978 réponses à ce sujet

[ZipZap2000]

I think I said earlier that I have all the endings and they all have their pros and cons.

 

Synthesis has the most pros. More certainty that this is the end of the trilogy, end of the Reaper war, end of the harvests and the end of organic vs synthetic wars, no possibility of another genophage/morning war (Really the only consistent themes throughout the trilogy). Which is why I think so many people hate it, it's final and puts to bed all the long running conflicts and moral dilemmas in the galaxy at that time. It's better voiced and better written and if the images weren't green they'd have the better slides and it leaves you with fewest casualties. Ending it all by rewarding the players faith in the idea 'that there is always hope' is a great way to end it. So it's probably my favourite ending.

 

It all depends on what kind of Shepard I've built for that play through as to which ending suits the story I've built but in a more general sense I do like synthesis a bit more than the others.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think I said earlier that I have all the endings and they all have their pros and cons.

 

Synthesis has the most pros. More certainty that this is the end of the trilogy, end of the Reaper war, end of the harvests and the end of organic vs synthetic wars, no possibility of another genophage/morning war (Really the only consistent themes throughout the trilogy). Which is why I think so many people hate it, it's final and puts to bed all the long running conflicts and moral dilemmas in the galaxy at that time. It's better voiced and better written and if the images weren't green they'd have the better slides and it leaves you with fewest casualties. Ending it all by rewarding the players faith in the idea 'that there is always hope' is a great way to end it. So it's probably my favourite ending.

 

It all depends on what kind of Shepard I've built for that play through as to which ending suits the story I've built but in a more general sense I do like synthesis a bit more than the others.

 

I think the main problem with Synthesis is that it doesn't have any pros or cons (and maybe Control too). The game has never hinted that anything like this was remotely possible, much less get into what the consequences may be; the Catalyst barely has anything on the information front and what little it does have to say is very vague, it basically amounts to an opinion (an opinion from the guy who thinks Reapers are preservation, so what it thinks is good may not agree with organic sensibilities). Either as Shepard or as a player we have no idea what the consequences. Like is everyone a cyborg now? How does this effect reproduction? Are there any side effects? What are the societal implications? How does this effect life spans? Because it's so vague it's not really a choice, it's a leap of faith, a gamble, a shot in the dark, with the only assurance about it's positive being StarKids glowing endorsement and the meta knowledge that it requires the most EMS to unlock. I can't even call it a hopeful decision because I don't know what to be hopeful about.

 

I honestly don't see how it would prevent things like the genophage, sure the ending slide cures it -- somehow -- but in the future couldn't the Salarians just hack the Krogan's synthesized DNA and do the same thing again? We still have genocides now so I don't see how it would prevent something like the Mourning War from ever happening again, organics just seem to get a tech upgrade and synthetics might come to understand organic feelings about malice and dogmatism. And the Reapers may use their possible new found freedom to subjugate the galaxy outside of the Catalyst's restrictions (that Harbinger guy seems like a real cloaca). The ending slide shows everything to be a big positive but it all just seems to be so whitewashed or random.

[Farangbaa]

I think the main problem with Synthesis is that it doesn't have any pros or cons (and maybe Control too). The game has never hinted that anything like this was remotely possible, much less get into what the consequences may be; the Catalyst barely has anything on the information front and what little it does have to say is very vague, it basically amounts to an opinion (an opinion from the guy who thinks Reapers are preservation, so what it thinks is good may not agree with organic sensibilities). Either as Shepard or as a player we have no idea what the consequences. Like is everyone a cyborg now? How does this effect reproduction? Are there any side effects? What are the societal implications? How does this effect life spans? Because it's so vague it's not really a choice, it's a leap of faith, a gamble, a shot in the dark, with the only assurance about it's positive being StarKids glowing endorsement and the meta knowledge that it requires the most EMS to unlock. I can't even call it a hopeful decision because I don't know what to be hopeful about.

 

I honestly don't see how it would prevent things like the genophage, sure the ending slide cures it -- somehow -- but in the future couldn't the Salarians just hack the Krogan's synthesized DNA and do the same thing again? We still have genocides now so I don't see how it would prevent something like the Mourning War from ever happening again, organics just seem to get a tech upgrade and synthetics might come to understand organic feelings about malice and dogmatism. And the Reapers may use their possible new found freedom to subjugate the galaxy outside of the Catalyst's restrictions (that Harbinger guy seems like a real cloaca). The ending slide shows everything to be a big positive but it all just seems to be so whitewashed or random.

 

They're no more a gamble than destroy or refuse. In destroy you put all your money on all individuals for the rest of eternity remembering that creating AI might be a wrong idea, in refuse you gamble on the next cycle doing what you won't.

 

They're all gambles.

[ImaginaryMatter]

They're no more a gamble than destroy or refuse. In destroy you put all your money on all individuals for the rest of eternity remembering that creating AI might be a wrong idea, in refuse you gamble on the next cycle doing what you won't.

 

They're all gambles.

 

Let me specify, I guess all the choices might be gambles but Synthesis, and maybe Control, are a different sort of gamble. If I make a pro/con list of each of the choices I get something like this:

 

Refuse

Pros: Get to shoot Catalyst? Maintain moral values.

Cons: Everyone dies (heavily implied, what else would you expect?)

 

Destroy

Pros: Reapers are destroyed

Cons: Edi and Geth are destroyed, *Chaos comes back

 

Synthesis though poses the problem. I don't know what Synthesis is. Sure, I can make assumptions, like it's combining synthetics and organics which sounds like everyone becomes cyborgs, augmented, transhuman, etc but mechanically it seems quite different than all of those. I don't know how this will effect anyone, much less whether or not those outcomes would be positive. The only things I do know about it is the vague and somewhat nonsensical explanation from the Catalyst and it's opinion on the solution. With those other two options I feel like I'm making at least an informed decision and I can talk about the merits of those methods (I think the chaos coming back part is rarely factored in because no one believes it will happen, not even the epilogue apparently). Synthesis more or less feels like an option on how highly we value the Catalyst's opinion on things. For me it completely removes any feeling of choice or agency, it's a giant Best Ending button although I have no idea why. Even proponents of Synthesis each seem to have different ideas on what exactly the consequences are, with the option merely reflecting what they believe to be an optimized state for the galaxy.

 

As for Control it sort of drifts in an uncomfortable middle. I guess the pro would be that it stops the Catalyst's cycle, although I find the Shepalyst to be a bit of a monkey wrench thrown into the plan. I don't know and I don't trust Shepalyst. This for me though may be more personal, my idealized Control would be to use it to destroy the Reapers without sacrificing the Geth, the EC Shepalyst doesn't do that so it creates that disconnect between itself and Shepard. I think of things like how heavy will Shepard's influence be? Will it be a dictator? Will it disregard Shepard's organic thoughts and resume the cycle?

[LoneWolf X14]

Destroy always. I have a very in depth reasoning as to why I always choose this but that would take to long to write. I feel it's the true ending as it's the goal that. We have set out to achieve for all three games. Synthesis is a forced transformation. Control goes against Shepard's entire being and I have faith we can rebuild the synthetics that were lost. We can achieve peace without the Reapers "solution" as proven by the battle on Rannoch.

[ZipZap2000]

I should say my opinions are based on the EC endings.

 

As I said for me it provides finality and gives Shepard something worth dying for two massive pros for most of my play throughs. Everything else is icing on the cake and really for me it's the only ending with any depth. Also it fits the MEU story like a glove.

 

Far all this talk about peace loving space hippies with utopian values etc (not directed at anyone in particular) there's still that one line from Shepard in the destroy dialogue when he's questioning Catalyst.

 

"And there will be peace?"

 

I guess that makes him a peace loving space hippy with utopian values. A noble sacrifice to ensure that everything resets and everyone at least has a chance, the more I talk about it the more I'm certain I prefer synthesis. I think destroy only makes sense if you're going for the breathing easter egg so you leave with the 'happily ever after impression' but in the end that's one of the few great parts about the endings you can pick which one best suits your own personal worldview or view of your shep.

[LoneWolf X14]

Idk honestly I'm always at a constant war with myself between those two. Synthesis vs Destroy. However always feel more satisfied with destroy after doing extensive research and seeing multiple opinions. Seeing EDI's face alongside with Mordin and Legion's always makes me hurt a little but for me as Hackett says we can rebuild all that was lost brings me hope. Also I prefer seeing my love interest smile at her faith in the chance I'm alive. Not too mention I feel that alongside my hope that synthetics can be rebuilt there will also be peace. My Shepard was a peacemaker who brokered peace between Turian Krogan and most importantly Geth and Quarians. The end result of the battle on Rannoch made me believe that as long as there are organics who share my values that peace can be achieved. Not only is my Shepard alive to ensure this but my squadmates specifically Tali most likely also believes in peace between synthetics and organics.

[The RPGenius]

MEHEM, because I give a **** about the art and spirit of Mass Effect, even if that comes at the expense of the precious, fragile egos of Bioware.

[PunMaster]

I'm pro synthesis at the moment (Am yet to replay to get the best possible control ending with the Extended Cut). I recently did the destroy ending with all this and can't say I'm a fan.

 

Starchild claims that synthetics will die and even the technology relied on will be destroyed (or severely damaged) but can be rebuilt. In that case most the Quarrians should be dead. The technology in their suits would be destroyed, and even if they could rebuild them relatively quickly, they've already been exposed to diseases. You could argue that their ships are clean zones but in the battle I'm guessing a lot of them were damaged and had hull breaches and all sorts of things.

 

Additionally I agree with Starchilds reasoning now that I've thought about it. The cycle will just continue when new synthetics are made.

 

Synthesis made sense in terms of ending the synthetic/organic war cycle.

[Farangbaa]

Let me specify, I guess all the choices might be gambles but Synthesis, and maybe Control, are a different sort of gamble. If I make a pro/con list of each of the choices I get something like this:

 

Refuse

Pros: Get to shoot Catalyst? Maintain moral values.

Cons: Everyone dies (heavily implied, what else would you expect?)

 

Destroy

Pros: Reapers are destroyed

Cons: Edi and Geth are destroyed, *Chaos comes back

 

Synthesis though poses the problem. I don't know what Synthesis is. Sure, I can make assumptions, like it's combining synthetics and organics which sounds like everyone becomes cyborgs, augmented, transhuman, etc but mechanically it seems quite different than all of those. I don't know how this will effect anyone, much less whether or not those outcomes would be positive. The only things I do know about it is the vague and somewhat nonsensical explanation from the Catalyst and it's opinion on the solution. With those other two options I feel like I'm making at least an informed decision and I can talk about the merits of those methods (I think the chaos coming back part is rarely factored in because no one believes it will happen, not even the epilogue apparently). Synthesis more or less feels like an option on how highly we value the Catalyst's opinion on things. For me it completely removes any feeling of choice or agency, it's a giant Best Ending button although I have no idea why. Even proponents of Synthesis each seem to have different ideas on what exactly the consequences are, with the option merely reflecting what they believe to be an optimized state for the galaxy.

 

As for Control it sort of drifts in an uncomfortable middle. I guess the pro would be that it stops the Catalyst's cycle, although I find the Shepalyst to be a bit of a monkey wrench thrown into the plan. I don't know and I don't trust Shepalyst. This for me though may be more personal, my idealized Control would be to use it to destroy the Reapers without sacrificing the Geth, the EC Shepalyst doesn't do that so it creates that disconnect between itself and Shepard. I think of things like how heavy will Shepard's influence be? Will it be a dictator? Will it disregard Shepard's organic thoughts and resume the cycle?

 

Accepted

 

I don't know how synthesis work either, I base my choice (if I were a synthesizer) on the gist of it: the difference between the organics and synthetics is removed, which in my opinion is the only solution to the problem at hand. In case you didn't know yet, I'm one of those few people that accepts the Catalyst's premise

 

Which brings me to my prefered ending: control. My headcanon gives the current cycle a chance not to f*ck up (again... cause they already did with the Geth), but if they do, I'll intervene and harvest. Next cycle gets a chance, they screw up? Another harvest. Etc, etc. Cause I have like 0,1% hope that organics won't screw up. And then we're back exactly where we left off. Added bonus to this, for me, is that this gives the cycles a chance to reach synthesis on their own... 0,1% is only like a 1000 cycles

 

Maybe that's what Sovereign/the vanguard did: check if they screwed up, again. The Reapers and the Catalyst have seen so many cycles screw up over and over that they speak in absolute terms, they might not have done so in the first few cycles.

 

slightly off: what's the first AI in the current cycle? It's absolutely not the Geth, the ban on AI was already in place well before the Quarians made the Geth.

[CaIIisto]

^^ Isn't it also implied, or outright stated, that a refuse ending leads to a clean win in the next cycle? Sure it's a bust in this cycle, but at least your efforts ultimately pave the way for the conventional win that you wanted, but couldn't get in this cycle.

 

Synthesis, for me, was just too problematic, logic-wise. I just reconcile myself with how it would work. That's beyond the whole moral issue of whether I had the right to determine the fate of every organic life in the galaxy. What you are mandated for is to stop the Reapers. I think the powers who signed up for the alliance would be thinking more along the lines of destroying, rather than merging with, them. 

[AlanC9]

Synthesis, for me, was just too problematic, logic-wise. I just reconcile myself with how it would work. That's beyond the whole moral issue of whether I had the right to determine the fate of every organic life in the galaxy. What you are mandated for is to stop the Reapers. I think the powers who signed up for the alliance would be thinking more along the lines of destroying, rather than merging with, them.

Sure. Whatever else you think about Synthesis, Shepard is way exceeding his authority. OTOH, he also has information nobody else has, and power he can't delegate.

[ZipZap2000]

@psych

 

Don't know if they're the first but have a poke around in the archives when you're doing Citadel DLC.

[Farangbaa]

@psych

 

Don't know if they're the first but have a poke around in the archives when you're doing Citadel DLC.

 

That's after the Geth uprising.

 

Which, in typical BW fashion downright destroys the lore because there was already a ban on AI but apparantly AI are freely roaming the Citadel up until then.

 

[CaIIisto]

Sure. Whatever else you think about Synthesis, Shepard is way exceeding his authority. OTOH, he also has information nobody else has, and power he can't delegate.

 

Indeed.

 

I can't see a situation where the Council wouldn't advocate destroy though. Synthesis would be a flat-out 'no chance'. Control you could probably argue, but then would the Council want one being/thing, beyond their direct control, to have absolute power? You're taking a huge gamble on the new AI retaining enough of Shepard to keep itself in check. 

 

To my mind it's fairly obvious which way the Council would have wanted you to act. Even if you don't like the Council and ditched them in ME1, I would imagine that Hackett/Anderson et al would still have made the same choice from a Pro-Earth/Humans POV.

[LoneWolf X14]

Yeah @Psych I pretty much agree most of the universe would've destroyed the reapers. Feel bad for geth but Shepard will handle that bring them back somehow ya know.

However someone said that the quarians would be dead in destroy but um you see them thriving in the destroy ending so they survive their suits would be fine.

[KaiserShep]

They're no more a gamble than destroy or refuse. In destroy you put all your money on all individuals for the rest of eternity remembering that creating AI might be a wrong idea, in refuse you gamble on the next cycle doing what you won't.

 

They're all gambles.

 

Eh, eternity's for suckers and clinique reps anyway. Heck I have trouble caring about what's going to happen 50 years from now, let alone a few hundred, or a few thousand.

[RiptideX1090]

^^ Isn't it also implied, or outright stated, that a refuse ending leads to a clean win in the next cycle? Sure it's a bust in this cycle, but at least your efforts ultimately pave the way for the conventional win that you wanted, but couldn't get in this cycle.

 

 

One of the devs confirmed that the next Cycle builds the crucible and activates it using Liara's archives.

 

So really, Shepard not activating it accomplishes nothing, the Cycle ends one way or the other with the help of the Crucible, the difference being that in Refuse, Humanity, the Krogan, the Asari, the Geth, the Quarians, ect. are all extinct.

[ZipZap2000]

@psych

 

Well that killed it.

[AlanC9]

One of the devs confirmed that the next Cycle builds the crucible and activates it using Liara's archives.
 
So really, Shepard not activating it accomplishes nothing, the Cycle ends one way or the other with the help of the Crucible, the difference being that in Refuse, Humanity, the Krogan, the Asari, the Geth, the Quarians, ect. are all extinct.

Well, Shepard does preserve his own moral purity....

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

However someone said that the quarians would be dead in destroy but um you see them thriving in the destroy ending so they survive their suits would be fine.

 

I think that's because the line where the Crucible discriminates between synthetics and non-synthetics (or even what exactly a 'synthetic' is according to the Catalyst) is kind of vague (especially pre-EC). The Quarians have an extensive amount of cybernetic upgrades before you even begin to factor in their suits.

[RiptideX1090]

Well, Shepard does preserve his own moral purity....

 

With apathy. Apathy is the most immoral thing of all, because immorality by definition a lack of morals, and apathy is the lack of application of morality. So by refusing to make a decision and allowing the cycle to continue, Shepard in fact makes the most immoral decision he or she possibly can. A decision that doesn't matter at all anyway, because someone else comes along and makes it for them regardless, and the only difference is Shepard has absolutely nothing to show for his efforts, his species is gone, and he failed everyone and everything that he ever even encountered, putting the deaths of every living being in the current cycle and all the unborn generations to come on him.

 

Refusal Shepard is a scumbag of the worst kind. The type that sees someone being mugged in the alley way and keeps walking. The kind who watches a murder or a genocide or a rape and does absolutely nothing, just stands there and watches. The kind that has the power to end an injustice and chooses not to react at all. Apathy is worse than death, because even a corpse feeds the soil for new life, but apathy is to refuse to be a part of the world around you, to split yourself from existence and being, to be utterly without meaning or purpose. There was no morality in Shepard refusing to fire the Crucible, it was just a scripted out middle finger from the writers to every fan who wanted Shepard to actually be able to tell the Catalyst to screw off, but missed the part where we wanted to do so by arguing his circular logic and the fact we'd proven his assertions wrong.

[Ieldra]

With apathy. Apathy is the most immoral thing of all, because immorality by definition a lack of morals, and apathy is the lack of application of morality. So by refusing to make a decision and allowing the cycle to continue, Shepard in fact makes the most immoral decision he or she possibly can. A decision that doesn't matter at all anyway, because someone else comes along and makes it for them regardless, and the only difference is Shepard has absolutely nothing to show for his efforts, his species is gone, and he failed everyone and everything that he ever even encountered, putting the deaths of every living being in the current cycle and all the unborn generations to come on him.

 

Refusal Shepard is a scumbag of the worst kind. The type that sees someone being mugged in the alley way and keeps walking. The kind who watches a murder or a genocide or a rape and does absolutely nothing, just stands there and watches. The kind that has the power to end an injustice and chooses not to react at all. Apathy is worse than death, because even a corpse feeds the soil for new life, but apathy is to refuse to be a part of the world around you, to split yourself from existence and being, to be utterly without meaning or purpose. There was no morality in Shepard refusing to fire the Crucible, it was just a scripted out middle finger from the writers to every fan who wanted Shepard to actually be able to tell the Catalyst to screw off, but missed the part where we wanted to do so by arguing his circular logic and the fact we'd proven his assertions wrong.

While I agree that Refusing is self-indulgent, I have yet to see any apathy from those who choose it. Rather than that, I get the impression that the choice is more agonizing for them than for others.

 

What I rather see is pride, as if one person's moral purity is worth anything in the face of the threat of annihilation of your whole civilization. Though I don't see how choosing Control is in any way immoral. 

[RiptideX1090]

While I agree that Refusing is self-indulgent, I have yet to see any apathy from those who choose it. Rather than that, I get the impression that the choice is more agonizing for them than for others.

 

What I rather see is pride, as if one person's moral purity is worth anything in the face of the threat of annihilation of your whole civilization. Though I don't see how choosing Control is in any way immoral. 

Pride which ultimately leads to an inability to actually do anything, the result is the same either way. Ultimately, the only reason anyone picks Refuse is because they hate the contrived endings so much they actively want to spit in their faces by saying "screw this, I want no part in it". Which is understandable, but that's purely on a meta level. It isn't about playing the Catalyst's game, it's rejecting the way the writer's present his game instead. It's not spiting the Catalyst, it's spiting the writers. On an in-game level, my reasoning stands, however. Only a truly apathetic Shepard could stand by and literally do nothing while watching his entire species, as well as a dozen other species go extinct, when he can literally stop it from happening in one of three different ways.

 

As for Control, I wouldn't claim Control is in and of itself immoral. In fact, while I always pick Destroy, I have absolutely zero qualms with the idea of using TIM's technology (as Mordin says, the ends justifying the means doesn't matter when it wasn't your means, you just use what you have) regardless of how he obtained it, and I have no problems with dominating the Reapers. They've been doing it to others for a billion years, hell, time for some payback if you ask me. The problem I have with Control is that... well, we aren't actually given any control of the Reapers. Shepard just kind of... has them, and is doing stuff with them, but we have no direction in how they're used. Instead, whether you're renegade or paragon, the window dressing changes, but you're ultimately still doing the same thing. Acting as a one man Police State. That's what happens either way. If I'd been presented with the chance to use the Reapers to repair the relays, rebuild the galaxy, then fly them all into a star? HELL YES I'd have picked Control! But we don't get that chance. Dominating the Reapers isn't immoral, as far as I'm concerned, hell, I'd call it justice. But keeping them around to play Big Brother, in my opinion, IS morally questionable, and hence why I have no part in it.

 

...except in Renegade playthroughs, of course, where becoming God-Empress is totally radical, yo.

[Farangbaa]

How is keeping them around immoral?

 

If the Catalyst is right, you'll be glad you have your own Reaper army to handle the situation.