1010 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

I'm currently reassessing the virtues of Control vs. other endings. I don't have a final answer right now.

[General TSAR]

Br3ad wrote...

This is the person who goes on and on about freeing cuttlefish robots from hypothetical slavery, and then talking about using them to protect the race of stripper, commando, savior waifus. 

And don't forget using the giant genocidal cuttlefish to subjugate and enslave the entire galaxy.

[ruggly]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is that they didn't have to go the zombie route. Isn't destroying planets enough?

They didn't think about the aftermath with the endings. You've got two endings where you have zombies walking around. They could have been indoctrinated humans/asari/turians/batarians/whatever. You say indoctrination takes a while, but say if the reapers used a control chip for the "quick version" for the soldiers, slapped a uniform on them, and put a gun in their hands that's keyed to the control chips. Now you've got no endings with zombies.

Leave the husks in ME1 and ME2. 

Does it make the reapers look any less bad? No. Does it change how you role play your Shepard? No. Does it clean up the aftermath of two of the endings? Yes. Also in the interest of fairness the rubble scene was bull**** and should have been more than a gasp. Perhaps a hospital. After all you're going to be in New Vegas shortly.

QFT.

One refreshing thing about ME1 is that, outside the husks (which was immediately explained away as a psychological warfare tactic, as opposed to "oh noez, teh enemie is so eeeevhul!"), the enemies are not grotesque, 1-dimmensional evils. At that time, Reapers were AI-gods, not flying organic smoothies. Geth were a race of disowned AI following the aforementioned god. Krogan were a disgruntled warrior-race. Saren was a government agent doing what he thought was best. Indoctrination turned a lot of enemies into tragic victims, one of which was the mother of a squadmate...

Sadly, ME2 went in a decidedly more black-and-white direction with the enemies. They were villains, not antagonists. And the fact that Mac decided to continue to portray them that way, but turn around and advocate for them and alternative means for stopping the threat than killing them ... it just goes to show one of many ways the ending fell flat.

Pretty much, it's going to be hard for some players to accept certain things about the Reapers after they've been built up as these horrible, disgusting things that do terrible things and the game just pounds it into you that you have to destroy them.  Other players were able to do so, and those seem to be the people who can deal with the endings, or enjoy them.  It's hard to feel any sympathy (as much as I can feel for some pixels), for beings that cause massive damage and horror, only for in the end to have them do this so save you, it's a pretty awful plot twist IMO.

[KaiserShep]

You can't deny the glory of control. It's like Darth Vader said: "Daddy is the breadwinner. You don't win that bread, you best not come around."

[ruggly]

KaiserShep wrote...

You can't deny the glory of control. It's like Darth Vader said: "Daddy is the breadwinner. You don't win that bread, you best not come around."

Every time I thought about picking control, my imagination got the better of me and had Shepard making the Reapers line dance in space or semething stupid, I would giggle uncontrollably and then it never happened.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

it was made incredibly clear the Reapers were evil from the get-go. I have no idea how you're figuring they were 'ambiguous' in ME 1. They weren't.

Leave it to you to see things that aren't there.

Not so much evil as simply incompatible with the galaxy. They're beyond evil. They're more or less a cosmic force, one that must be stopped, and one that I feel is best left dead. 

Indeed, I agree with you about David's assessment.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 21 octobre 2013 - 01:23 .

[TheMyron]

If only the Normandy never left/simply stayed with the rest of the fleet, all LI choices could have had a real reunion scene in a makeshift infirmary. That is NOT too much to ask for.

[Jorji Costava]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Not so much evil as simply incompatible with the galaxy. They're beyond evil. They're more or less a cosmic force, one that must be stopped, and one that I feel is best left dead.

Indeed, I agree with you about David's assessment.

Actually, I didn't see much ambiguity myself regarding the Reapers in ME1. Sovereign's trash talking at Virmire isn't exactly the vocabulary of a well-intentioned extremist, or even a purely amoral AI menace. The latter I think of as a much more dispassionate kind of foe; Skynet, for instance, doesn't spend much time talking about how we're little more than deer ticks to him, or bloviating about how dumb we are for having done everything exactly as it had planned.

Sure, it's possible that people took that conversation with Sovereign way too seriously, but it's all we have to go on as far as characterizing the Reapers. And Harbinger's memes in ME2 did little to undo the general impression created by that first conversation with Sovereign.

[Deathsaurer]

Well there isn't an ambiguity about them in ME1. Sovereign wanted to sound kill a frightening killbot and did a very good job acting the part. "You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it. We are the end of everything". You wouldn't have taken the Reapers seriously as a villain if Sovereign said I am the bringer of your salvation. Harbinger continued this act a fair bit more enthusiastically than Sovereign but dropped a hint there is some major smoke blowing going on at the end of the Suicide Mission after you foil the Human Reaper plan. "That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction". When pressed for answers the Rannoch Reaper delivers a similar line. "Without our intervention organics are doomed". Finally the Catalyst and Leviathans tell us something completely opposite what Sovereign was claiming back in the day. They were created to preserve life with some very iffy interpretation of what preserve means.

Conclusion: Sovereign is really; really good at BSing for the cause preying on a primal fear about AI having no use for organics and killing them all.

[TheMyron]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Well there isn't an ambiguity about them in ME1. Sovereign wanted to sound kill a frightening killbot and did a very good job acting the part. "You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it. We are the end of everything". You wouldn't have taken the Reapers seriously as a villain if Sovereign said I am the bringer of your salvation. Harbinger continued this act a fair bit more enthusiastically than Sovereign but dropped a hint there is some major smoke blowing going on at the end of the Suicide Mission after you foil the Human Reaper plan. "That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction". When pressed for answers the Rannoch Reaper delivers a similar line. "Without our intervention organics are doomed". Finally the Catalyst and Leviathans tell us something completely opposite what Sovereign was claiming back in the day. They were created to preserve life with some very iffy interpretation of what preserve means.

Conclusion: Sovereign is really; really good at BSing for the cause preying on a primal fear about AI having no use for organics and killing them all.

According to my "Reaper Logic and Reason" poll, most players, myself included, would have preferred the idea that Reapers are just killing us all "for reasons beyond our comprehension," which gives the impression that what I have bolded.

[KaiserShep]

osbornep wrote...
Sure, it's possible that people took that conversation with Sovereign way too seriously, but it's all we have to go on as far as characterizing the Reapers. And Harbinger's memes in ME2 did little to undo the general impression created by that first conversation with Sovereign.

Those lines from Harbinger are even sillier when you listen to them isolated on youtube.

[InvincibleHero]

Necanor wrote...

Two words...robot cameltoe.

Sure, EDI might've saved the Normandy and crew, but Shepy saved the galaxy. Shep's life is worth more than its.

You do realize EDI without clothes has no such thing. It was just weird clothing physics in select posed screenshots. It could be intentional but I would think not since the EDI mesh doesn't have the base structure.

[TheMyron]

Necanor wrote...

Two words...robot cameltoe.

Sure, EDI might've saved the Normandy and crew, but Shepy saved the galaxy. Shep's life is worth more than its.

Not to mention that the majority of the crew she actually saved deserted Shepard after returning to the Alliance.

[dorktainian]

TheMyron wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Two words...robot cameltoe.

Sure, EDI might've saved the Normandy and crew, but Shepy saved the galaxy. Shep's life is worth more than its.

Not to mention that the majority of the crew she actually saved deserted Shepard after returning to the Alliance.

    


people forget.  EDI is part of the normandy's systems.  EDI is not the bot - thats Dr Eva's Body.

EDI IS THE NORMANDY.  well since Joker freed her from her AI shackles that is.

so losing the bot EDI matters how?

as far as robot cameltoe goes.  Does it use WD40 or KY gel? 

[TheMyron]

dorktainian wrote...

TheMyron wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Two words...robot cameltoe.

Sure, EDI might've saved the Normandy and crew, but Shepy saved the galaxy. Shep's life is worth more than its.

Not to mention that the majority of the crew she actually saved deserted Shepard after returning to the Alliance.

    


people forget.  EDI is part of the normandy's systems.  EDI is not the bot - thats Dr Eva's Body.

EDI IS THE NORMANDY.  well since Joker freed her from her AI shackles that is.

so losing the bot EDI matters how?

as far as robot cameltoe goes.  Does it use WD40 or KY gel? 

You just have to support Engineer Adams don't you? I support Engineer Donnelly's argument that while EDI is attached to the Normandy, the Normandy is still the Normandy without EDI.

[Ieldra]

Hyrule_Gal wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Abomination aesthetic functions by reinforcing the belief that nothing but destroying them is productive. It is a matter of using the right tools for a desired effect. It is clear the writers wanted people to consider alternatives, and the abomination aesthetic was counterproductive to that. With a different appearance, many people would not be quite as determined to consider nothing but destroying them.

Wasn't there a quote somewhere by a writer saying the reapers weren't supposed to have any redeeming features? That you were just supposed to want to hate them , want to kill them and not sympathise with them?

There's that quote  by Mac Walters. However, this goes against some important revelations about the Reapers made in ME2. And it invalidates the Synthesis option. I'm assuming that those were supposed to make sense, and if that's true, Super Mac's quote is bullsh*t.
 

Yeah encouraging that hatred for 99% of the game was a huge blunder if we were supposed to consider "alternatives" right at the last second.  What they did, what they are and even what they LOOK LIKE (as you said something devoid of humanity) is just so repulsive and evil! Bioware did a great job framing them as an enemy that needed to be destroyed at all costs. But then I'm expected to...talk to it's leader and...consider NOT killing them???? Wha? It's like control. You KILL Tim over the very issue but then were supposed to consider control moments after? Even though it was framed as the "bad guy choice" for most of the game!?

No, you don't canonically kill him over that. You can challenge him to control the Reapers and end this (Renegade option), and you kill him or make him kill himself (you can do that even if you used the Renegade option before) after it turns out he can't do it because he's indoctrinated. As opposed to many others, TIM's final encounter is actually quite good at catering to different viewpoints. 

No contest about the abomination aesthetic and the Catalyst encounter though. The narrative dissonance is staggering.

That's just another big reason why the endings were just so ridiculous to me. If you want us to consider control, DON'T make the one guy supporting it an indoctrinated wacko that shepard constantly says is WRONG. If you want us to consider the human race bonding and living in harmony with husks, cannibals and banshees...make it so the player reaction to them isn't just "KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!".

"Bonding and live in harmony" is stretching it. I'd go for "tolerate" and I would expect those to stay apart post-Synthesis. But your point still stands. It's the same with the Reaperization process. They could've made it more clinical instead of viscerally repulsive. It would fit what Legion says about the Reapers post-SM much better.

[Kataphrut94]

Agreed on all counts about the aesthetic of the Reapers. If I took the whole debate a little more seriously (really all I want is for post-synthesis husks to get a seat on the Council), I would argue that the attempt to address the Reapers as a necessary evil that could be killed or reasoned with was undermined by how the game constantly depicted them as evil abominations.

The funny thing is, that route could potentially have worked if the Reapers hadn't changed so much from their Mass Effect 1 incarnation. In that game, they were cold, dispassionate, emotionless and most of their contempt for organic life stemmed from it's inferiority to flesh. It was Mass Effect 2 that introduced the concept of them as being powered by human guts, as well as a more predominate emphasis on the icky-sticky biorganic factor with the insectoid Collectors and the more repulsive husk variations. After that, there's really no going back.

The point is, Sovereign may have been a villain, but with a little elaboration, you could sort of see where he was coming from. All he has to do is point to the numerous blunders of the current cycle and explain how machines could do a better job: the krogan reproduce out of control because of their biology, the quarians knee-jerk emotional reaction to the geth caused a destructive war, the Council races are ineffective because they lack the decisive consensus of the synthetics, etc. To that end, the ending choices could have worked well. Destroy is refuting the claim and blowing all synthetics to hell. Control and Synthesis are both partial acceptance of the idea; Control is an organic society where laws are enforced by synthetics, and Synthesis is a society where organics are given the benefits of synthetic life while retaining their own sense of self.

In response to the original topic, as a supporter of Control and Synthesis, I'm more happy with them because they simply save the most. I don't value Shepard's life as highly as I do EDI or Legion, nor do I particularly care about ideological principles. So the idea of sacrificing the people who are actually important for one guy who was already bleeding to death does not win me over. Plus, Control and Synthesis look like they might have the potential to offer something beneficial to the galaxy, while Destroy is just about fire and forget.

[Obadiah]

Isn't hate supposed to be part of the confrontation in the Decision Chamber?

I would have liked a confrontation with some indoctrinated forces, but I don't think hating the Reapers because of their gross aesthetic is really a bad thing. It may have had a blinding effect on some players with respect to considering the Reapers for anything useful, but I don't think it worked that way on everyone. In addition, the conversation with the Catalyst is bad enough on its own to make players hate and see the Reapers as not possibly being useful.

I thought the aesthetic reinforced to the sense that the Decision Chamber encounter with the Catalyst was a confrontation between Shepard and a devil or some dispassionate deity - which suddenly finds itself at the mercy of the lowly masses.

[shodiswe]

I picked control, Synthesis would have been my second pick.

I don't find myself agreeing with the catalyst, but I do what's best for the Mass effect universe.
When making my own choice I have to look at the "available" options. Truth is they arn't good at all, but you have to pick something that does the least amount of damage.
Control, like the other options "kills"(or not depending on your interpretation of Destroy and EMS, it's however a less imporant thing in the greater whole) Shepard, but saves a lot of people. The Catalyst is also wiped out once and for all.

Following the EC we can metagame that it's pretty much perfect in that sense, nothing bad happens unless you make it your own headcannon that something bad does happen.

In Sythesis people are still the people they were, but they got new options and insight available. What they do with it is up to them. The Citadel bows up, the Catalyst dies with it and it's work has been completed(the non-genocidal solution that the Catalyst was looking for).

EDIT: I still think the endgame was poorly made and lacking a proper story.

Modifié par shodiswe, 21 octobre 2013 - 03:29 .

[KaiserShep]

Kataphrut94 wrote...
Plus, Control and Synthesis look like they might have the potential to offer something beneficial to the galaxy, while Destroy is just about fire and forget.

I wouldn't say forget. It'll take a long time to clean up those reaper corpses, so for a good long while, they'll be stuck in people's memories. As for benefits, I suppose it depends on your perspective. With the harvesting cycle stopped, the galaxy could use what it's learned of relay technology to advance far beyond what the reapers would have normally permitted, which I consider to be a humongous benefit in itself.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 octobre 2013 - 04:53 .

[Br3admax]

What are planning on getting from the Reapers in Control anyway? A new revolutionary way to grill steak so it is crunchy on the outside and juicy on the inside? The Protheans already had most of what the Reapers actually wanted to share with people.

[KR96]

To answer the OP's question:

I really enjoyed my Destroy ending (EC edition). I thought it was a great way for organic life forms to prove their resilience and to rebuild everything that was lost waging a war for 'our' very survival. I also felt that destroying the Reapers was the only viable course of action for my Shepard, but that might just be a personal issue.

Plus, the fact that Shepard might actually be alive can be a pro as well, although that isn't the main reason I chose the Destory ending.

Modifié par killerrabbit1996, 21 octobre 2013 - 04:47 .

[maaaad365]

I am sad because Shepard dies, no matter what ending I choose. Synthesis is good because everyone becomes immortal, which is amazing. Control is a compromise position.

But if i was Shepard and the scenario was real, not a video game, I would choose Destroy because the Reapers cannot be trusted. You have to be a idiot to believe a word they say and place the destiny of all the galaxy on their honesty.

[General TSAR]

maaaad365 wrote...
Synthesis is good because everyone becomes immortal, which is amazing. 

No it really isn't.