711 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

There wouldn't be sufficient evidence for anything anyway.

"Shepard, by all reports, the geth and the Normandy's AI have all gone offline. Just what the hell happened?"

"I entered a strange chamber. There was a beam of light connecting the Crucible to the core of the Citadel, and I didn't know what to do, and suddenly it armed and fired on its own."

"Welp, I've heard enough. Enjoy your retirement."

[Hazegurl]

SporkFu wrote...

Except that Geth don't have bodies. It's not about rebuilding the hardware, it's about recreating a 300 year old experiment.  And after a devastating war with the reapers, and their own history with the geth, I think there will be a lot of quarians hesitant to re-open Pandora's box. Xen will no doubt be arguing in favour of re-creating the geth, but she may not have as much support as she thinks.

Now that I think about it, I bet it will be the salarians who create AI, and they won't tell anybody.

Destroy doesn't destroy the hardware (bodies). The reapers just fall so I'm sure the Geth would too. If Xen were to begin any experiment it would be on the hardware left behind. At the end of the day the Geth were created and can be again. I'm sure some Quarians would be hesitant but I doubt it would stop her. She is far too obsessed with the idea. I can see her doing it, even if it is with a handful of supporters. I honestly think she would have more than that.

[KaiserShep]

That comment was more about how the historical records would see this event. It basically hinges on either Shepard's word, or whatever data can be gathered from the Crucible, though if they couldn't figure it out before its deployment, it's doubtful that they'd do so anytime soon after it's done.

[AlanC9]

Right. People will know exactly what Shepard tells them. This is a real issue for surviving Destroy Sheps; are people better off not knowing that there ever was a choice? Though it's not like anybody would really give a damn about the genocide anyway.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 décembre 2013 - 08:04 .

[KaiserShep]

The truth doesn't really matter. The reapers are dead, and the day is pretty much saved. It's doubtful that with all the rebuilding and scooping up survivors that people will be bothering to look too deeply into the issue, especially since this was all the result of a huge mysterio device that Shepard had no hand in building.

[Ieldra]

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

Indeed. It's because of this thematic level that I tend to choose Synthesis. The problem remains that the way the endings are implemented, they aren't anchored very well in the lore and aren't well-connected to the story that came before.

Take Synthesis for instance. The whole trilogy basically sends a message that advanced technology is bad, most notably technology affecting örganic life forms themselves. If you take the original ending, there isn't a single technology that isn't either bad or ends up destroyed in the end. Even of the Crucible there remains no trace. Then there are the Reapers, who are an incarnation of advanced technology. 

Not that I'm not immensely grateful that I can deny this luddite message in the end, but Synthesis doesn't connect well with the story that came before, and while I think the message of advancement as a good thing is very visible in the presentation of the Synthesis itself, I can't really blame people for thinking it's indicative of a darker future based on what came before - and the thrice-damned mysticism does not help at all. The rationale is also not convincing if you made peace on Rannoch. So while I really like the outcome and the theme of advancement, Synthesis sort of hangs out there in empty space, narratively. I choose it anyway, but it remains somewhat unsatisfying.

Compare the endings of Deus Ex:Human Revolution. The implementation is every bit as bad with its button-press mechanic and the overly preachy epilogue, but all of the options grow naturally from the story that came before, and every option has a spokesperson who believably represents it.

[shodiswe]

Hazegurl wrote...

SporkFu wrote...

Except that Geth don't have bodies. It's not about rebuilding the hardware, it's about recreating a 300 year old experiment.  And after a devastating war with the reapers, and their own history with the geth, I think there will be a lot of quarians hesitant to re-open Pandora's box. Xen will no doubt be arguing in favour of re-creating the geth, but she may not have as much support as she thinks.

Now that I think about it, I bet it will be the salarians who create AI, and they won't tell anybody.

Destroy doesn't destroy the hardware (bodies). The reapers just fall so I'm sure the Geth would too. If Xen were to begin any experiment it would be on the hardware left behind. At the end of the day the Geth were created and can be again. I'm sure some Quarians would be hesitant but I doubt it would stop her. She is far too obsessed with the idea. I can see her doing it, even if it is with a handful of supporters. I honestly think she would have more than that.

Once you make peace with the Geth one way or another, then you have a solution, least a temporary one and you have managed to create an understanding.
However, after they have all been destroyed and you create new Geth, who never made peace, never waged war, never anything... Then they are no longer Geth. They are but a faint shadow of what the Geth were.
They never lived that life, it's unknown to them, except for reading or downloading other peoples history and accountings of this previous generation of Synthetic lifeforms that was annihilated by Organics.

I like the Geth, as they were, they existed and that I could accept. But I do not support the idea of recreating them or a coppy of what once was.
First of it woudln't be the same, secondly it's a huge risk because it would be something new and creating new AI's probably isn't very smart.
It would be like recreating the Dinosaurs like they did in the Jurassic park movie. Or creating a new type of humans that can't reproduce with todays human's and are likely to have different interests. Nevermind trying ot lock them up or enslave them in one form or another.
I'm ok with savign the Geth, I'm also ok with not picking Destroy just to save the Geth who are now an allied species.
However, that doesn't mean I find it smart to start spawning new AI entities and speices.
Creating life is something that should be done with the outmost care and it shouldn't be done unless you got really good reasons for it.
The reasons, lets have some fun and play around with things, or, hey, lets make some free labour, I got this great idea for creating sentient indentured servants with implants that make sure they can't rebell! Let's say I consider those ideas, terrible ideas.

Apparently we got EDI aswell.... and If multiplayer would be Canonical then we got those Alliance built Eva infiltrators... Those arn't like EDI but more like Cerberus Eva with Alliance programming and loyalties. For now.

[KaiserShep]

Those Alliance mechs are right up there with the front-line volus and awakened Collectors in the batsh*t MP circus.

[Sir DeLoria]

AlanC9 wrote...

If the geth were destroyed at Rannoch you could maybe bring Shepard to trial.

The vast majority of the galaxy despises the Geth and the only ones who think they come close to living beings are the Quarians themselves(some of them at least). Shep and his crew are the only ones who even know the difference between heretics and regular Geth. If anything Shep would be seen as a hero for destroying one of the most feared enemies of the galaxy.

[Sir DeLoria]

Hazegurl wrote...

SporkFu wrote...
Except that Geth don't have bodies. It's not about rebuilding the hardware, it's about recreating a 300 year old experiment.  And after a devastating war with the reapers, and their own history with the geth, I think there will be a lot of quarians hesitant to re-open Pandora's box. Xen will no doubt be arguing in favour of re-creating the geth, but she may not have as much support as she thinks. 

Now that I think about it, I bet it will be the salarians who create AI, and they won't tell anybody.

Destroy doesn't destroy the hardware (bodies). The reapers just fall so I'm sure the Geth would too. If Xen were to begin any experiment it would be on the hardware left behind. At the end of the day the Geth were created and can be again. I'm sure some Quarians would be hesitant but I doubt it would stop her. She is far too obsessed with the idea. I can see her doing it, even if it is with a handful of supporters. I honestly think she would have more than that.

Which is why the game originally gave you an option to detain or kill her. Regardless, I heavily, heavily doubt that the Quarians would attempt that again. Xen is a lunatic, but she doesn't seem to have many supporters. 

[oOmpie]

I can't believe how many people preaching for Destroy bring in the "do you believe space kid???" argument while at the same time believing it when it says red will destroy the Reapers.
When you take that leap of faith, none of the other options are much further down the road...

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Destroy and Control fit with the context of the game. Synthesis came out of nowhere. The idea was nice and all, but it really didn't fit in the end IMO. It's like they wanted to give a third option for the sake of having one.

I agree that in the Deus Ex series synthesis theme fits nicely, and I choose that theme in that story.

[N7Gold]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Both, sort of. I was leery of the other options, and that somehow gave me the courage to choose to destroy them.

[Reorte]

oOmpie wrote...

I can't believe how many people preaching for Destroy bring in the "do you believe space kid???" argument while at the same time believing it when it says red will destroy the Reapers.
When you take that leap of faith, none of the other options are much further down the road...

Already been covered. To sum it up, the choice is either believe the choices do what they say or pick at random. However if you're going to pick at random you may as well pick the the one that's claims to be Destroy (or Control or Synthesis if you're weird). Refusing just means everyone will die anyway so that's hardly an option. It's not as if activating the Crucible could make things worse.

[Reorte]

N7Gold wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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

Both, sort of. I was leery of the other options, and that somehow gave me the courage to choose to destroy them.

For me, you could argue there's fear in chosing Control, but borne of common sense ("We'll really honestly completely and utterly change what we've been doing for billions of years, all you need to do is electrocutre yourself." Right...) Synthesis is just repugnant and long-term more destructive than any other choice (that's based on the clear implications of what it would mean. I'm pretty sure that those implications weren't remotely intended, but that's what you get when you have things written by people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about).

[Display Name Owner]

Well, in-universe, there's no guarantee that Shepalyst would be any different form the Catalyst, so just taking it's place is a risk. If you eliminate it, you at least know for a fact what you're getting.

Personally what I dislike about Control is that it's effectively a big reset button. The Reapers stop destroying stuff because their new puppetmaster says so, then rebuild everything and just leave. It's like - what's the point? The galaxy has been through this incredible situation, and at the end of it they just go back to normal. Well, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement, it depends on what you do with the Krogan and Geth I suppose. But in Destroy, they've got hard times ahead, but it at least presents the opportunity to reshape the galaxy and actually make things better on their own terms.

It's a bit like Legion said before the Geth's massive 180 in ME3, about being blind to alternatives. If the people have to rebuild themselves, they can think about what to do differently.

[AlexMBrennan]

When you take that leap of faith, none of the other options are much further down the road...

So you do admit that the other options are further down the road, I.e. less likely to be the truth/work?

Yes, all choices require Shepard to trust in the mechanism of the Crucible (e.g. You have to trust him that jumping off a cliff will activate Synthesis, or that shooting an explody tube at point blank range will destroy the reapers), but Control/Synthesis require additional beliefs on top of that (e.g. synthesising everyone won't do no good if the newly synthesised reapers decide to keep on killing us anyway).

[Sc2mashimaro]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

The Catalyst doesn't "offer" us Destroy - it simply admits that it is possible.

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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.

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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.

I agree with your analysis and I think you presented it very well.

You can certainly role-play Shepard in different ways so that he/she believes differently when encountering the Catalyst. There's not really one 'right' answer, but I think this is the strongest argument.

[Daemul]

For me, whether or not the Catalyst was lying about the choices had no impact on my decision. If he was lying about the choices the galaxy was screwed either way, if he was telling the truth then I would go with the choice which I believed would lead to the least collateral damage. What others may have wanted didn't factor into it, their position was from one of ignorance, they didn't even know what the Crucible could do.

I am not some rigid, inflexible, unadaptable human being, when presented with new information I reassess my views and adjust accordingly, usually within seconds. This is what I was taught to do in various leadership courses, I decided to put those long hours of study to use.

[Sc2mashimaro]

oOmpie wrote...

I can't believe how many people preaching for Destroy bring in the "do you believe space kid???" argument while at the same time believing it when it says red will destroy the Reapers.
When you take that leap of faith, none of the other options are much further down the road...

The whole "do you believe the space kid?" thing is not about the factual statements that it makes, but the predictive elements of its speech and the AIs interpretation of truth. You need to think like a machine to understand a machine.

To a machine, Destroy is an option and it is what Shepard has been aiming for, but lo! Here are two other possibilities the operator may not have considered!:

1) You can take control of the Reapers. If my data is correct, your goal is to stop the cycle - "how" is not as important to you as reaching that goal (this is the only option you get if you *saved* the Collector ship after all). Thus, if you allow the Crucible to absorb your consciousness - download it into binary bits - I will cede control of the Reapers to you. Your perspective, however, will become that of a machine.

What does that mean? Your goal: to preserve the life of the universe will likely become your prime directive - much like the Catalyst's was. Will you go about it the same way? Perhaps you believe that because Shepard controls the Reapers that he/she will not come to the same conclusion as the Catalyst. But if your only tool is a hammer, every problem may begin to look like a nail. Plus, this option keeps the universe firmly under the thumb of the Reapers - maybe the Shepard-Reaper, but the Reapers still run the universe (or have the power to do so) all the same.

It could work out, but it is fairly easy to see why many Shepards might not think this is a good idea.

2) You can cause all life to become a synthetic-organic hybrid. This fulfills my primary directive and is what I, as the Catalyst, see as the ideal solution. It is, in fact, the solution I have been imperfectly trying to impliment for cycle after cycle. You can help me fulfill that goal.

Just because the Catalyst sees this solution as ideal does not make it ideal. This is the only choice that fulfills the Catalyst's goals as a machine. If WYSIWYG, then this is an awful idea, because - without metagaming - what Shepard has seen of this solution is exactly why he/she is fighting the Reapers in the first place. The Catalyst assures Shepard that this version of the solution will work better than the original version - but it is still unclear A) Whether the problem the Catalyst assures us exists is really a problem and whether it really needs to be solved by intervention and What this action will actually cause to happen (without meta-gaming) beyond what Shepard has seen already.

The reason many people pick Destroy is precisely *because* we believe the star-child, but we do not trust its motivation to be the same as an organic being's motivation. It has a directive to fulfill and you have thrown a wrench in what it *thought* was the solution. What it would like you to do is help it, but it gives you all three options just the same.


THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: What if, instead of encountering the star child, you reached the console with Liara right there. Liara explained what each option would do, but did not make arguments for or against any (unlike the star child). She simply says: shoot this - destroy the reapers and possibly our synthetic friends, grab this and I think your consciousness is downloaded into the Crucible making you king-o-the-reapers, or jump in here and the machine seems like it would tear apart your dna and make everyone in the galaxy a synthetic-organic hybrid. Now what do you choose?

PART 2: Same scenario, but the star child comes and offers his opinions on what you should expect and why you should choose synthesis, in addition to Liara's matter-of-fact explaination of what each button does (remember LIARA OFFERS NO PREDICTIONS, JUST ANALYSIS OF WHAT SHE THINKS EACH WILL DO). Now what do you choose?

[RiptideX1090]

The simple fact of the matter is we don't know the true ramifications of any of the endings. Are the geth melted down like the husks are in Destroy, or just shut off like the Reapers seem to be? Are their upgrades gone and they're back to factory zero, or what?

In Control, is how much of that entity is Shepard, how much is it just a Reaper AI, can it be corrupted, what does the rest of the galaxy, particularly the governing bodies think of having an AI with unlimited power running the show, and just how heavy handed or benign IS this entity?

In Synthesis, why the hell are plants glowing blue now, and does that mean I can't eat a salad anymore?

Ultimately, you can't even rely on the supposed consequences because they're so poorly explained and represented, so you're left with the underlying themes. Peace at the cost of entropy, which is Synthesis, Power at the loss of your humanity, Control, or Victory through Sacrifice, which is Destroy. The first is advocated by Saren and the Reapers and Starbrat, the second by TIM and Cerberus, and the last by Anderson, Victus, and, well, just about everyone on your squad, really, including, nay, ESPECIALLY Legion and EDI.

So, **** it. I shot the tube and called it a day instead of trying to give these endings more thought than they really deserve. I'm not going to speculate for deeper meanings and give the writers what they want. Shoot tube, crawl out of rubble, call it a trilogy.

[Steelcan]

@OP not all of us can be genocide fetishists with a taste for synthetic blood

[DeinonSlayer]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

The Geth VI was less than amicable to cooperation. Somehow I don't see Shepard being brought up on charges because he refused to permit it to commit genocide (again), as was its stated intent.

A lot of people seem to harbor this silly notion that the entire galaxy is as sympathetic to them as Paragon Shepard is. Their interaction with the galaxy for the last three centuries has consisted solely of killing anyone who comes near them, followed by attacking the Citadel.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 14 décembre 2013 - 03:48 .

[KaiserShep]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

The Geth VI was less than amicable to cooperation. Somehow I don't see Shepard being brought up on charges because he refused to permit it to commit genocide (again), as was its stated intent.

A lot of people seem to harbor this silly notion that the entire galaxy is as sympathetic to them as Paragon Shepard is. Their interaction with the galaxy for the last three centuries has consisted solely of killing anyone who comes near them, followed by attacking the Citadel.

And also, Shepard couldn't possibly be sent off to space Hague for the eradication of the geth, because when it comes right down to it, it wasn't like the rachni queen decision where Shepard could choose to just flood a chamber with acid while it was in captivity. The quarians and geth were actively fighting each other in orbit, and it came down to whether or not he/she could talk the quarians down while the geth were released from reaper control. I mean, what's the prosecution going to say? "Did you or did you not have enough reputation points to persuade the quarians into standing down?" Being unable to mediate between two warring fleets from the ground doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to press charges.