146 réponses à ce sujet

[Bardox9]

Yes

I'm one of those that agree's with the bioware writers that it's time to move on from Shepard. Shepard surviving was never a reason for picking destroy. The entire point from game 1 was to destroy the reapers. Control and Synthesis are reaper desired endings. It is what they are all about. Shepard's whole purpose, Renegade or Paragon, is the destruction of the reapers. In Control and Synth, Shepard becomes a reaper or turns everyone into reapers. Those go against everything Shepard does in ME1&2. But once they are gone, the story of Shepard is over and it is time for The Shepard to rest.

The lose of EDI is the only thing I personally regret. While I do tend to choose to make peace between the geth and quarians, I do so with the full knowledge they are going to be destroyed anyway. I just want the quarians to see how the geth use their enviro-suits to speed up the adaptation to life on Rannoch. When the geth are gone they can and most likely will create VI's that do the same thing.

If there were some way to destroy the Reapers and save EDI I would take that option instead regardless of whether Shepard survives or not. Joker loses his whole family in ME3. EDI was the one good thing he had left. Not to mention we owe "her" for all the times "she" has saved Shepards butt.

[Ryzaki]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Why must death be a requirement? Aren't the trillions of dead people enough?

If I did "well enough" through the series, the only ones who should be killed in the ending are the Reapers, because they are the problem.

Death is a requirement in this version of destroy because hey it needs some drawback and it is the only ending that Shep can survive in. I just wanted to see how many people would still pick it even if Shep had no chance of survival.

[Ticonderoga117]

Morlath wrote...

I've got some Shepards who are so tired with war and death that they choose Control/Synthethis more in the hopes it stops one more death than anything else. They're so burnt out that they don't even have the mental energy to kill the enemy.

That may be fine for YOUR Shepards, but mine? Mine has not given up since Eden Prime, and stopping at the finish line and taking the enemy at his word that "Without us, you are all screwed" is anthenma to him. It's abhorrent.

And considering that the over-arching character point to Shepard is that they simply don't give up. They are like the Terminator. They won't stop until the mission is completed.

[Ticonderoga117]

Ryzaki wrote...
Death is a requirement in this version of destroy because hey it needs some drawback and it is the only ending that Shep can survive in. I just wanted to see how many people would still pick it even if Shep had no chance of survival.

With this, you are designing it wrong.

That type of thinking led us to this crap. "Hey, we need some symbolism. Symbolism makes us deep eh? **** logic."

You design things to make sense first. If you really feel that Shepard needs to die, then you make this ending air tight to the player that "This is why Shepard is going to die, and it's not horribly forced like destroying a component to a very complex machine."

Hell, I'll make it easier. Execute it well, and that might carry it.

[Morlath]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Morlath wrote...

I've got some Shepards who are so tired with war and death that they choose Control/Synthethis more in the hopes it stops one more death than anything else. They're so burnt out that they don't even have the mental energy to kill the enemy.

That may be fine for YOUR Shepards, but mine? Mine has not given up since Eden Prime, and stopping at the finish line and taking the enemy at his word that "Without us, you are all screwed" is anthenma to him. It's abhorrent.

And considering that the over-arching character point to Shepard is that they simply don't give up. They are like the Terminator. They won't stop until the mission is completed.

Most of mine are the relentless kind but it does put a spin on things if you take it from the other angle.

[Uncle Jo]

I'd still shoot the pipe.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Well it'd just be EDI for me.

The geth came down with a terminal case of the Quisling so I let the quarians put them out of our misery.

[NeonFlux117]

Yes, without a doubt. And that's kinda how I thought ME3's ending would go down. You would have the ability to save everyone, destroy the reapers and save Earth but at the cost of Shepard's life.

I think that's a noble, heroic and epic end to a hero like Shepard.

[Ryzaki]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
With this, you are designing it wrong.

That type of thinking led us to this crap. "Hey, we need some symbolism. Symbolism makes us deep eh? **** logic."

You design things to make sense first. If you really feel that Shepard needs to die, then you make this ending air tight to the player that "This is why Shepard is going to die, and it's not horribly forced like destroying a component to a very complex machine."

Hell, I'll make it easier. Execute it well, and that might carry it.

*sigh* it's a hypothetical within the constraints of the endings we already got.

Frankly realistically I'd have Shep die because that'd put an end to all the "Shep in ME4!" cries and I can avoid the "and X disappeared mysteriously" crap 99% of BW games have. Because that's usually what happens. Either that or they get utterly destroyed like poor Revan. Anyway

That's not what my question is about. Simple question would you pick destroy if it had Shep die than EDI and the Geth? or do you prefer the way it is. That's my question.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 mai 2013 - 07:58 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Ryzaki wrote...



Yeah that's not what my question is about. Simple question would you rather destroy have Shep die than EDI and the Geth. Full stop.

No.

The brobots are already dead and I've never particularly cared for EDI.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 16 mai 2013 - 07:57 .

[S.A.K]

Yes.

[ManOfSteel]

Yes. I have no problem with Shepard sacrificing himself at the end.

[game-zerox]

You just made the choice way easier. Sacrificing Shepard was never an issue with me. In fact, I was looking for that moment when I'd finish the game just so it's impossible to make a sequel with him/her.

[The Night Mammoth]

Hmm, Shepard, or EDI?

I've completely lost any sympathy for the geth since they've been completely changed from what they were in the last game.

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

ThinkSharp wrote...

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

Yes and no

No because i wanted my Shepard to live off the credits with Garrus But with the breath scene i just want my Shepard to rest (imma be mean) I don't care about people who wanted to die I wanted my Shepard to live all i wanted was the rubble to move and have some random person say "we found Shepard" but no instead they have to leave it to speculation so people can headcanon shep lives or dies no..just no! Then we have the explosion of the citadel that makes Shepard alive headcanon stupid if the person doesn't want to believe in IT anyway!

So I'm going to go with yes, because compare to the breath scene at least having the Geth and EDI live is better

I don't understand why actually having the scene of someone finding Shepard is so important to many people. No judgments, but I don't. Why isn't it enough to be "Shep lived!" and assume someone came and dragged him out? If other people want to headcanon it's the last breath, why does that take away from your believing he lived?

Because it makes no sense it makes no sense what so ever That breath scene is so stupid every time i saw it i laughed because of how stupid it was. I mean think about it Shepard shoots the tube and live through that explosion  haha omg thinking about it is funny. Its not that others head canon takes away from my believing shepard living it's the stupidness of surviving the citadel explosion that takes it away. There should have been a way to choose to die or live when the person picked destroy with High EMS. Make the Shepard live ending believible instead that scene is a faceplam if the person wants to headcanon Shepard living

And just for the kicks headcanon Shepard dying is stupid as well how the hell did Shepard survive reentry? <_< if it's the citadel how did Shepard survive the explosion where he or she was? 

And no making Shepard Live does not give the other two options no point People want to control the Reapers people want Synthesis they have a point 

[Morlath]

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

Because it makes no sense it makes no sense what so ever That breath scene is so stupid every time i saw it i laughed because of how stupid it was. I mean think about it Shepard shoots the tube and live through that explosion  haha omg thinking about it is funny. Its not that others head canon takes away from my believing shepard living it's the stupidness of surviving the citadel explosion that takes it away. There should have been a way to choose to die or live when the person picked destroy with High EMS. Make the Shepard live ending believible instead that scene is a faceplam if the person wants to headcanon Shepard living

And just for the kicks headcanon Shepard dying is stupid as well how the hell did Shepard survive reentry? <_< if it's the citadel how did Shepard survive the explosion where he or she was? 

And no making Shepard Live does not give the other two options no point People want to control the Reapers people want Synthesis they have a point 

Except for the simple fact there's a transporter type beam about 300 yards away from him...

I'm not saying the breath makes sense as is but that doesn't mean there isn't enough in story itself to explain how Shepard got back to Earth. After all, there's some good stories where the hero is about to sacrifice him/her self and then just before the entire thing blows up something happens that gives them a way out.

The problem, unfortunately, is that there's too much left to work out from a player's perspective.

[dorktainian]

Ryzaki wrote...

If you could save EDI and the Geth (with Reapers still dying of course) but Shep woudl ALWAYS die would you accept this ending? 

I would (since with the lack of reunion scene and that stupid gasp buried in rubble Shep might as well be dead. Probably would've been kinder).

I'm just curious.

   

as a certain pointy ear vulcan points out...

''the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or one''  



However it's a leading question because i'm sure shepard would be willing to end the reaper threat whatever the cost, knowing that in war people die.  it is inevitable.  sacrifice a few to save the many.

Modifié par dorktainian, 16 mai 2013 - 09:42 .

[wright1978]

Well my main Shep would make the selfless choice. Other of my Shep's would make the more selfish one and priortise their own survival.

[Bizinha]

No. I hate this idea of Jesus Shepard.
Shepard isnt a hero, without his crew.

[Ruadh]

Absolutely not. I try not to make a habit of committing suicide in order to save a race of genocidel, killer robots. Which is one of many reasons I avoid control and synthesis. As dumb as it is, destroy is fine the way its presented. Plus, the Geth commited genocide, they have blood on their hands. They shouldn't get a free pass from that because Legion claims they're good killer robots now.

'Shepard Commander, it was the other Geth that did all those bad things, not us. Honest.'

'I believe you Legion. I'm not even going to ask for evidence that Heretics are what you say they are. I'm just gonna go destroy them then take your word for everything regarding the Geth. Ignoring the fact you're more than capable of lying, manipulating and distorting things to shine the Geth in a more positive light.'

[Morlath]

ginner dave wrote...

'I believe you Legion. I'm not even going to ask for evidence that Heretics are what you say they are. I'm just gonna go destroy them then take your word for everything regarding the Geth. Ignoring the fact you're more than capable of lying, manipulating and distorting things to shine the Geth in a more positive light.'

Not that I want to derail the thread but I asked these elsewhere.

If you don't believe the story about the Heretics, are you suggesting that it's one giant con with all the Geth units on the space station sacrifices just to convince Shepard that Legion/Geth are the good guys and if so, why? What's the end game to such a comspiracy?

[dorktainian]

Will the geth become the reapers in the longer term?

[AshenSugar]

Yeah, absolutely. If EDI, The Geth, and all other synthetic life (other than Reapers) could survive, I'd choose Destroy without any hesitation.

As it stands, I view the Destroy option as a kind of 'instant genocide' button. I do not have the moral right to choose this.

Not only am I annihilating an entire species - one I painstakingly went out of my way to save earlier in the game - and placed a huge amount of emotional investment into doing so- but I am also likely to be condemning uncounted macro-trillions of other sentient lifeforms in the galaxy to spontaneous annihilation. 

Who knows how many other synthetic races live a largely unexplored galaxy? Who can even contemplate how many populated planets, clusters and stellar systems I destroy as a result of choosing this option?

It's for this reason alone that I always choose the Control option. Despite it's dangers and inherent unknowns, it still seems like the safest and most humane of all options.

Modifié par AshenSugar, 16 mai 2013 - 11:28 .

[dorktainian]

AshenSugar wrote...

Yeah, absolutely. If EDI, The Geth, and all other synthetic life (other than Reapers) could survive, I'd choose Destroy without any hesitation.

As it stands, I view the Destroy option as a kind of 'instant genocide' button. I do not have the moral right to choose this.

Not only am I annihilating an entire species - one I painstakingly went out of my way to save earlier in the game - and placed a huge amount of emotional investment into doing so- but I am also likely to be condemning uncounted macro-trillions of other sentient lifeforms in the galaxy to spontaneous annihilation. 

Who knows how many other synthetic races live a largely unexplored galaxy? Who can even contemplate how many populated planets, clusters and stellar systems I destroy as a result of choosing this option?

It's for this reason alone that I always choose the Control option. Despite it's dangers and inherent unknowns, it still seems like the safest and most humane of all options.

    


so you would rather enslave than be the slave?  Interesting.