68 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

von uber wrote...

If bioware had put a scene in high ems destroy where their li or similar drags them out of the rubble and they embrace as shep is taken away for treatment, no-one would even bother with any of the other endings.

And I think the question is if such a scene were possible in all ending chocies, would the spread be more even?

[MattFini]

iakus wrote...

von uber wrote...

If bioware had put a scene in high ems destroy where their li or similar drags them out of the rubble and they embrace as shep is taken away for treatment, no-one would even bother with any of the other endings.

And I think the question is if such a scene were possible in all ending chocies, would the spread be more even?

Good question. 

I'd be genuinely curious about that myself. 

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

von uber wrote...

If bioware had put a scene in high ems destroy where their li or similar drags them out of the rubble and they embrace as shep is taken away for treatment, no-one would even bother with any of the other endings.

And I think the question is if such a scene were possible in all ending chocies, would the spread be more even?

Like everything else, it'd depend on how it's handled.  

Shepard surviving the blue and green endings could have some very negative repercussions, after all, ones that don't exist in the current ending. 

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

And I think the question is if such a scene were possible in all ending chocies, would the spread be more even?

Might make a difference to some Synthesis people, especially since that "death" is the most mystical and poorly explained (similar to how Angel's blood stops the apocalypse in Buffy Season 2, so she stabs him through the heart and sends him to hell. Jesus woman, any idea what a pin ****** is?)

As for Control, I'm not sure it'd work without fundamentally changing the practical details of the ending. So Shepard remains human and just controls the Catalyst through a terminal linked to his DNA or something? Very very dangerous as Citadel shows.

I think Controllers would be more satisfied with a scene in which the squad first encounters the Shepalyst on the Citadel. THAT would be an emotional, intellectually interesting scene if they did it right.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 janvier 2014 - 05:03 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

I'll stick with none of the above, Shepard surviving would be a nice bonus but that's not the main issue for me.

[Br3admax]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

For me, the survival of Shepard in the Destroy ending is a nice bonus, a very nice one. But not the main point. If Shepard were to survive all other options as well (which he sort of does in the Control option anyway), I would still choose Destroy. Because **** the Reapers and what they stand for.

[fchopin]

Whatever they do I will pick destroy so nothing changes.

[von uber]

Sorry what I meant was that if that scene was added to the endings as they are now (rather than the breath scene) it would render the other ones much less popular than they already are. This I think may be the reasoning as to why bioware didn't put it in.

[Chashan]

CronoDragoon wrote...


As for Control, I'm not sure it'd work without fundamentally changing the practical details of the ending. So Shepard remains human and just controls the Catalyst through a terminal linked to his DNA or something? Very very dangerous as Citadel shows.

I do not believe Citadel can seriously be considered here, given its nature. Due to its lol-evul clone-plot alone.

von uber wrote...

Sorry what I meant was that if that scene was added to the endings as they are now (rather than the breath scene) it would render the other ones much less popular than they already are. This I think may be the reasoning as to why bioware didn't put it in.

Which is a bogus approach when it comes to working out how to write a finale. People had their PCs proudly take one for the team in DA:O too without such a set-up in place.

Modifié par Chashan, 14 janvier 2014 - 05:32 .

[dreamgazer]

Chashan wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...


As for Control, I'm not sure it'd work without fundamentally changing the practical details of the ending. So Shepard remains human and just controls the Catalyst through a terminal linked to his DNA or something? Very very dangerous as Citadel shows.

I do not believe Citadel can seriously be considered here, given its nature. Due to its lol-evul clone-plot alone.

Whether you want to take Citadel itself seriously or not, the premise of a living ControlShep being dethroned in one way or another is something to strongly consider.

[Chashan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Whether you want to take Citadel itself seriously or not, the premise of a living ControlShep being dethroned in one way or another is something to strongly consider.

Same with Blue as is. The squid-bots are formidable, but not invincible.

Besides, it being easier to depose someone with that kind of authority I'd rather see as a plus. Keeps the galaxy-wide outlook more...interesting.

Modifié par Chashan, 14 janvier 2014 - 05:42 .

[Lyrandori]

@ Everyone

Thanks a lot for participating!

Very interesting answers so far. I see that the Destroy ending would still be very popular regardless of Shepard surviving Control, Synthesis and Refuse. I'm kind of happy with that hehe.

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

von uber wrote...

If bioware had put a scene in high ems destroy where their li or similar drags them out of the rubble and they embrace as shep is taken away for treatment, no-one would even bother with any of the other endings.

And I think the question is if such a scene were possible in all ending chocies, would the spread be more even?

Like everything else, it'd depend on how it's handled.  

Shepard surviving the blue and green endings could have some very negative repercussions, after all, ones that don't exist in the current ending. 

That's exactly what this thread is about

Hypothetically, had Shepard survived all three endings, would Destroy lose a bit of its popularity? Such a scenario would certainly at least affect those whom wanted their canon Shepard to survive. If you happened to go with Destroy 'just because of the breath scene' alone (or mostly because of that anyway) then I think it'd be interesting to know if you'd have in fact picked either Control, Synthesis or Refuse without hesitation if those three also had a scene that implies Shepard can definitely survive.

To this day I still wonder why BioWare create that breath scene for Destroy but decided to kill Shepard (clearly shown on-screen) in Control and Synthesis. I guess that a better question would be: why was Shepard's sacrifice not necessary for Destroy as much as it was for Control and Synthesis? And that's why I decided to make this thread in the end.

Modifié par Lyrandori, 14 janvier 2014 - 06:50 .

[dreamgazer]

Chashan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Whether you want to take Citadel itself seriously or not, the premise of a living ControlShep being dethroned in one way or another is something to strongly consider.

Same with Blue as is. The squid-bots are formidable, but not invincible.

Not the same, really. A living being piloting the Reapers opens more, easiler venues for infiltration and hacking.

Besides, it being easier to depose someone with that kind of authority I'd rather see as a plus. Keeps the galaxy-wide outlook more...interesting.

Yeah, there's a pretty lengthy list of people in the MEU who could but shouldn't harness that kind of power.

[CronoDragoon]

Chashan wrote...

I do not believe Citadel can seriously be considered here, given its nature. Due to its lol-evul clone-plot alone.

I don't really see what's far-fetched about cloning in the ME Universe, and for the purposes of seizing control of the entire galaxy producing a Shepard clone seems like a pretty efficient cost-benefit ratio. Something much easier to accomplish than dethroning a ridiculously advanced A.I. Shepard inextricably linked to the Reapers.

[dreamgazer]

Lyrandori wrote...

To this day I still wonder why BioWare create that breath scene for Destroy but decided to kill Shepard (clearly shown on-screen) in Control and Synthesis. I guess that a better question would be: why was Shepard's sacrifice not necessary for Destroy as much as it was for Control and Synthesis? And that's why I decided to make this thread in the end.

"A beacon of hope".  

Also, to balance the ambiguity vs. closure ratio: in Destroy, Shepard's fate is ambiguous while the Reapers' fate isn't; in Control and Synthesis, Shepard's fate isn't ambiguous while the Reapers' fate very much is.

[Chashan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Not the same, really. A living being piloting the Reapers opens more, easiler venues for infiltration and hacking.

And the thing of Blue's epilogue, which appears to be all software, wouldn't be more vulnerable to that? Like someone figuring out how to "rewrite" it, based on whichever method Blue utilized?

As we are working with a hypothetical only involving Shepards not being disintegrated in the process in the first place, it is a pretty futile exercise at any rate.

Yeah, there's a pretty lengthy list of people in the MEU who could but shouldn't harness that kind of power.

Many argue noone should, Shepards included. And I'd rather welcome a power struggle over the boring, galaxy-wide police state suggested by Blue's epilogue.

[Daemul]

I honestly do not care at all about Shepard surviving or not, all I know is that my man became the Reaper God, that's more than good enough for me. If every ending was like your typical action movie ending where the hero comes out 100% ok and rides off into the sunset with the girl I wouldn't have really minded, but it would have been so boring.
Becoming Reaper God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Getting back with LI. Screw them pixels man, Shepalyst for life. 

[dreamgazer]

Chashan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Not the same, really. A living being piloting the Reapers opens more, easiler venues for infiltration and hacking.

And the thing of Blue's epilogue, which appears to be all software, wouldn't be more vulnerable to that? Like someone figuring out how to "rewrite" it, based on whichever method Blue utilized?

In comparison to the rudiments involved with communicating with an organic being's processes? No, it wouldn't. 

Yeah, there's a pretty lengthy list of people in the MEU who could but shouldn't harness that kind of power.

Many argue noone should, Shepards included. And I'd rather welcome a power struggle over the boring, galaxy-wide police state suggested by Blue's epilogue.

Eh, at least the epilogue doesn't allow for a situation where an extremist group harnessed control of the Reapers and glassed everything or, even worse, created their own dictatorship.  Talk about wild speculations.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 14 janvier 2014 - 06:16 .

[Chashan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Chashan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Not the same, really. A living being piloting the Reapers opens more, easiler venues for infiltration and hacking.

And the thing of Blue's epilogue, which appears to be all software, wouldn't be more vulnerable to that? Like someone figuring out how to "rewrite" it, based on whichever method Blue utilized?

In comparison to the rudiments involved with communicating with an organic being's processes? No, it wouldn't.

It's a mere disagreement between the two of us on whether the term "hacking" can be applied to a person as well as software, then.

Eh, at least the epilogue doesn't allow for a situation where an extremist group harnessed control of the Reapers and glassed everything or, even worse, created their own dictatorship.  Talk about wild speculations.

Whether the Blue epilogue can still be applied, given that one of its key-premises - the thing "remembering the man/woman it was" - is redacted as regards this thread, I would not think that keeping the things permanently in business is something a flesh-and-blood Shepard must conclude to do as well. Different perspective, conditions and all that.

And "speculations" have been and still are running wild regarding pretty much the entirety of the end, as regards this as well:

Also, to balance the ambiguity vs. closure ratio: in Destroy, Shepard's fate is ambiguous while the Reapers' fate isn't; in Control and Synthesis, Shepard's fate isn't ambiguous while the Reapers' fate very much is.

Some who settle for Blue like to say that Shepards will simply upload into a bot and return to their friends, some who choose Green likewise state they like to imagine them "rematerializing" in one form or another, etc.

Nothing wrong with that, ultimately. But it makes it somewhat hard taking the entire decision chamber-deal seriously anymore.

[dreamgazer]

And "speculations" have been and still are running wild regarding pretty much the entirety of the end ...

True, but the idea of opening a LiveShep up to dethroning in Control---removing a controlled variable---adds even more to the mix. I thought the general consensus on this board was to limit speculations further, not facilitate more that could easily lead to more dire outcomes.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Are you speculating?

Was there more than one clone?

Did you accept "Liara's Gift?"

Did Liara take a snapshot of Shepard's entire memory as "the Gift" so she could remember Shepard?

Can Liara implant that entire memory into the second clone if it exists?

If so, Shepard can survive all the endings, even the "not highest" EMS destroy.

[Chashan]

(Wish PM could still be used outside of FL here...)

dreamgazer wrote...

True, but the idea of opening a LiveShep up to dethroning in Control---removing a controlled variable---adds even more to the mix. I thought the general consensus on this board was to limit speculations further, not facilitate more that could easily lead to more dire outcomes.

Speaking for myself, I do not share that. A problem I see with the EC-ends in particular is that they are white-washed to the point of looking too jolly for their own good. JE didn't try to down-play what's what with the Water Dragon at a Spirit Monk's mercy either - and I love it for that.


But that's an entirely different matter altogether, obviously, and I do not wish to hijack this thread any further.

[Deager]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

For me, the survival of Shepard in the Destroy ending is a nice bonus, a very nice one. But not the main point. If Shepard were to survive all other options as well (which he sort of does in the Control option anyway), I would still choose Destroy. Because **** the Reapers and what they stand for.

I agree. I chose Synthesis the first time but when I thought about it later I realized that Destroy made more sense to me; despite the AI genocide. I still value organics over synthetics in the same way I value humans over dogs. Oh crap, did EDI just read that!?

[themikefest]

von uber wrote...

If bioware had put a scene in high ems destroy where their li or similar drags them out of the rubble and they embrace as shep is taken away for treatment, no-one would even bother with any of the other endings.

Would they be able to put Samantha in that scene? And if not which charcter would the game default to? Hopefully it's not a charcter I don't like.