1010 réponses à ce sujet

[SiniisteR]

StreetMagic wrote...

The "something beneficial" to the galaxy in Destroy is simply existing and getting back to a normal life, without the threat of giant undefeatable robots breathing down your neck. It's simple, and very ****ing appealing to me. My mission was never to add anything to the galaxy. Just to remove something.

[Reorte]

StreetMagic wrote...

The "something beneficial" to the galaxy in Destroy is simply existing and getting back to a normal life, without the threat of giant undefeatable robots breathing down your neck. It's simple, and very ****ing appealing to me. My mission was never to add anything to the galaxy. Just to remove something.

Ditto. Also I've got enough faith in the galaxy to know that if there's really anything beneficial to be gained from making the other choices we'll get there on our own sooner or later. It doesn't require huge risks or all the other often-discussed issues around Synthesis.

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hyrule_Gal wrote...


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.

It doesn't invalidate it - if you really believe in it then you might want to take the option anyway even if it has the downside of having to put up with the Reapers still being around. Unless you mean that they'll just carry on Reaping.

[Br3admax]

General TSAR wrote...

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

No it really isn't.

Nor does everyone become immortal. 

[KaiserShep]

If everyone became immortal, the galaxy would be screwed. How do you progress when the population goes nowhere but up and the current generation is never replaced by the next?

[Han Shot First]

KaiserShep wrote...

How do you progress when the population goes nowhere but up and the current generation is never replaced by the next?

The Krogan Rebellions spring to mind.

Excess population and not enough space or resources to support that excess population, quite often results in war.

[David7204]

This is a problem that's almost certainly going to have to be dealt with sooner or later.

[in it for the lolz]

maaaad365 wrote...

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

Yeah sure. Untill there's no more planets to live on because of over population, food shortage because of over population which causes everyone to become cannibals.

And the "best" part is that everyone has the same DNA, Which means that every child that will be born will be inbreed.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Control and Synthesis probably allow more room for headcanon explanations of the more problematic aspects. For example, I've just started ME2 with what may be the last run with my canon Shepard, and as of now, my plan is to pick Synthesis with the assumption that the "upgrades" are inactive at first, that Shepard knows that will happen when jumping into the beam, and that people can all either choose to use them or not use them. So that gets around the most serious (and IMO entirely valid) objection that Synthesis denies people their individual choices. Similarly, Control allows for the possibility that the new AI-Shepard negotiates a relatively restrained role for itself in the galaxy, and there is certainly room to argue that it won't have the Catalyst's flaws of false assumptions and emotional and moral distance from other life forms.

With Destroy, EDI is clearly dead based on the memorial wall, which means the geth are as well. So however you spin it, you just killed millions of allies unless they already died on Rannoch. With Refuse, you lose the whole cycle - again, regardless of what you assume happens in between, Liara is clearly speaking on behalf of a defeated galaxy in her recording.

That said, I don't know if I'm actually any "happier" with the ending for picking Control or Synthesis with most of my Shepards. Some of us may have had to defend our choices a little more vigorously, given the preference for Destroy on BSN, so perhaps we end up accentuating the positive as a result. I'm still disappointed with the endings in general, though.

[DirtyPhoenix]

scyphozoa wrote...

I don't have a problem with Synthesis or Control, as both are pretty great outcomes, IMO. Getting to evolve all organic life or getting to become space-god are both pretty appealing to me.

This.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I think there are a bunch of reasons for this...

1.) Closure, as was said above. We "get" Shepard's fate and can make peace with it. We're not led on and it's not overly cruel either like it is with Destroy, where Shepard is *hinted* at living and without his arms of legs intact.

2.) Effort justification. Control/Sync are harder choices to make because they require almost a mental 180 you're not prepared for. Destroy is just an on/off switch, and the idea of allies making a sacrifice is not foreign to us, especially not by this point in the game. People have a tendency to be happier without outcomes they put more effort into, to justify doing it in the first place. Human nature.

3.) There is more upside to Control/Sync, they offer unique/interesting new gains. Destroy gains nothing but peace-of-mind. Kinda lame.

Also this.

[FlyingSquirrel]

TheMyron wrote...

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.

I used to think similarly, and even expected for a while that ME3 might go that route. The thing is...well, it seems to me like human history is ripe with bad examples of what happens when we demonize the Other along the lines of, "they're just evil," "they only understand force," "it's us or them," etc. I don't think that something like the Reapers ever would or could exist for no reason at all, or would develop into such a life form purely through natural evolution.

My preferred explanation for Sovereign is that it doesn't know the truth either and honestly believes that the Reapers are eternal, and that Harbinger has indoctrinated some of the Reapers with this sort of false history  for various reasons. Unless Sovereign is relatively new to between-cycles-Vanguard duty, I doubt that it perceives Shepard as much of a real threat until fairly close to the end, since it's likely survived numerous attempts at resistance already. So I don't see much of a motivation for Sovereign to dissemble just as a means of intimidation - why bother scaring somebody you don't think can interfere with your plans anyway?

[Han Shot First]

AlanC9 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...


What if the Reapers one day find a new 'solution' and begin the cycles anew? Would the complete annihilation of humanity, the Asari, the Turians, the Salarians, the Krogan, and every other sapient space-faring civilization be worth Shepard not having been willing to accept collateral damage?

As long as we're spinning hypotheticals, what if the Catalyst was right all along and organics are exterminated by advanced synthetics? Certainty is not available here.

Or if the genophage is cured, the possibility exists that the post-Destroy galaxy will eventually see Round 2 of the Krogan Rebellions. Destroy certainly doesn't guarantee peace for all time, it only guarantees an end to the threat posed by the Reapers.

That being said I think if Shepard were to weigh all three options and assess the risks associated with each, Destroy poses the least. The Reapers by far are the greatest threat ever faced by the civilizations of the Milky Way galaxy. The Krogan, and even run-of-the-mill synthetics similar to the Geth or the Metacons, pose less of a threat to the survival of galactic civilization. Unlike the Krogan or synthetics, the Reapers are also a present danger at the time that Shepard must make his (or her) decision.

AlanC9 wrote...

Anyway, solution to what? In Synthesis the organic/synthetic distinction has been abolished.

The Catalyst notes that it tried something like Synthesis before, but that it proved unsatisfactory in some way and the Catalyst returned to its old policy of destroying civilizations. The Catalyst equates the failure of that solution to having been imposed rather than chosen. This creates a couple of problems when assessing the risks associated with Synthesis.

First, there is a precedent of the Catalyst abandoning past solutions and returning to destroying civilizations. A risk then exists that the past could repeat itself. The second is that Synthesis, as it is executed at the end of Mass Effect 3, isn't really chosen either. It is imposed on the galaxy by Shepard. If the Synthesis solution failed on the first attempt because it was imposed on the galaxy by a single entity, why would it would succeed the second time when imposed on the galaxy by a single entity?

Of course if we get metagamey we know that Bioware is never going to roll out a sequel where Synthesis has brutally backfired. But Shepard wouldn't have the same knowledge as the player, and I don't see much justification for choosing Synthesis from Shepard's post of view. It just seems like a ridiculous gamble with the galaxy's future, IMO.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 21 octobre 2013 - 08:39 .

[Vicious]

what if the Catalyst was right all along and organics are exterminated by advanced synthetics? Certainty is not available here.

of course it was,. you are not meant to question the catalyst but to take it literally, especially since it delivers on the RGB endings.

Everything from future Krogan rebellions to new synthetic uprisings are potentially fun. Why wouldn't anyone want that

or the leviathans making a resurgence. i agree but any way you look at it destroy is a dick move when all your other choices guarantee a much happier and safer galaxy... the endings are all very literal with very little ambiguity after all.

[Sir DeLoria]

Vicious wrote...

Everything from future Krogan rebellions to new synthetic uprisings are potentially fun. Why wouldn't anyone want that

or the leviathans making a resurgence. i agree but any way you look at it destroy is a dick move when all your other choices guarantee a much happier and safer galaxy... the endings are all very literal with very little ambiguity after all.

I think the galaxy will be a much happier place without Geth and Reapers.

What are the alternatives? A totalitarian police state or nonsense genetic rape:?

[sveners]

Vicious wrote...

what if the Catalyst was right all along and organics are exterminated by advanced synthetics? Certainty is not available here.

of course it was,. you are not meant to question the catalyst but to take it literally, especially since it delivers on the RGB endings.

Everything from future Krogan rebellions to new synthetic uprisings are potentially fun. Why wouldn't anyone want that

or the leviathans making a resurgence. i agree but any way you look at it destroy is a dick move when all your other choices guarantee a much happier and safer galaxy... the endings are all very literal with very little ambiguity after all.

This. Unfortunately. Destroy is the only way to imagine the character you've invested in for 5 years survives, maybe. But the price is just too high. Which is why Elissa Shepard always jumps down that damn beam. Well, both times.

If you have nothing invested in your character, or are very adept at headcanon, then sacrificing one person for the good of the galaxy is an easy choice. And the literal endings do a great job at explaining just how fantastic the galaxy becomes after Shepard is gone.

[KaiserShep]

The only "guarantee" one could really get out of any of the choices is that picking an action will have the immediate effect explained by the catalyst, that is, you will die and pass on your memories to the reapers, you will die and disperse your body into some magic beam and alter the framework of all existence in the galaxy, or you will simply kill the catalyst and reapers dead, and even that guarantee can seem kind of shaky from the viewpoint of a person standing there, seeing all this madness, talking to a synthetic ghost that wastes our time. I suppose one must take its word for it on the rest of the synthetics, but from a roleplaying perspective, I don't really see much reason to care so much about its provisos so long as the intelligence and its reaper plague is dealt with. Outside of that, there is no guarantee that anything will be happier or safer for anyone, but if I had to pick one that I felt had the highest chance of a relatively safer galaxy, I'd always pick the one that eradicated the machine gods, rather than placate and leave them as eternal guardians. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 octobre 2013 - 09:12 .

[Sir DeLoria]

sveners wrote...

This. Unfortunately. Destroy is the only way to imagine the character you've invested in for 5 years survives, maybe. But the price is just too high. Which is why Elissa Shepard always jumps down that damn beam. Well, both times.

If you have nothing invested in your character, or are very adept at headcanon, then sacrificing one person for the good of the galaxy is an easy choice. And the literal endings do a great job at explaining just how fantastic the galaxy becomes after Shepard is gone.

In what way is a synthesis galaxy more 'butterflies and rainbows' than destroy? The galaxy hates both the Reapers and Geth anyway(rightfully so), so why not permanently dispose of them?

Shep's life is worth more than a sexbot and the evil space cthulhus. The Geth get what they deserve on Rannoch already;)

[Han Shot First]

Vicious wrote...

what if the Catalyst was right all along and organics are exterminated by advanced synthetics? Certainty is not available here.

of course it was,. you are not meant to question the catalyst but to take it literally, especially since it delivers on the RGB endings.

.

Only if you take the Catalyst as being infallible, something that can be proven to be untrue.

The Catalyst predicts that the destruction of organic species at the hands of synthetics is an inevitability without its 'solution.' The problem is that the history of the Mass Effect universe does not support this. Besides organics potentially being able to cooperate and coexist with the Geth, in previous conflicts with Synthetics Organic species have more often been the victors. The Protheans destroyed the Metacons and the Jha'Til, and the Leviathans crushed a synthetic rebellion prior to creating the Catalyst. And while the Geth nearly destroyed the Quarians, they posed no greater threat to the galaxy at large than any organic faction.

The Reapers are demonstratively a far greater threat to the galaxy than any of the more run-of-the-mill synthetic factions mentioned in the series ever were.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 21 octobre 2013 - 09:16 .

[sveners]

Necanor wrote...

sveners wrote...

This. Unfortunately. Destroy is the only way to imagine the character you've invested in for 5 years survives, maybe. But the price is just too high. Which is why Elissa Shepard always jumps down that damn beam. Well, both times.

If you have nothing invested in your character, or are very adept at headcanon, then sacrificing one person for the good of the galaxy is an easy choice. And the literal endings do a great job at explaining just how fantastic the galaxy becomes after Shepard is gone.

In what way is a synthesis galaxy more 'butterflies and rainbows' than destroy? The galaxy hates both the Reapers and Geth anyway(rightfully so), so why not permanently dispose of them?

Shep's life is worth more than a sexbot and the evil space cthulhus. The Geth get what they deserve on Rannoch already;)

Synthesis is butterflies and rainbows because, apparently, everything is wonderful. The enslaved poor Reapers are set free, share their knowledge, and help rebuild (as they are the only ones who know how the Citadel/Relays work) the Geth have an understanding(??) of organics and organics in turn are... something more/better

Destroy completely demolishes the Citadel (doubt there are any survivors on that wreck), renders all relays inoperable (with no one able to (quickly) rebuild) Kills EDI and the Geth/Reapers. Hacketts speech of "rebuilding" rings extremely hollow with the knowledge we have from the game/codex. I can say we WILL land a man on Mars, but that is still a long way off..

Being the hypocrite I am, if there was an ending showing Shepards sure survival, I would let the universe burn. Maybe.

[Sir DeLoria]

sveners wrote...

Synthesis is butterflies and rainbows because, apparently, everything is wonderful. The enslaved poor Reapers are set free, share their knowledge, and help rebuild (as they are the only ones who know how the Citadel/Relays work) the Geth have an understanding(??) of organics and organics in turn are... something more/better

Destroy completely demolishes the Citadel (doubt there are any survivors on that wreck), renders all relays inoperable (with no one able to (quickly) rebuild) Kills EDI and the Geth/Reapers. Hacketts speech of "rebuilding" rings extremely hollow with the knowledge we have from the game/codex. I can say we WILL land a man on Mars, but that is still a long way off..

Being the hypocrite I am, if there was an ending showing Shepards sure survival, I would let the universe burn. Maybe.

 
High EMS destroy barely damages the Citadel and the survival of all significant characters has been confirmed. The relays are barely damaged and can be quickly repaired. EDI is worth nothing. Depending on your view of things, the Reapers ar either horrid monsters or dangerous tools of death and destruction. They butchered thousands of civilizations. The Geth get what they deserve for the crimes the committed as well. 

[Br3admax]

sveners wrote...

Necanor wrote...

sveners wrote...

This. Unfortunately. Destroy is the only way to imagine the character you've invested in for 5 years survives, maybe. But the price is just too high. Which is why Elissa Shepard always jumps down that damn beam. Well, both times.

If you have nothing invested in your character, or are very adept at headcanon, then sacrificing one person for the good of the galaxy is an easy choice. And the literal endings do a great job at explaining just how fantastic the galaxy becomes after Shepard is gone.

In what way is a synthesis galaxy more 'butterflies and rainbows' than destroy? The galaxy hates both the Reapers and Geth anyway(rightfully so), so why not permanently dispose of them?

Shep's life is worth more than a sexbot and the evil space cthulhus. The Geth get what they deserve on Rannoch already;)

Synthesis is butterflies and rainbows because, apparently, everything is wonderful. The enslaved poor Reapers are set free, share their knowledge, and help rebuild (as they are the only ones who know how the Citadel/Relays work) the Geth have an understanding(??) of organics and organics in turn are... something more/better

Destroy completely demolishes the Citadel (doubt there are any survivors on that wreck), renders all relays inoperable (with no one able to (quickly) rebuild) Kills EDI and the Geth/Reapers. Hacketts speech of "rebuilding" rings extremely hollow with the knowledge we have from the game/codex. I can say we WILL land a man on Mars, but that is still a long way off..

Being the hypocrite I am, if there was an ending showing Shepards sure survival, I would let the universe burn. Maybe.

Both endings show a Citadel perfectly fine orbiting Earth. Both endings show people smiling. The only difference is the kumbaya like green wave and hugging at the end. I've seen nothing that says the Reapers are free from anything. 

[Han Shot First]

We know the relays are repaired in the post EC destroy ending, because we see characters that had been on Earth in other locales. Wrex for example is back in Tuchanka making babies and Samara is back at the Ardat-Yakshi monastery. The Citadel also gets rebuilt in the EC slides.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 21 octobre 2013 - 09:33 .

[TheMyron]

Destroy is the one and only Final Solution to the Reaper Problem.

[sveners]

Br3ad wrote...

Both endings show a Citadel perfectly fine orbiting Earth. Both endings show people smiling. The only difference is the kumbaya like green wave and hugging at the end. I've seen nothing that says the Reapers are free from anything. 

Control shows a Citadel perfectly fine. Synthesis shows a broken but intact Citadel. Destroy show a Citadel broken and burnt. "Where once they sought to destroy us......" check up on Synthesis on youtube. Free from being slaves the cycles would maybe be more correct.