978 réponses à ce sujet

[dorktainian]

He is completely lying. Suffice to say that any attempts to really undermine any of the endings falls under the realm of headcanon. I understand distaste for it, but in universe, they all work, 100%.

 

you sir are incorrect.  Only one ending can possibly 'work' because otherwise you would have no continuity.  3 vastly differing universe are presented and 2 of them have reapers in it.  I know which one i'd live in and it ain't them.  Ergo.. do you have what it takes to make that decision, even knowing some will die, but the rest will survive?

 

Oh wait it's just a game.

[DanishGambit]

He is completely lying. Suffice to say that any attempts to really undermine any of the endings falls under the realm of headcanon. I understand distaste for it, but in universe, they all work, 100%.

How do we know? Technology like this hasn't been established at all and we're supposed to believe in all these pretty ridiculous claims because an AI using circular logic said so? Sometimes you have to let things go because it's fiction but they broke the suspension of belief on this one and I just can't accept it. You have to be very careful if you go this route in sci-fi. It was a little too heavy in Battlestar Galactica but here they're basically claiming that a ray gun did a feat of magic.

[God]

you sir are incorrect.  Only one ending can possibly 'work' because otherwise you would have no continuity.  3 vastly differing universe are presented and 2 of them have reapers in it.  I know which one i'd live in and it ain't them.  Ergo.. do you have what it takes to make that decision, even knowing some will die, but the rest will survive?

 

Oh wait it's just a game.

 

I am not incorrect. There are 3 possible endings. If there was only one, then there'd have only been one option for an ending. 

 

As well, you telling me your opinion does not make your opinion fact. And the fact is that your opinion is not the same as everyone else. You canon is not the same as my canon. BW made it that way. They gave you 3 options that stop the Reapers and, as of this current time, hold all of them to be canon. 

[God]

How do we know? Technology like this hasn't been established at all and we're supposed to believe in all these pretty ridiculous claims because an AI using circular logic said so? Sometimes you have to let things go because it's fiction but they broke the suspension of belief on this one and I just can't accept it. You have to be very careful if you go this route in sci-fi. It was a little too heavy in Battlestar Galactica but here they're basically claiming that a ray gun did a feat of magic.

 

Technical writing and cheap narrative exposition for the ending aside (I won't argue that it was poorly executed), the AI isn't really using circular logic. I hear a lot of people saying things about logical fallacies, and I can't help but shake my head at points.

 

The Catalyst is valid in its mandate. Its solution, the Reapers, are a valid option to undermine the eventuality it's working to prevent. And I would argue that the continued, non-synthesized existence of synthetics is a far greater threat than the Reapers.

 

If any synthetics survive destroy, they must be immediately destroyed outright. I'm not saying this as a racist who believes synthetics are scum. I'm saying this as a person who sees that synthetics cannot exist at the present moment or you risk undermining your work to use the crucible. Wait for a tech singularity (or work to enact one), then find the ability to merge with synthetics and entirely circumvent the problem forever.

[StarcloudSWG]

You are under the misapprehension that, somehow, Shepard knows the content of the epilogue slides at the moment of choice and can thus treat all three options equally.

 

Shepard does not. Shepard must make a decision using the question, "Does this choice fulfill the mission, with certainty?" 

 

It's called, "Roleplaying". Making decisions based on your impression of the character and using data that the character knows. You may have heard of the concept.

 

Shepard is military. Mission success is the primary driving factor in any military action, and this is definitely a military action despite the blathering of the Catalyst attempting to reframe the narrative as something else.

[God]

You are under the misapprehension that, somehow, Shepard knows the content of the epilogue slides at the moment of choice and can thus treat all three options equally.

 

Shepard does not. Shepard must make a decision using the question, "Does this choice fulfill the mission, with certainty?" 

 

It's called, "Roleplaying". Making decisions based on your impression of the character and using data that the character knows. You may have heard of the concept.

 

Shepard is military. Mission success is the primary driving factor in any military action, and this is definitely a military action despite the blathering of the Catalyst attempting to reframe the narrative as something else.

 

Trust me bud, you don't need to inform me of anything 'military'. Or roleplaying. 

 

And this is more than a blathering attempt to reframe the narrative and the context of the cycle. Any military commander, myself included, would tell you not to disregard new information. You don't have the benefit or foresight, but you do have knowledge of what will happen. 

 

The answer, to Shepard's question is no, to every ending, including destroy. You're arguing to a bias by making one ending look more presentable and rational than others here, when it's just as uncertain and unsubstantiated as any of the other decisions. Really, despite the Catalyst 'blathering', as you call it, you have no choice but to take its word on faith. Including in Destroy.

[WizzyWarlock]

39 pages and I didn't read any, I'm just answering the question, so excuse me if I interrupt anything. I choose Destroy every time (except as reloads to see what would happen - which I only needed to do once). Why? Because I don't want to impose my will upon the entire Galaxy, which is what the other two choices would do. Synthesis, you're rewriting everyones DNA regardless of how they feel about it, and in Control you become the leader of an army of semi-indestructible death machines and decide what you want to do with them, which, lets face it, after seeing thousands of years of the same troubles you're going to decide to step in, and that's when things get messy.

So just Destroy them and let the civilizations work out their own problems. If new synthetics wipe everyone out then.. well.. that was just how it was supposed to be. The Reapers have just delayed the inevitable.

[God]

39 pages and I didn't read any, I'm just answering the question, so excuse me if I interrupt anything. I choose Destroy every time (except as reloads to see what would happen - which I only needed to do once). Why? Because I don't want to impose my will upon the entire Galaxy, which is what the other two choices would do. Synthesis, you're rewriting everyones DNA regardless of how they feel about it, and in Control you become the leader of an army of semi-indestructible death machines and decide what you want to do with them, which, lets face it, after seeing thousands of years of the same troubles you're going to decide to step in, and that's when things get messy.

So just Destroy them and let the civilizations work out their own problems. If new synthetics wipe everyone out then.. well.. that was just how it was supposed to be. The Reapers have just delayed the inevitable.

 

I definitely think that my will is much better than the freedom of the galaxy if their free will leads to annihilation for all.

 

But then again, I don't believe in fundamental equality of intelligence or value in society. People are not equal. There are some who are better and more valuable than others. They, I believe, have the capacity to make decisions on behalf of the whole, without consulting them. It would be a senseless waste of time. 

[Han Shot First]

From a meta perspective none of the endings are going to backfire. As a player you can feel safe in choosing any ending except Refuse, and know that if there is a sequel you aren't going to be told at startup that your choice backfired and the Reapers annihilated the galaxy. And all three choices force Shepard intro trusting the Catalyst to varying degrees, which is arguably one of the flaws with the original endings.

 

But I think it is fair to say that both Synthesis and Control require Shepard to place a greater much degree of trust in the Catalyst than Destroy, since the method of implementing those 'solutions' is Shepard killing himself. And you're told from the start that it is the price to pay for either outcome, unlike low EMS versions of Destroy, where Shepard's death is more along the lines of an unintended consequence. From a roleplay perspective I can't justify Shepard choosing either of those outcomes on a canon playthrough, as I can't imagine the character agreeing with the God King of the Reapers as it advises, "Kill yourself and this will all work out."

[WizzyWarlock]

But then again, I don't believe in fundamental equality of intelligence or value in society. People are not equal. There are some who are better and more valuable than others. They, I believe, have the capacity to make decisions on behalf of the whole, without consulting them. It would be a senseless waste of time.

And what of the people who are better and more valuable than the one making the decision? Those who might be able to make a better decision? What if the person making the decision that affects the entire Galaxy's future is nothing but an army commander with no formal education and nothing but a way with words?

[Iakus]

From a meta perspective none of the endings are going to backfire. As a player you can feel safe in choosing any ending except Refuse, and know that if there is a sequel you aren't going to be told at startup that your choice backfired and the Reapers annihilated the galaxy. And all three choices force Shepard intro trusting the Catalyst to varying degrees, which is arguably one of the flaws with the original endings.

 

But I think it is fair to say that both Synthesis and Control require Shepard to place a greater much degree of trust in the Catalyst than Destroy, since the method of implementing those 'solutions' is Shepard killing himself. And you're told from the start that it is the price to pay for either outcome, unlike low EMS versions of Destroy, where Shepard's death is more along the lines of an unintended consequence. From a roleplay perspective I can't justify Shepard choosing either of those outcomes on a canon playthrough, as I can't imagine the character agreeing with the God King of the Reapers as it advises, "Kill yourself and this will all work out."

 

The endings don't backfire on a meta level because Bioware mistakenly believed people didn't like the endings because they were "too sad" and made up EC to stamp smiley faces on the endings.

 

But yes, believing a word the Catalyst says is a big stumbling block.

[ZerebusPrime]

Note to self: include at least some truth in any set of lies I have to tell.  Half truths about unknown unknowns make people go crazy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sticking with Destroy.  I'm not here to solve the problem as given by the Catalyst.  I'm here to solve the problem as presented by Admiral Hackett.

[God]

And what of the people who are better and more valuable than the one making the decision? Those who might be able to make a better decision? What if the person making the decision that affects the entire Galaxy's future is nothing but an army commander with no formal education and nothing but a way with words?

 

Well, he has to have proven his intellect and superiority to become a military commander. You don't make idiots and morons into military commanders.

 

And really, who is more qualified? And what exactly are they going to conclude? There's no more choice than what is presented in the ending. That's all you get.

[God]

The endings don't backfire on a meta level because Bioware mistakenly believed people didn't like the endings because they were "too sad" and made up EC to stamp smiley faces on the endings.

 

But yes, believing a word the Catalyst says is a big stumbling block.

 

I maintain that BW is correct in that people didn't like the endings because they were 'too sad'. Especially you. I've never seen any post that didn't boil down to you not liking it because you weren't able to win without sacrificing some abstract principle. 

 

I still don't understand why people think the Catalyst has any reason to lie to you. It wants a solution as much as you do. If it was chaotically evil as you believe, it wouldn't have bothered to bring you to the decision chamber and use the Crucible.

[KaiserShep]

But I think it is fair to say that both Synthesis and Control require Shepard to place a greater much degree of trust in the Catalyst than Destroy, since the method of implementing those 'solutions' is Shepard killing himself. And you're told from the start that it is the price to pay for either outcome, unlike low EMS versions of Destroy, where Shepard's death is more along the lines of an unintended consequence. From a roleplay perspective I can't justify Shepard choosing either of those outcomes on a canon playthrough, as I can't imagine the character agreeing with the God King of the Reapers as it advises, "Kill yourself and this will all work out."

 

That's pretty much why it all falls apart for me as well. There's just no reason given that can compel me to really push my Shepard into suicide over this. If Shepard could live to see Synthesis or Control, I would seriously entertain it, but dying for it? Yeah, sure, right after Shepard hits lines of red sand off of the Catalyst's deck.

[ImaginaryMatter]

But I think it is fair to say that both Synthesis and Control require Shepard to place a greater much degree of trust in the Catalyst than Destroy, since the method of implementing those 'solutions' is Shepard killing himself. And you're told from the start that it is the price to pay for either outcome, unlike low EMS versions of Destroy, where Shepard's death is more along the lines of an unintended consequence. From a roleplay perspective I can't justify Shepard choosing either of those outcomes on a canon playthrough, as I can't imagine the character agreeing with the God King of the Reapers as it advises, "Kill yourself and this will all work out."

 

I think Destroy is the most trustworthy option in the sense that its consequences are the easiest to understand. Synthesis almost banks entirely on the Catalyst's opinion. It's views of ascension and perfection or whatever may be different than ours; since at the end of the day we have no comprehension of what Synthesis means in any practical sense. Control I see as a middle ground as the Reapers are now governed by the somewhat unknown entity that is the Shepalyst (the Control epilogue completely sold me on never picking that option again).

[Iakus]

I maintain that BW is correct in that people didn't like the endings because they were 'too sad'. Especially you. I've never seen any post that didn't boil down to you not liking it because you weren't able to win without sacrificing some abstract principle. 

 

I still don't understand why people think the Catalyst has any reason to lie to you. It wants a solution as much as you do. If it was chaotically evil as you believe, it wouldn't have bothered to bring you to the decision chamber and use the Crucible.

This is patently false given I have in other threads stated what I would find to be an acceptable sacrifice, and people (including you) think that it's worse than what we got.  Just because we have different ideas on what constitutes an appropriate sacrifice doesn't mean I think it's "too sad"   

 

So stop misrepresenting me.

[God]

This is patently false given I have in other threads stated what I would find to be an acceptable sacrifice, and people (including you) think that it's worse than what we got.  Just because we have different ideas on what constitutes an appropriate sacrifice doesn't mean I think it's "too sad"   

 

So stop misrepresenting me.

 

Which is worthless, since there's no such thing in this aspect as an unacceptable sacrifice in context of the Reapers. I think the sacrifice you want is more non-sensical and arbitrary, but then again, it doesn't involve you doing anything you're uncomfortable doing. Which is what the current ending does. 

 

Which means you find it too sad.

 

As well, I'm not morally opposed to the decision. I think it's an arbitrary waste of resources that is being laid down as an excuse to not be a 'monster'. It's bargaining.

 

I'll stop characterizing you as what you are when you provide a response that can't be stripped down to 'I don't like what the game makes me do in the end!'

[Iakus]

Which is worthless, since there's no such thing in this aspect as an unacceptable sacrifice in context of the Reapers. I think the sacrifice you want is more non-sensical and arbitrary, but then again, it doesn't involve you doing anything you're uncomfortable doing. Which is what the current ending does. 

 

Which means you find it too sad.

 

As well, I'm not morally opposed to the decision. I think it's an arbitrary waste of resources that is being laid down as an excuse to not be a 'monster'. It's bargaining.

 

I'll stop characterizing you as what you are when you provide a response that can't be stripped down to 'I don't like what the game makes me do in the end!'

Yes there is.  You just can't accept the fact that others have them.  

 

It's not "sad" to me.  It's repulsive.  Dog poop on my shoe doesn't make me sad, I just get disgusted.  And perhaps a bit p*ssed at whoever didn't pick up after their pet.

 

Look I know you're all cool and jaded and edgy-renegade and totally extreme.  And thus you're okay with the endings.  Red, at least.  But that doesn't give you leave to reductio ad absurdum my analysis of the game.  You don't like my ideas?  FIne. I don't like what the game makes me do at the end.  THat's kind of the crux of why anyone doesn' t like the end.  But it's not "because it makes me sad"  

[TMA LIVE]

The first ending I picked was Synthesis. Mostly, just to see what would happen. But mainly because I somewhat believe in what the Catalyst was talking about, and I refused to kill Edi and the Geth. I wanted to give them the best future I could provide. Fearing we'd start rebuilding ships similar to the Reapers, only for them to later turn on us like what happened with the Catalyst, I wanted an option to create peace, while also evolving us into something that could survive a second Catalyst attack. I also wanted synthetics to be treated as equals, and not tools who just think they're alive. I also was worried about everyone's survival after the blast. Especially in the original ending that involved the Mass Relays exploding beyond any repair a few ships could fix. I felt like it was a fitting choice for my Shepard because he always forced the galaxy to compromise in order to create peace, too a fault.

 

My Renegade Shepard however destroys them. It was her mission, no matter what the cost.

[God]

Yes there is.  You just can't accept the fact that others have them.  

 

It's not "sad" to me.  It's repulsive.  Dog poop on my shoe doesn't make me sad, I just get disgusted.  And perhaps a bit p*ssed at whoever didn't pick up after their pet.

 

Look I know you're all cool and jaded and edgy-renegade and totally extreme.  And thus you're okay with the endings.  Red, at least.  But that doesn't give you leave to reductio ad absurdum my analysis of the game.  You don't like my ideas?  FIne. I don't like what the game makes me do at the end.  THat's kind of the crux of why anyone doesn' t like the end.  But it's not "because it makes me sad"  

 

No there isn't. I can accept that people hold irrational beliefs that cannot be justified physically. I don't know why they do. Seems to be one of the inherent weaknesses of humanity. But to say that there is actual strength in closing off options and calling yourself a better person because you won't do anything it takes to win or survive is madness. 

 

Sad, repulsive, I see no difference in this distinction. At the end of the day, you're upset that you didn't get what you want because you can't accept that what you want doesn't work.

 

It does. I'll say it again. It's absurd. That line of thinking is absurd. It's weak. Honestly, it's like me pointing the gun in Conrad Verner's face: that's what it feels like, and it happens a lot. You can't handle it. You can't handle that there really are tough decisions, not 'tough' decisions.

 

It's why the hero who's practical and unfettered and willing to be ruthless, monstrous, and brutal if he needs to be will always be superior to the fettered paladin who always plays by the rules. It's simple reality. And, in the context of this argument on the ending, the ending reflects that.

 

The guy willing to win is superior to the guy who isn't.

 

And you're upset because that perspective is validated (well, let's be honest, my view is basically impossible to invalidate) and yours isn't. Hence the argument on the moral context of the ending.

[Jenrais]

I chose the "Turn off the game and make up my own ending" Ending.

[DanishGambit]

We're talking about the Catalist, an unknown that knows what MIGHT happen, what SHOULD happen but NOT what WILL happen. It's not about his lying but his credibility. He is not immune to error or omniscient. And don't forget that his first attempt at synthesis (whatever that means) failed. He has NEVER achieved this before and in his own words "the variables have changed." 

 

And lets not forget that he's proposing that a ray gun is going to perform green magic. There's zero reason to expect anything to work other than blowing them away with the red ray gun.

[Kynare]

We're talking about the Catalist, an unknown that knows what MIGHT happen, what SHOULD happen but NOT what WILL happen. It's not about his lying but his credibility. He is not immune to error or omniscient. And don't forget that his first attempt at synthesis (whatever that means) failed. He has NEVER achieved this before and in his own words "the variables have changed." 

 

And lets not forget that he's proposing that a ray gun is going to perform green magic. There's zero reason to expect anything to work other than blowing them away with the red ray gun.

 

I can picture Shepard going "f*ck it" and then jumping into the green ray, perfectly aware that they may just be killing themselves for no reason. The following cutscene does look like Shepard is just ready to rest once and for all.

 

The Control branch visually looks like it actually does something, and controlling the Reapers was a theory supported by Cerberus for two whole games. They can question TIM's sanity, but not even the most Paragon of Paragons can deny Cerberus' credibility. So I could see Shepard gravitating towards it, especially if they're adamantly against the idea of killing EDI and all other synthetics. In Traynor's words, you have the feel of something solid in your hands. So why distrust it?

 

Shooting/destroying something is the probably most familiar sensation to Shepard, so if they're going based on impulse alone, then yeah. Perfectly rational decision.

 

In the end, the only option that has always felt like a stretch to me was Synthesis. But I'm not about to pretend I know anything about what goes through a person's mind when they're offered three solutions to resolve intergalactic warfare.

[TMA LIVE]

We're talking about the Catalist, an unknown that knows what MIGHT happen, what SHOULD happen but NOT what WILL happen. It's not about his lying but his credibility. He is not immune to error or omniscient. And don't forget that his first attempt at synthesis (whatever that means) failed. He has NEVER achieved this before and in his own words "the variables have changed." 

 

And lets not forget that he's proposing that a ray gun is going to perform green magic. There's zero reason to expect anything to work other than blowing them away with the red ray gun.

 

The Catalyst definitely isn't right about everything. Remember, it mentions how those who rely on technology will be affected, including you. Yet the ending clearly shows Shepard surviving. Jack serviced. So it's possible whatever damage happened to EDI and the Geth, they can be repaired and brought back without losing their memories and identities. But like the Shepard surviving scene, it's just a hint of hope.