711 réponses à ce sujet

[RiptideX1090]

Shepard lives in destroy. And you know what? In the end, that's all that ever mattered to me. The rest of the galaxy and the world they built was cool and all, but in the end, for me it wasn't about all of that. It was about a captain, his ship, and his crew. I'm not letting a bunch of lackluster writing and mishandled themes get in the way of that.

[AlanC9]

Wayning_Star wrote...

@ESG

we have the destroy choice.. proves the catalyst correct. Strange that...

An amusing irony, anyway. Like the way the Allies signed on with Germany's main prewar foreign policy goal in 1945 by putting almost all Germans within the borders of Germany and Austria. Except that they accomplished the goal by ethnic cleansing of Germans rather than expanding Germany's borders, of course.

[Wayning_Star]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

@ESG

we have the destroy choice.. proves the catalyst correct. Strange that...

An amusing irony, anyway. Like the way the Allies signed on with Germany's main prewar foreign policy goal in 1945 by putting almost all Germans within the borders of Germany and Austria. Except that they accomplished the goal by ethnic cleansing of Germans rather than expanding Germany's borders, of course.

lets hope that in the far distant future is different than 1940's earth... ( in some respects

[FlyingSquirrel]

crimzontearz wrote...

????
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")

The DX:HR Director's Cut is definitely near the top of the list for when I finish my current run through the ME trilogy. If there are some changes to the ending I'll be eager to see what they are.

But I would argue the endings for DX:HR were at least as jarring and out of place as Mass Effect's. I was playing Jensen as somewhat skeptical of all the different factions and more concerned about preventing the exploitation and absue of ordinary citizens than with promoting any one particular vision of the future. Personally I trusted Sarif a little more than Taggart or Darrow, though my own philosophical views were perhaps closer to Taggart's - use technology but regulate it carefully. OTOH, Taggart was apparently being manipulated by the Illuminati. Both Darrow and his ideology were too extreme in my view.

Then my choices boiled down to:

(a) Broadcast the truth about what happened, but mixed in with some Luddite propaganda (Darrow's message).
( Broadcast a lie about what happened for ideological reasons (Sarif's and Taggart's messages).
© Murder hundreds of people to avoid any of these options (blow up the station).

None of those fit with the character I was playing. I ended up going with (a) and hoping that people could sort the facts from the BS, but then Jensen kicked in with a narration that was itself somewhat reflexively anti-technology. So I was basically forced to ally with the character whom I found the least appealing to avoid committing an atrocity or engaging in mass deception.

[CronoDragoon]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
None of those fit with the character I was playing. I ended up going with (a) and hoping that people could sort the facts from the BS, but then Jensen kicked in with a narration that was itself somewhat reflexively anti-technology. So I was basically forced to ally with the character whom I found the least appealing to avoid committing an atrocity or engaging in mass deception.

Yeah I thought the HR endings were bad as well, pretty much for this reason. I also picked A thinking they wouldn't go full retard, but they did: luddite philosophy on a global level is simply not possible. Technology WILL be used, period. The question is how and through what regulations. The Illuminati ending pretty much reflected my opinion on this, which was a close monitoring and thorough legislation regarding augmentation, but the whole "join the nefarious overlords" angle soured it for me.

[Fixers0]

The destroy mindset:


The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory.

[jamesp81]

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.

1.  Control concentrates too much power in the hands of a single person / entity.  Shepard's a good soldier and a good leader of a small military unit, but none of these guarantees he will be a good dictator (and let's be honest, that's what Control amounts to, making Shepard a dictator).  He could very well usher in a dark age of tyranny and persecution.  Or perhaps the Reapers will steadily influence him into seeing things their way.  Keep in mind that the Catalyst is your enemy, and cannot be trusted to tell the entire truth about the consequences of Control.

2.  Synthesis forces a major life change on people who may or may not want such changes.  It violates people in a metaphorical sense (takes away their choices) and also violates them in a very real physical sense.  Massive changes to people's bodies are made without their permission.  This is a serious crime, committed trillions of times on a galaxy-wide scale.  It's only less monstrous than what the Reapers do solely because it doesn't kill every last man, woman, and child it touches.  But depending on your viewpoint, losing yourself like that might be worse.  YMMV on that last part.  Synthesis also has the same problems as control, there is no guarantee that the Catalyst is telling you the truth about how great such a solution is.

3.  As for people being jerks, it is a logical consequence of a free society that some people will do things that you don't like, and if you wish society to remain free, such things have to be tolerated in a legal sense.  I promise you that the alternative is one hell of a lot worse, a fact that is born out by human history.

IMO, all the endings were awful.  It's just that Destroy had the least awfulness and derptitude in it.

Modifié par jamesp81, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:40 .

[jamesp81]

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.

IIRC, the Catalyst seems to be against Destroy.  That by itself is a possible indicator that it's what you need to be doing (but the decision can't be made on that basis alone either).  And while the Catalyst certainly can't be trusted, completely destroying the Reapers does remove the immediate threat.  With that particular menu of crap sandwiches, that seems to make the Destroy flavor of crap sandwich less crappy in flavor.

[jamesp81]

voteDC wrote...

I simply can't bring myself to trust a word that comes out of the Catalyst's mouth.

Why would Shepard, any Shepard, trust the word of the thing that has just told you that it created and controls the Reapers.

Right up until the end I expected Shepard to get the option to say "hell to this! Where's your blue-box? Lets fry your ass instead of mine."

Destroying the Catalyst would then have a similar effect as destroying Saren did to Sovereign, shocking the Reapers and making them vulnerable.

Then your War Assets would come into play as to whether you'd be able to win, at what cost and if at all.

That's what I would've liked to see.

Another poster on this forum some time ago posited a similar idea where TIM's attempt to control the Reapers failed, but only just.  His mind was more or less loose in the Reaper computer systems wreaking havoc, and giving the allied races a small window, but a window, to attack the Reapers on something like even terms with the resolution of the battle based on your EMS.  I think that could've been an interesting Destroy-like ending.

[jamesp81]

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.

[CosmicGnosis]

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!

[Sir DeLoria]

Ryzaki wrote...
Alas in my game Rannoch is a deserted mess. I let the Geth kill the Quarians and then pick Destroy. *shrugs* Maybe Wrex can use it from Krogan expansion? I dunno.

Why do you post that in every thread you can find?

Anyway, not all Quarians lived aboard the migrant fleet, the surviving couple thousand could have it. Who doesn't want a planet with a population equal to that of Lichtenstein?

[Sir DeLoria]

Fixers0 wrote...

The destroy mindset:


The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory.

That's neat, I simply chose Destroy because I didn't want Shep to die, but whatever floats your boat.

[DeinonSlayer]

Necanor wrote...

Why do you post that in every thread you can find?

Necanor bait, probably.

Besides, you brought it up in your first post in the thread.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 14 décembre 2013 - 12:03 .

[ElSuperGecko]

jamesp81 wrote...
IIRC, the Catalyst seems to be against Destroy.  That by itself is a possible indicator that it's what you need to be doing (but the decision can't be made on that basis alone either).  And while the Catalyst certainly can't be trusted, completely destroying the Reapers does remove the immediate threat.  With that particular menu of crap sandwiches, that seems to make the Destroy flavor of crap sandwich less crappy in flavor.

It is against Destroy.  It deliberately tries to steer you away from the idea with red herrings...

"the peace won’t last. Soon your children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back"

...and subtle appeals to pity and fear.

"It is now in your power to destroy us. But be warned, others will be destroyed as well. The crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic."

It's funny how the notion of self-sacfrice is portrayed in a negative light when it comes to Destroy, but not when it comes to the Catalyst's nirvana fallacy (sorry, I mean Synthesis).

[Reorte]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

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 rather implies it does it to everyone and for all time. Even if you somehow managed to wipe out all organic life it would eventually reappear. With Synthesis, the implication is that it won't.

[N7Gold]

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.

It has been repeated many times in the series, "the right choice is not always the easy one.", something Shepard (in paragon dialogue choices) tells James Vega in the Normandy's cabin because Vega, during the events of the Paragon Lost movie which takes place during ME2, made a choice that he felt terrible about choosing (choosing to save the Collector intel over saving the Fehl Prime colonists so the Alliance would have an edge against the Collectors). In wars, sometimes the right and wrong choices can be in reverse, meaning the choice that makes you look like a heartless person can sometimes turn out right in the end with the defeat of the enemy and peace, and the choice where you save the lives that could have been sacrificed might have some unexpected negative consequence with little or no chance of redemption, and that's one of many things that makes wars very horrible. 

The first time I played ME3, when my Shepard met that AI kid, I had doubts about destroying the Reapers too, I didn't want to sacrifice the geth and EDI, I wanted them to live, I wanted the geth to live their lives in peace with the quarians, I wanted to see how far the relationship between EDI and Joker would go, but I didn't trust choosing the other two solutions because I found it strange how Illusive Man and Reapers who controlled him needed Shepard to believe in the benefits of controlling something powerful like the Reapers, and I didn't like the idea of spreading a strange DNA to all life in the galaxy, it sounds like taking away true freedom of all life for an illusion of freedom, so somehow, I found the courage to destroy the Reapers anyway.

Modifié par N7Gold, 14 décembre 2013 - 02:14 .

[RogueBot]

If I were to have any qualms about Destroy, it'd be because of the potential deaths of Edi and the Geth. But even that doesn't bother me (although I love both of them), simply because I'm too aware of why they have to be sacrificed for the Destroy ending. And it's not the result of intrinsic, naturally-flowing storytelling, but rather it was contrived to keep Destroy from being too easy a choice on our part.

That awareness obviously dulls the emotional impact of the decision. But hell, at least I get to see Reapers blow up. Mission accomplished, we got 'em!

[AlanC9]

N7Gold wrote...
The first time I played ME3, when my Shepard met that AI kid, I had doubts about destroying the Reapers too, I didn't want to sacrifice the geth and EDI, I wanted them to live, I wanted the geth to live their lives in peace with the quarians, I wanted to see how far the relationship between EDI and Joker would go, but I didn't trust choosing the other two solutions because I found it strange how Illusive Man and Reapers who controlled him needed Shepard to believe in the benefits of controlling something powerful like the Reapers, and I didn't like the idea of spreading a strange DNA to all life in the galaxy, it sounds like taking away true freedom of all life for an illusion of freedom, so somehow, I found the courage to destroy the Reapers anyway.

Was that courage, or just fear of the other options?

[kookie28]

Another "your ending is wrong" thread.

Holy ****, mass effect is a religion.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

First time I met the AI kid, I had no doubts. I sent the reapers to hell. I blew up the galaxy (high EMS) @ 320 am PST on March 22 2012.

[KaiserShep]

kookie28 wrote...

Another "your ending is wrong" thread.

Holy ****, mass effect is a religion.

EAhira, goddess of gamers. Let my controller be strong my fingeres be swift. If the worst should come to pass, may DLC cure what ails us.

[wizardryforever]

Honestly, I see the three endings (Refuse is a game over, not an ending) as having their own theme, and you ultimately choose which of the three best suits your character.

Destroy's is Freedom: No longer will you have to live in the Reapers' shadow, use their technology, or worry about them intruding in your lives ever again.  You are free to choose your own path, but at the cost of the lives of all synthetics and the power of the Reapers and the knowledge in their databanks, as well as the relays.

Control's is Order: You can ensure peace by using the Reapers as galactic police or enforcers of your will, and repair the relays as well.  Supreme power rests on your shoulders, allowing you to protect people from all threats, within and without.  No one dies in this ending, ensuring that as little as possible changes, remaining static.

Synthesis' is Progress: By choosing to leap forward and gift the galaxy with true understanding of their opposites (on the synthetic/organic scale anyway), you unlock the knowledge of the Reapers' harvested civilizations, allow the Reapers to join the galactic community, and society jumps forward decades if not centuries.  All at the cost of only one life, your own.

Personally, I find destroy to be the least palatable.  Take a note from Aria's textbook, she doesn't destroy what she can use.

[AlanC9]

In Synthesis there's nothing to court-martial, of course. And in Control, good luck bringing him in. But let's say they could.

Note that Destroy turns out to be an order to commit genocide if the geth are alive. (Not Hackett's fault since he didn't know that at the time have gave the order) I'm pretty sure such an order is not considered legitimate by Shepard's military. If the geth were destroyed at Rannoch you could maybe bring Shepard to trial.