Questa discussione ha avuto 2368 risposte

[fraggle]

One of the major flaws with the writing of Mass Effect 3's endings was that from an in universe perspective, Shepard should be reluctant to trust anything the Catalyst says.

 

I don't fully trust it, but trust that it presented the choices to its best knowledge. It never did strike me as a liar in my first playthrough, I've only read on here then how many people have a problem with the Catalyst. I somehow never had. And to me, it is still no villain. It was tasked to do something and it did.

I don't support how it solved the problem up to this point, but did still somewhat understand its reasoning. I know though that this is not the common opinion on this

 

And sure, it's a leap of faith and we're forced to go along with it anyway, but the Crucible docked, it brought the choices, and there's no turning back now.

But then Hackett was sure the Crucible could be used to destroy the Reapers, and Vendetta told us about how some of their scientists believed it could be used to control the Reapers. These concepts are not new then, or even surprises when you arrive at the decision chamber and the Catalyst tells you about them, the only new one is Synthesis. And for this... well, either you like the concept of it, or not.

[fhs33721]

One of the major flaws with the writing of Mass Effect 3's endings was that from an in universe perspective, Shepard should be reluctant to trust anything the Catalyst says. It is the A.I. that created the Reapers, whom it is also joined with in a sort of gestalt intelligence, and is responsible for both countless acts of xenocide and the attempted annihilation of Shepard's own civilization. The decision to have the choices that resolve the Reaper War be presented by the archvillain was not one that was well thought out. It puts Shepard into a scenario where he or she must place some trust in a mass murdering machine that realistically, would not be trusted. That is as much a flaw with Destroy as it is the other two choices.

Honestly, at the point Shepard finally gets to make the choice Trust is pretty much no longer an issue. S/he simply doesn't have any more time to figure out if the Catclyst is lying and to search for an alternative. The Reapers have all but won at that point already. They are mere minutes away from blowing up the crubcile, mopping up whatever resistance is left afterwards and then celebrating victory by getting drunk on organic slushies .

Its basically: press/shoot/jump into a button the Cataclyst presents to you or everyone dies. What could be the worst that could happen if you trust the Cataclyst at this point? He tricks you and the Reapers win? Oh they are already doing that anyways? So I might as well go along with the creepy holo-kid sicne there is some small chance it actually says the truth and I prevent evryone being killed.

[dorktainian]

Honestly, at the point Shepard finally gets to make the choice Trust is pretty much no longer an issue. S/he simply doesn't have any more time to figure out if the Catclyst is lying and to search for an alternative. The Reapers have all but won at that point already. They are mere minutes away from blowing up the crubcile, mopping up whatever resistance is left afterwards and then celebrating victory by getting drunk on organic slushies .

Its basically: press/shoot/jump into a button the Cataclyst presents to you or everyone dies. What could be the worst that could happen if you trust the Cataclyst at this point? He tricks you and the Reapers win? Oh they are already doing that anyways? So I might as well go along with the creepy holo-kid sicne there is some small chance it actually says the truth and I prevent eryone being killed.

Playing devils advovate, the worst that could happen is Shepard gives in to indoctrination and becomes a reaper puppet.  IT confirmed, and everyones happy.

 

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

I don't think asking why anyone would or wouldn't choose the "destroy ending" - or any other ending, for that matter - is the right question. The right question, in my mind, is this: why would anyone restrict themselves with an ABC(D added later) choice, all the while accepting the complete disregard for the plot of the first game, themes of both prequels AND numerous inconsistencies with the pre-established lore?

 

So to answer the question: why wouldn't I choose destroy? Because it doesn't exist. The Reapers have been beaten through resolve, cooperation and intelligence of the protagonists, utilizing the technology and knowledge of the Reapers which was available thanks to cleverness and research, including research conducted on the remains of Sovereign.

 

What do you mean, what am I talking about? What are you talking about?

[themikefest]

Vendetta told us about how some of their scientists believed it could be used to control the Reapers.

It never said anything about scientists. It said a splinter group from within wanted to dominate instead of destroying the reapers. Later they discovered the group was indoctrinated

https://youtu.be/Gta4BZTUlt4?t=11m5s
 

These concepts are not new then, or even surprises when you arrive at the decision chamber and the Catalyst tells you about them, the only new one is Synthesis. And for this... well, either you like the concept of it, or not.

The only hint of control is told by TIM during the game

[fhs33721]

Playing devils advovate, the worst that could happen is Shepard gives in to indoctrination and becomes a reaper puppet.  IT confirmed, and everyones happy.

 

Hahahahahahahahaha.

I'd sooner bet my money on the massive battle over earth tearing the veil apart and demons killing everyone including Reapers, therefore establishing that the MEU-earth is actually just DAs Thedas in the future.

Because that is frankly more likely than the Idoctrination theory ever was.

[Batarian Master Race]

I don't think asking why anyone would or wouldn't choose the "destroy ending" - or any other ending, for that matter - is the right question. The right question, in my mind, is this: why would anyone restrict themselves with an ABC(D added later) choice, all the while accepting the complete disregard for the plot of the first game, themes of both prequels AND numerous inconsistencies with the pre-established lore?

 

So to answer the question: why wouldn't I choose destroy? Because it doesn't exist. The Reapers have been beaten through resolve, cooperation and intelligence of the protagonists, utilizing the technology and knowledge of the Reapers which was available thanks to cleverness and research, including research conducted on the remains of Sovereign.

 

What do you mean, what am I talking about? What are you talking about?

 

I KNEW there was a reason I saved you on Virmire.

[AlanC9]

I don't think asking why anyone would or wouldn't choose the "destroy ending" - or any other ending, for that matter - is the right question. The right question, in my mind, is this: why would anyone restrict themselves with an ABC(D added later) choice, all the while accepting the complete disregard for the plot of the first game, themes of both prequels AND numerous inconsistencies with the pre-established lore?
 
So to answer the question: why wouldn't I choose destroy? Because it doesn't exist. The Reapers have been beaten through resolve, cooperation and intelligence of the protagonists, utilizing the technology and knowledge of the Reapers which was available thanks to cleverness and research, including research conducted on the remains of Sovereign.
 
What do you mean, what am I talking about? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the game we actually got.

[Vanilka]

I'm talking about the game we actually got.

 

If I were the writer, I'd have logically chosen his ending, though.

[Vanilka]

To add my two credits and not just dumb single-sentence responses: I think that what we were "tasked to do" is one thing and what we find at the end of the game is quite another. Let me exaggerate and say that if we were tasked with destroying the Reapers but found out at the end that destroying the Reapers would cost us the whole galaxy or half its population or whatever, would it still be the logical choice?

But anyway, we get three morally grey choices that allow us to "stop the Reapers". Dictatorship/police state with an immortal and almighty mecha god Shepard AI with programming that works devil knows how, but everybody lives and the recovery is fast and easy. Throwing everybody and their dog and potted plant into a blender with completely unknown consequences, but with promised rainbows and unicorns and cookies and everybody alive and life is somehow supposed to be a big party afterwards... because having the same DNA, even in things that never even had DNA before, solves conflicts... somehow... yeah... And genocide if you believe that geth (if alive) and EDI (or even Reapers if you will) are people and destroying an unknown amount of technology, but the Reapers and the Catalyst are dead. Oh, or flushing all our effort down the... you know where... and hoping for conventional victory despite the fact we were told countless times it is unachievable (although in the actual ending it looks more like a knowingly committed suicide).

 

I don't care for the original ending one bit and I like to pretend such an embarrassing thing never happened, but if I am to choose, yeah, I'd go with destroying the Reapers because, the way I see it, it's the only way to make sure that the Reaper intervention of any sort ends there and then and once and for all.

 

I don't think it's about logic, though. Some people naturally want to choose what they think is best for the galaxy, maybe they believe in the synthetic-organic conflict, they may not want any more casualties, and they probably see some sort of logic behind their choice, otherwise they wouldn't go for it. I may disagree with them and I could go on a long rant about why I dislike Synthesis or Control or the ending as such, but I get it.

[dorktainian]

Why wasn't there a "Get the hell out of our galaxy" ending?

 

[Tim van Beek]

I've seen too many endings like the ones posted above.

I know a language that has a saying "Better a good imitation than a bad invention." 

 

But seriously, in a western society, when you are a thinking adult, you have been told literally thousands and thousands of stories. Hard to come up with something both surprising and familiar enough to be intelligible.

 

I like the Babylon 5 ending very much, the Oblivion ending is at least a well executed cliché.

[dorktainian]

actually the Babylon 5 'get the hell out' kinda reminds me of refuse, which is no bad thing

[CaIIisto]

Synthesis - by accident
Control - for curiosity
Refuse - for the fleeting satisfaction
Destroy - because wtf wouldn't it be destroy....?!

[Sezarious]

I don't fully trust it, but trust that it presented the choices to its best knowledge. It never did strike me as a liar in my first playthrough, I've only read on here then how many people have a problem with the Catalyst. I somehow never had. And to me, it is still no villain.

That's funny, because to me, as soon as I heard it say "I am the collective consciousness of the reapers", I decided it was a villain. Funny how we tend to trust things that present themselves as harmless innocent children. As far as the destroy ending killing other synthetics too, well, Harbinger doesn't have any reason to lie to you does he? No, he's here to help you

[fraggle]

That's funny, because to me, as soon as I heard it say "I am the collective consciousness of the reapers", I decided it was a villain. Funny how we tend to trust things that present themselves as harmless innocent children. As far as the destroy ending killing other synthetics too, well, Harbinger doesn't have any reason to lie to you does he? No, he's here to help you

 

The Catalyst is not evil, it's not your typical villain type. I tend to think people label it as villain because they don't agree with its methods. Neither do I, but how I see it, it thinks like a machine, it thinks it actually "helps organics ascend", and that it preserves their knowledge and essence. It is not doing what it does out of pure spite or hatred, it was tasked to so something and it chose to do it the way we know.

But the method it chose doesn't make it evil imo. It just has a different perspective and opinion of these things.

The Reapers are just pawns too, created to fulfill their master's objective, they are not villains.

[dorktainian]

The Catalyst is not evil, 

 

Sorry but what?

 

I know some people define evil certain ways, but how is an entity that has through his own actions and those he created slaughter trillions of sentient creatures not evil?  That is just bonkers.

[fraggle]

Sorry but what?

 

I know some people define evil certain ways, but how is an entity that has through his own actions and those he created slaughter trillions of sentient creatures not evil?  That is just bonkers.

 

Because it thinks it helps them ascend and preserves them. Imagine you are doing something that you think helps people when it does exactly the opposite, but you yourself don't, or even can't, see it that way. Does that make you evil?

[Dantriges]

It still makes you a rabid dog that needs to be put down.

[fraggle]

It still makes you a rabid dog that needs to be put down.

 

I never claimed otherwise

[Sezarious]

The Catalyst is not evil, it's not your typical villain type. I tend to think people label it as villain because they don't agree with its methods. Neither do I, but how I see it, it thinks like a machine, it thinks it actually "helps organics ascend", and that it preserves their knowledge and essence. It is not doing what it does out of pure spite or hatred, it was tasked to so something and it chose to do it the way we know.
But the method it chose doesn't make it evil imo. It just has a different perspective and opinion of these things.
The Reapers are just pawns too, created to fulfill their master's objective, they are not villains.

I understand where you are coming from. The reapers are just doing what they were created to do. What they do though may not be evil by their standards, but by organic standards and even the standards of those geth that join in the fight, what the reapers do to their victims is beyond horrific.

Aside from that, as I said before, I would not trust anything that calls itself "the collective consciousness of the reapers". Ignore what it says! You can't trust it! It IS the reapers. Destroy them! Destroy them ALL!!!

[themikefest]

The catalyst isn't evil. Its just a thing. It was programmed by the big heads who thought everything they say and do is right. Leviathan suffered from politician syndrome. Shepard could've walked up to the catalyst with a 1000 page report proving everything it says and does is wrong. It wouldn't do any good. Its programming has to be changed. The crucible gave it new solutions depending on your ems. Until one of those endings is chosen it will continue to do what its programmed to do. If Shepard refuses, the thing says 'SO BE IT'. Since its in the form of a child I have to laugh when it uses a deep voice  saying that. Its acting like a little kid who can't have candy until he eats his vegetables. Whatever. Just destroy the thing and its toys.