711 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

As the thread title says, I'm seemingly incapable of destroying the Reapers, or rather, creating a Shep who wants to destroy them.

"But it was our job to destroy the Reapers" you say? First it's been expected Shepard will do lots of things she doesn't necessarily do. Secondly, we (or I at least) don't want the destruction of the Reapers for its own sake. My Shepards want various things depending on their backstory, but their usual overarching goal is either the preservation of galactic civilization  as such or the desire to "add something good to the world." Control does a much better job preserving the infrastructure of Citadel space. Synthesis provides goodies like maskless quarians and futuristic cities for those that want to improve the galaxy. I find "freedom" a rather nebulous and hollow concept, especially given that ME characters seem to use that freedom to be jerks and morons. I've had too much experience with a medical condition nearly as limiting as a quarian suit to think too much of standing on my own two feet. My Shepards will always take concrete benefits over defending ideals I don't even believe in.

[crimzontearz]

Simple, start from the preamble that the catalyst, while still admitting the power is in your hands, CANNOT BE TRUSTED and thus will try to steer you toward what he wants you to do
There is NO guarantee of how much of Shepard will be kept once he takes control or how long before this new AI goes bat**** insane like the bratalyst and starts harvesting again.

So Shepard takes the safest option which the star bract actively tries to dissuade him from....Destroy

It's a matter of "which one is the safest option" (and to me which option allows me me to have Shepard reunited with his LI)

[Iakus]

As you know, I find all the endings awful. Though I find Destroy the "least awful" (but still bad enough to be a non-starter for me)

Mass Effect 3 and the reveleation of the Catalyst to me casts doubt as to whether the Reapers are even sentient on their own. Or if they are simply cybernetic killbots directed by the Catalyst with some kind of VI imperative to continue the cycles. So killing them really doesn't bother me.

And while the infrastructure of the galaxy is damaged in Destroy, it's not irrevocably gone. Even better, it could potentially kickstart teh galaxy into a new era of advancement as tehy finally get off their seats and start investigating the reelays, learning how they work, and building their own. Or even find better alternatives. Too long has the galaxy complacently accepted the relay network as a given. Falling into the Reaper trap. Now the galaxy can develop along its own lines.

Control simply leaves the galaxy in a police state, ruled by the Reapers under Shepalyst's benevolent (or not so benevolent) rule. the galaxy still develops aliong the lines the Reapers dictate.

Synthesis violates every living being on a genetic level. The implications of that are simply too horrible for me to contemplate.

This is why I go for MEHEM. It's simply destroy, without the genocide of synthetics. There can still be maskless quarians (though it may take another generation to achieve) Everything that was lost can be rebuilt eventually. And I'm optimistic enough that under the right conditions, the galaxy can use its freedom to achieve something greater than before. And even better, they can achieve it through their own efforts. The galaxy can actually mature.

[almightydavidbc27]

I also find all the endings awful. But destroying the geth is a real no go for me. They just achieved peace and became part of the greater galaxy. I wouldn't wipe out the krogan, I in fact save them, so no way the geth get killed.

[Ieldra]

@jtav:
What can I say. It's the same for me, and for much the same reasons. Theoretically, I can understand the rationale for destroying the Reapers, but I find myself unwilling to let any of my Shepards adopt that rationale and put it into action. As soon as I do, that Shepard ceases to me my Shepard, even more so than ME3 already mutilates their spirits.

The reasons? I'm not really sure, but I think it has to do with the fact that in all three main endings, the Reapers cease to be a threat, which makes me choose my ending for reasons which have nothing to do with them but rather with the kind of future created by my decision. And I find the Destroy future lacking in appeal. If I found it appealing enough, I would be willing to sacrifice the geth for it, even as I'm willing to sacrifice organics' oh-so-precious genetic purity for a hyper-advanced future with boundless possibilities.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 décembre 2013 - 04:15 .

[Andrew Lucas]

In my vision destroy is like a "fresh start" for the galaxy, we can trace our own path and handle the consequences like always should be.

I like Control because you will simple act like a guardian (Paragon) and intervine if necessary, we actually gain something with the war in technological term along with peace like in destroy.

And Synthesis i think it's not my decision to change everything but its premise is good but should be done with a consesus of everybody.

But my canon is destroy..

Cheers

[crimzontearz]

On a side note, as of October 22nd Deus Ex human revolution (DC) has become what ME3 should gave been


Pay attention Mac and Casey, YOU CAN pull off a 4 endings final choice game while at the same time giving emotional payoff to the player based also on in game choices and moral stands made before that point WITHOUT pissing people off and justify it as ART (while also adding NG+.....AWESOME)

[Ieldra]

crimzontearz wrote...
On a side note, as of October 22nd Deus Ex human revolution (DC) has become what ME3 should gave been

Pay attention Mac and Casey, YOU CAN pull off a 4 endings final choice game while at the same time giving emotional payoff to the player based also on in game choices and moral stands made before that point WITHOUT pissing people off and justify it as ART (while also adding NG+.....AWESOME)

????
What does the DC change?

The original version isn't exactly an example for a well-made ending. Far from it. It's your typical ABCD push-the´-button choice followed by an overly preachy epilogue, only the choices fit better to the story.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 décembre 2013 - 04:19 .

[Sir DeLoria]

Quarians can still live without their suits in Destroy, it will just take a few generations more. For now they'll only be able to live suit-less on Rannoch and the surrounding planets.

I always kill the Geth on Rannoch and I don't want Shep to die, so I always choose destroy.

[GreyLycanTrope]

You're under no obligation to accept that mindset OP.

[General TSAR]

Gee....why would anyone want to destroy genocidal sentient machines that have a body count in the hundreds of trillions?


Deal with it OP.

Modifié par General TSAR, 12 décembre 2013 - 04:29 .

[dreamgazer]

I can.

[wright1978]

Well i'm unable to a create a Shephard who would trust a word coming out of the Catalyst's mouth.
As far as Destroy is concerned it is the closest thing to 'freedom to develop as we wish free of reaper oppression' as the devs would allow.

[crimzontearz]

????
What does the DC change?

The original version isn't exactly an example for a well-made ending. Far from it. It's your typical ABCD push-the´-button choice followed by an overly preachy epilogue, only the choices fit better to the story.

The DC added different (non fighting) ways to deal with the tyrants (to align with a pacifist Jensen) and NG+ (sorely missed by me and others)

Thing is, the endings in Deus Ex DO reflect the different outlooks that you express through controlling Adam, the final speeches, all of them, take into account your actions and how you played the game (as opposed to "hey the reapers are nothing like what we presented you for the past 2.9 games, now pick one of three endings that are against almost everything most Shepards stood for and enjoy the mandatory suicide")

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The reasons? I'm not really sure, but I think it has to do with the fact that in all three main endings, the Reapers cease to be a threat, which makes me choose my ending for reasons which have nothing to do with them but rather with the kind of future created by my decision.

...which is kind of a bizarre process for decision making, let alone rationalizing a decision.  It's equivalent to knowing the winning lottery numbers before you even buy the ticket.

Put yourself in Shepard's shoes.  Put yourself in the moment.  Shepard is forced to make the final decision, (s)he doesn't know what the ramifications of each choice will be.  In-the-moment, what does Shepard have to draw from?  The desperate battle going on around him/her.  His/her first hand experience of the Reapers and their methods.  The intent with which the Crucible was built.  The atrocities we've witnessed, the arguments we've made, the battles we've fought, the information we've gleaned and the follies made by others.

Then ask yourself - does what the glowing little boy from my dreams have to say really count for more than our own first-hand experiences?  Does it have a motive?  Does it have an agenda?  And if so... is that agenda more important than our own existence and our own way of life?

Then, once you've considered those questions, do the universe a favour... and shoot the damn tube.

While I'm at it...

Ieldra2 wrote...
..in all three main endings, the Reapers cease to be a threat...

No.  No.  Just no.  The Reapers are sentient weapons of mass destruction.  They ONLY cease to become a threat in Destroy - where they are (just like it says on the tin) destroyed.  Control them and the potential exists for them to (somehow/someway) be used as weapons of mass destruction once more.   The same is true of Synthesis - however depending on your point of view, they're not free to act entirely as they will.  Reaper civil wars?  Reaper domination?

The Reapers are all but unstoppable, and capable of unimaginable horror on an incredible scale.  As long as they exist they remain a threat.  The only way to remove that threat permanently is for them to cease to exist.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 12 décembre 2013 - 04:57 .

[KaiserShep]

Would any of this matter if the geth and EDI survived it?

[ElSuperGecko]

KaiserShep wrote...
Would any of this matter if the geth and EDI survived it?

Humans want to save everyone.  In this war, that's not going to happen.

[KaiserShep]

Point is, there's little to no reason to care for the welfare of the reapers. The only ones that matter are the people the reapers are trying to kill, and in that position, I'd have no reason to believe that leaving a legacy of reaper fleets would be good for anyone.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 12 décembre 2013 - 04:54 .

[Ieldra]

@ElSuperGecko:
Your reasoning would be sound, wouldn't Destroy be just as suspect for the same reasons the other two are. If I believe the Catalyst about Destroy, then I have no reason to not also believe it about Control and Synthesis, and if I don't believe it about the latter, I have no reason to believe it about the former.

[Iakus]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Would any of this matter if the geth and EDI survived it?

Humans want to save everyone.  In this war, that's not going to happen.

A pity this game wasn't marketed for a turian audience.

[AlanC9]

wright1978 wrote...

Well i'm unable to a create a Shephard who would trust a word coming out of the Catalyst's mouth.
As far as Destroy is concerned it is the closest thing to 'freedom to develop as we wish free of reaper oppression' as the devs would allow.

How does your Shepard know that shooting the tube won't disable the Crucible?

Once you start distrusting stuff in the endings, I don't see any particularly logical place to stop without going all the way to Refuse -- and then looping back around because Refuse is an obvious fail. (Same thing Ieldra2 points out a few posts ago)

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 décembre 2013 - 05:03 .

[N7recruit]

I don't really see how choosing an ending that you are not thrilled about could be such a big deal OP. My point of view might not be of value to you as I just stopped caring about the Most of the Story as it was just so poorly told IMO. It also doesn't help that Ending was crafted with the fineness of a person with sledgehammers for arms, a Raging Boner for Mystic Speculative Bull**** & who doesn't give a flying **** about plot coherence & consistency.

Anyhow, My main Ending was Destruction & Sometimes Refuse when I want to role-play a Shepard who wouldn't take the God Kids GARBAGE exposition right up the ass with a smile on his face. + to Troll the Galaxy for Being So IDIOTIC from the Start of ME2 on wards.

A galaxy this stupid & Foolish doesn't deserve to Live.

I admit now it is mainly out of spite lol but it used to be about the Freedom, build out own future, Blah blah blah, (Which I admit would be hard with a ****ING DARK-AGE but whatever) but I also found that the other 2 endings, Control & Synthesis were too "Happy" & that they were not grounded enough to seem like Legit Endings for the Trilogy. I see the appeal but they just don't "feel" right for me. (Also the Bull****)

Plus it doesn't matter much in the long run anyway so I don't really see the big deal. Just turn Right & Shoot!

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
@ElSuperGecko:
Your reasoning would be sound, wouldn't Destroy be just as suspect for the same reasons the other two are. If I believe the Catalyst about Destroy, then I have no reason to not also believe it about Control and Synthesis, and if I don't believe it about the latter, I have no reason to believe it about the former.

No, because the intent with which the Crucible was built matters here.  The Catalyst doesn't "offer" us Destroy - it simply admits that it is possible.

"It is now in your power to destroy us"

The engineers and scientists of the Alliance and the allied races were designing and building the Crucible with the express belief that it would provide a means to Destroy the Reapers and end the war - that was their remit, that was their orders.  Intent is important when it comes to function.

For that reason I can partially at least accept the idea of Control - TIM had full access to the Crucible's schematics, and was researching a way to Control the Reapers.  The idea that after boarding the Citadel he put some of his technology in place which would allow the Crucible to be used in this manner is not impossible.  However, once again I need to turn to pragmatism.  I saw what the pursuit of Control did to the Illusive Man.  I saw what happened to him.  Can I trust that a similar fate would not happen to myself, especially knowing what I know about the Reapers?  No.  I can't.  and even if I did, do I think any one person - even myself - should have that kind of power?  No, I don't.  As far as I'm concerned, one person wielding that much power could only ever end in disaster.

As for Synthesis... there's only one place that idea comes from, and that's from the very being that offers it.  the being that has "tried a similar solution" before, and who advocates it as being the "ideal" solution, while at the same time admitting that it has a flawed understanding of organic life.

Tell me, if a being doesn't understand or comprehend the nature of organic life, how can it then be allowed to make a decision that will irreversibly affect ALL organic life?

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 12 décembre 2013 - 05:12 .

[KaiserShep]

iakus wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Would any of this matter if the geth and EDI survived it?

Humans want to save everyone.  In this war, that's not going to happen.

A pity this game wasn't marketed for a turian audience.

I don't think Mass Effect can really compete with Galaxy of Fantasy among turian gamers.

[essarr71]

I see the choice as less destroyer and more liberator.