167 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

I can't understand why anyone would pick the red one honestly. Except if it's with the idea in mind of creating an easy place for a sequel to take place. But as like a canon ending? Why? Its pissing in the wind. Eventually there will be more AIs, there will be something reaper like again be it in hundreds of years or thousands or millions or billions. It'll happen again. Control is kinda eh cuz I really don't think Shepard was enough of a saint to be incorruptible for all eternity. Synthesize was the only reasonable choice from my perspective.

 

Or, the Catalyst ends up being wrong, and galactic society trucks on for generations with nary a hiccup beyond some aggression between the organics teeming within it, something which is much more likely to happen and more likely to be more calamitous with greater frequency, like the rachni wars, or the krogan rebellions, etc.. Predictions of the future in terms of how society will behave always carry the possibility of the alternative being true, but I would certainly never concern myself with events which might occur hundreds of years into the future, let alone millions or billions, which at that point the seas of our earth and even colony worlds would have been boiled away by their increasingly luminous stars. 

[Ahglock]

 

Or, the Catalyst ends up being wrong, and galactic society trucks on for generations with nary a hiccup beyond some aggression between the organics teeming within it, something which is much more likely to happen and more likely to be more calamitous with greater frequency, like the rachni wars, or the krogan rebellions, etc.. Predictions of the future in terms of how society will behave always carry the possibility of the alternative being true, but I would certainly never concern myself with events which might occur hundreds of years into the future, let alone millions or billions, which at that point the seas of our earth and even colony worlds would have been boiled away by their increasingly luminous stars.

 
And what were the alternatives.
 
Control: Give unlimited power to one man and hope it works out in the end.
 
Synthesis: Effectively kill everyone and make them passive drones..  Or are people still the same just with techno parts, in which case war on reapers win...

[Fredward]

Or, the Catalyst ends up being wrong, and galactic society trucks on for generations with nary a hiccup beyond some aggression between the organics teeming within it, something which is much more likely to happen and more likely to be more calamitous with greater frequency, like the rachni wars, or the krogan rebellions, etc.. Predictions of the future in terms of how society will behave always carry the possibility of the alternative being true, but I would certainly never concern myself with events which might occur hundreds of years into the future, let alone millions or billions, which at that point the seas of our earth and even colony worlds would have been boiled away by their increasingly luminous stars. 

 

It's not really that though. It's the fundamental idea of AI. They can actively improve themselves in a way humanity can't match, without merging with them anyway. They improve exponentially. An AI, without constraints, will ALWAYS outstrip organics. It can't not. You need one of those to happen when the galaxy if off kilter from some war and you're boned. And if we're still around a billion years from now I'm sure we'd've found a way to make the sun chill its nova ****. You are literally in a position to consider the future of everything forever. Destroy is like hitting the reset button on a game that doesn't autosave. Eventually the player will reach that point again. And if that specific player doesn't there's a whole hall of players and it would only take ONE of them to reach that point for it to have meant nothing.

 

 Synthesis: Effectively kill everyone and make them passive drones..  Or are people still the same just with techno parts, in which case war on reapers win...

 

Well they definitely don't become passive and they don't die either and I don't see what's wrong with the second bit.

[Ahglock]

It's not really that though. It's the fundamental idea of AI. They can actively improve themselves in a way humanity can't match, without merging with them anyway. They improve exponentially. An AI, without constraints, will ALWAYS outstrip organics. It can't not. You need one of those to happen when the galaxy if off kilter from some war and you're boned. And if we're still around a billion years from now I'm sure we'd've found a way to make the sun chill its nova ****. You are literally in a position to consider the future of everything forever. Destroy is like hitting the reset button on a game that doesn't autosave. Eventually the player will reach that point again. And if that specific player doesn't there's a whole hall of players and it would only take ONE of them to reach that point for it to have meant nothing.
 
 
Well they definitely don't become passive and they don't die either and I don't see what's wrong with the second bit.

If you remove all that is you, it is death.  If the people don't change in who they truly are outside I'm a cyborg now the reapers still have every reason to keep killing. Synthesis is shallow its all good, for no real reason ending.  Besides the basic concept being literally the worst thing I've ever seen in fiction the catalyst magic ray of turn everyone into a synthetic either kills bob and replaces Bob with Drone bob or its still Bob but now he is supper pissed about a toaster being up his ass and wants to kill the AI who are now synthetic more. It is the dumbest idea in the world, do you think if everyone was a brown agnostic we'd stop killing each other in wars.  We will always come up with reasons to hate. And again if there entire being isn't really changed the Reapers still keep on Reaping, they still reproduce by turning organics into sludge.  I guess this time they have to turn more people into sludge since there is less organic parts to go around with all the techno replacements.

 

As for AI always improving and not having limits, that is a theory but there is no proof it will happen every time or that given a big enough head start a AIs end point wont be the same place organics will be.  Basically the catalyst can be wrong.. And besides if you think this is a problem, just build catalyst 2.0 and yearly do a kill all AI cleansing.  Its like spraying your house for bugs.  Just build the relays better so they handle the kill all AI death beam better.  You've got a while to get it down pat.

[SetecAstronomy]

I'd phrase this a little differently. It's not that the choice is invalidated, it's that your Shepards didn't exist in the sequel's timeline. It's the same choice, but whoever made that choice wasn't one of your characters.

If a particular outcome invalidated different choices, then my Shepards would all invalidate each other.

To that I agree. I am all about the Multiverse.  Point I was making to OP was that the examples ze was using didn't constitute overruling what we chose. 

[Fredward]

If you remove all that is you, it is death.  If the people don't change in who they truly are outside I'm a cyborg now the reapers still have every reason to keep killing. Synthesis is shallow its all good, for no real reason ending.  Besides the basic concept being literally the worst thing I've ever seen in fiction the catalyst magic ray of turn everyone into a synthetic either kills bob and replaces Bob with Drone bob or its still Bob but now he is supper pissed about a toaster being up his ass and wants to kill the AI who are now synthetic more. It is the dumbest idea in the world, do you think if everyone was a brown agnostic we'd stop killing each other in wars.  We will always come up with reasons to hate. And again if there entire being isn't really changed the Reapers still keep on Reaping, they still reproduce by turning organics into sludge.  I guess this time they have to turn more people into sludge since there is less organic parts to go around with all the techno replacements.

 

 

 

Is your primary issue with the ending meta in nature, as in you have a problem with how it's written and presented as some kind of panacea, or is your primary issue with the ending itself? Like in game.

 

As for AI always improving and not having limits, that is a theory but there is no proof it will happen every time or that given a big enough head start a AIs end point wont be the same place organics will be.  Basically the catalyst can be wrong.. And besides if you think this is a problem, just build catalyst 2.0 and yearly do a kill all AI cleansing.  Its like spraying your house for bugs.  Just build the relays better so they handle the kill all AI death beam better.  You've got a while to get it down pat.

 

That's not a solution to me though. Synthesis will no doubt come with its own slew of problems but it will never have a bug problem again. I don't have to hope future generations improve their technique because I shut that **** down.
 

[KaiserShep]

It's not really that though. It's the fundamental idea of AI. They can actively improve themselves in a way humanity can't match, without merging with them anyway. They improve exponentially. An AI, without constraints, will ALWAYS outstrip organics. It can't not. You need one of those to happen when the galaxy if off kilter from some war and you're boned. And if we're still around a billion years from now I'm sure we'd've found a way to make the sun chill its nova ****. You are literally in a position to consider the future of everything forever. Destroy is like hitting the reset button on a game that doesn't autosave. Eventually the player will reach that point again. And if that specific player doesn't there's a whole hall of players and it would only take ONE of them to reach that point for it to have meant nothing.

 

Of course, this could simply end with the AI being destroyed and yet another war comes and goes without the galaxy totally getting wiped out and it's business as usual, or, though admittedly less likely, galactic society manages to actually coexist with some form of AI, in light of notable AI's of the past that actually helped in the war against the reapers, and "synthesis" simply occurs on its own without a silly shockwave that blitzes the galaxy.

 

If our species is still around in a billion years, then I'd say that our species is already a huge success and the Catalyst can suck eggs. As it stands, the human race has still only been around for a relatively short amount of time. Heck I think the odds of us making it past the next million years are kind of bad.

 

 

 

Well they definitely don't become passive and they don't die either and I don't see what's wrong with the second bit.

 

It's Wreav that makes me question this. If he's truly the same krogan he was before synthesis, he should be gearing to go to war no matter what and looking to expand throughout the galaxy now that they're cured no matter what.

[Ahglock]

Is your primary issue with the ending meta in nature, as in you have a problem with how it's written and presented as some kind of panacea, or is your primary issue with the ending itself? Like in game.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking but I'll try to explain.
1: I hate the catalyst as a whole, its a stupid magic wand to solve problems instead of building the narrative in a way one isn't needed.
2. Out of the 3 choices, Synthesis is so absurdly implausible it is insane. As in, anyone who put that idea to paper should give up writing bad.
3. Even if I can buy it magically transforming people it would not be a panacea presented. It either killed every freaking one by removing all that they were.  Or it just would not do anything in any way to create peace. It really is an either or, you removed all their individuality into some weird collective effectively killing everyone. Or they remain individuals and the reasons for killing, war, mass extinctions remain. Only difference is one group still has super ships and mega guns with a 5 billion year head start, so when they decide to go mass extinction happy they win.
 

That's not a solution to me though. Synthesis will no doubt come with its own slew of problems but it will never have a bug problem again. I don't have to hope future generations improve their technique because I shut that **** down.

Well I guess you don't have to solve anything once everyone is a drone slave. I'd rather allow people freedom and spray for bugs every year.

[marcelo caldas]

Maybe I haven't seen enough of these but it sure does feel like every time someone suggests canonizing an ending it's always destroy. Why is that? Why is destroy the go to pick for canonizing an ending? This is a legit question by the way I'm not trying to be sarcastic.

I'll try and explain why, imo anyway:

Control: the reapers still exist, and they are controlled by Shepard, any threat big enought to unbalance the galaxy, even in a natual way (supernovas, dark energy, etc) Shepard is most likely to assume direct control of the situation and prevent anything from happening. Even a invasion from other galaxy, would have to deal with the reapers first and fail, after all the reapers are unbeatable godlike machines with vast numbers. Whille they help to rebuild the relay network, it's safe to assume that Shepard shares some of the billion years knowledge the reapers have gathered, making the galaxy safer and stronger.
Minor threats would exist off course, piracy, crimes, etc, so we actually could have Control as canon, but there is little or no room to great dangers.

Sintesis: is the final evelution of all life, everybody, I think even animals, share the same new DNA, there are no diferences or misunderstandings, and with the unlimited and shared access to the information gathered by the reapers, the galaxy achieved an indescribable level of existence and imortality. And the reapers still exist to help if needed.
This is the true happy ending.

Destroy: the status quo is maintained, everything remains the same, and more, probably there would be a galaxy wide shortage of resources, leading to more threats. Anything is possible, even a reaper 2.0 threat.

Edit: I'd like to add that this opinion isen't about the ending I prefer or which one is the best choice, but imo which one carries more possibilities for future games.

[KaiserShep]

The phrase "the final evolution of life" makes baby science cry.

[themikefest]

Its as bad as 'you do not know them and there's not enough time to explain'.

[KaiserShep]

Edit: I'd like to add that this opinion isen't about the ending I prefer or which one is the best choice, but imo which one carries more possibilities for future games.

I guess that would be Destroy. Anything with the reapers still in existence takes away a few possibilities, provided of course that this future world state sticks to their continued presence.

[Cheviot]

Maybe I haven't seen enough of these but it sure does feel like every time someone suggests canonizing an ending it's always destroy. Why is that? Why is destroy the go to pick for canonizing an ending? This is a legit question by the way I'm not trying to be sarcastic.

A number of those wanting to canonise an ending want Shepard back (the dislike of the endings has a lot to do with his unavoidable death); I think it's less to do with the ending itself than the fact that it seems Shepard lived a bit longer (one more breath at least).  If the Destroy ending was canonised, then people would step up their demands that Shepard returns.

 

Personally, I think if an ending was going to be canonised, Control would make for the most interesting starting point.

[AlanC9]

Its as bad as 'you do not know them and there's not enough time to explain'.

It's not like that wasn't true. Shepard wouldn't have known them. (Well, unless the Leviathans cooked the idea up.) And how much info about the creators would the Catalyst have had to relay for Shepard to hear something useful? I'm not even sure what would be useful there.

[themikefest]

It's not like that wasn't true. Shepard wouldn't have known them. (Well, unless the Leviathans cooked the idea up.) And how much info about the creators would the Catalyst have had to relay for Shepard to hear something useful? I'm not even sure what would be useful there.

I believe Shepard does know them and did a mission involving them.. Here's a post explaining who it might be.

 

Its not that any information would be useful, but more for curiousity sake. At least Shepard was able to ask the question.

[Seboist]

Bioware has delivered: The Rachni Queen dead in ME1 then cloned in ME3, Udina or Anderson and Anderson steps down from the council and Udina steps in, Leliana dead in DAO yet lives in DAI.... So let's just tie up one little loose end and Canonize Destroy from ME3, It's not like we haven't seen it done before.

 

Yep, ME would benefit in the form of a more consistent and coherent narrative if they did away with the farce of player "choice". Not only do they disregard player choice for whatever canon they want, but it never amounted to more than some throwaway cameos or emails, some of which you wouldn't even get if you had played renegade to boot, lol.

 

In general, ME would've been better off as a straight up shootbang with a simple story than what we ended up getting.

[Il Divo]

It's not like that wasn't true. Shepard wouldn't have known them. (Well, unless the Leviathans cooked the idea up.) And how much info about the creators would the Catalyst have had to relay for Shepard to hear something useful? I'm not even sure what would be useful there.

 

At that point we'd have to put aside the Catalyst's claim to controlling the Reapers​. And even if we were to do that, this still leaves the issue that the Catalyst in a pro-active sense decided the Leviathans were part of the problem, on top of conceding to Shepard that his solution can't work anymore, even while continuing to murder everyone.

 

Given the Catalyst's own acknowledgment of his failed solution and his awareness of the choice he's offering Shepard, it's probably in his interests to do everything he can to convince us of his viewpoint, rather than roll the dice especially since he can't stand Destroy (from what I remember). On his part, now would be a very good time to explain why this whole cooperation with Synthetics could never work, since he's seen it all.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, making it the Leviathans is a problem. If we start thinking that the Catalyst can outright lie about stuff, that puts us back in the Refuse death spiral. the mikefest's option works better, since arguably Shepard doesn't know them

[Il Divo]

Yeah, if we start thinking that the Catalyst can outright lie about stuff, that puts us back in the Refuse death spiral.

 

Personally, I never really understood the "Catalyst lying to us" position. I guess some people look at it as "added insurance" to make sure the Crucible goes boom, but for the life of me, it's not like Shepard in any sensible way should be able to work out what to do. The switch to activate the Crucible is to blow up a computer, touch some lightning rods, or throw yourself into a hole.

​

[Dantriges]

If they want to canonise an ending, destroy would probably make the most sense, if you want to kep the new setting as close as possible to the old one. In Control you have Shealyst taking care of the bigger problems and well if you use the Shepalyst as antagonist, we have Reapers as enemies again.
 
Synthesis changed the galaxy so much, they would have to retcon the ending slideshow. We are now in a network with animals and plants which would change a lot and the idea is that the Reapers stay friendly, so every bigger threat has to take that into account. Yeah ok small time threats on a personal level would work but something involving one planet or so, would raise questions. And they share their technology, too, so the galaxy would be pretty different. With the changes Synthesis did, the galaxy would be unrecognizable.
 
Refuse, well everyone dead.
 

Personally, I never really understood the "Catalyst lying to us" position. I guess some people look at it as "added insurance" to make sure the Crucible goes boom, but for the life of me, it's not like Shepard in any sensible way should be able to work out what to do. The switch to activate the Crucible is to blow up a computer, touch some lightning rods, or throw yourself into a hole.
​

The position is pretty close to the "oh my, this is so mindboggingly stupid, I can´t believe that my PC didn´t suddenly gain self awareness and refused to show it."

Catalyst goes blablabla and Shep just swallows it and he has to, because the activation sequences are totally crazy. the writers served us this .

[Mcfly616]

People still wishing they knew more than the Catalyst (even though they've witnessed less than 3 years of the MEU, while it's seen a billion)

[Dantriges]

The catalyst is written by people who didn´t hang out in the MEU for a billion years.

[Il Divo]

The position is pretty close to the "oh my, this is so mindboggingly stupid, I can´t believe that my PC didn´t suddenly gain self awareness and refused to show it."

Catalyst goes blablabla and Shep just swallows it and he has to, because the activation sequences are totally crazy. the writers served us this

 

 

Granted, this was my thought process too throughout the last 15 minutes. I don't think we have reason to believe that Catalyst is intentionally lying. On the other hand, that doesn't change how utterly moronic his logic is in terms of the Cycles and his approach regarding Shepard. All imo, of course.

[Dantriges]

The slideshows confirmed that it wasn´t lying, AFAIK the position is, that Shepard couldn´t know and had no reason to believe it, besides the obvious one that there wasn´t anything else you could do or say.

[Fredward]

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking but I'll try to explain.
1: I hate the catalyst as a whole, its a stupid magic wand to solve problems instead of building the narrative in a way one isn't needed.
2. Out of the 3 choices, Synthesis is so absurdly implausible it is insane. As in, anyone who put that idea to paper should give up writing bad.
3. Even if I can buy it magically transforming people it would not be a panacea presented. It either killed every freaking one by removing all that they were.  Or it just would not do anything in any way to create peace. It really is an either or, you removed all their individuality into some weird collective effectively killing everyone. Or they remain individuals and the reasons for killing, war, mass extinctions remain. Only difference is one group still has super ships and mega guns with a 5 billion year head start, so when they decide to go mass extinction happy they win.

 

Yeah your problem seems to be at least partly with how the writing for the ending was handled. And it's not an either/or just seem invested in interpreting it as such. There's nothing that indicates everyone is now a hivemind or that their individuality is gone and yes killing, war and mass extinction will remain but the Reapers won't. The Harvest will be gone. There will never again be an AI that grossly outstrips organics.

 

Well I guess you don't have to solve anything once everyone is a drone slave. I'd rather allow people freedom and spray for bugs every year.

 

Not a drone slave and okay to the latter. I can't understand the reasoning but okay.