Isn't Tali mandatory for the dreadnought? How do you bring Liara and James? Maybe you meant another mission?
No. She doesn't have to be recruited in ME2. Of course someone will die since she gives the upgrade for the shields the Normandy needs for everyone to survive the suicide mission. She can also die on the suicide mission
Admiral Xen will take her place on the dreadnought, but not as a squadmate
Oh, alright, one needs...Sideline-Shep for that.
You should reeeeally try it 
...and that's a really fascinating observation for me. Not so much that some people liked the ending, but that this seemingly prevents (some of) them from understanding the criticism
I mean, I get that the EC explains that IT is not supposed to be true, but isn't it obvious why people would think that everything happening after the beam hits Shepard is a dream? You didn't think that. I didn't think that. According to BioWare and its EC, we aren't supposed to think that. Still, it seems blatantly obvious to me that if you get hit by Harbinger's laser and all it does is magically redress yourself, that's weird, it brakes realism. It's weird that Shepard finds a gun that does not need clips etc.
Oh I understand the criticisms, and there are some very good ones, just from my personal observation here (not saying it is generally that way) many of those deal with having to make up too many things. Which is... like I said, a dislike that not everything was explained properly. Which I can get, but I also argue we don't need all the details to understand the Catalyst for example. We know its purpose, what it does, why the Reapers exist and what the Crucible does. That's theoretically all the info we need about how to pick our choice. Which is ultimately everything the ending is about, no?
And that's what I mean. It's there, but people want more. They want to have explained in bigger and better detail what happens, what the Crucible does etc. Not saying there's anything wrong with it, far from it, but this is only to still the player's desire to know more about everything.
Are we talking about Harby's beam pre-EC or in EC? Because with EC it does not look like Shepard gets hit directly. At least to me. Pre-EC I can't remember, but I think it was more implied it headed towards Shepard. Or maybe I remember wrong.
Well the gun... simply gameplay mechanics. Because the Marauder and the 3 husketeers were §$&§&&%. On Insanity, I rage all the time when I have to shoot at them. Last time I needed 11 shots for the husks and I don't even know how many for the Marauder because I truly suck at shooting with this shaky ingame arm.
They could've found a better solution in order to keep thermal clips and even allow pauses for Shepard to switch clips, yes, I agree, but we know this is simply done the way it was for gameplay purpose.
For IT, I get to that in one of the next points 
It's weird that Normandy can just materialize within seconds in front of the beam and Shepard takes a pause, lasting several minutes, literally in full view and range of Harbinger who seconds ago blew everything to hell, 50 meters from the citadel beam, to have his squad mates evacuate because "I need to know that someone survives this"?!
The evac scene is crap, I agree. I only love this from an emotional point of view, because you can say Goodbye to a character that's dear to you, or even your LI. But yeah, I'm aware it is stupid Just as stupid as the reason for it, since Shepard doesn't know yet if anyone at all gets out alive...
It's one thing to say that this did not bother you or me on our first playthrough (actually I wouldn't say that because it did, but you get the point), but saying that, naw, that all makes sense and people are just rationalizing their grieving over a semi-downer-ending?
I was talking in terms of IT. And I was saying that because I read many times that people thought "this can't be the ending...", which says to me they weren't satisfied and tried to make up theories about how it could not be the true ending. It's a quite fascinating topic, and while I never believed in IT, it is an interesting concept... in theory 
Also, just look at how many people hate the Catalyst, hate they can't argue with it, when all we need to know is right there: Shepard needs to act since the Crucible has docked and added new solutions, and the Catalyst tells Shepard it can't pick a solution itself.
Sure it would be nice to argue with it, tell it it was wrong about synthetic and organic co-existence, but ultimately, I don't think it's needed. Because you likely can't convince it since it works with this equation. It will likely tell you that just because you achieved peace this time doesn't mean you can achieve it next time, and we would say "but you don't know that... from now on we could live peacefully together". The future is uncertain in both arguments, no one is right or wrong, and neither side will convince the other, just like here on the forum when 2 people have their own opinion, you will likely not change the other person's. It will go on in circles unless one says "agree to disagree".
Discussions like these take time, but then the Catalyst also says "there's not enough time". Why? We can't say for sure, but we can interpret it. It just implies that Shepard has to pick a choice rather quickly.
An analogy: Let's say BioWire wrote this dialogue for Priority Earth:
Shepard: "If I die, tell my mother that I died for my mission!"Garrus: "You tell her that yourself!"I'd say: I understand what the writer intended to be said here, but it is really funny how that got mangled. I would also understand that some fans come up with theories that Garrus knows something about afterlife and expects Shepard to transcend the material plane of existence. I would still say that this interpretation is obviously wrong, and that the writer (and the editors, if there were any) just made a blatant error, but I would still understand it. I would also understand people who say that they did not notice anything wrong here, on their first playthrough or their seventh or whatever.What I wouldn't understand is people who claim that this dialogue makes perfect sense as it is, no further explanation needed, and all criticism is void.
Garrus could also just make a joke 
It depends how this would end up in the scene, what we are shown, how the VA says the line. Maybe he does mean it as a joke. Or maybe we can conclude he believes in ghosts and thus lets Shepard know to go haunt his mom when he is dead 
For me it depends on my character. Some don't want Geths and EDI to die since they have befriended them and destroy (according to Star Child) is not permanent solution (though his line about creations always rebelling against creators is not true, EDI and Geth prove that there can be co-existence.. I guess that's just plothole).
Not a plothole. Both rebelled against their creators. EDI against Cerberus and the geth against the quarians when they ignored the shutdown command.
Not a plothole. Both rebelled against their creators. EDI against Cerberus and the geth against the quarians when they ignored the shutdown command.
Yes, but I find it still being plothole, since Star Child makes it seems like there can't be peace between organics and synthetics and there will always be chaos when Shepard has just proven it wrong with Al and Geth. In reality there is no more chaos between synthetics and organics as there is between organics themselves.
Yes, but I find it still being plothole, since Star Child makes it seems like there can't be peace between organics and synthetics and there will always be chaos when Shepard has just proven it wrong with Al and Geth. In reality there is no more chaos between synthetics and organics as there is between organics themselves.
Of course, but the Catalyst doesn't think like an organic, it works with evidence from the past and with an equation.
Who's to say it's not right in the future? Just because one time it happens there can be peace doesn't mean it will be like that every time from now on. Just as it is the other way around. Neither the Catalyst can predict the future, nor we. Which is why it has to go for me
I agree (although I should probably qualify that with "in theory") but I also find it a rather hard thing to pull off successfully. "Beyond your understanding" is a very tricky one. The response I'll usually feel is "no you're not unless you prove it, and just being random and claiming it's being vastly more intelligent doesn't cut it." Fiction sometimes has a tougher time than reality (since at the back of my mind I'm still aware that it's all been written by a human).
The unexplained mystery is also hard to pull off without the story feeling incomplete, and it needs to leave the impression that there is an explanation, that the reason they're not explained isn't simply because the author hasn't got one. It's very hard for a reveal to not be a letdown but it's only with hindsight I think "yep, would've been better left alone."
Yes, I suppose it is true that it would feel incomplete. I say that I wouldn't mind it but I have no idea for how to do it well. And when I first met Sovereign and asked who created the Reapers, his reply is something like, "We have no beginning." Which is very grand, but all I thought was, okay, you either weren't programmed to know who created you, or you can't answer who created you. So, while it was nice to meet the bad guy, I wasn't exactly overwhelmed by the bad guy-ness of it all.
The Catalyst states that they will be damaged in EC for Destroy (not sure if this is only for High EMS, I don't remember), but it also states that the galaxy should have little difficulty to repair all the damage done by the Destroy wave. In High EMS, only the rings break, the relays themselves are fine iirc. It might take some time, but I guess it can be done.
This is a problem with the EC, I think. Pre-EC the relays broke. In the EC just the rings fly apart. However, during Hackett's epilogue when the fleets are flying past one of the relays, they are pretty severely damaged. The lower arm (or whatever) of the relay is broken in half. I don't think it's unfixable because "humans don't understand Reaper tech." Reaper tech is new to humans, not really to the rest of the galaxy. If the Asari or Salarians didn't have some idea of how this all worked then I would be very surprised.
The info we have is very shallow, presented by an entity we don´t know, based on assumptions with no evidence. The past can also be totally irrelevant to the question or do you think roman answers fom 1 CE can answer questions today? It´s more belief because it´s supposed to be a superintelligence. As far aswe know it could just be a sophisticated VI.
It's the ultimate multiple choice question with 1 real answer (but you should take refuse into consideration for it's epic dialogue on regards to our right to exist without interference)
Destroy that's what we've been fighting for from the beginning for everyone to be unique in there own way. I believe they can fix EDI too. After the Udnia incident on the Citadel an you talk to Garrius what he says can't remember exactly because I'm on 1 again anyways it convinces me really that's the only option. That's my opinion though an why I have only choose destroy. Plus it fits this for my ending by this awesome you tuber that made this video.
Damn you! I tought it was a real DLC! I was happy in 2 mins 
Now i am broken agian.
KICKSTARTER!
Hmm....it seems there are quite a few newer players here....maybe they're interested in my collection of information and interpretations related to the Synthesis.
To answer the OP: I choose Synthesis or Control because I like their outcomes better. In Control, something of you retains agency after the ending, and the future is open to a greater variety of headcanon, and I like the outcome of Synthesis for itself. Also, I choose for the outcome alone because it's all I can do if every decision involves things which are either thematically problematic or which I'd rather not do for other reasons.
Hmm....it seems there are quite a few newer players here....maybe they're interested in my collection of information and interpretations related to the Synthesis.
To answer the OP: I choose Synthesis or Control because I like their outcomes better. In Control, something of you retains agency after the ending, and the future is open to a greater variety of headcanon, and I like the outcome of Synthesis for itself. Also, I choose for the outcome alone because it's all I can do if every decision involves things which are either thematically problematic or which I'd rather not do for other reasons.
do the deaths of trillions of beings not matter?
Not having a go, just trying to wrap my head around why someone would in effect side with the genocidal killing machines.
do the deaths of trillions of beings not matter?
Of course they do, but they're not the only thing that matters. Consider this:
(1) You have an outcome you consider highly desirable, but it requires you to forgive the past to some degree.
(2) You have an outcome you find not nearly as desirable, but you aren't required to forgive the past.
What will you choose? I choose for the future. I am siding with no one and nothing except the future of my civilization and the possibilities of ascension opened by the Synthesis scenario. I choose to give that future a greater weight than the transgressions of the past. Btw, that's what we'll all have to do at some point, on some level, or we will end up destroying ourselves.
I do think about the future. I destroy the reapers so people can have a future without the threat of the reapers
I do think about the future. I destroy the reapers so people can have a future without the threat of the reapers
Fair enough, but that means you're considering them as a threat as long as they exist at all, disregarding that the rationale for the harvesting cycles will no longer apply. They will also have little reason to go to war for other reasons since we have nothing they require. We are given reason to believe that they will not be a threat. If that's not sufficient for you, I can understand that, but I do not share that position.
Fair enough, but that means you're considering them as a threat as long as they exist at all, disregarding that the rationale for the harvesting cycles will no longer apply. They will also have little reason to go to war for other reasons since we have nothing they require. We are given reason to believe that they will not be a threat. If that's not sufficient for you, I can understand that, but I do not share that position.
What would you say to convince someone that they're not a threat anymore after that persons family has been slaughtered by the reapers?
What would you say to convince someone that they're not a threat anymore after that persons family has been slaughtered by the reapers?
Considering that nobody will know what really happened for some time, I think most people will assume Shepard reprogrammed the Reapers. They should be ok with that, don't you think? Beyond that, what I've just said: The Reapers did all this for a reason, as insane as that may sound to a normal human, and that reason is now gone. Also, the entity that made them do it no longer exists.
Considering that nobody will know what really happened for some time, I think most people will assume Shepard reprogrammed the Reapers. They should be ok with that, don't you think? Beyond that, what I've just said: The Reapers did all this for a reason, as insane as that may sound to a normal human, and that reason is now gone. Also, the entity that made them do it no longer exists.
I wouldn't be ok with that. I'm suppose to let these oversized robots just wonder around believing that nothing more won't happen? Try telling that to my dead family members.
What's this entity you speak of? I've heard of Shepard, but why would she reprogramm the things and not destroy them? Who are these most people you speak of that would assume she reprogrammed the machines?
I'm just a simple person who woke up one morning to see these giant flying robots land on my planet and start destroying everything. Now my friends, family members are dead. My neighborhood is destroyed. You expect me to believe this won't happen again with the robots still around?
Of course they do, but they're not the only thing that matters. Consider this:
(1) You have an outcome you consider highly desirable, but it requires you to forgive the past to some degree.
(2) You have an outcome you find not nearly as desirable, but you aren't required to forgive the past.
What will you choose? I choose for the future. I am siding with no one and nothing except the future of my civilization and the possibilities of ascension opened by the Synthesis scenario. I choose to give that future a greater weight than the transgressions of the past. Btw, that's what we'll all have to do at some point, on some level, or we will end up destroying ourselves.
A future where there is peace would mean stagnation. Peace is not the norm. Evolution is conflict and struggle, then adapting.
Also, baring in mind we actually know very little in regards to the reapers, are you not ultimately appeasing them? I'm all for forgiveness when it is deserved, but do the reapers deserve it? As for destroying ourselves, I'd rather us make our own decisions even if it ultimately means we eventually obliterate ourselves, than be mushed up into goo and fed to a reaper. Self determination is in my opinion worth much more than existing in a universe where the reapers keep on reaping. We deserve to survive but not on someone elses terms. There is one very definite factor at play during control or synthesis. Shepard dies. He either disintegrates and dies, or he jumps the shark into the reaper being created on the citadel. He dies.
It ultimately means nothing if the reapers continue to exist. There is no future if the reapers continue to exist. The cycles will continue.
My take on the decision chamber if it is indeed a literal place (which I doubt but let's go with it) then nobody has been strong willed enough during any cycle before to choose to destroy the reapers. I assumed the Crucible has always existed since the creation of Starjar. The Protheans chose poorly, as did all before them. The protheans embraced synthesis........ and lost themselves to tech. TIM would choose control, resulting in the creation of the perfect reaper, a human reaper. Starjar say's shep would die. Death is pretty final. Take what he says would happen next with a galactic pinch of salt. Same with synthesis. Death literally is the end.
Like I say, I'm fascinated why choose shepards death? What does it really accomplish?
Another thought. The reapers are apparently the pinnacle of evolution. Synthesis promises to uplift all to the pinnacle of evolution. Organics and Synthetics co-existing. I thought they already did....
Reaperfication. Another name for Synthesis.
Three years gone and people are still rehashing old BS and claiming the good futures we're shown are actually bad futures because their minds are stuck in dogmatic inflexibility. I never should've popped in again. For those who are new, and might be interested in my take on Synthesis, read the thread under the link I posted above in post #135. Everyone else: go back to the countless threads discussing all this back in 2012 if you *still* can't entertain the idea that others might choose different from you for reasons that are as valid as yours.
BTW: I hated to see Shepard die, but I include their life in the things I am willing to let go for a good future.
just trying to understand, that is all.
I prefer to reach ascendance on our own terms and less all encompassing than every organic being including plants and animals. Wonder what the advanced organics will eat. And well with more understanding than the AI which sifted through the possibilities for ten minutes or so can provide to the wounded and confused soldier, who is asked to make this decision for everyone at a moment´s notice.
Sorry but IMO the galactic society isn´t ready for that, especially as it is unknown at that point in time whatwill actually happen, when you rewrite everyone´s DNA, which should actually be impossible by Mass Effect´s laws of space magic, provided by the Catalyst. "Synthesis can´t be forced." According to that, the only person able to achieve synthesis, should be Shepard, who kumped into the beam willingly, the rest didn´t give consent.
There are probably other possibilities to achieve it, Alpha Centauri, the game you quoted, had a different take for example. One step at a time, not a whole unknown package with a sledgehammer.
I prefer to reach ascendance on our own terms and less all encompassing than every organic being including plants and animals. Wonder what the advanced organics will eat. And well with more understanding than the AI which sifted through the possibilities for ten minutes or so can provide to the wounded and confused soldier, who is asked to make this decision for everyone at a moment´s notice.
Sorry but IMO the galactic society isn´t ready for that, especially as it is unknown at that point in time whatwill actually happen, when you rewrite everyone´s DNA, which should actually be impossible by Mass Effect´s laws of space magic, provided by the Catalyst. "Synthesis can´t be forced." According to that, the only person able to achieve synthesis, should be Shepard, who kumped into the beam willingly, the rest didn´t give consent.
There are probably other possibilities to achieve it, Alpha Centauri, the game you quoted, had a different take for example. One step at a time, not a whole unknown package with a sledgehammer.
Yes, that - Shepard alone being Synthesized - is a scenario I would've highly preferred. That's why these days, while my favorite outcome is Synthesis, my favorite choice is actually (blue) Control, where you - or something of you - retains agency after the ending and you can imagine that civilization will be guided towards that path in a less drastic manner and with more autonomy. And eventually, the erstwhile Reapers and the AI god you've become will leave and go wherever such entities go when their duty is done, leaving galactic civilization to forge their own path into the future.
BTW, to this day I keep wondering how Casey Hudson and Mac Walters intended all this to come across. I can't escape the impression that while they knew the main themes they wanted to have in the ending scenario, they didn't have the slightest idea what they were actually writing about in terms of genre, to say nothing of the remotest little piece of scientific grounding. I would've called BS on that aspect when I was ten.
Yeah this is my reasoning. I spent a lot of time and effort into getting the Geth and the Quarians to cooperate. I'm not going to just throw all that away. I want to destroy the Reapers, just them. Of course I don't want to control them either, nor spread some stupid green stuff across the galaxy.Gee I don't know maybe because it requires me to sacrifice an entire sentient race and EDI without even giving them the decency of a heads up? I don't like any of the options, but I'll take synthesis over the rest.
Destroy that's what we've been fighting for from the beginning for everyone to be unique in there own way. I believe they can fix EDI too.
Forgiveness isn't relevant. The Reapers aren't responsible for their own conditioning, any more than the Catalyst programmed himself. Did you have to "forgive" the Feros colonists?Also, baring in mind we actually know very little in regards to the reapers, are you not ultimately appeasing them? I'm all for forgiveness when it is deserved, but do the reapers deserve it?
This is simply false. We see that it's false.It ultimately means nothing if the reapers continue to exist. There is no future if the reapers continue to exist. The cycles will continue.
In Control? Saving millions and millions of lives, assuming the geth are still around. In both Control and Synthesis, reducing the length of the coming dark age by... decades? centuries? Plus the other benefits of Synthesis. I personally wouldn't trade my own life for bionic upgrades for everyone, but the other things? Maybe, if I had the guts.Like I say, I'm fascinated why choose shepards death? What does it really accomplish?
Retour en haut
