711 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

And no other Spectre gets to add Elder Machine God to the list of high profile targets they've taken out. Can't beat that.

[CosmicGnosis]

KaiserShep wrote...

Heck I always saw control as a major theme. Everyone from the reapers to the protheans to the asari and salarians imposed themselves on whole populations, mostly with disastrous results.

I often think about this. It adds to the thematic confusion of the ending choices.

[ImaginaryMatter]

KaiserShep wrote...

Heck I always saw control as a major theme. Everyone from the reapers to the protheans to the asari and salarians imposed themselves on whole populations, mostly with disastrous results.

Isn't control a theme of almost every story ever though? Usually a story needs conflict of some sort so the characters can band together and stop it, and conflict usually results from some group trying to control another group through some means. And with multiple sub-plots there's even more conflict from one group trying to control an other group.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Reorte wrote...

SR72 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Destroy and Control fit with the context of the game. Synthesis came out of nowhere.

No it doesn't. This is what Saren has wanted since the first game. Also, Harbinger. To merge organics and Reapers together. Not every choice presented will be in Shepard's favor. Certain choices will favor Reapers.

There's a whole massive numbers of magnitudes difference between sticking some pieces of hardware inside someone and whatever the hell it is that Synthesis does so no, it isn't foreshadowed.

I think it is roughly the same, except that Synthesis also affects synthetic life, giving it borg-y organic qualities.

I think all three endings have thematic elements that can be, in hindsight, seen through the whole series. Not equally - it doesn't feel exactly like these three choices were the game-plan from the beginning, but the three themes were also far from absent. Pro-destroyers will point that out all the time: Reapers = Synthesis, Cerberus = Control, and Anderson/All-the-good-guys = Destroy. I happen to think they have a point, so I personally favor destroy. Still, I get why people choose Control, Refuse, and even my least favorite ending, Synthesis. It's a good exercise to figure out why people like the endings we don't favor, I think - plus it's fun: part of the role-playing experience

[SporkFu]

Just finished a paragon control playthrough, and to me, in a lot of ways it seems the best choice for the future. Shepard talks about protecting and guiding, and allowing civilizations to flourish in limitless ways, and of never forgetting the sacrifices of those who helped him achieve his purpose.

I guess it's pretty much exactly what a paragon Shep would say, right? But when I think about the ME galaxy that I've just played three games in, and - ahem- can't seem to get enough of, that's how I'd like things to move forward, post reaper war.

[SporkFu]

StreetMagic wrote...

SporkFu wrote...

Just finished a paragon control playthrough, and to me, in a lot of ways it seems the best choice for the future. Shepard talks about protecting and guiding, and allowing civilizations to flourish in limitless ways, and of never forgetting the sacrifices of those who helped him achieve his purpose.

I guess it's pretty much exactly what a paragon Shep would say, right? But when I think about the ME galaxy that I've just played three games in, and - ahem- can't seem to get enough of, that's how I'd like things to move forward, post reaper war.

It's a good ending for Paragons.

But then, that's why I hate Paragons to begin with (by Paragon I mostly mean Lawful Good. Not Chaotic Good). It's kind of a daddy/big brother/big sister mentality. Go to your local YMCA or youth church group and you'll find people like Paragon Shep admonishing all of the "children" around them. They love Control and influence. If they could take control of something as powerful as Reapers, they would (many try to accomplish the same thing by getting involved in politics).

I dunno, my paragon Shep also punched out a raving scientist on eden prime, and hung up on the council everytime they phoned. She pushed a merc out of a very high window, stabbed a batarian mechanic in the back, set a krogan on fire and kicked a quarian admiral off the Normandy after punching him in the gut. She's not too goody-goody.

[TigusVidiks]

I favoured Synthesis, and to me it makes perfect sense, even though I would rather see the reapers destroyed. Although I understand the point made when people say Synthesis = Reapers, I don't entirely agree, because there is a fundamental difference. Reapers were focusing on harvesting and storing the DNA of organics, by incorporating it into machines. Removing free will as part of the process. Synthesis doesn't remove free will.
Also, while we all could see the terrrible things the reapers done, we need to keep it in perspective. They are basically AI's, and as the games showed us, plenty of AI's have a lesser understanding of emotions and organic motivations. They have a hard time understanding the concept of organic death, too. Shepard's conversations with other non-reapers AI's showed it often. From EDI questions for feedback in ME3, to her birth to sentience still in ME1, to the countless VI's gone bad in ME2.
But the fundamental goal of the reapers, stop and prevent future wars between organics and synthetics (according to their programing) is still a noble one. They simply chose the wrong way to adress it, limited by their first-end knowledge about organics motivations and wishes.
I have to say, that because of what the reapers did, it's impossible not to wish their destruction. But looking at their goal, and all the feedback and knowledge that they have, the leviathans have and the protheans had, it's very hard to dispute that without the reapers organics would be doomed to fall in a war with synthetics.
In more than 2 billion years it's always happend. The beings with the longest lives (leviathans and reapers) both present it as inevitable. All the clues and hints you see in the 3 games tell you they are right (AI in the presidium, VI on the moon, VI's in general in ME2 coming out of a "malfunctioning" factory, first hand feedback from Javik about his species and previous cycle species fights against Synthetics, ect).
And while Shepard can broker a peace between quarians and geth, it's all but fragile, and most likely short lived. The galaxy was fighting synthetics and banishing them for millenia, for good reason. Just because they found a common enemy that spurs them into a fragile peace, doesn't mean it's carved and rock and going to endure the passing centuries.
In that sense, Synthesis makes the most logic.
And for a paragon Shepard, who strives for peace and co-existence during the 3 games (if you so chose it), synthesis makes perfect sense.

Modifié par TigusVidiks, 16 décembre 2013 - 10:37 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

TigusVidiks wrote...

I favoured Synthesis, and to me it makes perfect sense, even though I would rather see the reapers destroyed. Although I understand the point made when people say Synthesis = Reapers, I don't entirely agree, because there is a fundamental difference...
And for a paragon Shepard, who strives for peace and co-existence during the 3 games (if you so chose it), synthesis makes perfect sense.

I think your sentiment is common among people who choose Synthesis. And that is certainly the argument the Catalyst makes - so if you agree with the Catalyst's prediction *and* trust that its execution of the solution (assisted by Shepard and the Crucible) will solve the problem in a non-destructive manner that is greatly improved from the Catalyst's orignal execution of said plan then it makes sense.

One of the *other* reasons I tend to choose "Destroy" is because I do not believe the Catalyst is correct in saying that Synthetic life will inevitably conflict with Organic life. Synthesis is definitely accepting the Catalyst's thesis on the conflict and Control is not a complete rejection of it (Shepard holds onto the power of the Reapers - what if we need them???). Shepard knows that even if the Geth and EDI are destroyed when the Crucible fires, organics will rebuild synthetic life again. Thus, as an action, Destroy says, "I reject your assertion that Synthetic life and Organic life must come into conflict."

Modifié par Sc2mashimaro, 16 décembre 2013 - 11:54 .

[jamesp81]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

It's so twisted that synthetics have to die so that people can feel good about "Freedom!"

Peace on Rannoch? Doesn't matter. Destroy is the correct choice.

Shepard's survival offers even more validation.

If all organics had to die to take out the Reapers, I'd happily shoot the damn tube and for all the same reasons.

And I thought everyone was upset that Synthesis violates the body of every being in the galaxy. But forget that, let's just outright kill everyone instead!

Synthesis is too risky, it makes people too much like the Reapers.  You're begging to have the same thing happen over and over again.  It's worth some sacrifice to be rid of them.

[Redbelle]

50k years from now everyone decides synthesis was a bad idea and build another crucible so all organic and synthetic life are plant based. People now wonder around staying in the sun and grow corn out of themselves.......

Seriously. Those who want to become something else? Other than what they are and impose that ideology on others in so drastic and choiceless manner? Synthesis seems to sacrifice the heart and soul of what it means to live free.

Plus the Reapers get off without so much as a slap on the wrist...... and all the husks are gone! This supposed best option seems to have rounded up all the undesirable Reaper husks and airbrushed them out......

What bugs me is that this brilliantly realised world takes the concept of accountability for ones actions and burys it in favour of an MTV inspired *heroic sacrifice*, and does not stop to consider the ramification's of that action to the future narrative of both the game, and the wider ME galaxy.

Modifié par Redbelle, 16 décembre 2013 - 04:17 .

[Slayer299]

TigusVidiks wrote...

I favoured Synthesis, and to me it makes perfect sense, even though I would rather see the reapers destroyed. Although I understand the point made when people say Synthesis = Reapers, I don't entirely agree, because there is a fundamental difference. Reapers were focusing on harvesting and storing the DNA of organics, by incorporating it into machines. Removing free will as part of the process. Synthesis doesn't remove free will.
Also, while we all could see the terrrible things the reapers done, we need to keep it in perspective. They are basically AI's, and as the games showed us, plenty of AI's have a lesser understanding of emotions and organic motivations. They have a hard time understanding the concept of organic death, too. Shepard's conversations with other non-reapers AI's showed it often. From EDI questions for feedback in ME3, to her birth to sentience still in ME1, to the countless VI's gone bad in ME2.
But the fundamental goal of the reapers, stop and prevent future wars between organics and synthetics (according to their programing) is still a noble one. They simply chose the wrong way to adress it, limited by their first-end knowledge about organics motivations and wishes.
I have to say, that because of what the reapers did, it's impossible not to wish their destruction. But looking at their goal, and all the feedback and knowledge that they have, the leviathans have and the protheans had, it's very hard to dispute that without the reapers organics would be doomed to fall in a war with synthetics.
In more than 2 billion years it's always happend. The beings with the longest lives (leviathans and reapers) both present it as inevitable. All the clues and hints you see in the 3 games tell you they are right (AI in the presidium, VI on the moon, VI's in general in ME2 coming out of a "malfunctioning" factory, first hand feedback from Javik about his species and previous cycle species fights against Synthetics, ect).
And while Shepard can broker a peace between quarians and geth, it's all but fragile, and most likely short lived. The galaxy was fighting synthetics and banishing them for millenia, for good reason. Just because they found a common enemy that spurs them into a fragile peace, doesn't mean it's carved and rock and going to endure the passing centuries.
In that sense, Synthesis makes the most logic.
And for a paragon Shepard, who strives for peace and co-existence during the 3 games (if you so chose it), synthesis makes perfect sense.

Taken out of order;

Okay, but there isn't that much of a difference between Synthesis and Reapers in how I see it, both of them are done without the individual's consent (irregardless of whether it's seen as "good" or not). The choice was never there to be made, so I can't see much difference from Reapers making you either into goo or a killing machine and Synthesis which still puts tech into you, both didn't come with your consent at that time. 

Shepard did broker peace, but fragile or not, peace is still there to be begin with. It may falter, break down and get put back together or not with the Geth, but that's true of any peace between bitter enemies. It won't happen overnight or peacefully but its still there to be worked on by people.

I don't see how it's been proven that AI vs organics is inevitable, what proof was displayed to us? The catalysts word? The Levi's told us what they'd seen, but they never stepped in either. ANd the Protheans disproved the AI's 'must destroy their creator' bunk because they curbstomped the Za'atil   <--spelling 

Oh, with the Hannibal AI (on the moon) that can be forgiven really. EDI became sentient (mostly) and all she could see was she was under attack. It wasn't an 'I must destroy organics' issue right then. EDI even tells you this on Chronos base. 

Modifié par Slayer299, 16 décembre 2013 - 04:48 .

[SilJeff]

SporkFu wrote...

Just finished a paragon control playthrough, and to me, in a lot of ways it seems the best choice for the future. Shepard talks about protecting and guiding, and allowing civilizations to flourish in limitless ways, and of never forgetting the sacrifices of those who helped him achieve his purpose.

I guess it's pretty much exactly what a paragon Shep would say, right? But when I think about the ME galaxy that I've just played three games in, and - ahem- can't seem to get enough of, that's how I'd like things to move forward, post reaper war.

My thoughts exactly. It is why paragon control is my favorite ending

I think of destroy being the best renegade ending, control being the best for paragons, and synthesis and refuse being ignored completely

[Slayer299]

Redbelle wrote...

50k years from now everyone decides synthesis was a bad idea and build another crucible so all organic and synthetic life are plant based. People now wonder around staying in the sun and grow corn out of themselves.......

Seriously. Those who want to become something else? Other than what they are and impose that ideology on others in so drastic and choiceless manner? Synthesis seems to sacrifice the heart and soul of what it means to live free.

Plus the Reapers get off without so much as a slap on the wrist...... and all the husks are gone! This supposed best option seems to have rounded up all the undesirable Reaper husks and airbrushed them out......

What bugs me is that this brilliantly realised world takes the concept of accountability for ones actions and burys it in favour of an MTV inspired *heroic sacrifice*, and does not stop to consider the ramification's of that action to the future narrative of both the game, and the wider ME galaxy.

Actually, I always wondered what happend to the troops like the Banshees, Marauders and other "higher functioning" Reaper troops.

Yeah, the Reapers got what they wanted and everyone's singing happy songs around the campfire it seeems....<_<

[KaiserShep]

Doesn't the journal entry after the UNC: Rogue VI mission hint at possible sabotage?

[Slayer299]

I don't remember to be honest. It's been a few months since I've played ME.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

The Catalyst conversation; however, plays out with some entity claiming he is in control of the Reapers, then spouts out something about how wrong Shepard is, then offers three random choices that all result in Shepard dying; it's all really suspicious.

Someone that tells you straight away that they are in control of the Reapers and thinks nothing of it is obviously not a real mastermind of deception. That, and his quote, "Your belief is not required" (lol... Shepard gets owned so hard).

And no, Destroy does not result in Shepard's death. In Control, he states "you will die" definitively. In Destroy, he does not definitively claim he will die, just that it may affect him to somehow. And it does -- Shepard either dies or becomes a nugget.

If you truly think it's all very suspicious, you should believe the opposite of what you're made to believe. There is no rhyme or reason behind shooting a tube triggering Destroy anyway. Only trusting what you've been shown can make you believe it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Someone that tells you straight away that they are in control of the Reapers and thinks nothing of it is obviously not a real mastermind of deception. That, and his quote, "Your belief is not required" (lol... Shepard gets owned so hard).

And no, Destroy does not result in Shepard's death. In Control, he states "you will die" definitively. In Destroy, he does not definitively claim he will die, just that it may affect him to somehow. And it does -- Shepard either dies or becomes a nugget.

If you truly think it's all very suspicious, you should believe the opposite of what you're made to believe. There is no rhyme or reason behind shooting a tube triggering Destroy anyway. Only trusting what you've been shown can make you believe it.

Maybe the conversation wouldn't be as suspicious if the Catalyst was straight up with Shepard, but given how the ghost kid remains rather ambiguous about everything, keeps changing it's definitions, and offers very little in the way of proof other than its good word the whole thing remains rather fishy.

[AlanC9]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Someone that tells you straight away that they are in control of the Reapers and thinks nothing of it is obviously not a real mastermind of deception. That, and his quote, "Your belief is not required" (lol... Shepard gets owned so hard).

You can almost make this work if you can make yourself believe that the Catalyst is trying to manipulate Shepard, but his understanding of organic psychology is so poor that he's really, really bad at manipulation.

This topic sometimes brings to mind some of the idiotic opinions we see on the DA:O board about Morrigan being "manipulative."

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 décembre 2013 - 06:01 .

[KaiserShep]

You just know that the Illusive Man got the portion of the data that included the operator's manual of the Crucible.

"OK let's see here. OK.......wait......wait you have to do what? Grab onto...hold on a second. Oh you must be sh*tting me. Well...OK, I think I can live with this."

[Navasha]

Honestly if Destroy doesn't work for you, then don't choose it. I have come to the conclusion that the endings are designed the way they are so that people with different outlooks and worldviews can all come to some "somewhat" satisfying ending.

Me personally, I can't bring myself to choose anything other than destroy. To me it is the only ending that offers hope for any kind of real future for the galaxy. Its the ONLY ending that offers at least a chance of the races of the galaxy to find their own path to failure or greatness.

Control forces oppression on the galaxy where the new "ShepGod" gets to determine right and wrong for everyone. Synthesis is so morally reprehensible to me that not even my Renegade Shep would not choose such a horrific demise for the galaxy.

Modifié par Navasha, 16 décembre 2013 - 06:29 .

[Reorte]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Reorte wrote...

There's a whole massive numbers of magnitudes difference between sticking some pieces of hardware inside someone and whatever the hell it is that Synthesis does so no, it isn't foreshadowed.

I think it is roughly the same, except that Synthesis also affects synthetic life, giving it borg-y organic qualities.

To me that's like saying you destroy a few things in the game and therefore a version of Destroy that was a galaxy-wrecking bomb that wiped out every single star and planet was foreshadowed.

[The Twilight God]

jtav wrote...

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.

If you can rationally provide a reason to trust the Reapers, which you can't, then yes. Control would be better. Synthesis would be sorta OK. The problem with the endings is the Kid and the context in which they are given. I still believe Control and Synthesis are indoctrinated "mission fail" endings (the EC endings actually hinting this). I can't believe any professional writer can be THAT bad a story teller. Again, I have no serious problem with space magic, but they way it was done... no, not if they are actually supposed to be a genuinely happy ending, which again, I don't think they are. Control being the worst example given the conversation with TIM 5 minutes earlier. At least with Synthesis it's been like 5 years since talking with Saren and people who didn't play ME1 wouldn't pick up on it. 

From my perspective, and I believe many others, Destroy is the only valid ending. It's the only real choice given, which sucks. And even then Destroy is the only valid choice only because there is no other way to complete the objective. I know I did Refuse, not knowing that giving up was an actual option the first time, thinking the whole scenario was reaper bs to deceive me, that Shepard was going to tell this Kid off (who I figured was Harby)and get EDI to tell him what to do. The other two are Shepard killing himself literally to further the Reaper's objectives. They literally turn to you their way of thinking and you take actions based on agreeing with their view. If that isn't indoctrination I don't know what is.

If you can stomach the Green and Blue light show more power to you. I wish I could. It's a video game. Make of it what you can.