145 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure a Shepard could foresee that.  Fear it, perhaps.

Right. The tough part about the decision from Shepard's POV is that there's no sound way to establish percentages for any of the fail states. What's the chance of the Catalyst being right about everything? The chance of the Sheplyst running amok? The chance of Synthesis being awful in some way? None of these happen, but Shepard can't know they won't.

You can even make a case for Refuse being a tolerable option if the odds of a permanent fail state are high, since Refuse lets the next cycle have a crack at the problem.

[Monica21]

Right. The tough part about the decision from Shepard's POV is that there's no sound way to establish percentages for any of the fail states. What's the chance of the Catalyst being right about everything? The chance of the Sheplyst running amok? The chance of Synthesis being awful in some way? None of these happen, but Shepard can't know they won't.

You can even make a case for Refuse being a tolerable option if the odds of a permanent fail state are high, since Refuse lets the next cycle have a crack at the problem.

 

I think you can make a very good case for a high fail state with any of the three options, especially since the Catalyst can be very wrong about you dying if you choose Destroy. The Control ending has the highest probability for a rogue dictator in the form of Advanced Thought Shepard. Who wants to risk that? But you only hear that after you choose that ending. It's very creepy. Shepard's basically a god at that point. And what we think of as "life" can be very different by choosing Synthesis.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You can even make a case for Refuse being a tolerable option if the odds of a permanent fail state are high, since Refuse lets the next cycle have a crack at the problem.

I was just thinking that. Since Refuse is the only option that retains the mass effect gates, one could well think that you'd be doing the next cycle a disservice by destroying those.

[SwobyJ]

Refuse if more appealing if you have only Super Low Destroy or Low Control endings available yes. Not a lot more appealing, but more than before.

 

Super Low Destroy is the 'I'll nuke everything if it means I beat you'. Okay, cool, but not everyone has full-Javik mentality. Even other more 'Destroy-y' characters don't necessarily align with this. Its an extreme position in its own way. Yes, its your job. Yes, its your goal. But yes, it really may be too far for you and/or your Shepard. Geth gone - okay, we get that. EDI gone - okay, we get that. Earth all but gone? - Ummmm. Relays all but gone? Ummmm. Allied fleet (maybe?) at least super wrecked? Ummmm. Seriously, some would rather we all lose to the Reapers and then get 'released' from bondage to them in a future cycle victory of others, than deal with the fallout of a Post Super Low Destroy galaxy where clearly we will barely have the freedom of movement and development that even the BSG rag tag fleet had.

 

Low Control (there's no Super Low) can also be the only choice available (depends on what you did with Collector Ship --> Brain/Heart from Cronos). In this case, Control can be seen as something that goes too far. That Shepard would rather stick to his mission as close as possible (Stop the Reapers By Destroying Them; see Hackett and Anderson) rather than more broadly follow the imperative of 'Stopping' the Reapers, which ends up by Controlling them. Its just too much, and he didn't come here to 'become the enemy' in such a clear way, so he opts for the only form of resistance available: Refusing.

 

Anything beyond this scenario, except maybe the 'Both Low Control and Low Destroy available' one, just makes Shepard look defiant to the point of high foolishness. Key word is 'look', but still.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Anything beyond this scenario, except maybe the 'Both Low Control and Low Destroy available' one, just makes Shepard look defiant to the point of high foolishness. Key word is 'look', but still.

It is better to look like a fool than to actually be one.

[SwobyJ]

It is better to look like a fool than to actually be one.

 

Eh okay. Regardless, Refuse is Shepard willingly allowing everyone he knows to be killed and/or harvested, when there's paths to alternatives in front of him, alternatives that he's told, albeit by the enemy, will destroy all of the enemy or control all of the enemy (from there we get into semantics like 'Or do you THINK you can control us', etc).

 

So far, he still looks like a fool with Refuse. In the story. Would be up to next game+ to prove to us otherwise. There's traces of things that might show that he's not being a fool with Refuse, but only traces.

[Pasquale1234]

Paragon choosing Synthesis is exactly like Paragons who let Rana live (and she was indoctrinated, got batshit crazy and kill a lot of people), brainwash Geth (and strengthen the Geth fleet and end up killing a lot of Quarians) and said to Kelly to continue the way she is and get her killed and made Javik see the shard and make him suicidal. This is my first playthrough, I call her bad decisions Shepard. Good intention from the start but lack foresight.
 
That's why I go Renegon and Paragade.

Lack of foresight or lack of metagame knowledge?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eh okay. Regardless, Refuse is Shepard willingly allowing everyone he knows to be killed and/or harvested, when there's paths to alternatives in front of him, alternatives that he's told, albeit by the enemy, will destroy all of the enemy or control all of the enemy (from there we get into semantics like 'Or do you THINK you can control us', etc).

So far, he still looks like a fool with Refuse. In the story. Would be up to next game+ to prove to us otherwise. There's traces of things that might show that he's not being a fool with Refuse, but only traces.

We can't use future events to judge the wisdom of a decision. Thise details weren't available at the time, so they can't have been relevant to the making of that decision.

[Elhanan]

Personally, the conclusions were not that much of a priority with me, though I did want to see who and how Shepard was remembered. For me, it was more important on how I got to that final battle, and saying farewell to my crew. This is likely why The Citadel DLC was more beloved than From Ashes or Leviathan as a story addition to the game.

[SwobyJ]

We can't use future events to judge the wisdom of a decision. Thise details weren't available at the time, so they can't have been relevant to the making of that decision.

 

I'm not talking about the decision, but how gamers may see the making of the decision. Shepard is alone - no one to see him 'look' foolish, except the millions playing Mass Effect and possibly looking up all the endings.

[SwobyJ]

Personally, the conclusions were not that much of a priority with me, though I did want to see who and how Shepard was remembered. For me, it was more important on how I got to that final battle, and saying farewell to my crew. This is likely why The Citadel DLC was more beloved than From Ashes or Leviathan as a story addition to the game.

 

I love Citadel DLC because it is completely bizarre.

[AlanC9]

Depending on the decision rationale, a Refuse Shepard can be tragic rather than foolish, in the excess-of-virtue sense. Shepard's spent years valiantly fighting off the Reapers, with ample evidence of their deceitful nature. And now, with total victory within his grasp -- literally, right there in front of him -- he can't bring himself to seize it because he's so committed to fighting the Reapers that he can't bring himself to trust the Catalyst for even an instant.

[SwobyJ]

Depending on the decision rationale, a Refuse Shepard can be tragic rather than foolish, in the excess-of-virtue sense. Shepard's spent years valiantly fighting off the Reapers, with ample evidence of their deceitful nature. And now, with total victory within his grasp -- literally, right there in front of him -- he can't bring himself to seize it because he's so committed to fighting the Reapers that he can't bring himself to trust the Catalyst for even an instant.

 

I've thought about this.

 

No matter what:

ME1 has us accepting technology that the Reapers left for us.

ME2 has us accepting technology indirectly derived from the Reapers.

ME3 has us accepting technology directly of the Reapers. (Example: Reaper Heart/Brain in the Crucible)

 

Refuse is Shepard sticking to hard to ME1-ME2ness, generally speaking, that he can't take any word from anything directly Reaper. It is unacceptable, or untrustworthy, etc.

 

And well, in ME1-ME2 this cycle was constantly on its way to being harvested, so that's what happens in Refuse.

 

One way or another, the writers seem to want us to accept at least some level of rather direct Reaper technology. Even if its just used as our tools, while we can have all other Reapers (as entities) be destroyed, we still have to use this tech. And even as we can believe that the Catalyst has been successfully hacked into and forced to go along with our plan and choices, we're still being guided by this Catalyst into these supposed available choices. Refuse doesn't go along with the writers' normal plans.

 

In even Destroy (and definitely Control, and Synthesis in a more special way), Shepard has to deal with Reaper levels of technology.. and decisions. Cold hearted dictator.

 

 

EDIT: Yes, obviously, so everyone here knows, I do know that Destroy doesn't accept the Reapers themselves. But even a Destroy Shepard certainly accepts several things about the Reapers that even a ME2 Shepard likely would not have. Whether its usage of such high levels of technology, or moral/amoral decisions, or listening to the words of anything Reaper, etc etc.

EDIT2: I do also have to say that Control and Synthesis also don't accept everything of the Reapers in that moment. Control carries a message that the Reapers have to be stopped, at least - even if the Catalyst can tolerate this path. Synthesis carries a message that the Reapers cannot stay as they are, at least - even if the Catalyst desires this path.

 

I'm trying to describe this all as neutrally as possible, because I have a take that wonders about the ending simultaneously being a win, that makes change happen, and reflects the concepts we've seen in the endings we god, while also being a loss, since the Reapers are still being deceitful and we'll see the more true context of things from a different POV in the next game(s) . That is to say that I sometimes take Bioware's vocalized stance so far that we are to just make our decision and move on, as the Mass Effect series continues. But that's me. I'm just sayin' I'm not taking a super pro or anti literal or IT ending stance here, but just taking the ending scenes as I can.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not talking about the decision, but how gamers may see the making of the decision. Shepard is alone - no one to see him 'look' foolish, except the millions playing Mass Effect and possibly looking up all the endings.

Why would gamers judge Shepard based on information that wasn't available to Shepard?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Depending on the decision rationale, a Refuse Shepard can be tragic rather than foolish, in the excess-of-virtue sense. Shepard's spent years valiantly fighting off the Reapers, with ample evidence of their deceitful nature. And now, with total victory within his grasp -- literally, right there in front of him -- he can't bring himself to seize it because he's so committed to fighting the Reapers that he can't bring himself to trust the Catalyst for even an instant.

I can also see a Refuse ending as Shepard just playing the long game.

Since the other endings all destroy the mass relays, if Shepard thinks that civilization will suffer undue strife dealing with their lack, he can reset and hope the next cycle will find a way to defeat the Reapers without destroying the mass relays.

Imagine how Earth would fare today if we suddenly lost access to portable fuels. Long-distance travel would become largely impossible, and every ecenomic system that relies on it would collapse. That would cause severe harm to a great many people. Many parts of Earth, even in the developed world, lack the ability to produce anywhere near enough food with a decent nutritional profile. Centralizing global cotton production in just one place makes a lot of sense in a global economy, but it's a death sentence in a local economy.

If Shepard thought the long-term suffering arising from the loss of mass relays (over generations) was worse than simply everyone dying now, he could choose Refuse with noble intent (and arguably outcome).

[Paulomedi]

Sylvius, have you played the game with the original endings, or with The Extended Cut?

[Pasquale1234]

I can also see a Refuse ending as Shepard just playing the long game.

Since the other endings all destroy the mass relays, if Shepard thinks that civilization will suffer undue strife dealing with their lack, he can reset and hope the next cycle will find a way to defeat the Reapers without destroying the mass relays.

Imagine how Earth would fare today if we suddenly lost access to portable fuels. Long-distance travel would become largely impossible, and every ecenomic system that relies on it would collapse. That would cause severe harm to a great many people. Many parts of Earth, even in the developed world, lack the ability to produce anywhere near enough food with a decent nutritional profile. Centralizing global cotton production in just one place makes a lot of sense in a global economy, but it's a death sentence in a local economy.

If Shepard thought the long-term suffering arising from the loss of mass relays (over generations) was worse than simply everyone dying now, he could choose Refuse with noble intent (and arguably outcome).

 

Minor correction:  low EMS destroy is the only ending that destroys the mass relays.  High EMS destroy leaves them damaged, but reparable.

 

But there's also a possibility of Shepard agreeing with the Catalyst's problem definition and goals, and perhaps even finding the current solution acceptable.
 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sylvius, have you played the game with the original endings, or with The Extended Cut?

Original endings. I wanted to see why people were so upset.

So I didn't get Refuse as an option.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Minor correction: low EMS destroy is the only ending that destroys the mass relays. High EMS destroy leaves them damaged, but reparable.

Is there any way for Shepard to know this?

I was surprised in the Control ending I watched on YouTube to see Shepard's pet reapers reassembling a mass relay. I expected them to be destroyed, not merely damaged.

But if they're only damaged, why in that final scene do the people not have interstellar travel?

But there's also a possibility of Shepard agreeing with the Catalyst's problem definition and goals, and perhaps even finding the current solution acceptable.

Absolutely.

[Elhanan]

Original endings. I wanted to see why people were so upset.

So I didn't get Refuse as an option.

It a free option if you want it. I had no problems with the originals myself, but enjoy the details of the new ones more.

[Pasquale1234]

Is there any way for Shepard to know this?

I was surprised in the Control ending I watched on YouTube to see Shepard's pet reapers reassembling a mass relay. I expected them to be destroyed, not merely damaged.

But if they're only damaged, why in that final scene do the people not have interstellar travel?
Absolutely.

 

I can't speak for the original (non-EC) endings.

 

In the ending that includes EC, however, the Catalyst clearly states that damage will be reparable, so long as Shepard asks the question:  https://youtu.be/W8WQ8bntA8g?t=26m19s

 

And the ending Hackett narration states that the relays were "severely damaged".  Apparently, the damage rendered them non-functional, but reparable.