214 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

I just didn't like how Anderson became a foreshadowing device or thematic device for the Destroy option. Mac tried to shove words down his mouth that didn't fit his character.

"We stop them, or they destroy us" instead, but I guess he absolutely had to force out the whole "destroying" thing instead. I might be alone in this, but to me it seems very un-Anderson-y to put it that bluntly.

[Ryzaki]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't see what's so outside his character. He's always been about championing humanity, but not in an overbearing, "exclusive" way like TIM. But more along the lines of steady progress and the simple things in life.

And the only way you'll ever accomplish making this brand of steady progress is by destroying the very thing dictating their progress. Merely stopping the Reapers (like Control and Synthesis) isn't going to accomplish that - because in either ending, you still adopt their methods or premises and still acknowledge some retarded beliefs that evolution should only work in specific, prescribed paths. It's not human ingenuity or steady progress. In Destroy, the Reapers are made irrelevant to the idea of progress itself. Evolution takes it's own course. Destroy is not about being a boneheaded "American", but about people being able to have a life without some overbearing entity or bullsh!t breathing down their necks for all eternity.

Yes.

Alas BW seems to force us to kill all synthetics to do this. <_<

[Linkenski]

So much for moral ambiguity huh? The downside to the Destroy option always screamed "We give you a compromise just for the sake of making it hard."

[Ryzaki]

Well I'm pretty sure BW realized without the kill all synthetics (and originally destroy all technology) garbage most people wouldn't even look at their precious synthesis.

[Rasofe]

Linkenski wrote...

So much for moral ambiguity huh? The downside to the Destroy option always screamed "We give you a compromise just for the sake of making it hard."

Damn right. If I deliberately wanted the Geth dead I would've let the Quarians destroy them and shot Legion myself, not pushed a button that would, because of friendly fire, destroy them and EDI. They deliberately made Destroy worse because they were afraid no one would pick Synthesis otherwise.

I think the EC is very helpful because it adds a lot to the Control ending and it adds the Refusal ending. In my first three playthroughs, I went Destroy for main Shepard, Destroy for Femshep, Control for Failshep. Now I went for Destroy for main Shepard, Control for Femshep and Refusal for Failshep. Speaking frankly, it hasn't added much to destroy, but it hasn't hurt in ways that weren't already damaged before.

[KaiserShep]

Linkenski wrote...

I just didn't like how Anderson became a foreshadowing device or thematic device for the Destroy option. Mac tried to shove words down his mouth that didn't fit his character.

"We stop them, or they destroy us" instead, but I guess he absolutely had to force out the whole "destroying" thing instead. I might be alone in this, but to me it seems very un-Anderson-y to put it that bluntly.

I disagree. As far as anyone can tell, destroying them is the only solution, particularly to someone like Anderson. Any soldier who has been on the ground fighting the reapers would be completely in the kill-them-all camp, because the reapers are quite literally beyond any interest to appeal to or attempt to subjugate.

[I Tsunayoshi I]

KaiserShep wrote...

Lol seems pretty ridiculous for someone to get all aggressive over someone liking the original ending. I'm not sure if I'd care to stay friends with someone who gets so carried away over something so petty.

I told a buddy of mine about the endings (at this time he was a total outsider to ME) and after bringing up the choices and some of the lore-breaks (doesnt take a hardcore fan to tell how these figure in), even he was ready to call BS on them. Refused to actually do so since it would take me the better part of 6 years to get him to play the trilogy for himself, and after going through both sets of endings he was more than ready to agree on the issues that make both sets of endings crap

Honestly, at this point, the only ending accept is Citadel's ending. Just stick it in front of end of the game and you get a feel good happy ending that you can be comfortable with compared to the endings that not held in any sort of high regard.

Linkenski wrote...

I just didn't like how Anderson became a foreshadowing device or thematic device for the Destroy option. Mac tried to shove words down his mouth that didn't fit his character.

"We stop them, or they destroy us" instead, but I guess he absolutely had to force out the whole "destroying" thing instead. I might be alone in this, but to me it seems very un-Anderson-y to put it that bluntly.

I dont really see Anderson foreshadowing anything but the Battle for London. Destroy is something that you are more or less beaten with the entire game since its something they decided to take out of our hands and make it a solid part of Shepard. I mean just to get out of the final TIM scene alive you have to take the conversation options that both denouce Control, even if you might have been in that mindset or considering the idea yourself after Sanctuary.

Rasofe wrote...

Linkenski wrote...

So much for moral ambiguity huh? The downside to the Destroy option always screamed "We give you a compromise just for the sake of making it hard."

Damn right. If I deliberately wanted the Geth dead I would've let the Quarians destroy them and shot Legion myself, not pushed a button that would, because of friendly fire, destroy them and EDI. They deliberately made Destroy worse because they were afraid no one would pick Synthesis otherwise.

I think the EC is very helpful because it adds a lot to the Control ending and it adds the Refusal ending. In my first three playthroughs, I went Destroy for main Shepard, Destroy for Femshep, Control for Failshep. Now I went for Destroy for main Shepard, Control for Femshep and Refusal for Failshep. Speaking frankly, it hasn't added much to destroy, but it hasn't hurt in ways that weren't already damaged before.

The additions to other endings really didnt mean much to me. The contradiction that the Crucible can not do pinpoint actions but can do them (Destroy and Control) is a massive issue that I just can not ignore when playing the game. I've already gone on record saying that Citadel is the only real ending for me (with headcanon of Destroy being able to operate as accurately as Control). Every time I get to that point in the game, I only see 2 blatantly obvious choices of suicide for nothing and the only thing that you can do without betraying the entire series.

I could go on to the point where it sounds like I suscribe to IT or PT, but the only thing I see in the Catalyst is just another obscenely desperate being looking out for its own self-preservation and making a very desperate attempt to take victory from the closing jaws of defeat. With all the talk about Synthetics being every bit as alive as Organics, assuming that an AI far more human that what the Geth and EDI are doesnt exist sounds pretty stupid.

KaiserShep wrote...

I disagree. As far as anyone can tell, destroying them is the only solution, particularly to someone like Anderson. Any soldier who has been on the ground fighting the reapers would be completely in the kill-them-all camp, because the reapers are quite literally beyond any interest to appeal to or attempt to subjugate.

As already said above, Destroy is something you get beaten over the head with the entire game. Besides any player based motivations to never do anything but destroy the Reapers, the game just keeps bringing stuff up that gives Shepard more and more reasons and motivation to do so as well

[AlanC9]

Linkenski wrote...



I don't want to throw this too off-topic now, but I feel like stressing yet again that I really think Mac violated Anderson's character. He made Anderson sound incredibly americanized and one-sided.

Americanized?

[Rasofe]

My three Shepard's are pretty damn different from each other though, in far more detailed ways than Paragon or Renegade. It makes sense for the first to pick destroy - ensure organic dominance and stay alive, and for the second to pick control.- self-sacrifice to preserve all beings and act as a peacekeeper. Nothing makes sense for the third, Failshep shouldn't have made it past Marauder Shields.

[dreamgazer]

AlanC9 wrote...

Linkenski wrote...



I don't want to throw this too off-topic now, but I feel like stressing yet again that I really think Mac violated Anderson's character. He made Anderson sound incredibly americanized and one-sided.

Americanized?

Didn't you hear? Mass Effect 3 is an Americanized military-celebrating shooter that blares "USA!" around every corner.

[Steelcan]

Anderson sounded American long before we learned he was born in Britain.

His birthplace is more out of order

Modifié par Steelcan, 02 décembre 2013 - 03:17 .

[Rasofe]

Well, he turned from an Indian into a black guy. That's kind of weird.

[AlanC9]

Sora Kitano wrote...

I could go on to the point where it sounds like I suscribe to IT or PT, but the only thing I see in the Catalyst is just another obscenely desperate being looking out for its own self-preservation and making a very desperate attempt to take victory from the closing jaws of defeat. With all the talk about Synthetics being every bit as alive as Organics, assuming that an AI far more human that what the Geth and EDI are doesnt exist sounds pretty stupid.

If the Catalyst is really desperate and lying, why not tell better lies? Or not tell Shepard anything and just wait for the Reapers to blow up the Crucible?

[RandomGuy96]

Only acceptable ending: high EMS EC Destroy + pretending that the Citadel DLC takes place after it + pretending that Synthesis was just a very transparent attempt to get you to pointlessly kill yourself. That's what I do at least.

Honestly, the EC didn't change much of anything relating to the lore breaking or character derailment. Synthesis still makes no damn sense. The Reapers' motivation still makes no damn sense. The way the Crucible works still makes no damn sense.

But what it did do is remove the more blatant plotholes and the sudden downer ending. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think that the bleakness was the biggest fault of the original ending. Tonally, it doesn't fit at all, and basically ensures that the player won't feel fulfilled after over a hundred hours of gameplay. Despite some bright spots, like the quarian-geth peace (or, in my case, extermination of the geth) and the genophage cure, Mass Effect 3 spent most of the game beating you down with "Earth gets munched, beloved character dies, entire planet gets glassed, then you fail your mission, then another beloved character dies, then billions more die, then another beloved-". It was not at all unreasonable to expect a triumphant and uplifting ending after all the time we invested in defeating the Reapers. But no no no; instead we get a diabolus ex machina, bringing up a plot point that was already dealt with, and breaking the galaxy via destruction of the mass relays and, in most endings, destruction of the Citadel. Then they throw in the certain death of the Normandy crew, just to rub it in. All those loveable folks you helped on the Citadel throughout three games? Dead. Your companions who you've been working with throughout the trilogy? Dead. The people on Earth you've been trying to save? With something like the Citadel blowing up over Earth: Dead. Everybody else? Extremely screwed due to collapse of galactic civilization. Then... that's it. The game just ends. Thanks for playing!

The EC retconned it so that now the Normandy crew get back home safely, the Citadel doesn't explode, and the relays are merely lightly damaged then repaired. Then you at least do get some falling action in the form of a few slides. Is it the ending I wanted? Hell no. But after everything the original ending put me through, I at least saw High EMS EC Destroy as "acceptable". Because at least now I know that the Reapers are gone and everyone, including my Shepard and his friends, can have a happy or at least bittersweet ending rather than an out and out downer ending like they had originally. I felt like I accomplished SOMETHING; I didn't feel like I had wasted a thousand hours and a hundred dollars. 
Maybe putting in some more head-canon would help...

As for the evacuation scene: yeah, not the EC's best moment. They should've just put a scene like this BEFORE the beam run, then left Shepard to charge the beam alone. As is it just makes everyone involved look dumb. I liked this scene originally, but I think that was just me being distracted by some seriously awesome voice acting.

Modifié par RandomGuy96, 02 décembre 2013 - 03:49 .

[KaiserShep]

Steelcan wrote...

Anderson sounded American long before we learned he was born in Britain.

His birthplace is more out of order

Being born in London doesn't necessarily mean that his manner of speech will reflect it, especially if the parents are themselves not from there, or he moved around during childhood to other countries or extrasolar colonies.

[KaiserShep]

dreamgazer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Linkenski wrote...



I don't want to throw this too off-topic now, but I feel like stressing yet again that I really think Mac violated Anderson's character. He made Anderson sound incredibly americanized and one-sided.

Americanized?

Didn't you hear? Mass Effect 3 is an Americanized military-celebrating shooter that blares "USA!" around every corner.

I was hoping that they'd shout "CANADA!" around every corner. Heck, only place we see on earth is Vancouver and London.

[AlanC9]

RandomGuy96 wrote...

Only acceptable ending: high EMS EC Destroy + pretending that the Citadel DLC takes place after it + pretending that Synthesis was just a very transparent attempt to get you to pointlessly kill yourself. That's what I do at least.

You're not alone. A lot of Destroy fans like to make up bad stuff about the other endings. Many are less honest anout it than you.

The people on Earth you've been trying to save? With something like the Citadel blowing up over Earth: Dead. 
 

Why? I suppose eventually the Citadel pieces would enter atmosphere if there aren't enough ships around to keep towing them into a higher orbit,  but they aren't all that big or moving that fast. Hard luck if a chunk lands on your hometown, but there's a lot of hard luck going around in the MEU. The planet would get along just fine.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 décembre 2013 - 04:48 .

[KaiserShep]

AlanC9 wrote...

The people on Earth you've been trying to save? With something like the Citadel blowing up over Earth: Dead. 
 

Why? I suppose eventually the Citadel pieces would enter atmosphere if there aren't enough ships around to keep towing them into a higher orbit,  but they aren't all that big or moving that fast. Hard luck if a chunk lands on your hometown, but there's a lot of hard luck going around in the MEU. The planet would get along just fine.

Depends on the size of the chunk, I suppose. The Citadel is over 40 kilometers long and over 7 billion tons. A large portion of one of the arms could potentially wipe out a good portion of a continent. If traveling at a good enough speed after the explosion, the entire thing would just kill the planet.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 décembre 2013 - 05:06 .

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...


Depends on the size of the chunk, I suppose. The Citadel is over 40 kilometers long and over 7 billion tons. A large portion of one of the arms could potentially wipe out a good portion of a continent. If traveling at a good enough speed after the explosion, the entire thing would just kill the planet.

When I run the numbers I don't get anything like that much damage.

Remember, the Citadel would be moving a good deal slower than a typical asteroid strike; it's only traveling at orbital velocity, obviously, and the explosion's effect on velocity can be observed to be negligible. Angle of impact will also be fairly oblique.

But it's all academic. The fleet isn't destroyed, and preventing the Citadel fragments from crashing isn't all that tricky. Unless the Reapers parked the thing in a rapidly decaying orbit for some unknown reason, there's plenty of time to haul it up someplace safe.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 décembre 2013 - 06:42 .

[KaiserShep]

No I don't think any part of the Citadel actually lands on earth, save for maybe some tiny fragments that would be incinerated in the atmosphere or light debris that end up as part of the ocean sediment.

[Daemul]

AlanC9 wrote...
You're not alone. A lot of Destroy fans like to make up bad stuff about the other endings. Many are less honest about it than you.

It's been nearly two years and I still have no idea why so many people who chose Destroy do this. If the only way you can justify your choice of ending to yourself is by making stuff up about other endings then you are clearly incapable of carrying the full weight of your decision and the consequences of it. Stop making yourself suffer, choose a different ending.