978 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Tell me another story about The Shepard.

[KaiserShep]

Tell me another story about The Shepard.

 

Stargazer: Well, let's see what others I can remember. Oh, yes. Well, you see, after The Shepard destroyed Sovereign, Sluggard, Sovereign's half-brother, sought revenge for the demise of his kin. It was then that the two in the great arena for their final duel, that is, until Kalros, Shepard's mother, thwarted Sluggard herself.

 

Kid: But yesterday, you said that The Shepard's mother was named Hannah.

 

Stargazer: Hannah was her face name; Kalros was her soul name.

 

Kid:

[Bfler]

After peace on Rannoch, the most fitting ending would be the one from Babylon 5, where Shepard (and maybe representatives of the other species) convinces the kid, that the Reapers have to return to their dark space forever, because the organics/synthetics are able to solve their conflicts.

[AlanC9]

I believe that's why David Gaider said that allowing peace at Rannoch was a mistake.

[TurianRebel212]

Eh, they're all kinda the same, with maybe high ems destroy kinda being different, but really it doesn't really go anywhere and it's all for show. I have mostly picked destroy and I have a control playthrough just for the lulz.

[Inprea]

Is it possible for the geth to survive with the reaper upgrade since they are technically living beings?  I agree with synthesis, there's something creepy about transforming everyone against their will.  I also don't get how destroy kills reapers and all synthetics and that it knows what's a synthetic vs what a high tech toaster.  But taking things at face value, control seems the most appealing even though I rather destroy the reapers.

 

Depends on the writer of course. I know in my head cannon the catalyst is a fool that's lacking in any form of vision so that about three weeks after taking control of the reapers Shepard decides husk are too disturbing to use in public and reapers are too large for practical reasons. So she whips up some human sized avatars for the sake of detailed work and goes to visit her team. I believe it'd be fitting if she commented to Garus, "I told you I'd be watching over you."

[Han Shot First]

 

 

That is why people detest the Catalyst.

 

Agreed.

 

People hate the Catalyst because he was a poorly written and acted character who plays a large role in the finale that was just as badly written. 

[xAmilli0n]

I remember back when people were still going crazy about the endings, I settled on a tragic interpretation of the Control ending were ReaperShep, after establishing peace, finally goes crazy after many decades of seeing the galaxy utterly fail at keeping the peace. As a result, Shep restarts harvesting the species of the galaxy but is finally defeated straight up because now the galaxy had time to learn and understand the Reapers.  This left the galaxy free of Reapers and ready for a new game while maintaining most of the current universe as is, at the price of making Shep the villain.

 

Kinda of stretch but I still like it, so I'll go with that.  I always liked Control for some reason.  It leaves lots of room for things to happen after the game ended.

 

Destroy is fine, but my least favorite is the High EMS.  I like the Crucible causing collateral damage.  Plus no breath scene.

 

Synthesis just leaves me wanting.  Its like "Yay happy ending!" and that its.  The end.  Meh.

[Iakus]

I believe that's why David Gaider said that allowing peace at Rannoch was a mistake.

 

What, just because it undermines the Catalyst's idiotic claims?  Peace at Rannoch was to me one of the great Hope Spots of the game.  Even if the peace doesn't last, at least a genuine effort gets made.

[SporkFu]

What, just because it undermines the Catalyst's idiotic claims?  Peace at Ronnoch was to me one of the great Hope Spots of the game.  Even if the peace doesn't last, at least a genuine effort gets made.

Agreed. 

[AlanC9]

What, just because it undermines the Catalyst's idiotic claims? Peace at Rannoch was to me one of the great Hope Spots of the game. Even if the peace doesn't last, at least a genuine effort gets made.

You did read Bfler's post, right? Peace at Rannoch gave him the wrong impression, because it made him think that the problem was tractable. Since Bio didn't want to have the ending he proposes, leading him to think that his proposed ending fits isn't optimal. (Personally I'm not bothered by peace at Rannoch, because I never thought it proved much of anything.)

Of course, I may be misreading Gaider's point here. Though I don't think so. Have a look.

[Iakus]

You did read Bfler's post, right? Peace at Rannoch gave him the wrong impression, because it made him think that the problem was tractable. Since Bio didn't want to have the ending he proposes, leading him to think that his proposed ending fits isn't optimal. (Personally I'm not bothered by peace at Rannoch, because I never thought it proved much of anything.)

Of course, I may be misreading Gaider's point here. Though I don't think so. Have a look.

I did read the post.  And yes the problem was tractable.  I'd think that even if the geth/quarian conflict couldn't be resolved epacefully.  There was still EDI, after all.  The endings simply don't fit the trilogy.  Rannoch or no.

 

Edit:  and after reading Gaider's post (after finding it) I have to disagree with him on several points:

 

While I can understand not wanting Shepard to solve everyone's problems, it does require certain conditions to be met, and is more than Shepard simply saying "hey guys, can't we all just get along?"

 

I also disagree that Shepard managed to solve all thier racial prejudices.  All Shep managed to do was get them to stop shooting each other for the moment and attempt to coexist.  It ight or might not hold.  but at the moment they have a common enemy.

 

Actually it might have been interesting if the cut content involving Daro'Xen trying to use Crucible resources to re-enslave the geth afterwards might have been an interesting consequence.

 

In addition, I dispute that "organics and synthetics cannot get along" was ever a "major" theme of the trilogy.  Yes, racism in general was a theme, but it was not strictly along organic/synthetic lines. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

I did read the post.  And yes the problem was tractable.  I'd think that even if the geth/quarian conflict couldn't be resolved epacefully.  There was still EDI, after all.  The endings simply don't fit the trilogy.  Rannoch or no.

 

Also, the Geth then join up quite cheerfully (at least as far as robots can express the emotion) with the rest of the organics and vow that they will rebuild both their futures.

[AlanC9]

I did read the post.  And yes the problem was tractable.  I'd think that even if the geth/quarian conflict couldn't be resolved epacefully.  There was still EDI, after all.  The endings simply don't fit the trilogy.  Rannoch or no.

 

Well, of course you'd think those things. But the question was whether allowing peace at Rannoch helps. I know you like talking about how the endings are bad whenever you can, but that wasn't the issue. (I shuld have realized you were just derailing rather than not reading.)

 

Note Schumacher's reply to Gaider in the linked thread; he thinks that peace was useful because it implies that the Catalyst might be wrong. While I'm fairly agnostic about Rannoch peace, like I said, I think Schumacher's right there.

[Kabraxal]

Well, of course you'd think those things. But the question was whether allowing peace at Rannoch helps. I know you like talking about how the endings are bad whenever you can, but that wasn't the issue. (I shuld have realized you were just derailing rather than not reading.)

 

Note Schumacher's reply to Gaider in the linked thread; he thinks that peace was useful because it implies that the Catalyst might be wrong. While I'm fairly agnostic about Rannoch peace, like I said, I think Schumacher's right there.

But it wasn't just Rannoch that undermined the Catalyst or Bioware's endings... it was the trilogy as a whole.  Taking out Sovereign, the suicide mission, defeating numerous reapers in 3, EDI... you can point to so many things that derail the hopelessness that is the Catalyst and the choices he offers.  Thmematically, emotionally, intellectually... no matter what way you look at the endings they simply do not fit the rest of the trilogy.  You'd have to change Rannoch in more ways than the Geth/Quarian conflict and other major moments within the trilogy to fit the Catalyst and the endings into the story.

[Iakus]

Well, of course you'd think those things. But the question was whether allowing peace at Rannoch helps. I know you like talking about how the endings are bad whenever you can, but that wasn't the issue. (I shuld have realized you were just derailing rather than not reading.)

 

Note Schumacher's reply to Gaider in the linked thread; he thinks that peace was useful because it implies that the Catalyst might be wrong. While I'm fairly agnostic about Rannoch peace, like I said, I think Schumacher's right there.

Derailing?  The title of the thread is "Which ending did you choose and why?"  And Bifler's post was comparing how after Rannoch the most fitting ending would have been like Babylon 5's.  So no, not derailing by talking about the endings.  

[Iakus]

But it wasn't just Rannoch that undermined the Catalyst or Bioware's endings... it was the trilogy as a whole.  Taking out Sovereign, the suicide mission, defeating numerous reapers in 3, EDI... you can point to so many things that derail the hopelessness that is the Catalyst and the choices he offers.  Thmematically, emotionally, intellectually... no matter what way you look at the endings they simply do not fit the rest of the trilogy.  You'd have to change Rannoch in more ways than the Geth/Quarian conflict and other major moments within the trilogy to fit the Catalyst and the endings into the story.

Careful, you're "derailing"

[MrMrPendragon]

(This post talks about Extended-Cut endings and takes into account the DLCs - Leviathan most importantly)

 

Destroy "ending" for me. I have played I think 9 or 10 trilogy playthroughs and I've picked Destroy on all of them - I pick the other endings then reload to select Destroy, so I've seen the other endings, but I've never accepted them as my true "ending".

 

I think it's really the "best" route I can see. The way I approached the ending is that I really looked at it from Shepard's perspective. Meeting the Catalyst and hearing what he has to say is of course shocking. The Leviathans and the Catalyst made this huge error - assuming that all synthetic life will wipe out organic life, eventually (that's a pretty big guess), but they made it when they were in a position of power, which pretty much forced the universe and even me, the player, to go along with it.

 

So seeing this weird logic before me, of course my natural response was NOT to trust the Catalyst and his options, because if it got that one wrong then maybe it's wrong about these three choices too. It may not neccessarily tricking me, but it may just believe that one of these three choices is the right course of action, when in actuallity none of them work.

 

This Catalyst is this "intelligence" that controls the Reapers (he told us this and this is pretty much the only thing I would believe if I was in Shepard's place) and is there to keep synthetics from wiping out organics. Shepard can of course state that the whole Geth-Quarian thing is working out, and they are currently fighting the Reapers together. Assuming this a "real" AI, then it probably knows it's programming is wrong, and "deep down" it knows that by continuing this Reaper solution and the cycles, it will ultimately lead itself to the destruction of the Reapers, and going by it's assumption, all organic life too since synthetics will wipe us all out. But me seeing it still pushing the reaping tells me that it is of course enslaved by it's core programming - indoctrinated, I guess. Which again, is making me to not trust it.

 

Now since Bioware left a lot of questions unanswered, the way I saw it was that the Crucbile was developed as a program that went hand-in-hand with the Reapers , rather than a tool that can wipe them out completely. Only with the Catalyst AND the Citadel will the program work. If Shepard had made it into the "secret Citadel room" without the Crucible, the child may have looked and acted different. It may just have gone "Organic detected" and sent in Marauder Shields and the three Huskateers. This made my think that maybe the choices weren't a trap laid out by the Reapers (I was actually looking for a dialogue option with the Catalyst to get myself out of the choosing situation). I contemplated on choosing rejection and choosing the long-game, rather than ending the casualties immediately at the cost of an entire sapient race of machines.

 

Anyway, the Catalyst was pretty cagey when it came to Shepard controlling the Reapers, and the whole Synthesis thing was just didn't sit right with me. I'm supposed to change everyone and everything just because the freakin Leviathans made an error? Nuh-uh. So Destroy it is. I'm going to avenge every cycle that fell victim to the Reapers, as well as the millions of people who died during the War.

 

Ultimately, the whole game was you fighting against all odds to avoid the "ruthless calculus" that the Reapers embrace, but at the end it forces you to make that embrace that thinking. So I say I'm going to destroy everything for putting me on that spot. F*ck you star child, f*ck you harbinger. Destroy ftw.

[angol fear]

 

I think he meant semi-o-logy, other wise it's a way to plot data on a graph used in MATLAB.

Yes That's what I meant, thanks.

 

Dude, I've done hard time in a literature department. Law too. Don't assume I haven't heard this stuff before.

Well, that's not enough. I'm a literature teacher and a cinema critic and I can tell you that you don't really know what structuralism and semiology are.

[AlanC9]

Derailing?  The title of the thread is "Which ending did you choose and why?"  And Bifler's post was comparing how after Rannoch the most fitting ending would have been like Babylon 5's.  So no, not derailing by talking about the endings.

 
My point was that you were derailing by not engaging with the question of whether peace at Rannoch fit given the existence of the actual endings -- remember, what I posted in reply to Bfler was that Gaider said that peace at Rannoch didn't fit, etc. If you want to disagree with a premise, fine, but do it explicitly.

[AlanC9]

Well, that's not enough. I'm a literature teacher and a cinema critic and I can tell you that you don't really know what structuralism and semiology are.

Oh, I know what they are. I just think they're mostly crap. Or rather, that attempting to use those systems the way you're trying to use them inevitably projects the interpreter's pre-existing biases onto the text.

OTOH, your posts on this matter have been pretty much content-free, so to some extent I'm guessing about your actual argument re ME3. What's the structuralist case against ME3?

[Iakus]

 
My point was that you were derailing by not engaging with the question of whether peace at Rannoch fit given the existence of the actual endings -- remember, what I posted in reply to Bfler was that Gaider said that peace at Rannoch didn't fit, etc. If you want to disagree with a premise, fine, but do it explicitly.

Fine, I think the ending should fit the game, not the other way around.

[chris2365]

Believe it or not, to this day, I still don't have a canon/default ending for the trilogy. I went with Synthesis on my first try, and with EC, but since then I've read different articles and opinions and none of the endings are perfect.

 

Control sounds like the perfect solution, especially if AI Shepard keeps the Reapers from meddling in the galaxy or sends them into the sun, but at the same time, based on EC, it seems this is not his intention.

 

Destroy is obviously the popular choice, Reapers dead and all, but I just don't think it's worth sacrificing the first AI in billions of years to actively cooperate with organics. Could they be our only shot at a future peace?

 

Synthesis is the most controversial. I initially picked it because it seemed so perfect, but examine it a bit and you find it is highly unethical to impose something like that. Not that change like Synthesis is necessarily bad (maybe solves the organic/synthetic conflict), but it's a choice that weighs heavily on me.

 

Even Refuse can have it's supporters. This one is my least preferred, but it does bring up a valid point. Does it matter how we win? For some it might, and people would say it's better because we can die being who we are, and not conforming to the choices of the Catalyst. I always think of a line Javik said that usually keeps me away from this option: ''Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters'' For all of Javik's opinions, I agree with this one.

 

Basically, if I were to be dumped on the Citadel when that final choice had to be made, I'd ask for a universal pause button, and maybe a bed and some food. This might take a while

[Reorte]

Control sounds like the perfect solution, especially if AI Shepard keeps the Reapers from meddling in the galaxy or sends them into the sun, but at the same time, based on EC, it seems this is not his intention.

Dumping the Reapers into the sun is the obvious choice for a lot of Control Shepards but presumably the intention of it isn't to achieve Destroy without any cost. The fact that it doesn't seem to happen makes Control seem dubious.

I quite like a dubious Control (not that I would choose it), a final choice between a dubious victory with no more death but a risky future and a definite one with but with furtherlosses isn't a bad concept.

[chris2365]

Dumping the Reapers into the sun is the obvious choice for a lot of Control Shepards but presumably the intention of it isn't to achieve Destroy without any cost. The fact that it doesn't seem to happen makes Control seem dubious.

I quite like a dubious Control (not that I would choose it), a final choice between a dubious victory with no more death but a risky future and a definite one with but with furtherlosses isn't a bad concept.

 

True, I guess pre-EC was better in this regard, since you really could speculate what you wanted and it would be acceptable. Obviously the intention was never to make a better version of destroy, but it doesn't even have to be, because the EC ending can stand on it's own as a legitimate choice. You help the galaxy rebuild, and share knowledge.

 

Depending on the Shepard, things can be quite different. A paragon Shepard, like the one I do, would probably remain on the outskirts of the galaxy, observing but rarely intervening. A renegade Shepard is definitely a concern, because he might decide to intervene based on his convictions, and more often than paragon Shep.

 

There is always the risk about what time will do to affect this, because AI Shepard's opinion might change with time, but that comes down to how each person views his Shepard. Is he the kind of person who can resist so much power over hundreds of years? We all know power corrupts, could this happen to AI Shepard as well? He isn't exactly human anymore, and while he might have his memories, we never know what his programming might evolve into or change his position. 

 

It's definitely a risk, but is that worth saving the Geth and over EDI over. IMO, yes, because it might offer a true chance of cooperation we might not have otherwise. AI Shepard might go bonkers, but so could future AI robots, and I place my trust more in Shepard than I do in species who have repeated the same mistakes over millions of cycles, and they might never learn.