989 réponses à ce sujet

[Valmar]

All that sounds like valid reason to choose Control, then. Become the new machine God and order the reapers to follow your doctrine, your perspective. Then hope that in the next coming cycles you don't begin to see the same pattern all the others (even the protheans) saw and eventually come to the same conclusion of the reapers. If you do, then, well, guess you didn't know best afterall and maybe should had given a bit more credit to the beings that have existed and observed the cycle for billions of years. Their near infinite perspective might just trump that of Shepard who has an incredible whopping 2 years of perspective on the matter.

 

But the carpet is pulled out from your feet at the end. Even if the Catalyst's mission is righteous, it denies any achievements Shep has accomplished as ultimately worthless. The only solution to conflict is eradication, domination or eugenics.

 

I don't follow. The catalyst's mission diminishes Shepard's achievements? How so?

 

Also, for the record, I'm a big supporter of their being a destroy where Edi and the geth DON'T die. I never felt that should had been mandatory. Though to me the Geth died the moment Legion's imposter went and gave them all reaper upgrades willingly.  I still don't think death should had been mandatory for  them but I don't really miss them either. I never got to know them, pretty hard to feel attachment for complete strangers, as harsh at it sounds.

[essarr71]

I don't follow. The catalyst's mission diminishes Shepard's achievements? How so?

 

 

Not so much it's mission, but it's solutions. 

 

What good is bringing the galaxy together if the only way to save it is by the options it presents?  You either have to remove allies (EDI & Geth - potentially), dominate thru force (regardless of if force is the preferred primary response - or worse, indoctrination to avoid force), or a complete rewrite of life in the galaxy.  Shepard's efforts are not solutions to the problem.  They're ineffective.  Regardless of how much diplomacy or problem solving the galaxy can muster - it tells you it's not going to work.

 

As I've said in previous posts here: I don't think I'd mind that sort of scenario if the narrative up to that point didn't paint a completely different picture.  We needed more internal conflict.  More situations that didn't have a rosy outcome.  And sure - some Shepards can have a horrible wreck in their wake, but if the possibility exists isn't that enough to call bullshit? 

 

Is control or synthesis really clean of all possibilities for failure?  Is destroying the Reapers really a signed death warrant, when all we have to point to the problem are the Morning War and a frustrated ATM machine?  Mass Effect paints the picture that regardless of race or parts, it's just people with people problems that can be fixed with talking more than anything else.

 

Convince me that the system is broken before you try to tell me it needs to be burnt down.

[Iakus]

Not so much it's mission, but it's solutions. 

 

What good is bringing the galaxy together if the only way to save it is by the options it presents?  You either have to remove allies (EDI & Geth - potentially), dominate thru force (regardless of if force is the preferred primary response - or worse, indoctrination to avoid force), or a complete rewrite of life in the galaxy.  Shepard's efforts are not solutions to the problem.  They're ineffective.  Regardless of how much diplomacy or problem solving the galaxy can muster - it tells you it's not going to work.

 

 

Thisthisthisthisthis!

[KaiserShep]

 What good is bringing the galaxy together if the only way to save it is by the options it presents?  You either have to remove allies (EDI & Geth - potentially), dominate thru force (regardless of if force is the preferred primary response - or worse, indoctrination to avoid force), or a complete rewrite of life in the galaxy.  Shepard's efforts are not solutions to the problem.  They're ineffective.  Regardless of how much diplomacy or problem solving the galaxy can muster - it tells you it's not going to work.

 

As I've said in previous posts here: I don't think I'd mind that sort of scenario if the narrative up to that point didn't paint a completely different picture.  We needed more internal conflict.  More situations that didn't have a rosy outcome.  And sure - some Shepards can have a horrible wreck in their wake, but if the possibility exists isn't that enough to call bullshit?

 

It feels like any alliance with any machines of any sort would be better off being rubbed out of the final draft for this sort of thing to work. No friendly geth, no amicable AI running your spaceship. It's all just deathbots fighting against their organic oppressors until the reapers come knocking. It lacks the intrigue that we get from Legion's insights in ME2 and getting to know EDI, but then, so does the Catalyst encounter.

[Valmar]

Not so much it's mission, but it's solutions. 

 

What good is bringing the galaxy together if the only way to save it is by the options it presents?  You either have to remove allies (EDI & Geth - potentially), dominate thru force (regardless of if force is the preferred primary response - or worse, indoctrination to avoid force), or a complete rewrite of life in the galaxy.  Shepard's efforts are not solutions to the problem.  They're ineffective.  Regardless of how much diplomacy or problem solving the galaxy can muster - it tells you it's not going to work.

 

We're given no real indication that control actually gives you control of the geth or Edi, if that is what you're implying. It controls the reapers. We even see Edi standing by the wall during the memorial, I believe. Surely you don't have moral issues with dominating the reapers? They're the reapers. They certainly wouldn't show you such sympathy. This coming from someone who disagrees with controlling the heretics. Lol.

 

No comment on synthesis. Nothing can defend it, ridiculous space magic nonsense.

 

I don't see how Shepard doesn't solve the problem. For the first time in billions of years the galaxy is free of the reaper's and their relentless harvest. No matter what ending you choose the reaper threat is demolished - though some less definite than others. Is defeating the reapers not worth the petty sacrifices you have to make? I would wipe out all of earth it meant the reaper's would be destroyed. The geth are a immensely minor sacrifice to pay. So trivial that one wonders why they felt the need to really force it in there. Part of what makes it feel like unnecessary drama, really.

 

I completely understand the notion that the sacrifice of Edi and the Geth should not be mandatory but am at a lost as to why someone would view this sacrifice as 'too much'. Perhaps you're not putting enough emphasis on how dangerous and serious the reaper threat is to everything in existence. Your cycle, the next cycle, the cycle after that and after that. Trillions of lives are on the line and many more than that have already been lost to the harvest. So much loss and you feel that offing the Geth is too heavy a price to pay to end it?

 

I get not being happy with the ending. Believe me, I hate the ending. Though, imo, none of the choices felt worse than letting the cycle continue unhindered. Even the refusal ending still has the reapers being defeated, albeit by another cycle.

 

 

Is control or synthesis really clean of all possibilities for failure?  Is destroying the Reapers really a signed death warrant, when all we have to point to the problem are the Morning War and a frustrated ATM machine?  Mass Effect paints the picture that regardless of race or parts, it's just people with people problems that can be fixed with talking more than anything else.

 

Convince me that the system is broken before you try to tell me it needs to be burnt down.

 

Synthesis is the only one that paints the picture of being the 'best' outcome. It doesn't imply that control will remedy the cycle of conflict. Though since Shepard know's so much better than the billion year old intelligence then I'm sure his solution will work far better.

 

The starbrat and Leviathan both basically tell you the peace won't last, vague as they are about it. It isn't JUST the morning war and some ATM machine. The conflict is there throughout the trilogy and even more so foreshadowed in the third game and its DLCs. The solution the starbrat came up with was the reapers. Do you really want to sit down and have a history lesson dating through billions of years? Or just accept that this is what it came up with, rather you like it or not. If you're so against its logic and want to understand why this and that is such and such then just take control. You'll have all its knowledge at your fingertips and all of eternity to think about it. If you don't like any of its bullshit and just want to destroy the reapers like you've been planning to do all along then just select destroy.

 

Also, just to reiterate more details about the star brats conclusion of this cycle, like I've mentioned before I believe, it isn't ONLY the star brat that saw the cycle. The starbrat, the leviathans and even the protheans (the VI mentions the cycle) all point to it. You don't have to like the cycle to accept that in the Mass Effect universe the cycle exists. We see examples of it in our own cycle throughout the trilogy and we see mentions of it in past cycles through the narrative and lore.

 

If you're upset your decision doesn't solve the synthetic conflict for all eternity, well... not even the reaper's could completely stop the conflict as traces of it still rose up from time to time, they only came in to prevent it from escalating too far. Javik's cycle, for example, got into a war with machines very early. Expecting an ending where total and absolute peace and happiness is ensured for all eternity is a bit much, don't you think? Though it seemingly is there in the game with synthesis, I guess. Though that peace can't really last forever - not unless the crucible is constantly firing that beam to ensure no new life is ever created without the green magic upgrades.

[sveners]

How can anyone conclude that synthetics will destroy ALL organics? If it has happened before, then no organic would be alive to tell about it. How can the Catalyst/Leviathans know that it is inevitable (without the Reapers to stop it)?

If that is the case though, wouldn't Shepard destroying the Reapers spell future doom for organics?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I agree that would had been my preference. Though I do like that control is an option. If the ending was ONLY destroy with no variation I think it'd still get backlash, although for completely different reasons. Having some choice is good... long as they deliver it in a reasonable way. Which they didn't... I mean come on, synthesis, really? REALLY?

 

I'd be happy, though, since all I wanted was a destroy ending (MEHEM provides satisfaction here) but I can understand why some will be upset at the wasted potential of control and lack of variation. Before EC the endings were the exact same thing with different colors. BUT! The implications of the choice was very different, even if what it showed you was always the same. Synthesis, control and destroy are each very different choices. If the only ending was to destroy the reapers after all that build up in the game about controlling them being an option... I can see people being upset about that. Synthesis is the only option that comes completely out of the blue, really. Or, well, green, in this case.

 

 

 

I don't think there would have been backlash if the Control had been written as something The Illusive Man was working on in Sanctuary and was just an experiment. It was that "fractured battle order" that Javik spoke of. It was clear that The Illusive Man was indoctrinated by that point. Controlling a few husks and a couple of people due to some implants is a lot different than controlling reapers even with the Crucible. "We know this will destroy the reapers, and you want to try to use it for control. You don't really know if that will work. If you fail, then what? We don't get a second chance."

 

You know counter the argument. Then have TIM falter. Then "You don't really know, do you?" followed by the conversation leading up to his suicide or attack. Not enough was done to counter that because they wanted to give the choices.

 

Then we could have done away with all the organics vs. synthetics bullsh*t reason for the reapers, and just have been done with it.

 

Starbrat shouldn't exist in the story because it doesn't fit. It's a narrative break.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

How can anyone conclude that synthetics will destroy ALL organics? If it has happened before, then no organic would be alive to tell about it. How can the Catalyst/Leviathans know that it is inevitable (without the Reapers to stop it)?

If that is the case though, wouldn't Shepard destroying the Reapers spell future doom for organics?

 

That's why you're supposed to choose synthesis.

[Ieldra]

Indeed.

 

Then throw in players wanting the option to have Shepard live in the galaxy he created, you just add insult to injury.

From a storytelling viewpoint, I can see why they thought no such option was required. They didn't consider the roleplaying aspect though. Reading about a hero who sacrifices themselves, or watching one on your TV screen, is rather different from playing one and being forced into the same scenario. I maintain it's still not necessary to provide such an option, but a forced sacrifice scenario needs to be handled with extreme care - which they spectacularly failed to do.

[jtav]

From a storytelling viewpoint, I can see why they thought no such option was required. They didn't consider the roleplaying aspect though. Reading about a hero who sacrifices themselves, or watching one on your TV screen, is rather different from playing one and being forced into the same scenario. I maintain it's still not necessary to provide such an option, but a forced sacrifice scenario needs to be handled with extreme care - which they spectacularly failed to do.

Yep. It didn't feel like I was dying to stop the Reapers, but to solve the singularity problem. I think Shepard sacrificing themselves so that the Reapers die with no other drawbacks is a perfectly fine ending.

[Iakus]

Yep. It didn't feel like I was dying to stop the Reapers, but to solve the singularity problem. I think Shepard sacrificing themselves so that the Reapers die with no other drawbacks is a perfectly fine ending.

I should say:

 

With no other drawbacks than what was already experienced.  As in, the death of Anderson, Legion, Thane, Mordin, a couple billion others, and so on.

 

It's impossible to get through the game without losses after all.

[Barquiel]

I always side with the geth on Rannoch so I guess my Shep isn't in any position to argue with the Catalyst...but in my opinion all the reasoning and explanation for why the Reapers did what they did would have been summed up perfectly in the ending of ME 2: Reproduction. Before ME3 came out and this whole debacle came to light I always thought our entire galaxy is nothing but cattle to the Reapers. The Reapers harvest, because that's just the way they reproduce. Simple as that. I didn't really need any other motivation.

[Obadiah]

Yep. It didn't feel like I was dying to stop the Reapers, but to solve the singularity problem. I think Shepard sacrificing themselves so that the Reapers die with no other drawbacks is a perfectly fine ending.

The way I look at it, Shepard died to overcome something that was, as TIM said, bigger than all of us.

[von uber]

The way I look at it, Shepard died to overcome something that was, as TIM said, bigger than all of us.

What about the one where she doesn't die?

[Obadiah]

What about the one where she doesn't die?

Nitpickers

The way I look at it, Shepard died was willing to die to overcome something that was, as TIM said, bigger than all of us.

[themikefest]

I know I posted this a number of times

 

My femshep survived and is currently in Vancouver have drinks with Samantha

[Arcian]

What about the one where she doesn't die?

You mean the one where she dies off-screen from extreme physical trauma and blood loss after the credits start rolling?

[Iakus]

The way I look at it, Shepard died to overcome something that was, as TIM said, bigger than all of us.

The Shepard died for our sins

[themikefest]

I might be in a small minority here or a very small minority, but before ME3 was released, I didn't believe Shepard would die since she already died at the beginning of ME2.

 

Anyways.

 

I finished my first playthrough on March 7th 2012 and my first thought was what the heck is going on. I threw my arms up in the air wondering where the closure was. I only got the control and destroy ending. I, like always, chose destroy. Joker and Samantha come out of the Normandy, don't know who the third one was. I was sad that femshep died. Of course watching her walk towards the tube shooting at it didn't help. 

 

Ten minutes later, I started a new game plus, and because I did a few things different, on March 10th, I got the synthesis ending as well as the other two. Again my femshep walks towards the tube shooting the thing

 

A short time later, I started a new game plus plus. About 3/4 the way through I stopped to play multiplayer to acquire 2 trophies. I did that and got the breath scene. Ok.  

 

I went on youtube and this forum and learned the only way to get the breath scene was through multiplayer. That sucks. Fortunately I already did that and never had to play it again.

 

Along comes the extended cut. It fixed the flashbacks and lowered the requirement for the best ending from 4000/5000 to 3100. Cool. The breath scene remained.

 

With the guy saying one more story, my first thought was that Shepard would be in another game. That was very short lived when the screen comes up saying dlc. Ok.

 

After Citadel came out, that line still remains. My thoughts about that is that line and the breath scene stayed the same so, if, and a very big if at that, there would be a possibility for Shepard to return, Bioware/EA could bring femshep back.

 

With the stargazer telling the kid the story that the details have changed over time, the only one who could tell the original story is Shepard since she is the only one that knew what happened on the Citadel. She lives in high ems destroy so she is able to tell the story and the other endings were added to make the story more interesting.

[JasonShepard]

Every game in this series has, at it's core, revolved around the idea of cooperation to achieve the unlikely or impossible. From an Alliance vessel filled with aliens chasing down Saren, to a Cerberus ship crowded with such a variety of races to go where none have returned, and finally a galaxy-wide tour, intent on collecting the support of all races and philosophies to stop an unstopable foe. This entire series is built on the ideal that differences can be overcome and the galaxy is stronger for that variety.

But the carpet is pulled out from your feet at the end. Even if the Catalyst's mission is righteous, it denies any achievements Shep has accomplished as ultimately worthless. The only solution to conflict is eradication, domination or eugenics.

 

You do make an excellent point. A consistent theme of the series has been victory through co-operation. The Suicide Mission. The plethora of aliens on the Normandy. The ability to bring an end to not one, but two sets of racial grudges (Krogan vs Turians and Geth vs Quarians), both held for centuries, and instead get them to work together for the greater good. Heck, the basic idea of the Council itself (ineffectual as they are, they still represent the ideal), and the ENTIRE plot of ME3.

 

Then the Catalyst comes along and says "Nope, this specific brand of co-operation is impossible, and I'm killing you all for it."

 

In a perfect version of ME3, the Catalyst would be represented as the ultimate challenge to the ideal. It would be the final opponent because it views the co-operation as impossible. And we'd beat it via co-operation, proving it wrong in the process. Or, alternatively, if the synthetic-organic co-operation was meant to be impossible, there'd better be some powerful evidence of that before the end. And then we can have an ending about finding an answer.

 

Instead, the Catalyst isn't framed as an opponent (despite being the Reaper leader) and we're expected to co-operate with it to help solve its problem of impossible co-operation. Oh, and the weapon that we use to win, the Crucible that was built and deployed via co-operation? We still need the Catalyst's permission to use it...

 

...Ugh.

 

(I might be a Control-headcanon-victory proponent, who can fanon my way around most plot-holes, but don't mistake me for someone who doesn't recognise ME3's problems.)

 

What good is bringing the galaxy together if the only way to save it is by the options it presents?

 

I cut the knot. I pick Control, consider myself to have proven the Catalyst wrong via Rannoch, remove the Reapers from the galaxy and leave the galaxy to heal. That's my path to victory. Though, yeah, it requires me, as the player, to just decide that Control doesn't go horribly wrong...

 

*****

 

You know, I realised recently that Rannoch is thematically inconsistent with the Catalyst regardless of which resolution you get.

 

Wipe out the Geth? You've proven synthetics can be beaten.

Wipe out the Quarians? Great, now you're working with the Geth, co-operation is possible.

Geth-Quarian peace? Co-operation is definitely possible.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

@ jtav: I agree. It was totally out of place.

 

It wasn't necessary for Shepard to survive. Let me explain my thoughts and feelings when I made the beam run. I knew Shepard was going to die. I was prepared. After the confrontation with The Illusive Man. After Anderson died, when Shepard collapsed, I thought it was the end. I was crying my eyes out.

 

They should have had Shepard make one last contact with that panel to fire the Crucible, destroy the reapers as she was going down for the count, and ended it right there. I had accepted Shepard's death. Walters' "movie" could have ended right there. It would have been epic. I would have applauded and given the game a 10/10. - even though they had said 16 wildly different endings!

 

Nothing else was necessary. I wouldn't have cared.

 

If they wanted to have Shepard's survival after the Crucible firing based upon EMS, it would have been a complete bonus surprise.

 

But then they went and ruined the whole thing, the entire atmosphere by tacking on 10 more minutes with an information dump and three choices from hell that we didn't need.

[Iakus]

You do make an excellent point. A consistent theme of the series has been victory through co-operation. The Suicide Mission. The plethora of aliens on the Normandy. The ability to bring an end to not one, but two sets of racial grudges (Krogan vs Turians and Geth vs Quarians), both held for centuries, and instead get them to work together for the greater good. Heck, the basic idea of the Council itself (ineffectual as they are, they still represent the ideal), and the ENTIRE plot of ME3.

 

Then the Catalyst comes along and says "Nope, this specific brand of co-operation is impossible, and I'm killing you all for it."

 

 

Thus the phrase "No matter how much of a difference you make, it doesn't make any difference."

[Han Shot First]

@ jtav: I agree. It was totally out of place.

 

It wasn't necessary for Shepard to survive. Let me explain my thoughts and feelings when I made the beam run. I knew Shepard was going to die. I was prepared. After the confrontation with The Illusive Man. After Anderson died, when Shepard collapsed, I thought it was the end. I was crying my eyes out.

 

They should have had Shepard make one last contact with that panel to fire the Crucible, destroy the reapers as she was going down for the count, and ended it right there. I had accepted Shepard's death. Walters' "movie" could have ended right there. It would have been epic. I would have applauded and given the game a 10/10. - even though they had said 16 wildly different endings!

 

Nothing else was necessary. I wouldn't have cared.

 

If they wanted to have Shepard's survival after the Crucible firing based upon EMS, it would have been a complete bonus surprise.

 

But then they went and ruined the whole thing, the entire atmosphere by tacking on 10 more minutes with an information dump and three choices from hell that we didn't need.

 

I'd have had the same reaction as you. I'm sure having Shepard die while killing the Reapers at that panel would have sparked some criticism about the lack of choices or the canon death, but I don't think it would be anywhere close to the fan reaction to the endings in March of 2012. The Catalyst and the scorched Earth galaxy were responsible for most of the ending backlash.

[themikefest]

I would not like the game to end with that scene. 

[Iakus]

I would not like the game to end with that scene. 

 

 

If they wanted to have Shepard's survival after the Crucible firing based upon EMS, it would have been a complete bonus surprise.

 

Would have been worth it.