221 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

actually OP, destroy is a paragon option, no matter how 'bad' Shepard tends to display. Control is a bit less, but still paragon. The truly renegade option is either refuse or synthesis.

Think about it....

not for me, renegade is about getting the job done no matter the cost.  that job is to destroy the reapers, a renegade just wouldn't think twice about picking destroy or dwell on the destruction of geth/EDI.

think of renegades as badasses, not morons who want to control reapers or synthesize the entire galaxy based on the advice of an indoctrinated terrorist leader or the catalyst, both of which are basically the reapers - the ones you are trying to defeat.

surely you jest? How can altering mother nature NOT be renegade. It's the ultimate price. None of the choices are based on the catalyst, once the trusty super weapon crucible is attached..

You are altering the reality to match your argument, not arguing from solid facts. Handy in a pinch, but ineffective.

[Samtheman63]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

actually OP, destroy is a paragon option, no matter how 'bad' Shepard tends to display. Control is a bit less, but still paragon. The truly renegade option is either refuse or synthesis.

Think about it....

not for me, renegade is about getting the job done no matter the cost.  that job is to destroy the reapers, a renegade just wouldn't think twice about picking destroy or dwell on the destruction of geth/EDI.

think of renegades as badasses, not morons who want to control reapers or synthesize the entire galaxy based on the advice of an indoctrinated terrorist leader or the catalyst, both of which are basically the reapers - the ones you are trying to defeat.

surely you jest? How can altering mother nature NOT be renegade. It's the ultimate price. None of the choices are based on the catalyst, once the trusty super weapon crucible is attached..

You are altering the reality to match your argument, not arguing from solid facts. Handy in a pinch, but ineffective.

i see what you mean, but like I said its about being a badass, not a twisted evil mother****er hell bend on destroying everything they have been fighting for


destroy - paragon/renegade depending on your reasons
control - same i guess
synthesis - idiotic

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

dreamgazer wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The best ending of all is to play without the EC loaded and to absolutely decimate Mac Walters' "art". Just do the main story line. Do none of the side quests. Play no multiplayer. Don't cure the genophage. Rewrite the heretics, and side with the Quarians, OR destroy the heretics and side with the Geth. It is beautiful. Make sure Leviathan and Omega are not loaded. You don't want the war assets.

Alternatively you could give the Collector Base to the Illusive Man. This slams the door on Destroy and opens the door for a Low EMS Control which is completely awesome. It is a complete fail. The Harvest Continues. The Normandy Crashes and No One Gets Out.

You must not do any side quests at all.
You must not cure the genophage with Wrex in charge (do not fake it with Wreav - don't cure it period)
You must side with the smaller of the two sides on Rannoch
Do no planet scanning.
Do the bare minimum.

... I thought people had an issue with the ending being too "grimdark".

I do, but this is pure beauty. You really have to work at it. You have to fight your desire to achieve.

This isn't grimdark. This is straight dark. This is trash and burn. The OP has been confused about the endings for a while. He's been looking for an excuse to use destroy. Wayning has been hawking Synthesis so long he's like a broken record. Optimystic practically calls us destroyers knuckledraggers, so I thought I'd just throw the door open here. I've got the worst of destroy and control up there. Just do it and get it over with. And as always the OP will succumb to peer pressure and choose synthesis again.

So I thought I'd just throw this out there for fun. It's like seeing a big fire and instead of dropping fire retardant you drop gasoline on it. Now do you understand? Everyone needs to experience the original endings if they haven't done so. They need to feel the emptiness inside themselves. The pain. But knowing you destroyed Mac's art? That's beauty.

[PsyrenY]

AlanC9 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Yes. The endings easily break that simple binary morality Mass Effect tries to apply to all almost all choices in the game.

Good thing too. P/R is an OK way to organize dialogue, but not the universe.

Thank you Alan for getting it!

[Ecrulis]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Even as a Renegade, Shepard is bent on destroying the Reapers. Destroy really is the most consistent ending. Control is strawmanned by an indoctrinated Illusive Man, and Synthesis is associated with the Reapers.

It's truly unfortunate that the other endings are not better represented. I want my Renegade Shepard to choose Control and become a tyrant, but I worry that it will feel out of character with her destructive tendencies and almost all of her dialogue expressing utter contempt for the Reapers. She is not even allowed to like the idea of Control.

My problem with control is that there seems to be no way of agreeing with TIM that control is the solution but disagreeing with how TIM would use that power. I personally can't create a shepard that wouldn't feel like a complete hypocrite for choosing control.

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

robertthebard wrote...

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

This is why the endings are annoying if Control and Synthesis was elaborated on then Yes I would consider Control and Synthesis instead we have Control with my Fav Group who went all Sith empire crazy on us Cerberus and Synthesis......Saren?The Presidium Groundskeeper? Either way they are not shown in a good light like Destroy >.> I wanted to Pick Control for my FemShep then Synthesis for my MaleShep but it's like I'm indoctrinated to pick Destroy lmfao!

I'll never understand the logic behind "Cerberus went all crazy in ME 3".  Other than being more aggressive than in 2, where we had to have the impression that they weren't all that bad, or to quote both TIM and Miranda "not as evil as you think"(which leaves lots of leeway to my way of thinking), they weren't all that different than they were in ME 1.  Let's see, assassinations/assassination attempts, check.  Weird science in the name of the advancement of Cerberus, er, humanity, check.  Check out your Sole Survivor Shepard, and the origin of the thresher maws that wiped out everybody but Shepard, oh yeah, Cerberus, you can, of course, verify this with Corporal Toombs in ME 1.  They have, since the first game, been a terrorist organization, even Jacob can verify this in dialog on the Normandy after you get started in ME 2.

So no, the "change" didn't take me by surprise at all.  There is nothing in ME 3 that isn't suggested in the prior two games.  Even the "rogue cell" argument falls flat, considering TIM had to have authorized the experiments on Jack, including the abduction of potential biotics for their experiments.  He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but had "plausible deniability", which I didn't buy for a minute, obviously.

I guess Your right but I am annoyed by the change I liked Cerberus and My default Shep is a Renegade colonist Sole Surviver so yes I do know about Cerberus involment that doesn't mean I'm going to Judge all of Cerberus that's like me Judging all of the Turians because that stupid councilor 

In ME1 through Alliance POV yes they were a terrorist group 
In ME2 through Cerberus POV yes they did things different but it was for humanity Yes they did hursh things but it's up to the player or Shepard to see if they went too far 
In ME3 they are just stupid crazy TIM is stupid crazy forcing indoctrination and killing people by the millions to have an army it was "Pro-humanity" to "Pro-TIM" I don't like that change

Why couldn't we work together and while Hackett is saying "Destroy" TIM would be saying "Control" give their reasons have the player think about their choice instead of just shooting the tube, because to me grabbing the panals would have made my Shepard a hipocrite. And no it would not be two different games it would be the same game with more then one choice being jam 24/7 into Shepard's, the player, ears

And TIM didn't know about Jack   

[webhead921]

"It's art. Anything is anything" -Ron Swanson.

Both control and destroy can be interpreted as paragon or renegade, depending on Shepard's motivations. Destroy can be viewed as the paragon option because it gets rid of the reapers, and results in the least amount of interference in the galaxy's freedom. A paragon Shepard might not want to play god by forcing change or acting as ruler of the galaxy. Conversely, it can be viewed as renegade ending if Shepard is just killing the reapers, without concern for collateral damage.

[robertthebard]

Enhanced wrote...

In all 3 games, the options that directly ruins the most lives and/or causes the most damage is always Renegade. Destroy does both.

Really?  People in the slide shows don't look too sad to me.  They also don't look all green and violated, and they don't have to worry about Kid 2.0 deciding to start the whole thing over again.  So, overall, nope, it saves who can be saved, and doesn't involve any technobabble about becoming the Reaper god, or genetically modifying every living organism in the galaxy, including living organisms that had absolutely nothing to do with the current war.  Which one does more damage?

[Xilizhra]

robertthebard wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

In all 3 games, the options that directly ruins the most lives and/or causes the most damage is always Renegade. Destroy does both.

Really?  People in the slide shows don't look too sad to me.  They also don't look all green and violated, and they don't have to worry about Kid 2.0 deciding to start the whole thing over again.  So, overall, nope, it saves who can be saved, and doesn't involve any technobabble about becoming the Reaper god, or genetically modifying every living organism in the galaxy, including living organisms that had absolutely nothing to do with the current war.  Which one does more damage?

The one that actually kills people.

[robertthebard]

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

I guess Your right but I am annoyed by the change I liked Cerberus and My default Shep is a Renegade colonist Sole Surviver so yes I do know about Cerberus involment that doesn't mean I'm going to Judge all of Cerberus that's like me Judging all of the Turians because that stupid councilor 

In ME1 through Alliance POV yes they were a terrorist group 
In ME2 through Cerberus POV yes they did things different but it was for humanity Yes they did hursh things but it's up to the player or Shepard to see if they went too far 
In ME3 they are just stupid crazy TIM is stupid crazy forcing indoctrination and killing people by the millions to have an army it was "Pro-humanity" to "Pro-TIM" I don't like that change

Why couldn't we work together and while Hackett is saying "Destroy" TIM would be saying "Control" give their reasons have the player think about their choice instead of just shooting the tube, because to me grabbing the panals would have made my Shepard a hipocrite. And no it would not be two different games it would be the same game with more then one choice being jam 24/7 into Shepard's, the player, ears

And TIM didn't know about Jack   

All of Cerberus is led by TIM.  Every project that goes on is approved by him, and you can get this from Miranda in your first conversation with her.  You chose to ignore that, and that's ok, I guess, but I didn't.  I didn't choose to ignore what they were, and I wanted to walk away after Freedom's Progress, but no option to do so.  I didn't want to work with/for them at all.

That last line is lolworthy though.  Since there are recordings in the lab on Pragia about TIM.  So you expect me to believe that he's financing a project w/out knowing what's going on?  It's a Cerberus Facility.  Of course he knows what's going on.  Talk to both Mordin and Tali when they first board, and both will tell you about the surveillance equipment in their respective areas.  Do you honestly believe he's not keeping track of where the money's going?  Like I said, he's trying to paint you a picture of the "altruistic vision" of Cerberus, while in reality, there is nothing altruistic about them.  Of course, this also overlooks the fact that he gave you a dossier on Jack, which means that he did indeed know about her.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

In all 3 games, the options that directly ruins the most lives and/or causes the most damage is always Renegade. Destroy does both.

Really?  People in the slide shows don't look too sad to me.  They also don't look all green and violated, and they don't have to worry about Kid 2.0 deciding to start the whole thing over again.  So, overall, nope, it saves who can be saved, and doesn't involve any technobabble about becoming the Reaper god, or genetically modifying every living organism in the galaxy, including living organisms that had absolutely nothing to do with the current war.  Which one does more damage?

The one that actually kills people.

Oh, you mean Refuse?

[Xilizhra]

robertthebard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

In all 3 games, the options that directly ruins the most lives and/or causes the most damage is always Renegade. Destroy does both.

Really?  People in the slide shows don't look too sad to me.  They also don't look all green and violated, and they don't have to worry about Kid 2.0 deciding to start the whole thing over again.  So, overall, nope, it saves who can be saved, and doesn't involve any technobabble about becoming the Reaper god, or genetically modifying every living organism in the galaxy, including living organisms that had absolutely nothing to do with the current war.  Which one does more damage?

The one that actually kills people.

Oh, you mean Refuse?

Those who don't consider synthetics people are proven objectively wrong by the game itself.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

In all 3 games, the options that directly ruins the most lives and/or causes the most damage is always Renegade. Destroy does both.

Really?  People in the slide shows don't look too sad to me.  They also don't look all green and violated, and they don't have to worry about Kid 2.0 deciding to start the whole thing over again.  So, overall, nope, it saves who can be saved, and doesn't involve any technobabble about becoming the Reaper god, or genetically modifying every living organism in the galaxy, including living organisms that had absolutely nothing to do with the current war.  Which one does more damage?

The one that actually kills people.

Oh, you mean Refuse?

Those who don't consider synthetics people are proven objectively wrong by the game itself.

What does that say about people that genetically alter beings that are just crawling out of their version of the primordial ooze?  That they are saints?  Enlightened individuals that believe that the only way there can be peace in the galaxy is if every single being in it is exactly the same?  Thanks, but no.  I'll take my Destroy ending where EDI dies, and the galaxy can begin to rebuild on it's own terms instead of ShepAI or the Reapers idealistic world.

[Xilizhra]

What does that say about people that genetically alter beings that are just crawling out of their version of the primordial ooze? That they are saints? Enlightened individuals that believe that the only way there can be peace in the galaxy is if every single being in it is exactly the same? Thanks, but no. I'll take my Destroy ending where EDI dies, and the galaxy can begin to rebuild on it's own terms instead of ShepAI or the Reapers idealistic world.

Idealism that sacrifices people to feed the ideals; idealist parasitism, if you will. "On our own terms" has no inherent value, especially if put in such vague yet emotionally manipulative terms. Also, you have no idea how Synthesis works if you believe that it makes everyone actually identical. But that barely matters, as I choose Control.

[Eterna]

Wayning_Star wrote...

actually OP, destroy is a paragon option, no matter how 'bad' Shepard tends to display. Control is a bit less, but still paragon. The truly renegade option is either refuse or synthesis.

Think about it....

In what point in the Mass Effect series has sacrificing your allies to complete the mission ever been Paragon? 

[Yestare7]

Wayning_Star wrote... destroy is a paragon option, no matter how 'bad' Shepard tends to display. Control is a bit less, but still paragon. The truly renegade option is either refuse or synthesis.

 How can altering mother nature NOT be renegade. 

Wow, Synthesis is EVEN worse than I thought...:(

Wayning Star, we agree on this one...




Y

[Yestare7]

Eterna5 wrote...

In what point in the Mass Effect series has sacrificing your allies to complete the mission ever been Paragon? 

Hahahahahaha.... seriously....
you trying to guilt us with those robots again?:lol:

Hhahahahahahaha    so funny

[Argolas]

Eterna5 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

actually OP, destroy is a paragon option, no matter how 'bad' Shepard tends to display. Control is a bit less, but still paragon. The truly renegade option is either refuse or synthesis.

Think about it....

In what point in the Mass Effect series has sacrificing your allies to complete the mission ever been Paragon? 

Be more specific. Destroying the Reapers is Paragon. Here's one Paragon line for you:

"This thing is an abomination. How do we destroy it?"

[Xilizhra]

Yestare7 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

In what point in the Mass Effect series has sacrificing your allies to complete the mission ever been Paragon? 

Hahahahahaha.... seriously....
you trying to guilt us with those robots again?:lol:

Hhahahahahahaha    so funny

You know, I genuinely don't want Auld Wulf to be right. Don't make him such.

Be more specific. Destroying the Reapers is Paragon. Here's one Paragon line for you:

"This thing is an abomination. How do we destroy it?"

Destroying the Reapers has never been focused on more by one morality than the other. However, sacrificing allies unnecessarily has never been Paragon.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 30 avril 2013 - 09:48 .

[Eterna]

Argolas wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

actually OP, destroy is a paragon option, no matter how 'bad' Shepard tends to display. Control is a bit less, but still paragon. The truly renegade option is either refuse or synthesis.

Think about it....

In what point in the Mass Effect series has sacrificing your allies to complete the mission ever been Paragon? 

Be more specific. Destroying the Reapers is Paragon. Here's one Paragon line for you:

"This thing is an abomination. How do we destroy it?"

Destroying the Reapers may not b paragon, it is debatable.

Killing the Reapers while fully knowing that your allies will be collateral damage is not paragon. 

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

What does that say about people that genetically alter beings that are just crawling out of their version of the primordial ooze? That they are saints? Enlightened individuals that believe that the only way there can be peace in the galaxy is if every single being in it is exactly the same? Thanks, but no. I'll take my Destroy ending where EDI dies, and the galaxy can begin to rebuild on it's own terms instead of ShepAI or the Reapers idealistic world.

Idealism that sacrifices people to feed the ideals; idealist parasitism, if you will. "On our own terms" has no inherent value, especially if put in such vague yet emotionally manipulative terms. Also, you have no idea how Synthesis works if you believe that it makes everyone actually identical. But that barely matters, as I choose Control.

There's nothing vague about that post whatsoever.  It states clearly what my thoughts are on Synthesis, and Control.  That the galaxy is better off w/out both.  Why, you may ask?  Because the Reapers, the force that has driven me for three games, are no more.  There can't be any Reaper Police Squads patrolling the galaxy to make sure nobody is being a bad boy or girl, like some kind of nightmarish version of Santa Claus, and, I didn't have to change beings that had no stake in the war.  Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Xilizhra]

robertthebard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What does that say about people that genetically alter beings that are just crawling out of their version of the primordial ooze? That they are saints? Enlightened individuals that believe that the only way there can be peace in the galaxy is if every single being in it is exactly the same? Thanks, but no. I'll take my Destroy ending where EDI dies, and the galaxy can begin to rebuild on it's own terms instead of ShepAI or the Reapers idealistic world.

Idealism that sacrifices people to feed the ideals; idealist parasitism, if you will. "On our own terms" has no inherent value, especially if put in such vague yet emotionally manipulative terms. Also, you have no idea how Synthesis works if you believe that it makes everyone actually identical. But that barely matters, as I choose Control.

There's nothing vague about that post whatsoever.  It states clearly what my thoughts are on Synthesis, and Control.  That the galaxy is better off w/out both.  Why, you may ask?  Because the Reapers, the force that has driven me for three games, are no more.  There can't be any Reaper Police Squads patrolling the galaxy to make sure nobody is being a bad boy or girl, like some kind of nightmarish version of Santa Claus, and, I didn't have to change beings that had no stake in the war.  Seems pretty clear cut to me.

And you are incorrect in this. The Reapers as a threat are gone no matter what, regardless of whatever lurid fantasies you may spin about alleged aftermaths. The galaxy is safe, and Destroy is a fool's mass slaughter.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

In what point in the Mass Effect series has sacrificing your allies to complete the mission ever been Paragon? 

Hahahahahaha.... seriously....
you trying to guilt us with those robots again?:lol:

Hhahahahahahaha    so funny

You know, I genuinely don't want Auld Wulf to be right. Don't make him such.

Be more specific. Destroying the Reapers is Paragon. Here's one Paragon line for you:

"This thing is an abomination. How do we destroy it?"

Destroying the Reapers has never been focused on more by one morality than the other. However, sacrificing allies unnecessarily has never been Paragon.

It is like this:

You have an entire army that needs to escape so that it doesn't get slaughtered by the enemy. To do so requires that you have three brigades of an ally who are in a perfect position hold a line and delay the enemy. Everyone in the brigades will die doing so. If your army does not escape you will lose the war. If your army does escape you will be able to regroup and you will win the war. This will be 100% effective.

You could all withdraw, and there is a good chance you could escape, but with heavier losses spread out among all of your units, including command.

Will you sacrifice the brigades?

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What does that say about people that genetically alter beings that are just crawling out of their version of the primordial ooze? That they are saints? Enlightened individuals that believe that the only way there can be peace in the galaxy is if every single being in it is exactly the same? Thanks, but no. I'll take my Destroy ending where EDI dies, and the galaxy can begin to rebuild on it's own terms instead of ShepAI or the Reapers idealistic world.

Idealism that sacrifices people to feed the ideals; idealist parasitism, if you will. "On our own terms" has no inherent value, especially if put in such vague yet emotionally manipulative terms. Also, you have no idea how Synthesis works if you believe that it makes everyone actually identical. But that barely matters, as I choose Control.

There's nothing vague about that post whatsoever.  It states clearly what my thoughts are on Synthesis, and Control.  That the galaxy is better off w/out both.  Why, you may ask?  Because the Reapers, the force that has driven me for three games, are no more.  There can't be any Reaper Police Squads patrolling the galaxy to make sure nobody is being a bad boy or girl, like some kind of nightmarish version of Santa Claus, and, I didn't have to change beings that had no stake in the war.  Seems pretty clear cut to me.

And you are incorrect in this. The Reapers as a threat are gone no matter what, regardless of whatever lurid fantasies you may spin about alleged aftermaths. The galaxy is safe, and Destroy is a fool's mass slaughter.

Where's the roll on the floor laughing smiley when you need one???  I killed EDI, that's one person, so now, one person is a mass slaughter?  I think your perspective is off.  Of course, it could just be that you're off in general, wanna share whatever it is?

[Xilizhra]

Will you sacrifice the brigades?

I'll hold position until you make a better analogy. One that acknowledges that no one dies in the non-Destroy endings.

Where's the roll on the floor laughing smiley when you need one???http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png I killed EDI, that's one person, so now, one person is a mass slaughter? I think your perspective is off. Of course, it could just be that you're off in general, wanna share whatever it is?

If you committed genocide against the geth beforehand, that's no point in Destroy's favor. It just makes you even worse.