606 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Not, it doesn't.  Because if you destroy one side or the other, there is no more conflict..

Which is the opposite of what the Catalyst says about Destroy. He flat out warns you that picking Destroy will allow the cycle of synthetic rebellions to continue and breed further conflict in the future. Destroy rejects the Catalyst's purpose and his means.

The root of the problem is that the relationship between the Catalyst and the Crucible is presented inconsistently. One moment, the Catalyst is calling Destroy one of the possible "new" solutions, the next he says it solves nothing. The best we can do is see which interpretation has the most evidence and logic on its side. In this respect I think it's a compelling case that Destroy is rejecting the Catalyst:

1. It rejects the need for Reaper overlords to prevent synthetic conflict.
2. It ignores the Catalyst's assertion that future synthetic conflict and rebellion is inevitable, since this is the Catalyst's main complaint against Destroy.
3. The Catalyst's mandate is to preserve life, which as of the EC we know INCLUDES synthetic life. Destroy wipes out synthetics, which conflicts with his mandate. The logical conclusion here is that Destroy is not something he wants in this respect, either.
4. The Catalyst says that all synthetics will be wiped out because the Crucible will not discriminate. The way Destroy beam functions is independent of the Catalyst's wishes (this assertion is further supported by #3).

1 Yes, it rejects the need for the Reapers, by claiming that organics can handle synthetics on their own.  The Catalyst does not seem to personally believe that they can, that the "chaos will come back" But that is the 'solution":  kill all synthetics and trust organics to be able to prune them back.
 
2  Again, conflict will not occur if there are no synthetics.  As far as the Catalyst is concerned in Destroy, it becomes incumbent on organics to maintain this Final Solution on synthetics.

3  Yeah, and preserving synthetic life is utter nonsense given what we learned in ME2.  FOrget inconsistent, this is downright contradictory.

4) And that's just a failure on Bioware's part since we're treading too close to having an actual upbeat ending.

[Seboist]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I hate to be the sort of person who crows about their preferred ending at the expense of the others, but surely Control is just as much of a 'screw you' to the Reapers as Destroy. By controlling them, you're taking away their free will and confining the original Catalyst to the great Recycle Bin in the sky. Not to mention you also preserve the free will of your synthetic allies (you know, by not killing them).

If we're arguing about sacrifice, it's slightly stronger than Destroy (though not quite as strong as Synthesis) because it's self-sacrifice, as opposed to pawn sacrifice.

Geth are still gone in my Control ending.

[3DandBeyond]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

I think the problem is that the "theme" for the ending is full of so much gibberish that none of us, including bioware, even knows what the hell the theme of the ending was supposed to be in the first place.

This exactly.  And, OP, true sacrifice exists only in knowing what you are sacrificing something for.  If I tell you you need to kill yourself I have to give you something other than the flimsy crap glowboy gives Shepard.  And I daresay you'd have have some idea that the choices you can make are valid and exist, as well as they will accomplish at least in part what is worth dying for.

I could say that what the endings are about is really the Iraq War or any war.  And I can make a compelling case for this.  Consider that we in the US (or perhaps in any country) send people off to die and to kill for us.  They sacrifice for us and do things we don't want to have to do in our names. 

We and our government may well have sent them off to war without knowing what the sacrifice was for and believing it was for one thing that was a false premise (I don't want to get political but the basis for the war was not factual ultimately).  One could say then that the sacrifices that were made were in vain.  And many would look and say it was just a waste that solved nothing and created more problems than the one it was meant to solve.

It sometimes seems to me that Bioware was making a commentary on a lot of things in creating this ending.  That doesn't make it better and in many ways, if true it makes it worse.  Make a game about that if you want, but it isn't like the Reapers were anything other than gigantic killing machines to be stopped and if they did make an ending as some way to show that sacrifice does have to have a reason in order for it to be a good thing, then they needed to introduce more nuance and vision into the game all along.  Don't create monsters in space that at the end are turned into puppies following their master (again, a corollary to the mindlessness of those who fight and follow without thinking), and a master that is a messed up creation that was never truly needed in the first place (and is perhaps a commentary on God or government depending upon how you look at it).


No matter what, the bottom line is if I ask you to sacrifice yourself or even something you care about, the reason has to make sense and the outcome has to in part do some verifiable good, or at least you'd have to be able to believe it would do some good.  I played as Shepard with some of my own values and my thoughts-the Shepard I played would never believe any of this crap.  At the core, Shepard is told in many ways and shown in others, that the reapers see him/her as a threat and they frequently try to kill him/her.  The kid comes along and says he controls the reapers and wants Shepard to either kill him/herself OR destroy/damage all technology.  And this makes sense because?

The choice-kill yourself or destroy/damage all technology with which you would be able to mount some sort of defense (maybe not win, but you could still fight), and all synthetics would be targeted.  Hmm, AIs are involved in a lot of things (even just seeing what Avina does), so targeting them might cripple lots of things.  And  synthetic stuff (tech-all tehc is damaged) is inside almost everyone.  Seems like a good trade off, either suicide for maybe something that might sorta be good for now, or destroy/damage all the stuff inside people as well as the ability to defend yourself.  Great, choose now.  That's not sacrifice.  That's idiocy.

[Seboist]

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

So what I gather is you guys hate making choices that you can't paragon out of for once

Paragon is a choice throughout all three games. You don't use it to get "out" of anything, since it is the actual choice itself.

The Paragon "choice" has never had any real difference from the alternative other than to feel warm and fuzzy about oneself  while running down the next couple of corridors.

Modifié par Seboist, 11 juin 2013 - 09:07 .

[tanisha__unknown]

David7204 wrote...

There would have been nothing wrong with some sacrifice if it had been done well and had meaningful themes attached. I think it was a foregone conclusion long before ME 3 was released that there's no way Shepard would live if the player was a total screw-up and half the galaxy was gone by the end.

The problem, as you said, is that Shepard's death is completely arbitrary. It sounds to me the developers basically said "This ending is too happy so Shepard dies." And yes, that was incredibly foolish of them.

I wholeheartedly agree here. It felt like the developers thought - how can we make an impressive ending, tha will make quite an impact?

Nothing wrong with sacrifice, and there is also nothing intrinsicaly wrong with Shepard dieing. The catalyst seems to be the thing that most fans are offended by, if the game ended with Shepard dieing on the Citadel after the scene with Anderson, I guess it would have been called a well made finale.


OP: I disagree with you. Sacrifice was one theme, not the overarching one. I don't believe you fully understood the game if you insist on that.

What about strength through diversity?
A piece of hope, no matter how f***ed up the situation is?
Making tough decisions (which would come close to sacrifice but is not quite the same)

Modifié par Jinx1720, 11 juin 2013 - 09:37 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
1 Yes, it rejects the need for the Reapers, by claiming that organics can handle synthetics on their own.  The Catalyst does not seem to personally believe that they can, that the "chaos will come back" But that is the 'solution":  kill all synthetics and trust organics to be able to prune them back.

Where does Shepard say this? Where does the Catalyst say this? The exchange between Shepard and the Catalyst really has nothing to do with whether or not organics can "handle" synthetics. The only discussion going on in Destroy is whether or not conflict will arise, which is different.
 

2  Again, conflict will not occur if there are no synthetics.  As far as the Catalyst is concerned in Destroy, it becomes incumbent on organics to maintain this Final Solution on synthetics.

Again, what lines of dialogue are you using to form this opinion? I am using the Catalyst's actual lines of dialogue, which say nothing to the effect that Destroy is a solution because there are no more synthetics. He says the opposite; that synthetics WILL be created again and WILL rebel.

3  Yeah, and preserving synthetic life is utter nonsense given what we learned in ME2.  FOrget inconsistent, this is downright contradictory.

I agree that the cycles are nonsense from OUR viewpoint, but we are talking about looking at Destroy from the Catalyst's viewpoint and whether or not it conflicts with his mandate from his viewpoint. Clearly, it does, since he places a clear line of distinction between annihilation of a race and harvesting a race.

4) And that's just a failure on Bioware's part since we're treading too close to having an actual upbeat ending.

Obviously. I think that you in particular have seen a lot of my posts about how much I dislike the Crucible's MO in Destroy. But whether or not Destroy is in line with the Catalyst's wishes and plans is really a separate question, and I simply don't see it. Had the Catalyst line about finding a new "solution" been skipped, there would be no reason at all to believe he is okay with Shepard picking Destroy, because out of all the endings it most starkly rejects the Catalyst's very reason for being along with his Reaper cycle solution.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 juin 2013 - 11:26 .

[spirosz]

Again?

[AresKeith]

spirosz wrote...

Again?

It's txgoldrush

[Reorte]

No theme of sacrifice beyond the simple, obvious fact that sometimes people will die in a war. ME3 tried to very badly shoehorn one in by forcing unconvcincing sacrifices (Legion's was ridiculous, Thane was dying anyway, Mordin's was just very unlucky timing but at least was handled well).

[Jukaga]

Reorte wrote...

No theme of sacrifice beyond the simple, obvious fact that sometimes people will die in a war. ME3 tried to very badly shoehorn one in by forcing unconvcincing sacrifices (Legion's was ridiculous, Thane was dying anyway, Mordin's was just very unlucky timing but at least was handled well).

Easy to avoid all three.

1. Sell Legion to Cerberus and later you get to shoot the VI in the head!
2. Send Thane to the vents, it spares us his stupid death scene and Kirrahe gets a worthy end or the councilor dies.
3. Let Mordin die 'holding the line', it's a Salarian tradition.

Modifié par Jukaga, 11 juin 2013 - 11:53 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
1 Yes, it rejects the need for the Reapers, by claiming that organics can handle synthetics on their own.  The Catalyst does not seem to personally believe that they can, that the "chaos will come back" But that is the 'solution":  kill all synthetics and trust organics to be able to prune them back.

Where does Shepard say this? Where does the Catalyst say this? The exchange between Shepard and the Catalyst really has nothing to do with whether or not organics can "handle" synthetics. The only discussion going on in Destroy is whether or not conflict will arise, which is different.

To the Catalyst, there is no difference.  It's all "conflict"  When a fire burns and all that.
 

2  Again, conflict will not occur if there are no synthetics.  As far as the Catalyst is concerned in Destroy, it becomes incumbent on organics to maintain this Final Solution on synthetics.

Again, what lines of dialogue are you using to form this opinion? I am using the Catalyst's actual lines of dialogue, which say nothing to the effect that Destroy is a solution because there are no more synthetics. He says the opposite; that synthetics WILL be created again and WILL rebel.

I would think it would be self-explanatory and require no dialogue:  With no Reapers, the organics will be on their own when the "inevitable" conflict comes around again.  It will be up to the organics themselves to keep that from happening.  That means organics will have to exterminate every synthetic that gains sentience as it happens, if not before.  Something the Catalyst does not express confidence they will be able to do, of course.

 I absolutely refuse to endorse the idea that the Catalyst knows the future, only what it sees as probabilities.

I agree that the cycles are nonsense from OUR viewpoint, but we are talking about looking at Destroy from the Catalyst's viewpoint and whether or not it conflicts with his mandate from his viewpoint. Clearly, it does, since he places a clear line of distinction between annihilation of a race and harvesting a race.

I'm talking about the Reapers preserving synthetic life.  There is zero evidence of that.  They harvest genetic material for their Reapers.  Everything we've seen of Reapers up til this point they have treated synthetic life as tools and nothing more.

Obviously. I think that you in particular have seen a lot of my posts about how much I dislike the Crucible's MO in Destroy. But whether or not Destroy is in line with the Catalyst's wishes and plans is really a separate question, and I simply don't see it. Had the Catalyst line about finding a new "solution" been skipped, there would be no reason at all to believe he is okay with Shepard picking Destroy, because out of all the endings it most starkly rejects the Catalyst's very reason for being along with his Reaper cycle solution.

the Catalyst obviously doesn't see Destroy as an optimal solution.  I suspect it thinks this is a stopgap measure at best.  But it's still a solution.  Ensure the safety of organic life now and warn them to kill any synthetic life form on sight.

I thinnk I'll stop now before I Godwinize the thread.

[Malanek]

Don't agree with the OP. Only destroy has any outstanding sacrifice (the geth). IMO if there is a theme to the ending it would be to look to alternatives to destruction, which had been your goal throughout the series. It tries to examine the morals behind slavery, war, and forging a genuine peace.

The problem with that is it fails badly because the vast majority of people are hideously offended by the genetic invasion of synthesis and the fact each individual gets no choice about it. It reaches the point where the warmongering choice seems by far the most moralistically acceptable as well as safest. It also didn't help that the science behind synthesis exceeds the already blurred lines between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I don't think those factors were intended.

[xeNNN]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The ending was an attempt for and I quote from Hudson- "High level storytelling". And an attempt at deus ex machina. One of the themes of the entire game is sacrifice not just the ending. Derp.

The ending isn't bad cause "we don't get it" it's bad cause it's bad storytelling and lacks narrative cohesiveness and also introduces a major character- The Catalyst, in the last 15 minutes of a 90 plus hour narrative and plot.

That's called poor writing and storytelling.

Nuff said.

^this.

See this is what happens when people like the OP look far to deep into something and find what they want to see to justify something.

this is also what happens when a plot gets moaned and appluaded about so many times those who "liked it" and saw the devs and directors say its "higher level story telling" start to believe they are much more comprehensive of the meaning of pretty much everything.....in other words they think they can read between the lines that nobody else see's.


i dont know whats worse the arrogance or the stupidity.

Modifié par xeNNN, 12 juin 2013 - 01:46 .

[txgoldrush]

StreetMagic wrote...

No, I have no problem with that railroaded story. The Alpha Relay incident sounds pretty necessary. I'm just saying Shepard isn't exactly the sacrificing type that Star Kid is trying to force him to be. The whole series forces you to be quite the opposite. Fighting to the end. Only in that last moment do you get this other magical b.s. about sacrifice shoved down your throat. As much as I don't mind the Synthesis ending, it's totally out of place. Belongs in some other sci-fi story.

Shepard isn't the sacrificing type?

Did you even play through ME2's opening where he sacrificed his life for Joker?

[txgoldrush]

xeNNN wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The ending was an attempt for and I quote from Hudson- "High level storytelling". And an attempt at deus ex machina. One of the themes of the entire game is sacrifice not just the ending. Derp.

The ending isn't bad cause "we don't get it" it's bad cause it's bad storytelling and lacks narrative cohesiveness and also introduces a major character- The Catalyst, in the last 15 minutes of a 90 plus hour narrative and plot.

That's called poor writing and storytelling.

Nuff said.

^this.

See this is what happens when people like the OP look far to deep into something and find what they want to see to justify something.

this is also what happens when a plot gets moaned and appluaded about so many times those who "liked it" and saw the devs and directors say its "higher level story telling" start to believe they are much more comprehensive of the meaning of pretty much everything.....in other words they think they can read between the lines that nobody else see's.


i dont know whats worse the arrogance or the stupidity.

Please, I am not even looking that deep, I am just looking at Narrative 101: Finding Conflict.

Its actually the anti enders who try to make the ending more confusing than it is.

[txgoldrush]

Malanek999 wrote...

Don't agree with the OP. Only destroy has any outstanding sacrifice (the geth). IMO if there is a theme to the ending it would be to look to alternatives to destruction, which had been your goal throughout the series. It tries to examine the morals behind slavery, war, and forging a genuine peace.

The problem with that is it fails badly because the vast majority of people are hideously offended by the genetic invasion of synthesis and the fact each individual gets no choice about it. It reaches the point where the warmongering choice seems by far the most moralistically acceptable as well as safest. It also didn't help that the science behind synthesis exceeds the already blurred lines between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I don't think those factors were intended.

Really.

Control: You will lose everything you have. You will die. The connection to your kind will be lost.

Destroy has a sacrifice of others for the greater good, while Control and Synthesis have a personal cost.

[Malanek]

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Don't agree with the OP. Only destroy has any outstanding sacrifice (the geth). IMO if there is a theme to the ending it would be to look to alternatives to destruction, which had been your goal throughout the series. It tries to examine the morals behind slavery, war, and forging a genuine peace.

The problem with that is it fails badly because the vast majority of people are hideously offended by the genetic invasion of synthesis and the fact each individual gets no choice about it. It reaches the point where the warmongering choice seems by far the most moralistically acceptable as well as safest. It also didn't help that the science behind synthesis exceeds the already blurred lines between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I don't think those factors were intended.

Really.

Control: You will lose everything you have. You will die. The connection to your kind will be lost.

Destroy has a sacrifice of others for the greater good, while Control and Synthesis have a personal cost.

In all three cases it is presented that you will die. There is no difference between them in that way and no choice. Hence the only real sacrifice that differentiates them is the Geth in destroy. Because that is the only difference between the choices, in terms of sacrifice, that cannot be the overriding theme to the ending. The differences are in the consequences, not the cost.

[txgoldrush]

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Don't agree with the OP. Only destroy has any outstanding sacrifice (the geth). IMO if there is a theme to the ending it would be to look to alternatives to destruction, which had been your goal throughout the series. It tries to examine the morals behind slavery, war, and forging a genuine peace.

The problem with that is it fails badly because the vast majority of people are hideously offended by the genetic invasion of synthesis and the fact each individual gets no choice about it. It reaches the point where the warmongering choice seems by far the most moralistically acceptable as well as safest. It also didn't help that the science behind synthesis exceeds the already blurred lines between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I don't think those factors were intended.

Really.

Control: You will lose everything you have. You will die. The connection to your kind will be lost.

Destroy has a sacrifice of others for the greater good, while Control and Synthesis have a personal cost.

In all three cases it is presented that you will die. There is no difference between them in that way and no choice. Hence the only real sacrifice that differentiates them is the Geth in destroy. Because that is the only difference between the choices, in terms of sacrifice, that cannot be the overriding theme to the ending. The differences are in the consequences, not the cost.

Wrong, in high EMS cases.

In Destroy, it is never presented that you will die....unless your EMS is low.

[Malanek]

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Don't agree with the OP. Only destroy has any outstanding sacrifice (the geth). IMO if there is a theme to the ending it would be to look to alternatives to destruction, which had been your goal throughout the series. It tries to examine the morals behind slavery, war, and forging a genuine peace.

The problem with that is it fails badly because the vast majority of people are hideously offended by the genetic invasion of synthesis and the fact each individual gets no choice about it. It reaches the point where the warmongering choice seems by far the most moralistically acceptable as well as safest. It also didn't help that the science behind synthesis exceeds the already blurred lines between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I don't think those factors were intended.

Really.

Control: You will lose everything you have. You will die. The connection to your kind will be lost.

Destroy has a sacrifice of others for the greater good, while Control and Synthesis have a personal cost.

In all three cases it is presented that you will die. There is no difference between them in that way and no choice. Hence the only real sacrifice that differentiates them is the Geth in destroy. Because that is the only difference between the choices, in terms of sacrifice, that cannot be the overriding theme to the ending. The differences are in the consequences, not the cost.

Wrong, in high EMS cases.

In Destroy, it is never presented that you will die....unless your EMS is low.

It is always presented that you will die before you make the choice. The catalyst says something like all synthetics will be destroyed and you are synthetic. The high ems destroy scene at the end is after you make you decision (and even then is ambiguous).

Modifié par Malanek999, 12 juin 2013 - 03:44 .

[txgoldrush]

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Don't agree with the OP. Only destroy has any outstanding sacrifice (the geth). IMO if there is a theme to the ending it would be to look to alternatives to destruction, which had been your goal throughout the series. It tries to examine the morals behind slavery, war, and forging a genuine peace.

The problem with that is it fails badly because the vast majority of people are hideously offended by the genetic invasion of synthesis and the fact each individual gets no choice about it. It reaches the point where the warmongering choice seems by far the most moralistically acceptable as well as safest. It also didn't help that the science behind synthesis exceeds the already blurred lines between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I don't think those factors were intended.

Really.

Control: You will lose everything you have. You will die. The connection to your kind will be lost.

Destroy has a sacrifice of others for the greater good, while Control and Synthesis have a personal cost.

In all three cases it is presented that you will die. There is no difference between them in that way and no choice. Hence the only real sacrifice that differentiates them is the Geth in destroy. Because that is the only difference between the choices, in terms of sacrifice, that cannot be the overriding theme to the ending. The differences are in the consequences, not the cost.

Wrong, in high EMS cases.

In Destroy, it is never presented that you will die....unless your EMS is low.

It is always presented that you will die before you make the choice. The catalyst says something like all synthetics will be destroyed and you are synthetic. The high ems destroy scene at the end is after you make you decision (and even then is ambiguous).

No, it doesn't. In lower EMS versions, it will explicitly say that you will die. In higher EMS versions, the Catalyst will not say this.

"All technology including those relying on synthetic technology for their survival will be lost, Yourself included"

Modifié par txgoldrush, 12 juin 2013 - 04:00 .

[Malanek]

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Don't agree with the OP. Only destroy has any outstanding sacrifice (the geth). IMO if there is a theme to the ending it would be to look to alternatives to destruction, which had been your goal throughout the series. It tries to examine the morals behind slavery, war, and forging a genuine peace.

The problem with that is it fails badly because the vast majority of people are hideously offended by the genetic invasion of synthesis and the fact each individual gets no choice about it. It reaches the point where the warmongering choice seems by far the most moralistically acceptable as well as safest. It also didn't help that the science behind synthesis exceeds the already blurred lines between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I don't think those factors were intended.

Really.

Control: You will lose everything you have. You will die. The connection to your kind will be lost.

Destroy has a sacrifice of others for the greater good, while Control and Synthesis have a personal cost.

In all three cases it is presented that you will die. There is no difference between them in that way and no choice. Hence the only real sacrifice that differentiates them is the Geth in destroy. Because that is the only difference between the choices, in terms of sacrifice, that cannot be the overriding theme to the ending. The differences are in the consequences, not the cost.

Wrong, in high EMS cases.

In Destroy, it is never presented that you will die....unless your EMS is low.

It is always presented that you will die before you make the choice. The catalyst says something like all synthetics will be destroyed and you are synthetic. The high ems destroy scene at the end is after you make you decision (and even then is ambiguous).

No, it doesn't. In lower EMS versions, it will explicitly say that you will die. In higher EMS versions, the Catalyst will not say this.

Child: I know you’ve thought about destroying us.

Child: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.

Child: Including the geth.

Child: Even you are partly synthetic.
IMO, that is beyond implying it.

Modifié par Malanek999, 12 juin 2013 - 04:02 .

[txgoldrush]

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Don't agree with the OP. Only destroy has any outstanding sacrifice (the geth). IMO if there is a theme to the ending it would be to look to alternatives to destruction, which had been your goal throughout the series. It tries to examine the morals behind slavery, war, and forging a genuine peace.

The problem with that is it fails badly because the vast majority of people are hideously offended by the genetic invasion of synthesis and the fact each individual gets no choice about it. It reaches the point where the warmongering choice seems by far the most moralistically acceptable as well as safest. It also didn't help that the science behind synthesis exceeds the already blurred lines between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. I don't think those factors were intended.

Really.

Control: You will lose everything you have. You will die. The connection to your kind will be lost.

Destroy has a sacrifice of others for the greater good, while Control and Synthesis have a personal cost.

In all three cases it is presented that you will die. There is no difference between them in that way and no choice. Hence the only real sacrifice that differentiates them is the Geth in destroy. Because that is the only difference between the choices, in terms of sacrifice, that cannot be the overriding theme to the ending. The differences are in the consequences, not the cost.

Wrong, in high EMS cases.

In Destroy, it is never presented that you will die....unless your EMS is low.

It is always presented that you will die before you make the choice. The catalyst says something like all synthetics will be destroyed and you are synthetic. The high ems destroy scene at the end is after you make you decision (and even then is ambiguous).

No, it doesn't. In lower EMS versions, it will explicitly say that you will die. In higher EMS versions, the Catalyst will not say this.

Child: I know you’ve thought about destroying us.

Child: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.

Child: Including the geth.

Child: Even you are partly synthetic.
IMO, that is beyond implying it.

Someone does not have the Extended Cut. That part has been rewritten and for good reason. You may not WANT to kill synthetics, but you have to.

Now its, "But be warned, others will be targeted, the Crucible will not discriminate, all synthetics will be targeted, even you are partly synthetic" HOWEVER, if you explore further, if you have low EMS you get this....

"All technology including those who rely on synthetic technology to survive will be lost, yourself included"

In high ems however, you get this.

"There will still be losses but no more than what you already lost"

So its explicitly told in low EMS that you will die, not so in high EMS.

[spirosz]

Vanilla is the only experience worth arguing.