a surprising amount of people) seemed like a crime to me. And even more "Shepard is really a god" than all the other endings. Plus, I think TIM trying to figure out Control teaches well enough that all that power changes you, even before the indoctrination. Synthesis seems like the more "safe" option, but seriously, what are the long term side effects? Will understanding really cause less tension, what about if this further convinces Sythetics that Organics are all much more flawed than they are? Too wild-cardy. Destroy, well they ruined it to make it more of a bad choice.

Im with you on Shepard being 'the one' in the game, it was very annoying seeing my character viewed as the Messiah of the MEU engender back in ME 2.

[Wayning_Star]

why didn't the OP just put "I WON!!" in the header? That's what all the fan fair is about here..sheesh.

(not winning is the 'catch'?)

[Indy_S]

Wayning_Star wrote...

why didn't the OP just put "I WON!!" in the header? That's what all the fan fair is about here..sheesh.

(not winning is the 'catch'?)

Because there is an added condition that might make "winning" less desirable for some people.