123 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The whole problem is that all the endings really suck.

Control: You've got a galactic armada that none shall dare oppose. You will watch over the many. No matter how oppressive you are, children will be educated to believe you are benevolent. To maintain order, you must set a limit on technological advancement so that you do not lose control. Thus eventually you will have to become oppressive no matter how benevolent you start out.

Synthesis: It was written horribly. It affected every single living species, and it had to for "evolution purposes." But it was supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution, so it had to prevent evolution by doing that. Then there was the mystical bull**** thrown in.

Face the facts.... reapers are not good at manual dexterity. I don't see them doing the "fine detail work" on the relays. Nor do I see them doing any of the rebuilding. All I see in the Control ending is that you keep the technology. The same in synthesis, except the relays take a crap.

Destroy? How much tech do you lose? How much have you lost? Do your scientists forget how to build tech? I doubt it. Your starships still work. Reaper ™ tech is toast. But what else is lost? that's the question. The Geth and EDI are the least of the concern.

The ending is an "lol we didn't know how to end this" by Bioware.

[ImaginaryMatter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TheOneTrueBioticGod wrote...

Wait, wait, wait. 

What else could possibly be wrong with destroy besides that?

-- Shepard's limbs are sundered, with no viable replacements ready without synthetic tech intact. Better off dead IMO.
-- The Volus all die, which further screws over your galactic economy.
-- The Reapers go to waste (refer to my sig quote). I'd even argue the sacrifice of those civilizations does as well.

That's not to say the Geth/EDI's deaths aren't a factor at all, but the least important one.

Destroy just sucks.

Is that just speculation?

Edit: Those first two.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 21 février 2014 - 05:40 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

TheOneTrueBioticGod wrote...

What I've envoked is that Shepard has absolutely no right to go aginst what the rest of the Galaxy has trusted him to do, and especially no right to take control of the reapers or forcibly alter their entire genetic structure.

And why not, because you happen to agree with them?

If the geth are still alive by that point in the game, you've already defied how everyone who isn't EDI or geth wanted Rannoch to end (and you placed both of them in the "Synthesis" list, so clearly their opinion doesn't matter to you anyway).

That's not a problem for me, though, because I didn't care what they wanted then and don't care now.

And why would the Volus die? Their suits wouldn't malfunction; no reaper tech and no cybernetics in those, unless you can prove otherwise. 

Envirosuits are replete with cybernetics.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 21 février 2014 - 05:39 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

And why would the Volus die? Their suits wouldn't malfunction; no reaper tech and no cybernetics in those, unless you can prove otherwise. 

Envirosuits are replete with cybernetics.

I'm sure they are fine, the Quarians certainly are and the Codex mentions that they actually have cybernetic implants in addition to their suits. Also, the Volus wear the suits to survive off planet, those on the homeworld or similar planets presumably don't wear them.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 21 février 2014 - 05:42 .

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TheOneTrueBioticGod wrote...

What I've envoked is that Shepard has absolutely no right to go aginst what the rest of the Galaxy has trusted him to do, and especially no right to take control of the reapers or forcibly alter their entire genetic structure.

And why not, because you happen to agree with them?

If the geth are still alive by that point in the game, you've already defied how everyone who isn't EDI or geth wanted Rannoch to end (and you placed both of them in the "Synthesis" list, so clearly their opinion doesn't matter to you anyway).

That's not a problem for me, though, because I didn't care what they wanted then and don't care now.

And why would the Volus die? Their suits wouldn't malfunction; no reaper tech and no cybernetics in those, unless you can prove otherwise. 

Envirosuits are replete with cybernetics.

Making peace with the Geth harms no one, see Shotgun Julia's for why control is despicable and synthesis is just wrong. Forcibly rewriting everyone's genetic structure, somehow? You can't compare the two. 

Quarians still survive with their enviosuits intact in the EC, so why wouldn't the Volus? Even so, the Volus still on Irune wouldn't be hurt anyway. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Is that just speculation?

Edit: Those first two.

1.) Shepard's arms and legs are nowhere in sight in the "breath scene". To assume otherwise is to defy what we can know.

2.) If the geth are to be treated as dead for (1) not being present in the Destroy epilogue, and (2) for having some prerequisite for being targetted by the Red beam, then so are the Volus (thank you The Twilight based God).

[DeinonSlayer]

HYR, there is no reason to believe the volus die. Human biotics and Quarians all have cybernetics, you don't see them keeling over dead or in agony from having them spontaneously, forcibly removed.

The problem with these ending debates is that it's a battle of the headcanons. We all see our preferred ending in a rosier light. I find Synthesis disgusting, akin to rape on a galactic scale; I never have and never will choose it. Others prefer it over everything else and don't really give a sh*t that people wouldn't want that done to them. Similar cases can be made for or against the other endings, too.

[congokong]

I always chose "destroy" despite seeing the catalyst's side of things.

social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/Are-the-reapers-right-17774888-1.html

Eliminating the geth/EDI from the equation would just make that decision easier.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

TheOneTrueBioticGod wrote...

Making peace with the Geth harms no one,

Which the same cannot be said of Destroy!

see Shotgun Julia's for why control is despicable

I disagree with her take on that.

and synthesis is just wrong.

... I mostly agree with her there.

Still better than Destroy.

[ImaginaryMatter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Is that just speculation?

Edit: Those first two.

1.) Shepard's arms and legs are nowhere in sight in the "breath scene". To assume otherwise is to defy what we can know.

2.) If the geth are to be treated as dead for (1) not being present in the Destroy epilogue, and (2) for having some prerequisite for being targetted by the Red beam, then so are the Volus (thank you The Twilight based God).

As the Catalyst states all Synthetics will be targetted by the beam, after a conversation where Synthetics was defined to be something different than just plain technology or artificially made objects. Also, we see characters with Biotic implants are alive, Garrus is alive (after receiving cybernetic implants), along with a few others, the Quarians are alive, etc.

Edit: I don't think the breath scene is definative about Shepard being dislimbed. Everything is covered by rubble and it looks like his legs at the beginning of the shot.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 21 février 2014 - 06:08 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

starlitegirlx wrote...
Epic logic fail here.

Others wanted geth to die becaue they did not meet legion.

Garrus met Legion, and still celebrates the end of the geth if you destroy them over Rannoch.

Turns out, one good individual is not enough to change someone's negative opinion of a whole race.

The logic-failure is yours for assuming others will react to Legion the way you did. That's called false consensus effect.

[Iakus]

Destroy.

There is no organic and synthetic "problem" any more than there is an organic and organic problem. Life is life.

The Reapers, otoh, are broken machines that run on the dead tissue of countless previous civilizations. They cannot be reasoned with as they mindlessly pursue the faulty logic they are incapable of growing beyond. While the loss of their knowledge is regrettable, it is nothing we can't eventually develop on our own.
Holding the geth and EDI hostage is nothing more than an arbitrary tragedy to give saving the galaxy more "sadz" Because victory must be bitter, or some nonsense.

Modifié par iakus, 21 février 2014 - 06:03 .

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Destroy hurts the least amount of people is the point I was trying to make.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I pretty much don't choose Control for thematic reasons. I use to choose it pre-EC because I figured/headcanoned Shepard would just order them to self destruct immediately afterwards, thus obtaining the same results as Destroy without the dead Geth (I didn't have enough EMS to get the Breath scene). However, seeing in the EC Shepard intends to use the Reapers for the greater good he falls into the exact trap everyone else made. I know the Catalyst says for Shepard it will work and there is no reason to believe its lying (at least no more, no less than anything else it says) but it feels wrong to choose it when it's led to the down fall of almost every other antagonist.

To answer the OP I would change from Refuse to Destroy in that case my characters who opt for that ending.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 21 février 2014 - 06:16 .

[DeinonSlayer]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

starlitegirlx wrote...
Epic logic fail here.

Others wanted geth to die becaue they did not meet legion.

Garrus met Legion, and still celebrates the end of the geth if you destroy them over Rannoch.

Turns out, one good individual is not enough to change someone's negative opinion of a whole race.

The logic-failure is yours for assuming others will react to Legion the way you did. That's called false consensus effect.

Yep. Meeting a single Geth that doesn't shoot you on sight isn't going to change everyone's minds about them when every single other Geth, for three centuries up to and including the present, has attempted to kill any organic they encountered on sight.

Expecting everyone (including your squad) to spontaneously forget what they've done up until now and see them as friends is like expecting everyone to immediately befriend the reapers because at some point you ran across a single one that didn't immediately try to kill you.

[AlanC9]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Face the facts.... reapers are not good at manual dexterity. I don't see them doing the "fine detail work" on the relays. Nor do I see them doing any of the rebuilding.

Husks and Marauders can do the hand work, can't they? I don't think they're independent of the Reapers in Control

And presumably the cuttlefish have some sort of repair drones on board, or they could never fix damage.

[AlanC9]

As for the topic, one or two of my Shepards would have switched from Control to Destroy, yep. Though this is mostly them being ignorant, since Control still has solid advantages.

[ShadowLordXII]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The whole problem is that all the endings really suck.

Control: You've got a galactic armada that none shall dare oppose. You will watch over the many. No matter how oppressive you are, children will be educated to believe you are benevolent. To maintain order, you must set a limit on technological advancement so that you do not lose control. Thus eventually you will have to become oppressive no matter how benevolent you start out.

Synthesis: It was written horribly. It affected every single living species, and it had to for "evolution purposes." But it was supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution, so it had to prevent evolution by doing that. Then there was the mystical bull**** thrown in.

Face the facts.... reapers are not good at manual dexterity. I don't see them doing the "fine detail work" on the relays. Nor do I see them doing any of the rebuilding. All I see in the Control ending is that you keep the technology. The same in synthesis, except the relays take a crap.

Destroy? How much tech do you lose? How much have you lost? Do your scientists forget how to build tech? I doubt it. Your starships still work. Reaper ™ tech is toast. But what else is lost? that's the question. The Geth and EDI are the least of the concern.

The ending is an "lol we didn't know how to end this" by Bioware.

My thoughts exactly.

Plus, we have no way of knowing if Control and Synthesis will permanently end the current and relevant Central Conflict of stop the reapers from wiping out all life. Destroy is the only option that resolves that conflict and truly frees the galaxy.

As I felt like having Edi and the Geth die was a half-****ed attempt at keeping everyone from picking the Destroy ending, then Destroy seems that much more logical if you take out that element all together.

[shodiswe]

Destroy would start looking a lot better. What about the people on the Ciadel? would it still blow up and kill potentialy millions? (It's less than billions or a whole species, but still)

Summary at the bottom of this wall of text.

Control isn't a gift for my Shepard, it's a means to an end. Synthesis is seen in a similar way.

Whatever ends the war, is good, that which saves the most lives is the best choice.

Personaly, I don't think anything the Catalyst has to offer is nessesary, it's all about saving people.

If saving them gives them an Ipod implant or a new appartment/house then that isn't as important, it's about lives, not material gains.

If you pick Destroy and it saves "everyone" on your side of the conflict then good enough.

If you pick Control and tries to fight Leviathan takeovers and other villains trying to destroy galactic civilisation then that works aswell. Shep AI isn't immortal or eternal however. Nothing is.
It might just seem that way from an organic perspective.
People get their homes and relays and "stuff" back..... Good for them, it's not Shepards job however even if it might be to some degree in the sense that it would help preserve galactic civilisation and return thigns to normal.

Synthesis, people get an Ipod implant and can call their friends just by thinking rather than having to push holobuttons on their omnitool.... Good for them, it's not nessesary for Shepard to complete his mission however.

Stopping the harvest and saving lives is. The EC is cannon, and it tells us the Reapers will never ever ever harvest any more people against their will if you pick either of the three endings.
Dead or alive, they have been stopped, the Catalyst from my interpretation is either blown up with it's servers as the Citadel (It's home) is blown up, it it's destroyed as it gets deleted and replaced as it told us it would be. The Catalyst, AKA Space Hitler always dies.
Some people want to kill all of his people aswell, every last one of them, a complete purge of undesirables, who followed orders and had no choice.

The Reapers seem to be indoctrinated victims just like Saren or TIM. That's their origin, harvested civilians of ancient civilisations. Then controled by the Catalyst to do what they were created to do. They are not at war or in conflict, the fire burns, just as they do, because they don't know any better. Least not while under the Catalysts influence.

Destroy might be a lot more acceptable if it didn't kill Allies.
As for the Reapers, had you got a non lethal option for them? Or did you choose to kill defenseless people for revenge?
It woudl be akin to police officers arresting a cop killer, he might be naked and unarmed laying on the ground with cuffed arms behind their backs..
Then you shoot them because they did some bad things, it might have been under outside influence aswell, but who cares, you get your revenge.

The evil side of me if I was metagaming and knowing that I would survive Destroy and that noone who will be missed would die I might sacrifise them.

Some people would probably kill off the Asari or Turians just to make their Shepard live, and for no other reason. As a sideeffect of their choice.

Killing billions of allies is kind of what a traitor does, unless of course no other options were given to save more people.

If there is only one choice, then there isn't a choice. The thing is, we're told there are choices, and you have to betray and murder people to get ahead and survive, even if that survival requiers metagaming and isn't sometihng Shepard should know about before hand.

From Shepards point of view all options would seem like a deathsentence.

A lot of people seems to be utilising defensive reasoning for their immoral choices. There was only one choice and the oen where Shepard survives only happens to be the only one.
That's usualy how the worst people in the history of this planet reasoned, there is only one way, they did what they had to do.

With the risk of people invokign stupidity laws of the internet you know what I'm talking about.

People who do those things don't say, I'm evil, I'm bad, I'm doing the wrong thing, damn how I love being bad. Least most people don't do that, they simple say they were following orders, or there was no other choice because the options couldn't possibly be real.

The IT and several other theories seems to be the most glaring evidence of this type of human mentality. If it's a flaw or not is in the eye of the beholder, if it's moral or not is the same.
The Victor usualy writes the history books, they will be the ones who were right.

If the ****s had won WW2 then you can be pretty sure their schoolbooks all over their empire or the world would have comended the hard work and dedication that was carried out by the heroes of the third reich. The people who created a better world for the future.
Those who lost and were killed would have been depicted as the worst humanity had to offer.
Least until they fall and someone else passes judgement over them and glorifies thier own contribution to history.

The evil, immoral ones are always the ones who lost or who opposes the faction of the writers of history.

Destroy might be a whole lot better if you don't have to betray your allies and friends, but it's morality depends on other factors aswell.

Some people say they are doing the Reapers and husks and others a favor by killing them. If the husks and Reapers want to die, can't they then commit suicide? Ask for a painless death?
It seems very convenient that other people thinks they are best equiped to decide who should live and die and who would be better of dead.

People posting pictures of ugly husks or Banshees, asking who could love such a disgusting creature... It does however seem familiar to other historical events and justifications.

Killing in selfdefence is one thing, most consider it acceptable(not everyone though).
Killing someone because they are ugly, different, or you simply don't like them... Is that acceptable?

Shepards job is to save people and galactic civilisation. Does that include etnic cleansing? The Batarians are really ugly and evil if you go by the sterieotype, do they need to get wiped out for the betterment of the galaxy? Just imagine all the people they have enslaved and killed. Bad people indeed.

I prefer to keep it simple, save people, do your job, put an end to that which is killing people.

Otherwise, if killing the Reapers had been nessesary, then it would have been nessesary to institute new deathcamps in germany after WW2 and start killing millions of germans who voted on hitler or who let bad things happen. That was never an option.

There were of course, some of the soldiers on the winning side who ran amock, raping and killing civilians, thinking it was only fair to repay some kind of debt.

I can't say I like the Reapers or their husks, or what they did to people, turning them into those "ugly" things, who will for the rest of their existance remidn people of the horrors they caused.

The ending choices has no perfect ending, but destroy isn't the best option, unless all the Reapers and husks begged for a quick painless death. If all they wanted was rest and an end to their existance, and no allies got hurt, then it would be the right thing.

But given that the Reapers are around after both Control and Synthesis, it tells me they don't seem to be in any hurry to die. They are free, yet they arn't killing themselves.

Maybe the endings are deep, creative, and intelectual, they strike at the heart of human nature and exposes our inner demons.

I still think the endgame could have been a lot better with priority earth, priority earth, could have answered a lot of questions, you are behind enemy lines, and the endings.

I don't think they finnished it properly, the EC provided some closure. But the series deserved a better endgame imo.

This game, is all about the worst and best sides of humanity. It's a game that tackles prejudice, genocides, morality, immorality, people with different viewpoints on the subject.

If people Bring Hitler, or Stalin, or Gandhi into the discussion it's all relevant. Godwins law doesn't apply on a discussion on the genocide of millions or billions or whole species.
Godwins law assumes that the discussions arn't about these things, that genocide, hitler, **** or other polpots or Rwanda and things arn't relevant to the discussion.

You know, discusions about Cheesse, football teams, icecream, contemporary politics where noone is intending death camps or the death of millions.
In other words, this is a Godwin's law free zone, since it is a discussion about this subject. You can't Godwin a discussion about genocides and similar things´where the examples are quite similar.

The Reapers are killing Billions and the ending could potentialy kill billions. It's is the ultimate genocidal nightmare scenario.

Summary: Destroy would look a lot better than it does now, but it might not be the moraly correct choice. Moral is arbitraty and in the eye of the beholder however, which explains humanitys past history.

Modifié par shodiswe, 21 février 2014 - 10:00 .

[Ironhandjustice]

The problem of organic/sinthetic is, as I've said many times, idiotic as presented. A machine that makes A to prevent A, gives me a nonsensical explanation of why I should kill myself.

So, I'll push the "kill the stupid machine button" in any case.

[AlexMBrennan]

This is sort of a silly question. It's a fundamental part of the decision; it's like saying "In Synthesis, the Reapers all explode into fireworks made of marshmallows,"

Destroy is, fundamentally, about destroying the reapers (who'd have guessed?), and someone arbitrarily destroyed to add the geth to the body count.
That's just as arbitrary as randomly killing off the, say, volus if you pick synthesis.

[Ironhandjustice]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

This is sort of a silly question. It's a fundamental part of the decision; it's like saying "In Synthesis, the Reapers all explode into fireworks made of marshmallows,"

Destroy is, fundamentally, about destroying the reapers (who'd have guessed?), and someone arbitrarily destroyed to add the geth to the body count.
That's just as arbitrary as randomly killing off the, say, volus if you pick synthesis.

+1000 to this.

The problem is that some things are completely random, senseless, and to solve a problem without sense that has an OBVIOUS solution.

I've just watched this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4O5PRrWDT8

And is true word by word. Specially green option

[katamuro]

Still would have made the same choice, destroy.