77 réponses à ce sujet

[cooldonkeyfish]

I personally believe that Bioware did a pretty alright job with the ending choices - except of course the destroy one. I believe that by making it so "the crucible does not discriminate" and therefore destroys ALL synthetic life instead of just the reapers was a bad choice.
I prefer to use my renegade femShep who is a tough on people and has no difficulty making hard decisions, but still holds a strong morality.
She ended the conflict between the Quarians and Geth peacefully and believed that organics and synthetics had their own places, and that through their differences should be able to learn from each other and make each other stronger. The violence was more or less over, and while it wasn't perfect, it was real and it was a choice that they had made.
When it came time to decide she knew that destroying the reapers and letting things go naturally was what was right for the Galaxy. Unfortunately the game forced her to pick synthesis even though she didn't believe in it. It was either that or go COMPLETELY against what she stood for.
After all, there is natural conflict between organics without sythentics involved, so why is this any different to the Catalyst?
Sorry if this was badly written, I'm half asleep at the moment.
What do you think?

[Br3admax]

Nope, I'm completely fine with the cost of destroying the Reapers. I didn't particularly care for the geth, and EDI was cool and all but not something I'm going to base my decisions off of. It was very easy for to accept Destroy's consequences and choose it.

[KaiserShep]

Heck, I cared a great deal about EDI, and would rather have kept the geth around to help the quarians, but even then, I would destroy them both without a moment's hesitation if it meant curing the galactic plague that was the reapers.

[Dieb]

It was regrettable but perfectly acceptable, given the alternatives. Ashley's dog/bear-metaphor perfectly sums up the way fictional-me feels about Synthetics.

[Pressedcat]

The fact that destroy not only killed the Reapers but also the Geth and EDI made choosing destroy for my canon Shep a genuinely difficult decision, as opposed to a decision I would be able to take with absolutely no reservations. As far as I'm concerned this is a good thing, as it is the sign of a hard moral choice, where all options offer different costs and rewards.

[Chashan]

I would have found a simple 'collateral damage'-con to Red to be acceptable and within reason.

Low-EMS already went there and got the low spectrum right, at least. BW should have gone from there, made it clear that no matter what the Sol-system would end up even more ravaged than it already was by the Reapers.

Still leaves the 'Catalyst' as a rather critical problem in and of itself, but at least there wouldn't be quite as plain dumb a hostage-situation as a Reaper-targeting device that for some reason cannot keep those and only those in its sights. They aren't that small, after all...

[abch4]

Destroy is exactly the way it should've been.

If it wasn't this way, it would have been the no brainer choice for every playthrough.

I like that it was somewhat of a tough decision, though shep breathes makes it an easier decision than it should be, which makes it somewhat selfish of me to choose it

Modifié par abch4, 25 septembre 2013 - 02:15 .

[cooldonkeyfish]

Right, after reading these I agree that it helped make the ending choice more difficult.
Therefore, I will go back (WAAAY back) to believing in the indoctrination theory (gasp!).
It makes the choice easy again for me.

[Baihu1983]

Destroy should have just destroyed the Reapers for those who played the entire series and carried their saves over.

[Iakus]

 Destroy should have either:

Allow the geth and EDI to accept that thier deaths would be necessasry to destroy the Reapers, and accept it with courage (See Alistair and Loghain in DAO)

or

Not destroy synthetics at all, and focus on the relays as a sacrifice the galaxy as a whole must make:  That for an unknown, but potentially lengthy period of time, relay travel will be virtually nonexistant as repairs are made.

[Mcfly616]

EDI said she was willing to die to defeat the Reapers, just like the rest of the crew. I'm pretty sure she accepted her death was highly probable, regardless of the way it came about.

[spockjedi]

There shoudn't have been a choice between destroy, control and synthesis in the first place.

[Deverz]

I can see the logic behind having the geth destroyed. And it's pretty obvious that the destruction of the geth serves as a crutch on that ending, otherwise it wouldn't be a difficult decision. My geth always die on Rannoch, so the choice is pretty easy for me. And EDI's sacrifice will be honored in the coming empire.

I'm fine with it, I wouldn't change it.

The other endings though...

[Reorte]

abch4 wrote...

Destroy is exactly the way it should've been.

If it wasn't this way, it would have been the no brainer choice for every playthrough.

I like that it was somewhat of a tough decision, though shep breathes makes it an easier decision than it should be, which makes it somewhat selfish of me to choose it

That's a good part of why the negatives come across as so arbitrary because they only exist to drag Destroy down, not for any good story-related reason. If they actually made sense it would be different but the whole "does not discriminate" thing is nonsense, when killing off all synthetic life instead of just the Reapers is actually a much more complicated thing to do. Have it have quite a big negative impact on Earth, or, much more plausibly, make it something that'll give enough of an edge over the Reapers that victory will still come, but it'll take time, and hence losses. Then Control could be no more losses but a riskier future.

[Mcfly616]

Reorte wrote...

abch4 wrote...

Destroy is exactly the way it should've been.

If it wasn't this way, it would have been the no brainer choice for every playthrough.

I like that it was somewhat of a tough decision, though shep breathes makes it an easier decision than it should be, which makes it somewhat selfish of me to choose it

That's a good part of why the negatives come across as so arbitrary because they only exist to drag Destroy down, not for any good story-related reason. If they actually made sense it would be different but the whole "does not discriminate" thing is nonsense, when killing off all synthetic life instead of just the Reapers is actually a much more complicated thing to do. Have it have quite a big negative impact on Earth, or, much more plausibly, make it something that'll give enough of an edge over the Reapers that victory will still come, but it'll take time, and hence losses. Then Control could be no more losses but a riskier future.

not arbitrary at all. Anything that targets the Reapers would also target EDI and the Geth. Both have Reaper Tech.

[SiniisteR]

Reorte wrote...

abch4 wrote...

Destroy is exactly the way it should've been.

If it wasn't this way, it would have been the no brainer choice for every playthrough.

I like that it was somewhat of a tough decision, though shep breathes makes it an easier decision than it should be, which makes it somewhat selfish of me to choose it

That's a good part of why the negatives come across as so arbitrary because they only exist to drag Destroy down, not for any good story-related reason. If they actually made sense it would be different but the whole "does not discriminate" thing is nonsense, when killing off all synthetic life instead of just the Reapers is actually a much more complicated thing to do. Have it have quite a big negative impact on Earth, or, much more plausibly, make it something that'll give enough of an edge over the Reapers that victory will still come, but it'll take time, and hence losses. Then Control could be no more losses but a riskier future.

With the catalyst's logic of all synthetics eventually causing destruction, I'd say the killing all synthetics thing sort of makes sense.

[Twilight_Princess]

Yes, shep's survival should not have been an easter egg or a cliffhanger. This is the end of shepard's story and it wasn't fair that destroy still ended in that unsatisfactory way.That clip should have been updated when the EC was being made.

[Liamv2]

Either have shep definitely dead or definitely alive.

[Iakus]

Hyrule_Gal wrote...

Yes, shep's survival should not have been an easter egg or a cliffhanger. This is the end of shepard's story and it wasn't fair that destroy still ended in that unsatisfactory way.That clip should have been updated when the EC was being made.

QFT.

Should have done this at a minimum

[Pressedcat]

Or have nothing definitive and leave the player to imagine Shepard's future for themselves...

One of these three choices gives the player far more opportunity to role-play Shepard's fate.

[AlexMBrennan]

After all, there is natural conflict between organics without sythentics involved, so why is this any different to the Catalyst

Because they have a different DNA framework matrix reverse polarity quantum.

[Pressedcat]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

After all, there is natural conflict between organics without sythentics involved, so why is this any different to the Catalyst

Because they have a different DNA framework matrix reverse polarity quantum.

Or because organics generally need other organics to go on surviving, where as synthetics quite possibly do not.

If we (mankind) were to release some weapon into our own atmosphere that were to kill every other organic life on Earth, we would soon follow them all into extinction. The Geth quite possibly would not. Organics evolve as part of an interdependent ecosytem, whilst synthetics are created in 'isolation'.

Sythetics could therefore use weapons that indiscrimately anihilated every other lifeform in the galaxy, and not be unduly inconvenienced themselves. Some might consider that worrisome.

[Angry British Ace]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't mind the price paid. Just wish it was clear what the rubble scene is meant to be. I don't know see why the mystery is necessary at this point. I understand if it was meant to be a cliffhanger, but not for a final moment in the story. Shep is better off dead, rather than giving me that little tease.

I like to believe in two reasons about why BioWare wanted this. Firstly, the most optimistic reason for this is that BioWare wanted players to come up with their own resolution for Shepard... rather than being hand-fed a cutscene saying "Shepard goes and has blue babies," they created a way for people to know for certain that Shepard does in fact survive, but leaves it extremely open so people can create their own ending to Shepard's life on their terms.

The more pessimistic idea of why BioWare did this is because they didn't want Destroy to feel like the "best ending" by giving players an ending where Shepard goes and lives with his/ her LI, while still giving the players a chance for Shepard to live through one of the endings. It doesn't really matter what type of character your Shep is; if you thought there was any chance for Shepard to live you'd take it, no matter the costs. They wanted all the endings to feel "equal" and not simply have "Good, bad and medium" endings. But if Shepard survives and makes a full recovery in a cutscene, people will view this as the best ending because of this, no matter who they had to kill in order to get to this point.

EDIT: Bare in mind, this doesn't mean I really LIKE this cutscene. At the best of times it teases me and makes me feel imcomplete when I finish a trilogy playthrough. 

Modifié par Angry British Ace, 25 septembre 2013 - 09:22 .

[Red Panda]

There's nothing wrong with shepard's survival being unclear.

It's only an unimportant detail in the grand scheme of Mass Effect.