300 réponses à ce sujet

[Massa FX]

I shot the red tube without knowing what would happen. With the credits rolling, my mind was frozen in shock. My virgin playthrough and Shepard just killed EDI, the Geth and herself. (low EMS in pre EC game).

The horror I felt was beyond bearing. But its the best choice for me. Dead or alive Shepard will not be swayed from her directive to defeat the Reapers.

Not control them or become them. Not fruitlessly defy them. But to utterly kill them. Destroy is the best option for that directive. Despite the sacrifices, Shepard was born for the job.

[AlanC9]

If the directive was to "defeat" the Reapers, why wouldn't Control fit?

[JasonShepard]

If the directive was to "defeat" the Reapers, why wouldn't Control fit?

 

This is what always gets me too. The objective was never "Destroy the Reapers, no matter what the cost!" Destroying the Reapers is simply a way of stopping them.

 

We're not fighting the Reapers because we want to destroy them. Nor are we fighting the Reapers because we want to Control them (unless you're TIM).

We're fighting the Reapers because the Reapers maintain a cycle of galactic extinction, and we're next.

 

And anything that stops this cycle is on the table.

[CronoDragoon]

Shepard dying in all endings certainly would make me a bit more inclined to choose Control/Synthesis. It's a factor in why I choose Destroy, mostly because I'm someone who metagames 80% and role-plays 20%. In other words, it's not a reason why Shepard chooses Destroy (how could it be? He's told he'll probably die) but it's a reason I do.

[Eterna]

I've always found it odd how so many "Paragon" Shepards are unwilling to sacrifice themselves for the greater good so they instead opt to murder their allies so they can be reunited with their waifu or husbando. 

[zakdillon]

I think it would have been coolest to have Javik or Anderson sacrifice themselves. Both are "poetic" for different reasons. it would also be a sort of "handing the torch" moment. It would have been better than Shepard needlessly sacrificing himself because the writers called for the main character to die.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

This is what always gets me too. The objective was never "Destroy the Reapers, no matter what the cost!" Destroying the Reapers is simply a way of stopping them.

 

We're not fighting the Reapers because we want to destroy them. Nor are we fighting the Reapers because we want to Control them (unless you're TIM).

We're fighting the Reapers because the Reapers maintain a cycle of galactic extinction, and we're next.

 

And anything that stops this cycle is on the table.

 

 

Yup. It always stood out to me that Shepard says "I need to stop the Reapers" - not "destroy" them - come game's ending.

 

People can dispute all day long about the extent to which they are stopped, but no one can truthfully say they aren't stopped in any ending but Refuse.

 

To say nothing of the quote where Shepard flat-out acknowledges that Control is a valid option toward the same end...

[wright1978]

This is what always gets me too. The objective was never "Destroy the Reapers, no matter what the cost!" Destroying the Reapers is simply a way of stopping them.

 

We're not fighting the Reapers because we want to destroy them. Nor are we fighting the Reapers because we want to Control them (unless you're TIM).

We're fighting the Reapers because the Reapers maintain a cycle of galactic extinction, and we're next.

 

And anything that stops this cycle is on the table.

Can't really blame people for viewing destroying as the aim as that's all the narrative has bothered to support and the only other option the narrative has presented(control) is presented as wrong and the brainchild of the indocrinated. Personally destroy is the thematic choice i like but i certainly would have liked them to have bothered to think about and present the alternative uses and the possible consequences well before rather than theawful concept of having the antagonist dubiously presenting them 2 minutes from the end.

[CronoDragoon]

Can't really blame people for viewing destroying as the aim as that's all the narrative has bothered to support and the only other option the narrative has presented(control) is presented as wrong and the brainchild of the indocrinated.

 

 

I think both sides have good points here. There hasn't been much indication pre-ME3 endings that our means to achieving our goal has changed since - how did the ever-eloquent ME1 Shep put it? - we decided they were "just machines, and machines can be broken. You can, of course, decide this on your own. But that's less  inferring from the narrative and more just an active mind.

[SwobyJ]

ME1 - I'll destroy you and reject your tools

ME2 - I'll destroy you but maybe use your tools to do so

ME3 - I'll destroy you, or use you as tools, or work along with you

 

 

Just because Shepard 'makes a living of killing Reapers', that doesn't mean you have to RP (given the script we have) being focused on the goal of killing all Reapers. 'Ending the Reaper threat' is a subjective position, which is why, for example, Shepard asks about TIM really finding a way to control the Reapers, or he can accept trying to use explicitly Reaper technologies in order to help the fight against the Reapers.

 

 

This isn't an exclusively Paragon or Renegade thing either. It's all relative.

 

In ME1, Paragon Shepard is more accepting of synthetics (because he sees life where he can).

In ME1, Renegade Shepard is more rejecting of synthetics (because he doesn't see them as life).

 

In ME2, Paragon Shepard is even more accepting of synthetics, but even more rejecting the Reapers' tools (because he's more focused on fighting for the lost; he may more see the Reapers as life, but view them as abominations).

In ME2, Renegade Shepard is less accepting of synthetics, but more accepting of the Reapers' tools (because he's more focused in finding any way to defeat the Reapers).

 

In ME3, Paragon Shepard is even more accepting of synthetics, and more accepting of the Reapers' existence (because he's more focused on the destruction of the war itself, instead of hate towards Reapers for it).

In ME3, Renegade Shepard is somewhat accepting of synthetics, but not accepting of the Reapers' existence at all

 

Look at the lines in Paragon and Renegade.

Paragon is higher, and curves to the side of the wing. It's faster progress, but indirect.

Renegade lower, but doesn't curve to the side. It's slower progress, but direct.

 

Both indicate forms of progress forward, but the more Paragon you are, especially auto-full-Paragon throughout the series, the more likely you'll accept the Reapers existing in some form. You've been swayed, even very indirectly, into buying what the Reaper says. This doesn't mean that that you don't defeat the Reapers - just that you haven't been victorious over all of them. It has its pluses imo.

 

Now accepting the Reapers as worth living alongside (Green)... that's a whole other matter, and is a new journey that's only in any way overt in ME3.

 

ME1 - Reapers are the enemy

ME2 - Reapers are attempting something.. but are still abominations

ME3 (no Cure/Peace/etc things) - Reapers should die or be kept under control (the more basic Destroy and Control gists)

ME3 (Cure/Peace/etc things) - Reapers might be able to be reasoned with, just like everything else in the galaxy, given the right circumstances

 

I don't blame anyone for not picking Synthesis, because only ME3 (except a few thematic parts of ME2) really gets into the concept as a possibly viable path, and even then, half of the content that would support it in ME3 is still thematic and not direct.

 

But Control? Ever since ME2 we're been on this road, but its just a more optional one. It's not the CORE path, but jeez, it's a BIOWARE game - they ALL have 'core paths' in their games. Being a Dark Side Revan who killed all their companions is something Bioware allows, but it's not like they wrote the basic scripts around it.

 

Is it a little ominous? Chilling? Worrying? Maybe. It's up to you. I think it's designed to make some people worry. It's not as black/white good/bad to people's views as Destroy. That's okay. Alternatively, I've seen people be calmed by Control's ending. It depends on what kind of person you are. Worried/calmed for Control, angered/happy for Destroy, curious/scared for Synthesis.

 

But even since ME2 we've been doing stuff like rewriting synthetics, acknowledging alternate POV's of synthetics, understanding a violent and destructive race as potentially helpful, learning more and more of the Reapers' weaknesses (even if conventional victory seems impossible), and learning of virtual minds as potentially legit existences. You can reject all this information and have grounds for it, of course, but the whole thing to Control Reapers didn't come out of nowhere, and Anderson's/Hackett's opinions are their own, with Renegade Shep asserting his agreement, but Paragon Shep questioning them more and more - not arguing against, but just questioning.

[Massa FX]

The conclusion of Kill or Control is subjective for every player. For me, my choices in ME1 - ME3 were always to kill the Reapers by any means necessary. This fit my Paragon and Renegade Shepards persona's to a "T". 

 

In my games the Paragon Shepard's regret the deaths of so many friends and allies. They run toward that red tube hoping to die in ultimate sacrifice, knowing they couldn't face the future after what they'd just sentenced an entire species to. The breath scene is God or pure damn luck bringing her back. She lives.

 

My Renegade Shep's chalk it up to war... feeling very comfortable with death being inevitable for anyone. They don't need to save everyone. They run toward the tube because they want to be sure the Reapers die. However, they want to survive and the breath scene is them grasping at life.

 

My Shepards never waver from their original goal. They are stubborn and focused. No matter what the AI Catalyst did or said, no matter what TIM did or said, they know their purpose.  Kill the Reapers...

 

Note: I personally believe the AI Catalyst is lying and manipulating Shepard. Hoping for it's created species (it's children) to live. Its willing to sacrifice itself (Control) or merge with all life ((including synthetic life) Synthesis) as a means to continue their existence. Leviathan's sensed Shepard was different. They wanted to keep her close and enslave her. I believe the Catalyst sensed the same by offering 2 choices that allowed the Reapers to live. Something in its programming forced it to voice the Destroy option.

 

Who knows what will happen in the future? If we get a sequel, I'm hoping to find out.

[SwobyJ]

I like the idea of most major characters being correct, but only from their certain POVs. We get slanted perspectives throughout each game, in different ways, and work off a gradually growing body of knowledge. With each game though, Bioware also has to cater to new players and their more 'core' profile and knowledge base.

 

So to me, it's like ME1 went either way with things as 'Paragon' with allies and 'Renegade' with potential enemies. Pretty tabula rasa, but more Renegade overall, opposing and endeavoring to destroy the enemy.

 

And ME2 put a balance to things by promoting Paragon in character stories but having a base plot to make a Renegade foundation still essential. Working with Cerberus, while also breaking away from them.

 

And ME3 shifted strongly to Renegade foundation being very important, and having to look at a lot of extra things to give Paragon weight for longer-term players. (they even dipped into the concept with other media, with 'Paragon Lost')

Thus ends an overall written 'Red' character, Shepard, who had many options to be more 'Blue' or whatever other color, like Green, Yellow, Cyan, Magenta, etc (and with armor color customization to reflect that if you want in ME2-3).

 

"Finish your War. We will be waiting."

 

And I predict the next game will go the other way around - a more Paragon foundation being important, but Renegade having to do with a lot of extra things.

Hello Blue again, as the focus. War is over.

[wright1978]

I think both sides have good points here. There hasn't been much indication pre-ME3 endings that our means to achieving our goal has changed since - how did the ever-eloquent ME1 Shep put it? - we decided they were "just machines, and machines can be broken. You can, of course, decide this on your own. But that's less  inferring from the narrative and more just an active mind.

 

Agree players can use their active minds to think outside the flow of the river and navigate through dialogue to avoid overt pro-destroy or anti-control references. I personally just wish if you are going to have galaxy changing alternatives uses of the crucible, they were discussed right from moment 1 as well as their potential consequences. Having EDI or Legion arguing that you shouldn't be going down a path of using it as a weapon when the evidence suggests it'll affect other synthetics too could have been powerful. Instead it was stick blinkers on the story and then have last minute drama of options.

[SwobyJ]

@wright, it's been addressed throughout, just indirectly.

 

 

We are to miss crucial context, because Shepard's not that kind of person.

 

Sucks, but here's to the future!

[themikefest]

I think it would have been coolest to have Javik or Anderson sacrifice themselves. Both are "poetic" for different reasons. it would also be a sort of "handing the torch" moment. It would have been better than Shepard needlessly sacrificing himself because the writers called for the main character to die.

I wouldn't mind an option like that to happen. I posted something awhile back on how it could work.

 

On the beam run, Javik(required) and another squadmate are running to the beam and Shepard call for Joker to fire at Harbinger. Joker fires at Harbinger with the Thannix cannon distracting him long enough for Shepard and squadmates to go up the beam. Shepard and team run into Cerberus troops, As they are fighting, one of the squadmates tells Shepard to go open the arms while they hold off the Cerberus troops.

 

The conversation with TIM takes place and as you're about to shoot Anderson your squadmate kills TIM. The arms open, Shepard and team along with Anderson go up to see the Catalyst. Javik tells Shepard he will destroy the reapers. At which point you call for a shuttle to pick you up. As the ramp to the Normandy closes, you see a red light.

 

The other option if Javik is not on the team Anderson makes the sacrifice.

 

Of course for this to work you have to have the From Ashes dlc(if you want to have Javik make the sacrifice) and you have to get the Thannix cannon upgrade from Garrus in ME2

[AlanC9]

I think both sides have good points here. There hasn't been much indication pre-ME3 endings that our means to achieving our goal has changed since - how did the ever-eloquent ME1 Shep put it? - we decided they were "just machines, and machines can be broken. You can, of course, decide this on your own. But that's less  inferring from the narrative and more just an active mind.

 
Thanks for bringing up maybe the worst line of autodialogue in the trilogy. 

 

But yeah, finding out that TIM and Saren were right all along, so to speak, is jarring. I presume it was supposed to be jarring.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I wouldn't mind an option like that to happen. I posted something awhile back on how it could work.

 

On the beam run, Javik(required) and another squadmate are running to the beam and Shepard call for Joker to fire at Harbinger. Joker fires at Harbinger with the Thannix cannon distracting him long enough for Shepard and squadmates to go up the beam. Shepard and team run into Cerberus troops, As they are fighting, one of the squadmates tells Shepard to go open the arms while they hold off the Cerberus troops.

 

The conversation with TIM takes place and as you're about to shoot Anderson your squadmate kills TIM. The arms open, Shepard and team along with Anderson go up to see the Catalyst. Javik tells Shepard he will destroy the reapers. At which point you call for a shuttle to pick you up. As the ramp to the Normandy closes, you see a red light.

 

The other option if Javik is not on the team Anderson makes the sacrifice.

 

Of course for this to work you have to have the From Ashes dlc(if you want to have Javik make the sacrifice) and you have to get the Thannix cannon upgrade from Garrus in ME2

 

For the Thanix Cannon you could have the Normandy retrofit team add it in. That way they would have actually retrofitted the Normandy instead of just adding in card tables.

[thehomeworld]

Instead of giving us the FU ending BW should've used that extra ending to give us a shep lives that made sense. In destroy specifically the brat says shep will also die and it makes sense he/she does die in this ending too because all reaper code must die the relays die, EDI dies, the geth die all had reaper code so shep should've also died becuase the coding inside him was reaper you can't seperate the code from the mechine parts he/she had in the majority of his body.

 

Shep should've lived in one ending but preEC they made him die in all (which was redundant in my view) they should've post EC crafted a shep lives that made sense like maybe instead of picking he rigs them all to explode at the same time, gets out of the room as it tears inself apart creating a shockwave that stuns all reapers, lowers their sheilds, and plunges them into mass confusion allowing them to be decimated by the fleets so long as you came in with 90 - 100% forces if you came in with less 75 - 85% you will cause enough damage but the reapers will recover and ships must go kamakazi in order to create the damaged needed to finish the enemy off and of course if you were lower then that you aren't causing the damage required, the normandy gets a call from shep as the allies are being murdered by the reapers they pick him up run through the gate crash on a planet and an epiloge bys shep stating the reapers ate everybody save your crew on this world becasue well they weren't looking at this world for anything and how horrible they felt for rushing head long into the final battle, ect. that could've made sense allowed for him/her to live and not shoehorn in a living ending for the sake of it into an ending not designed for that outcome. 

[MR CauSe iM GoD]

Actually I have played through ME3 about 5 or 6 times. This last time I just finished and did a almost Paragon play through. The only thing that I did that was normally different, was the very end were I picked the control option. Part of me actually preferred that to Destroy. Not another organic or synthetic died, and all my crew lived on. Looking back on it maybe the Illusive man was right, to some extent. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If the directive was to "defeat" the Reapers, why wouldn't Control fit?

 

"You're wrong, Shepard. Dead Reapers is how we win this," said Admiral Hackett, Chief of Operations, Allied Fleets -- your boss. He had been given authority from the Council when the other Allies began joining.

"We destroy them, or they destroy us," said Admiral Anderson.

 

Your orders from Hackett were "dead Reapers." Technically, Controlling the Reapers was not your directive. Synthesis was not your directive. I'm just being a stickler on the orders from your commanding officer. You do the other things because no one really knows what the Crucible does and those are your choices as Shepard.

 

The mission in your log may have appeared as "defeat the reapers," but that specifically was not your order.

 

I'm just going by my first play through of the game when I had no strategy guide or walk through; when I played with a flawed Shepard and had no option for peace at Rannoch and so sided with the Quarians and helped Tali and her people take back their home world; so I was a good little infiltrator, completed my mission, and shot the tube. I had no idea Shepard was going to survive. I had 5500 EMS. I played multi-player.

 

Still, in the EC, I would have loved to have been able to ask the Starbrat why he was turning people into those monsters. They never gave Shepard an opportunity to ask that question. Cannibals.... I wonder if the answer would have been, "because I'm good at it," or "because it's fun and scares organics." We probably would have gotten an answer like, "You wouldn't understand, and there isn't time to explain."

[jtav]

And I should start obeying Hackett now because...?

 

(Oh there's an idea for a playthrough. Sabotage the cure with Wrex in charge, side with the geth, Choose Control. So Hackett gets the opposite of what he asked for)

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

And I should start obeying Hackett now because...?

 

(Oh there's an idea for a playthrough. Sabotage the cure with Wrex in charge, side with the geth, Choose Control. So Hackett gets the opposite of what he asked for)

Oooo. a testy one. I was merely pointing out a detail. In his position, there is a very high probability that this matter of control or destroy had been discussed with the admirals of the other allied fleets, either that or Allied intelligence was absolutely a bunch of idiots. But Bioware did play the "good is dumb" trope in this one.

[wolfhowwl]

In his position, there is a very high probability that this matter of control or destroy had been discussed with the admirals of the other allied fleets, either that or Allied intelligence was absolutely a bunch of idiots. But Bioware did play the "good is dumb" trope in this one.

 
Julia, these are the same people who are pouring all their resources into the Crucible when they don't understand it.

[Iakus]

I still want to know which engineer thought making the Crucible "on" switch a pipe full of volatile chemicals you shoot was a good idea.

[themikefest]

A better question to ask is how come we have all these engineers and scientists working on the Crucible, but yet they couldn't figure out that it might hook up with the Citadel?