106 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

@Reorte
 
So you're saying the ending was propaganda and if you chose synthesis you were brain washed? This sounds awfully familiar to a certain theory that was doing the rounds a while back.

Not in-game, in-character brainwashed, the slides aren't from Shepard's PoV after all so it's not got much to do with that theory.

Control felt damned creepy whichever version you got, which was good. Destroy seemed to gloss over the negatives but that was merely by making it look a little too quick and easy to rebuild, although without a timescale it's hard to say just how bad that is. Synthesis on the other hand raises a huge number of questions, all of which are ignored with a "Hey, it's perfect!" look. Reality turning out a lot better than expected is fine, since it's reality. Fiction on the other hand doing the same thing either kills suspension of disbelief or looks like trying to shove a message through by deliberately ignoring the questions - either because the writer hasn't thought it through or doesn't want to look at them. In fiction I need a damned good, convincing explanation of why an implausible event has happened if I'm going to swallow it. Without it it's either incompetence or manipulation (or both).

[Reorte]

I said best written in that it makes the most sense, not the best as far as result. The only space magic involved is the upload of an image of Shepard's mind into an AI super computer. It replaces the existing catalyst data file with a new one.  The renegade/paragon aspect is part of that data file. My Cerberus comment was offhand because of Mac Walter's love affair with Cerberus.

I'm not so sure, the scan-by-frying using equipment that just happens to be there and is capable of fully understanding the brain of a creature that didn't exist when it was built is as bad as a beam that fries all suitably high tech stuff with a huge degree of discrimination. Both of them could probably have been done with less space magic, unlike Synthesis which is just completely off the chart.

[ZipZap2000]

Seems like a philosophical argument, i'm glad this game had 4 endings if they'd just shoved one down all our throats 'Take Back Mass Effect' would've been WW3 on the internet.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Destroy is the ultimate Renegade choice. You kill your allies to destroy your enemies when there are other options available that spare everyone. THat is inherently renegade, trying to justify it as any form of Paragon is whitewashing. 

 

Destroy can be both a paragon and a renegade choice. One just as much as the other.

 

For some renegade Shepards it is a ruthless sacrifice ("screw the synthetics, to hell with all of you"), but for paragon Shepards  it can be a realization that it's a heartbreaking necessity, a realization that synthesis will change the nature of every living being, in essence killing them, because they will no longer be what they were (a recurring theme throughout the series; "If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them."), a realization that control will allow the Reapers to exist with uncertain outcome, (especially knowing that wanting to control anything in the MEU has always led to disastrous outcomes), a realization that any other choice than destroy might constitute a failure of the mission and that far more people will die as a result.

In Anderson's words: "A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men."

Or take this actual paragon line:

 

Full Arrival Harbinger paragon answer: "Maybe you are right, maybe we can't win. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign, just like I am doing now. However 'insignificant' we might be, we will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That's what humans do."
 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

This discussion has been had many, many times. If you still don't think there's anything iffy about a completely positive portrayal for it then there's no helping you.

 

Not saying that I don't think there's anything, just nothing important.

 

Come to think of it, there's a Green-exclusive slide showing Jacob and Brynn consoling some sad survivor, which would perhaps be the writers' nod to the idea that not everything is perfect. What more needs to be said/shown? Some people being mad/upset is not as noteworthy as great things being accomplished. It's just not. That's why even this ending's detractors don't remember the Jacob slide next to the positive ones.

[ZipZap2000]

I thought that was Brynn he was consoling? I had assumed she lost the baby.

[JasonShepard]

Destroy can be both a paragon and a renegade choice. One just as much as the other.

 

For some renegade Shepards it is a ruthless sacrifice ("screw the synthetics, to hell with all of you"), but for paragon Shepards  it can be a realization that it's a heartbreaking necessity, a realization that synthesis will change the nature of every living being, in essence killing them, because they will no longer be what they were (a recurring theme throughout the series; "If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them."), a realization that control will allow the Reapers to exist with uncertain outcome, (especially knowing that wanting to control anything in the MEU has always led to disastrous outcomes), a realization that any other choice than destroy might constitute a failure of the mission and that far more people will die as a result.

In Anderson's words: "A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men."

Or take this actual paragon line:

 

Full Arrival Harbinger paragon answer: "Maybe you are right, maybe we can't win. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign, just like I am doing now. However 'insignificant' we might be, we will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That's what humans do."
 

 

I think whether or not Destroy is Paragon comes down to whether or not your Shepard considers it a sacrifice. If Shep is glad to be rid of the Geth, and approves of the friendly fire - that's Renegade. Same as the Renegade who deliberately let the Council die.

 

If your Shepard feels heartbroken by letting them down, but feels it's the only way - that's Paragon. Same as the Paragon who sacrificed a squad of Krogan soldiers to save the Rachni Queen.

[Eterna]

Destroy can be both a paragon and a renegade choice. One just as much as the other.

 

 

No. 

 

For some renegade Shepards it is a ruthless sacrifice ("screw the synthetics, to hell with all of you"), but for paragon Shepards  it can be a realization that it's a heartbreaking necessity, a realization that synthesis will change the nature of every living being, in essence killing them, because they will no longer be what they were (a recurring theme throughout the series; "If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them."), a realization that control will allow the Reapers to exist with uncertain outcome, (especially knowing that wanting to control anything in the MEU has always led to disastrous outcomes), a realization that any other choice than destroy might constitute a failure of the mission and that far more people will die as a result.

 

 

Except it isn't necessary and those Shepards would be wrong as proen by the epilogue. It doesn't matter what your Shepard thinks, your still killing your allies, petty justifications do not change this. 
 

In Anderson's words: "A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men."

 

 

Except throughout the entire trilogy Shepard dodges around this and does both with ease. I don't understand why people think Anderson is the spoke person for paragon ideals despite the fact he is never shown to be. In fact, he is often shown to be quite ruthless. 

 

Full Arrival Harbinger paragon answer: "Maybe you are right, maybe we can't win. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign, just like I am doing now. However 'insignificant' we might be, we will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That's what humans do."

 

 

The we implies that at least the people you are sacrificing actually know they are making a sacrifice instead of being blindsided. Do you really think the Geth would sacrifice themselves in such a way when their are other options that spare them? 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I thought that was Brynn he was consoling? I had assumed she lost the baby.

 

Nope, Jacob and Brynn together are consoling someone else.

[themikefest]

No. 
 

Yes

[DoomsdayDevice]

Except it isn't necessary and those Shepards would be wrong as proen by the epilogue. It doesn't matter what your Shepard thinks, your still killing your allies, petty justifications do not change this.

Epilogue? That's a meta reason. Your Shepard doesn't know what happens in the epilogues at the moment he has to make that choice. Think about the first time you were making that choice. You didn't know what was going to happen, same goes for your Shepard, every single time.

Besides, epilogue or not, you don't know what will happen with Shepard "controlling" the Reapers. There's no guarantee that, being the ascended god-like being he now is, he won't eventually reach the same flawed conclusion as the so-called catalyst. Also, what's to stop the Reapers from re-writing the digital Shepard once he gives up his life? And like I said before, attempts to control anything in the MEU (let alone something as powerful as the Reapers) have consistently proved to turn out absolutely disastrous. And if nothing else, control allows the Reapers to exist. That alone is an unjustifiable risk.

In Legion's words: "There's a non-zero probability of error."

When all sentient life in the galaxy hinges on this one decision, it's easily justifiable to say the risk is too big to not destroy them.

I don't understand why people think Anderson is the spoke person for paragon ideals despite the fact he is never shown to be. In fact, he is often shown to be quite ruthless.

Remember back in ME1 when Anderson explains what happened between him and Saren? You know, that mission where Saren ruthlessly killed tons of people and Anderson disapproves of it strongly? That brilliantly demonstrates how Anderson is exactly the opposite of ruthless. Remind me where he's shown to be ruthless again?
 

The we implies that at least the people you are sacrificing actually know they are making a sacrifice instead of being blindsided. Do you really think the Geth would sacrifice themselves in such a way when their are other options that spare them?

I actually think they would. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Legion implies as much. EDI even explicitly says so.

The way I see it, synthesis will change (and thus kill) everyone (they will no longer be what they were). Aside from that, it does something that Shepard morally shouldn't be able to decide for everyone else. Control is too big of a risk. When seen this way, there's a good chance everyone will die in every scenario except destroy. When all sentient life in the galaxy hangs in the balance, and there's only one option that will actually save anyone, like a friend of mine put it: you don't have a choice to sacrifice EDI and the Geth, it is your duty to.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

In Legion's words: "There's a non-zero probability of error."

 
Is there a non-zero probability of the Catalyst being right (Reaper-like synthetics resurfacing again in the post-Destroy future)?

Seems to me that if we're worried about things that might happen way, wayyyyy into the future, then Destroy is no safer than Control.

 

It may even be less safe. At least Control immortalizes Space Jesus so he's around to help/protect the galaxy.

[Vazgen]

 
Is there a non-zero probability of the Catalyst being right (Reaper-like synthetics resurfacing again in the post-Destroy future)?

Seems to me that if we're worried about things that might happen way, wayyyyy into the future, then Destroy is no safer than Control.

 

It may even be less safe. At least Control immortalizes Space Jesus so he's around to help/protect the galaxy.

Destroy is less of a gamble. You see the Catalyst, he tells you to kill yourself to control the Reapers (what TIM wanted), turn everyone into some machine-organic hybrids (what Reapers do) or destroy the Reapers along with all synthetics. First two options require killing yourself and personally, I would've refrained from doing it based only on what the head honcho of the Reapers says. 

[dantares83]

who had play a game with only EDI, James and Liara left in the end?

 

They are the only ones who can stay alive (no matter what) near the end of ME3 right?

 

What happens if they bring them to the party?

[themikefest]

who had play a game with only EDI, James and Liara left in the end?

 

They are the only ones who can stay alive (no matter what) near the end of ME3 right?

 

What happens if they bring them to the party?

I've done it a couple of times.

 

I've killed all three  during a playthrough. Liara and James killed on the beam run(ems 1750-1900) and edi fried when I picked destroy. At the memorial scene, Steve, Samantha and Joker were the only ones present.

 

I've done a Citadel party with only them. Its very quiet and the apartment is empty

[dantares83]

I've done it a couple of times.

 

I've killed all three  during a playthrough. Liara and James killed on the beam run(ems 1750-1900) and edi fried when I picked destroy. At the memorial scene, Steve, Samantha and Joker were the only ones present.

 

I've done a Citadel party with only them. Its very quiet and the apartment is empty

 

it is so weird for James to stand behind Cortez (at the 3rd row) where there is ample space. It is like he don't want to be near Cortez.

[ZipZap2000]

@HYR cheers mate.

[ZipZap2000]

@dantares

 

James: I might try that hot tub out later. Without you Esteban!

 

James in Citadel DLC seems to be more at odds with Cortez during the campaign he says stuff like "You know you love the show Esteban".

[dantares83]

@dantares

 

James: I might try that hot tub out later. Without you Esteban!

 

James in Citadel DLC seems to be more at odds with Cortez during the campaign he says stuff like "You know you love the show Esteban".

so James is homophobic?

[DoomsdayDevice]

Is there a non-zero probability of the Catalyst being right (Reaper-like synthetics resurfacing again in the post-Destroy future)?

Seems to me that if we're worried about things that might happen way, wayyyyy into the future, then Destroy is no safer than Control.
 
It may even be less safe. At least Control immortalizes Space Jesus so he's around to help/protect the galaxy.

No, destroy is safer. Yes, synthetics will develop, surpass organics and conflict will arise. Conflict has always been and always will, even between organics. Forever peace is both a Utopia and an illusion. It's up to us to come to an understanding, to work it out ourselves, to let organics and synthetics come to terms on their own, to find a way to co-exist, without the need of a cycle of eternal extinction where countless species will systematically go extinct forever.

The big difference is that it takes the Reapers out of the equation. Even if synthetics would wipe out organics, new organics would eventually evolve. Even a worst case scenario would not be worse than the Reapers' cycles, where extinction for every species is guaranteed.

[Eterna]

Epilogue? That's a meta reason. Your Shepard doesn't know what happens in the epilogues at the moment he has to make that choice. Think about the first time you were making that choice. You didn't know what was going to happen, same goes for your Shepard, every single time.
 

 

Shepards lack of meta knowledge is irrelevant to the choices moral alignment. The player may think that choice is paragon but later information can undermine and disprove that. The Epilogue does. Any player that chooses Destroy as a paragon choice is proven wrong with meta knowledge. It wasn't the only way, there are plenty of other ways that spare your allies, your Shepards ignorance of this is irrelevant, your Shepard may believe it is the only way but your Shepard was wrong and his/her allies pay for his/hers hubris. 

 

Besides, epilogue or not, you don't know what will happen with Shepard "controlling" the Reapers. There's no guarantee that, being the ascended god-like being he now is, he won't eventually reach the same flawed conclusion as the so-called catalyst. Also, what's to stop the Reapers from re-writing the digital Shepard once he gives up his life? And like I said before, attempts to control anything in the MEU (let alone something as powerful as the Reapers) have consistently proved to turn out absolutely disastrous. And if nothing else, control allows the Reapers to exist. That alone is an unjustifiable risk.

 

I don't need to know what will happen as anything after the epilogue is up for the player to decide. Do not try to prove your point by arguing with headcannon, it is irrelevant. You cannot use headcannon or what if's to paint control and synthesis as "bad" options.

 

It would be no different than me saying the post destroy galaxy is doomed because the numerous civilizations of the galaxy are too weak to stop a Yahg uprising and everyone may die. You cannot argue with a statement like that because it is based on my own delusions and imagination and there is nothing out there to disprove such a statement besides more what ifs. 

 

Do not use what if's to defend your point, argue with what is present and displayed before us. 


 

When all sentient life in the galaxy hinges on this one decision, it's easily justifiable to say the risk is too big to not destroy them.

 

Sure, that doesn't suddenly make it a Paragon option though. In fact that mentality seems very renegade. 
 

Remember back in ME1 when Anderson explains what happened between him and Saren? You know, that mission where Saren ruthlessly killed tons of people and Anderson disapproves of it strongly? That brilliantly demonstrates how Anderson is exactly the opposite of ruthless. Remind me where he's shown to be ruthless again?

 

 You should try giving the Mass Effect novels a read. 

 

I actually think they would. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Legion implies as much. EDI even explicitly says so.

 

 

They would sacrifice themselves, If there as no other option.
 

The way I see it, synthesis will change (and thus kill) everyone (they will no longer be what they were). Aside from that, it does something that Shepard morally shouldn't be able to decide for everyone else. Control is too big of a risk. When seen this way, there's a good chance everyone will die in every scenario except destroy. When all sentient life in the galaxy hangs in the balance, and there's only one option that will actually save anyone, like a friend of mine put it: you don't have a choice to sacrifice EDI and the Geth, it is your duty to.

 

 

That's fine, but it's also very renegade.  I'm not saying Destroy is bad, I'm saying it's renegade. And the mentality of this paragraph is very renegade. 

 

This all comes back to people having a renegade phobia. "It's renegade so it must be bad!",  and thus people make gymnastic mental leaps to make it suite their fragile feel good Paragon mentality. 

 

"Destroy is Paragon because the other options were too risky!"

 

The core of being a Paragon Shepard was to take risks to save others. 

 

"I didn't have any other choice!"

 

Yes you did. You just chose to take the safest option at the expense of others, thus renegade. 

[Farangbaa]

I like this Eterna human.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I think Bioware might have done better to leave the Control epilogues a little more open-ended. Destroy (unless it's low EMS) and Synthesis are not all that specific about what comes next - with Destroy you get some general talk from Hackett about rebuilding the galaxy and remembering all the sacrifices, and with Synthesis you get EDI's expectations of some sort of techno-utopia. But these are just their own viewpoints and don't have to be taken as infallible predictions, and EDI admits that she doesn't know where the advances enabled by Synthesis might eventually lead.

 

With Control, the person giving the narration is now the most powerful individual in the galaxy. The Renegade Control narration is downright frightening, and even Paragon Control is a little creepy in places - there's a lot of "I will" and not much "we" or much direct acknowledgment of how dramatically this has changed the balance of power. And because of AI-Shepard's power and ability to control the Reapers, we *can't* just dismiss it as one person's possibly-flawed POV, because all indications are that AI-Shepard can and will pull out all the stops to carry out its plan for the galaxy.

 

Pre-EC, I was firmly pro-Control on the grounds that it avoided the worst consequences of Destroy and Synthesis - the death of all synthetics in the former and the radical rewriting of the nature of life in the latter - while leaving it almost entirely up to the player to imagine what AI-Shepard would do next. The EC arguably makes Control the hardest ending to headcanon whereas I'd argue that it was previously the easiest.

[Allison_Lightning]

I only rewrote the Geth because two extra votes counted towards rewrite- it's seriously one of the few decisions I hate and I base it off what fractionally Legion's side want more. You're told you sometimes have to make difficult choices when disregarding Saren's methods to Anderson in the first game in which is basically a key to the game- you can't save everyone and sometimes you have to make the difficult choice. 

A renegade minded player who picks synthesis is essentially using their own essence to determine life's make up and you can just imagine their power trip. I do agree with the general principle that each decision has its seeming paragon/renegade.

 

It's like destroy/conserve the collector base. Shepard, paragon writes it off as an abomination whereas the Illusive Man thinks that it would do more good to save it in the long run, regardless of the people who died. Synthesis and Control can be just as fear based, becoming a Reaper AI god if you will or turning everyone into something else based on the fear of continued organic/synthetic problems. The narration was based on informing us of the situation in a short time period and Stargazer scene was even there in refuse. 

 

You reforged life because you were scared that it was the only way they could live. They are not as they were and anyone who has watched and listened to EDI and Legion develop into individuals- it's a process, just like organics have, maybe organics don't quite understand it but they weren't less alive for lacking organic parts and vice versa. 

 

But at least if the reapers restart the cycle, you've given them the means to indoctrinate synthetics. All the Stargazer scene could mean is blissful ignorance right before they start a harvest after having gradually indoctrinated everyone and the vague details were what the reapers wanted everyone to know. Enjoy your utopia.   

[KaiserShep]

I think Bioware might have done better to leave the Control epilogues a little more open-ended. Destroy (unless it's low EMS) and Synthesis are not all that specific about what comes next - with Destroy you get some general talk from Hackett about rebuilding the galaxy and remembering all the sacrifices, and with Synthesis you get EDI's expectations of some sort of techno-utopia. But these are just their own viewpoints and don't have to be taken as infallible predictions, and EDI admits that she doesn't know where the advances enabled by Synthesis might eventually lead.

 

With Control, the person giving the narration is now the most powerful individual in the galaxy. The Renegade Control narration is downright frightening, and even Paragon Control is a little creepy in places - there's a lot of "I will" and not much "we" or much direct acknowledgment of how dramatically this has changed the balance of power. And because of AI-Shepard's power and ability to control the Reapers, we *can't* just dismiss it as one person's possibly-flawed POV, because all indications are that AI-Shepard can and will pull out all the stops to carry out its plan for the galaxy.

 

Pre-EC, I was firmly pro-Control on the grounds that it avoided the worst consequences of Destroy and Synthesis - the death of all synthetics in the former and the radical rewriting of the nature of life in the latter - while leaving it almost entirely up to the player to imagine what AI-Shepard would do next. The EC arguably makes Control the hardest ending to headcanon whereas I'd argue that it was previously the easiest.

 

Before I bothered to watch the EC Control epilogue on Youtube, I had some preconceived notions about what it would be like, and I wasn't really surprised that a lot of it met my expectations. I mean, if I really truly wanted to leave the galaxy to its own devices, I would have either changed everyone and freed the reapers, or simply killed the reapers and leave the survivors of the galaxy to figure things out. Niftu Cal would have wet his suit if he saw the level of godhood offered to Shep.