439 réponses à ce sujet

[Valmar]

I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by that. Are you saying Destroy is for Renegade players? Because if you are, you're totally wrong. None of the endings are associated with Paragon or Renegade. It's not because Destroy is red that it's automatically Renegade, same goes for Control where it's blue but not Paragon. Control is the only ending affected by your morality (the dialogues change).

 

I think what he means is that it just makes it more appealing for paragon players, not that only renegades like it. Total renegades generally don't give a **** who dies so they're likely not at all bothered by the loss of EDI or the Geth. A paragon player is generally nicer and thus would be more likely to appreciate them NOT dying from destroy.

 

Let me put it this way... you don't often hear total-renegades complaining or being upset that EDI and the Geth die in the destroy ending. On the other hand you often hear people complaining that they don't like destroy because they find it morally horrible to kill EDI and the Geth, which is very much more associated with a paragon perspective then it is a renegade.

[Kurt M.]

I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by that. Are you saying Destroy is for Renegade players? Because if you are, you're totally wrong. None of the endings are associated with Paragon or Renegade. It's not because Destroy is red that it's automatically Renegade, same goes for Control where it's blue but not Paragon. Control is the only ending affected by your morality (the dialogues change).

 

Yeah, because killing EDI (and possibly also the Geth) doesn't match at all the definition of "victory at all costs" that being a Renegade symbolizes....

[Massa FX]

I think Destroy-enders choose it regardless of Renegade or Paragon alignment.  I choose Destroy no matter what. Although... after 2 yearas... I might choose control. Not sure if I can stomach watching Shepard being flayed alive. Somehow watching her run into an explosion is ... easier?

 

 

At this point (not sure how many playthroughs), my ending choice has nothing to do with choices, or decisions, or alignment. It's which ending can I (the player) stomach the best. 

[GalacticWolf5]

Yeah, because killing EDI (and possibly also the Geth) doesn't match at all the definition of "victory at all costs" that being a Renegade symbolizes....

I get what you mean, but the endings are simply not associated with paragon or renegade. Proof of that is that Control can be paragon or renegade depending of Shepard's dominant morality. So why would one ending be identified as renegade and none as paragon?

[Kurt M.]

I get what you mean, but the endings are simply not associated with paragon or renegade. Proof of that is that Control can be paragon or renegade depending of Shepard's dominant morality. So why would one ending be identified as renegade and none as paragon?

 

You can also choose lots of Renegade red options while being Paragon, and vice-versa. The morality system in ME3 is odd.

 

And anyway, I prefer to think that the devs simply didn't put any morality check in that particular part rather than anything else. Occam's razor can be applied here quite well.

[GalacticWolf5]

You can also choose lots of Renegade red options while being Paragon, and vice-versa. The morality system in ME3 is odd.

 

That's not odd, people react differently to different situations.

[Kurt M.]

That's not odd, people react differently to different situations.

 

Yeeah, right. Anyway....Occam's razor

[GalacticWolf5]

I have no idea what ''Occam's razor'' is. Care to explain?

[Kurt M.]

I have no idea what ''Occam's razor'' is. Care to explain?

 

In layman's terms: "The simplest answer to a question is usually the right one".

[GalacticWolf5]

In layman's terms: "The simplest answer to a question is usually the right one".

 

So basically, it's used by people who can't find any arguments to their opinion.

[Vazgen]

I have no idea what ''Occam's razor'' is. Care to explain?

It states that when forming a hypothesis, the one with the fewest assumptions is preferable. More complicated ideas may ultimately be proved correct, but if you're not certain it's best to make as few assumptions as possible.

[GalacticWolf5]

It states that when forming a hypothesis, the one with the fewest assumptions is preferable. More complicated ideas may ultimately be proved correct, but if you're not certain it's best to make as few assumptions as possible.

 

Well that was explained better. Thank you.

[Kurt M.]

So basically, it's used by people who can't find any arguments to their opinion.

 

So, basically you need to say that for...what? Feeling superior or something?

 

It states that when forming a hypothesis, the one with the fewest assumptions is preferable. More complicated ideas may ultimately be proved correct, but if you're not certain it's best to make as few assumptions as possible.

 

*Wikipedia copypaste*

[GalacticWolf5]

So, basically you need to say that for...what? Feeling superior or something?

 

No not all. I was just saying that because it's what it seemed like.

[Vazgen]

*Wikipedia copypaste*

With minor edits, yes Though I knew the notion, looked it up after finding Occam's Razor in Fallout 3

[Kurt M.]

With minor edits, yes Though I knew the notion, looked it up after finding Occam's Razor in Fallout 3

 

Heh, Bought Fallout 3 GOTY edition on a whim. Played it for like 10 minutes, quit the game and never returned again...

 

I'm more of an Elder Scrolls guy

[Alamar2078]

I'm more of the opinion that a full re-write [no matter what endings are available] of the series would be the best way to go.  It occurs to me that you could at least put a nicer spin on things if:

 

-- You re-write the "catalyst" elements so it has the ability to re-write / replace the old Reaper controlling intelligence.  If not a 100% replacement then a merger may also work.  This is basically its primary function.

 

-- Starbrat is NOT the Reaper guiding intelligence but it a manifestation of the catalyst once combined with the Citadel.  This may give you a reason to trust what you're being told.

 

-- The option to "Destroy" is given it's own "console" instead of "shoot the tube".  The Starbrat could explain that all Reaper tech has it's own self destruct and/or shut down codes as a failsafe.  Destroy isn't space-magic but just a pulse that tells the Reapers to destroy themselves / permanently shut down.  Depending on your EMS the catalyst may not have access to the "keys" for a proper shutdown so a destructive destroy command is all it has access to.  The Ezo exposure on planets with active Reapers could present an ecological disaster.

 

-- The option to "Control" could be added and explained.  The new Starbrat could tell Shepard that the process used to overwrite / merge with the original Reaper controlling intelligence could be done again.  Shepard's consciousness could be used as a template to create a new controlling intelligence.  As in the standard Control endings the Reapers could be used to help rebuild galactic society.  The plusses & minuses to this solution would depend on the type of Shep you have.  The "boyscout" Shep leads a new age of peace & prosperity.  A "tyrant" leads the galaxy into a cultural dark age.

 

-- While I have fundamental issues with "Synthesis" the new Starbrat could explain that the Reapers have been working on this type of TRUE solution since they were created however they never could put all of the pieces into place.  Perhaps with the accumulated knowledge of so many cycles the catalyst effectively added the missing pieces of the equation.  Perhaps the Reapers found the solution already BUT their original programming simply didn't allow them the option to execute it.  The option could be implemented as "green space magic" or perhaps instead of turning sentients they capture into "Reaper goo" perhaps they force a change on them to create a synthesized being.  So instead of a "harvest cycle" now you may be stuck with a "synthesis cycle".

 

-- The "Refusal" option could be implemented in some manner.  The new controlling intelligence for the Reapers could take the Reapers into dark space while the new controlling intelligence comes up with a new "solution".  This may not be an ending so much as a delay / stalling tactic.  The immediate results are as good as could be anticipated however the galaxy never knows if and/or when the Reapers may return to restart the cycle OR do something even worse.

 

 

As for Shepard he doesn't necessarily have to die.  If Shep "must" die then perhaps the destroy option blows up the Citadel where Shep is at.  Control may require that Shep's actual consciousness is used.  A "refusal" ending may result in the new intelligence taking Shep with him to dark space without giving him a choice.  Perhaps synthesis requires Shep donate his body to science because humans are so flexible AND that Shep is the best example of a synthesized Reaper tech + human around.

 

Overall it doesn't help the problems with the endings much but I still think the above is an improvement on what we got and to me seems more in keeping with lore & similar.

[CNS_Sarajevo]

I would've ended it the way the game was advertised: take back Earth.

 

The team from Mass Effect 2 is never split apart. The Priority: Earth mission lasts longer. Throughout the mission, Harbinger assumes direct control here and there to make Shepard's life all the more challenging. 

 

On Earth, you play through several missions similar to Mass Effect 2 where you assign your war assets to different missions, then play through the results. For example, you could put Zaeed in charge of the Blue Suns to spearhead an attack, while Garrus leads a group of turian commandos, and so on. These dramatically change how the battles look and play out. You get to control a Mako or a Hammerhead during one or more battles, too. The battles are bloody but Reaper forces are pushed back to London. 

 

Meanwhile, friendly forces on the Citadel -- possibly led by Shepard's love interest and other team members ;-) -- have been desperately holding off Reaper troops. The Reapers want to put their Catalyst -- the Illusive Man -- into the control room so that he'll use the Crucible to send a massive EMP pulse across the galaxy. This will leave organics helpless without their technology and will disable or disorient geth so they can be reprogrammed. If our Catalyst -- Shepard -- gets there first, he or she can use the Crucible to control or destroy the Reapers. 

 

Forget about the beam run. Friendly forces on the Citadel manage to open the Citadel's arms just enough for the Normandy to fly in and drop off our heroes. Similar to Mass Effect 2, you have to choose different team members to lead different parts of the final mission. 

 

The battle with the Illusive Man is suitably apocalyptic . Meanwhile, outside, Harbinger is fighting his way through the fleet trying to get to the Citadel. When Shepard kills the Illusive Man, Harbinger loses control of the Illusive Man. As he dies, he says, "Thank you, Shepard," screams, and sends out a blast of power that disorients Harbinger and allows the fleet to destroy it. 

 

Shepard faces the control panel. Using "Prothean-vision", Shepard realizes that the Crucible is a junction box of the power of the mass relays. Shepard can use it however he or she chooses. Shepard's love interest raises the question of whether destroying the Reapers means that cycles of destruction and extinction will begin again. Shepard's response options are basically:

 

Paragon: "We have to have faith. If we work together, and we deserve to, we'll survive."

Renegade: "Never. We'll shape the future."

 

I'm too lazy to work out the three options on the right side of the conversation wheel .

 

Shepard is hit with a blast of energy and lifted into the air. The Crucible fires. Geth are not destroyed by the Crucible effect. When it's over, Shepard drops to the ground. Renegade Shepard controls the Reapers and is immortal. Paragon Shepard experiences visions during the Crucible effect. While not immortal, Shepard has gained some of the aeons of knowledge of the Reapers, which will help the races to rebuild. 

 

The last mission, Priority: Citadel, unlocks. This plays out the beginning of everyone's life after the game, and is mostly a love note to the Normandy team. 

[Gambit458]

I don't know how I'd end it, but I would've rather it ended the way Dragon Age Origins did. In Dragon Age you could defeat the enemy and live to see another day(the dark ritual one), sacrifice yourself to stop the enemy, or sacrifice another to stop the enemy. Three somewhat different endings compared to how ME 3's went. Your hero could live, die, or something else happens. By live I mean actually live, not see him, or her, breath and then Bioware telling us that they survived and will be united with their LI again someday if you had one.  I would've scrapped the whole decision bit at the end and had the Crucible work with no problem. Those endings felt like plothole city and make it hard to imagine what they could do with a 4th game

[Iakus]

I don't know how I'd end it, but I would've rather it ended the way Dragon Age Origins did. In Dragon Age you could defeat the enemy and live to see another day(the dark ritual one), sacrifice yourself to stop the enemy, or sacrifice another to stop the enemy. Three somewhat different endings compared to how ME 3's went. Your hero could live, die, or something else happens. By live I mean actually live, not see him, or her, breath and then Bioware telling us that they survived and will be united with their LI again someday if you had one.  I would've scrapped the whole decision bit at the end and had the Crucible work with no problem. Those endings felt like plothole city and make it hard to imagine what they could do with a 4th game

Four, actually, given there are two different people you can sacrifice (they even count as separate achievements). 

[Gambit458]

Four, actually, given there are two different people you can sacrifice (they even count as separate achievements). 

Well, I guess I kind of considered it in the same boat. It was sacrificing someone, it was just either your buddy or the guy you thought betrayed your king lol

[Iakus]

Well, I guess I kind of considered it in the same boat. It was sacrificing someone, it was just either your buddy or the guy you thought betrayed your king lol

Well, thematically they're a bit different.  One was an act of idealism.  The other an act of redemption.

[Kenshen]

I think what he means is that it just makes it more appealing for paragon players, not that only renegades like it. Total renegades generally don't give a **** who dies so they're likely not at all bothered by the loss of EDI or the Geth. A paragon player is generally nicer and thus would be more likely to appreciate them NOT dying from destroy.

 

Let me put it this way... you don't often hear total-renegades complaining or being upset that EDI and the Geth die in the destroy ending. On the other hand you often hear people complaining that they don't like destroy because they find it morally horrible to kill EDI and the Geth, which is very much more associated with a paragon perspective then it is a renegade.

 

To me that is the flaw with the renegade and paragon system.  Maybe it was to easy to save both sides if you wanted to or that there was no real advantage or disadvantage to picking one or the other.  Or what I really want is a deeper, more layered choice than what we were given.  Not once that I can remember was my angel of paragon ever punished for those blue choices.  Odds are that some of them would come back to bite us but never did.  Same with renegade.  Part of that is the limitations of the game itself.  Would you rather have a lot of choices that all fairly simple and make no difference which side you fall on or only a hand full of choices that are complex and force you to really think?  I know what I want but I have no idea the amount of work and resources it would take to deliver that product.

 

Oh and this paragon player has no issues killing off the geth, edi, krogan, or whoever needs to die in order for everyone else to live.  It is called sacrifice for the greater good and while I am willing to kill anyone off it doesn't mean I don't care for them and that I won't look for other ways to achieve victory.  As Hackett says win at all cost or something like that but that does kinda ruin the "happy" ending so many cry for.

[shodiswe]

I tend to play Paragon in Mass Effect. Mostly because the Renegade options in Mass Effect seem pointless. It's usually pointless bullying for no gain or real satisfaction. One of the few Renegade picks that feelt good was punching Admiral Gerrel.

In SWtor I actually enjoyed the Inquisitor story arc and mostly played it dark or neutral throughout the playthrough with perhaps some very rare exceptions. There you could make dark decisions but it actually meant something and it was for a reason.
In Mass Effect it's mostly, LOL I punt you because I can, I'm an ass because I can.

In the Inquisitor storyline it was a job and served a purpose, in mass effect it was more like playing a bully in kindergarten. Which totally doesn't work for me, I got no respect for mindless bully's, a determined person with a purpose is something else however.

As for endings, Control seems to be a good way of cleaning up the mess and save as many lives as possible. There you can repair the damages, make sure people are feed, given medical care and society is returned to normal to find it's own future.
Least if you played Paragon.

After that Synthesis doesn't seem so bad, but it will likely happen by it's own given time. It's better if it happens because people make it happen and choose it. Which is why I picked Control.

Destroy would be my third choice, it's dark, but at least the reaper threat and the Catalyst is gone. The Catalyst is centered on the Citadel and it's destroyed or wiped out in all three endings. In control you wipe out and replace the Catalyst and take control over the Reapers. The Reapers are tools, with a dark history and tragic origins.
In Synthesis the Citadel is destroyed and the Catalyst with it, leaving the Reapers free.

Shepards job as a Spectre and Alliance officer is to save lives and maintain the Status Quo and the interests of the Council/Alliance.

How I would have ended it.... It might seem too straightforward, but just having the nanites that created all reapers loose their functionality and have them fall apart would have worked just fine with me. Kind of boring and generic to every movies ever made.

But tbh, I wish several of our companions or factions we recruited could have come up with their own suggestions on how to use the Crusibles capabilities. Rather than getting it from the Catalyst.

Volus Admiral: I think we can reprogram the nanites to deconstruc all reapers and assemble all materials harvested in easy to recycle piles of valuable materials! We will be rich!

Geth: We can take over their forms and use them as new proxies to replace what the Quarians destroyed and give us new homes.

Admiral Garrel: Xen has a virus that can reprogram the Reapers to destroy all Geth and then deactivate. Finally our task of deactivating every Geth will be completed.

Garrus: Let's program the Reapers into fighting it off in hand to hand combat between themselves to determine which one of them will be the last to die.

Batarian's: We lost most of our slaves to this conflict, we wouldn't mind some replacements.

Asari: All of those species inside those things.... Just think of the possibilities! We will embrace eternity for an eternity and it will add to the Asari diversity a million fold!

Salarians: We would like them to deactivate safely on our homeworld for an in depth study of their technology, carefully hidden and sealed off from outside interference by the STG and Salarian Fleets.

Shepard: I think it's actually a good thing I get to pick...