69 réponses à ce sujet

[Kookoo]

[Major Spoilers ahead]

There has been quite a lot of discussion going on about the Endings of ME3. And I have to say I took part in it quite a lot back then.But I have to say that this was before the extended cut DLC. This DLC saved the Ending for me and now I feel quite satisfied with it. Sure I would have loved a pure happy ending but we won't get something like that^^

 

I always chose the destroy option because I think it's the only logical one.

 

First of all Shep survives and is able to return to his/her LI.

 

But there is more to it. When you take a look at the control ending, shepard becomes an AI which controls the reapers. But his live is believed to be eternal. Or at least far longer than humans should live. It's quite likely that he might get insane at some point and might even become a thread himself. Therefore this ending just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

 

The Synthesis Ending doesn't make much sense to me either. Shep dies and every being reaces the pinacle of evolution. But we don't know how beings would even react when you let them reach that point. What is lives purpose if it cannot develop any further? This seems to me like the "peace at any cost" option. So that ending doesn't fit me either.

 

Now to the point of why the Destroy ending seems to be the right choice to me. When you destroy the reapers all Synthetic life gets destroyed as well. But even the catalyst says that things can be rebuild/repaired. Therefore it's maybe not impossible to revive EDI and the geth. We see the mass relays and the citadel being rebuild so this might even seem to be likely.

 

But the thing that makes me think that the destroy option is the right way to go is that I don't believe the catalyst knows everything. He just assumes to know everything because he didn't have any data to prove him wrong. But we already did. We brought peace to both geth and quarians (at least in my playthrough). And the geth were not going to destroy all organic lifeforms. They defended themselves against the quarians and then lived peacefully in isolation.

 

Also EDI is an AI which seems to care about organic life and is almost human. The catalyst has no real data to think that there is an option for peace without controlling/synthesise because his creators weren't able to do so. And he did not have any contact to other organic lifeforms for probably millions of years before shepard meets him to prove him wrong. And all that might have ended up in peace were harvested by the reapers.

 

Last but not least it should be the galaxy to decide if they end up in peace or go down in war. And as I said - Shep survives

 

Please leave me your thoughts on this topic^^

- Kookoo

[rossler]

I always chose the destroy option because I think it's the only logical one.

 

It's a test. Two wrong choices do not make a right choice.

 

Every one who supports you wants to destroy the Reapers. All those antagonists want control, synthesis, or refuse (surrender to Reapers and let them harvest you)

 

Oh, and the Catalyst is a big fat liar. He says you will die because you are partly synthetic. Yet you wake up at the end if your EMS is high enough.

[Kookoo]

It's a test. Two wrong choices do not make a right choice.

 

Every one who supports you wants to destroy the Reapers. All those antagonists want control, synthesis, or refuse (surrender to Reapers and let them harvest you)

 

Oh, and the Catalyst is a big fat liar. He says you will die because you are partly synthetic. Yet you wake up at the end if your EMS is high enough.

 

That's also quite likely^^

[Iakus]

Me I don't like the idea that to stop the Reapers we have to become the Reapers, even in a figurative sense.

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

Me I don't like the idea that to stop the Reapers we have to become the Reapers, even in a figurative sense.

Well, if you consider destroy to be doing that, then I suppose you "become" the reapers in either a figurative or a literal sense in all 4 endings. Destroy you kill them all like a reaper, control you actually become the catalyst who is in charge of the reapers (I count him among their ranks for this), synthesis you create "ascended" species which is basically what is supposed to be inside each reaper, and refusal kills everyone whcih is you being a reaper in condemning them (going by the destroy logic).

 

I'd rather just kill the things. But that's me.

[Iakus]

Well, if you consider destroy to be doing that, then I suppose you "become" the reapers in either a figurative or a literal sense in all 4 endings. Destroy you kill them all like a reaper, control you actually become the catalyst who is in charge of the reapers (I count him among their ranks for this), synthesis you create "ascended" species which is basically what is supposed to be inside each reaper, and refusal kills everyone whcih is you being a reaper in condemning them (going by the destroy logic).

 

You do see the problem, then.

[spockjedi]

MEHEM is the only right one for me.

[themikefest]

destroy is the right choice for me.

[SentinelMacDeath]

Starchild told me in the beginning "You can't help me" and so I didn't ... High EMS destroy, take that reapers

[Deager]

I just had so much practice pulling a trigger on a gun, it seemed logical to shoot something. Although, I need to be a Vanguard to be that close; why are you so close Shepard!? You have range! Avoid the explosion!

[ThomasBlaine]

Destroy is definitely the safest choice. People talk about the Synthesis ending as if the violation of everybody's rights to choose whether or not to be half machine is atrocious, but the real problem is that Shepard has absolutely no way of knowing what being "half-synthetic" even means. The subsequent ending makes it clear that everything is pretty much normal except for being vaguely more perfect, but Shepard doesn't know that and making the decision to radically and fundamentally change all life in the galaxy with no clear idea of how is beyond stupid, immoral and irresponsible.

 

And the Control ending requires Shepard to try and personally resist indoctrination and control the reapers through force of will, something the Catalyst admits that the Illusive Man - a much more intelligent and resolute individual than Shepard - would have failed to do. Shepard somehow manages it if s/he tries, but even making the attempt is ridiculously arrogant and dangerous in the long term.

 

Refuse is the only ending besides Destroy that I think is even remotely sensible. It's the only one besides Destroy that doesn't have Shepard making arrogant and uninformed decisions with universal consequences, and also the only one that doesn't have him/her taking the Catalyst at its word in any way whatsoever. It unfortunately results in the demise of one entire cycle of galactic civilization, and the actual ending is unreasonably short and abrupt compared to the others, but you can't have everything.

[Iakus]

Destroy is definitely the safest choice. People talk about the Synthesis ending as if the violation of everybody's rights to choose whether or not to be half machine is atrocious, but the real problem is that Shepard has absolutely no way of knowing what being "half-synthetic" even means. The subsequent ending makes it clear that everything is pretty much normal except for being vaguely more perfect, but Shepard doesn't know that and making the decision to radically and fundamentally change all life in the galaxy with no clear idea of how is beyond stupid, immoral and irresponsible.

 

It is atrocious precisely because it is a violation of everybody's rights to choose whether or not to be half-machine.  Not just because Shepard doesn't understand what it means to be half-synthetic (though that definitely plays into it) but because people are being redefined at the genetic level without their permission or even knowledge.  They are being "improved" by someone else's arbitrary definition of improvement.

 

Implications unpleasant....

[Il Divo]

Destroy is definitely the safest choice. People talk about the Synthesis ending as if the violation of everybody's rights to choose whether or not to be half machine is atrocious, but the real problem is that Shepard has absolutely no way of knowing what being "half-synthetic" even means. The subsequent ending makes it clear that everything is pretty much normal except for being vaguely more perfect, but Shepard doesn't know that and making the decision to radically and fundamentally change all life in the galaxy with no clear idea of how is beyond stupid, immoral and irresponsible.

 

And the Control ending requires Shepard to try and personally resist indoctrination and control the reapers through force of will, something the Catalyst admits that the Illusive Man - a much more intelligent and resolute individual than Shepard - would have failed to do. Shepard somehow manages it if s/he tries, but even making the attempt is ridiculously arrogant and dangerous in the long term.

 

Refuse is the only ending besides Destroy that I think is even remotely sensible. It's the only one besides Destroy that doesn't have Shepard making arrogant and uninformed decisions with universal consequences, and also the only one that doesn't have him/her taking the Catalyst at its word in any way whatsoever. It unfortunately results in the demise of one entire cycle of galactic civilization, and the actual ending is unreasonably short and abrupt compared to the others, but you can't have everything.

 

Personally, I can't imagine how we can disapprove of Control and Synthesis on the grounds of being unable to take the Catalyst at his word could ever choose Destroy, which involves believing the Catalyst's claim that it will do exactly what he says it will do (Destroying a wire activates the Crucible? Really?). 

 

Of course, the alternative here is the Refuse scenario, which we've spent all of ME3 ruling out Conventional Victory. Choosing one of the Catalyst's options is a Hail Mary, but why should we lend more belief that Destroy will do what he says it does over any other ending? Even putting that aside, Refuse is guaranteed death. Control/Synthesis offer the possibility of survival. 

[Iakus]

 

Of course, the alternative here is the Refuse scenario, which we've spent all of ME3 ruling out Conventional Victory. Choosing one of the Catalyst's options is a Hail Mary, but why should we lend more belief that Destroy will do what he says it does over any other ending? Even putting that aside, Refuse is guaranteed death. Control/Synthesis offer the possibility of survival. 

Plus what is "conventional victory" anyway? It's use is as vague as "organic energy"

[Kookoo]

Personally, I can't imagine how we can disapprove of Control and Synthesis on the grounds of being unable to take the Catalyst at his word could ever choose Destroy, which involves believing the Catalyst's claim that it will do exactly what he says it will do (Destroying a wire activates the Crucible? Really?). 

 

Of course, the alternative here is the Refuse scenario, which we've spent all of ME3 ruling out Conventional Victory. Choosing one of the Catalyst's options is a Hail Mary, but why should we lend more belief that Destroy will do what he says it does over any other ending? Even putting that aside, Refuse is guaranteed death. Control/Synthesis offer the possibility of survival. 

I'd say because the catalyst tries to persuade us to pick one of the other options. Also it's not a matter of if he wants to trick us, but a matter of if hes even right with what he assumes. He thinks that coexistance between synthetics and organics is impossible, but we have already proven him wrong. He thinks there is no other option that would work, besides control or synthesis.

I just think that hes clearly wrong on that point. Even before we united Quarians and Geth again, the Geth weren't interested in destroying the quarians entirely. They even granted them the chance to flee in peace. He just follows an order from a cycle where coexistance wasn't possible and since then he didn't allow synthetics to grow to a state where they would prove him wrong.

Maybe Synthesis and Control are not all bad options, but imo destruction is the right way to go

[AlanC9]

I'd say because the catalyst tries to persuade us to pick one of the other options. Also it's not a matter of if he wants to trick us, but a matter of if hes even right with what he assumes. He thinks that coexistance between synthetics and organics is impossible, but we have already proven him wrong. He thinks there is no other option that would work, besides control or synthesis.

He's not even sure Control will work. It's a crapshoot since it depends on Shepard's personality, and he's got no real understanding of Shepard's motivations.

[ThomasBlaine]

It is atrocious precisely because it is a violation of everybody's rights to choose whether or not to be half-machine.  Not just because Shepard doesn't understand what it means to be half-synthetic (though that definitely plays into it) but because people are being redefined at the genetic level without their permission or even knowledge.  They are being "improved" by someone else's arbitrary definition of improvement.

 

Implications unpleasant....

 

Yes, but does the horror of all organic life being angry over having been changed without consultation really weigh up against the danger of everyone being turned into actually fundamentally different creatures perhaps incapable of actual thought, just dead, or forever under the tyrannical government of Shepard-reapers? I'm not saying it's not a dick move to make that decision for them, just that that in and of itself shouldn't really be a priority given the alternative dangers, even just the alternative dangers involving Synthesis.

 

 

Personally, I can't imagine how we can disapprove of Control and Synthesis on the grounds of being unable to take the Catalyst at his word could ever choose Destroy, which involves believing the Catalyst's claim that it will do exactly what he says it will do (Destroying a wire activates the Crucible? Really?). 

 

Of course, the alternative here is the Refuse scenario, which we've spent all of ME3 ruling out Conventional Victory. Choosing one of the Catalyst's options is a Hail Mary, but why should we lend more belief that Destroy will do what he says it does over any other ending? Even putting that aside, Refuse is guaranteed death. Control/Synthesis offer the possibility of survival. 

 

Uhm. I specifically said that the Refuse ending is the only one that doesn't involve Shepard taking the Catalyst at its word, which is definitely an argument for that ending given that Shepard has just found out that what they had all hoped would be a non-sentient reaper-killing device is in fact not only an insane and unpredictable AI but the same AI that set the Reapers loose in the first place.

 

The only thing Shepard actually knows about it is that it gave the reapers their modus operandi, and it offering him/her three different galaxy-affecting conclusions to the war on a silver platter with very little explanation should be enough to make anyone suspicious. It makes perfect sense for Shepard to decide that anything s/he might do could be playing right into the reapers' hands and just hope that the gathered fleets are enough to win the fight without a Shepard ex machina for once. It especially makes sense if Shepard has secured every possible alliance and military asset and a fleet that's far superior to what anyone imagined at the start of the game when we were hedging our bets on the Crucible anyway. And while it doesn't pan out at all, Shepard can't know that.

 

I never said anything about it being a reason to disapprove of the other endings compared to Destroy, just that it's a pretty obvious con that the Refuse ending simply doesn't share, making it a perfectly plausible ending for Shepards who wouldn't trust the Catalyst's sell over the fleet's ability to take on the reapers, which can be understandable depending on the Shepard and the war assets brought to bear.

[Iakus]

Yes, but does the horror of all organic life being angry over having been changed without consultation really weigh up against the danger of everyone being turned into actually fundamentally different creatures perhaps incapable of actual thought, just dead, or forever under the tyrannical government of Shepard-reapers? I'm not saying it's not a dick move to make that decision for them, just that that in and of itself shouldn't really be a priority given the alternative dangers, even just the alternative dangers involving Synthesis.

 

One can argue that Synthesis turns everyone into fundamentally different creatures anyway.  The changes are at the genetic, even molecular level, altering the physical and metal capabilities of all life in the galaxy.  

 

In the end, what's the difference between turning them into husks, or turning them Green?

 

I am reminded of a Deep Space 9 episode dealing with Doctor bashir being genetically modified as a child.  Part of it was to alter his mind, making him smarter.  And he resented what was done to him, even saying that he is not in fact the same person after being modified:

 

"Jules Bashir died in that hospital because you couldn't live with the shame of having a son who didn't measure up."

 

Does synthesis "kill" the entire galaxy, replacing that life with something else?

[Gago]

Destroy is the worst choice imho but hey, if you like it then go for it. Imo the best ending is Synthesis. 

[ThomasBlaine]

One can argue that Synthesis turns everyone into fundamentally different creatures anyway.  The changes are at the genetic, even molecular level, altering the physical and metal capabilities of all life in the galaxy.  

 

In the end, what's the difference between turning them into husks, or turning them Green?

 

I am reminded of a Deep Space 9 episode dealing with Doctor bashir being genetically modified as a child.  Part of it was to alter his mind, making him smarter.  And he resented what was done to him, even saying that he is not in fact the same person after being modified:

 

"Jules Bashir died in that hospital because you couldn't live with the shame of having a son who didn't measure up."

 

Does synthesis "kill" the entire galaxy, replacing that life with something else?

 

There are differences. Becoming physically more robotic while retaining your continued sense of awareness, outlook and control is obviously better than being turned into a husk, while still being more extreme than just being augmented a bit to be better in certain areas like Miranda and Shepard are. My point is that Shepard has no idea what becoming "half-synthetic" does to a sentient, organic creature at all, and that the result really might be the effective death or worse of all sentient life in the galaxy, present and future, for all s/he knows. Compared to that, the consideration of how outraged people would be at not having a choice in the matter isn't really the priority.

[Il Divo]

 

Uhm. I specifically said that the Refuse ending is the only one that doesn't involve Shepard taking the Catalyst at its word, which is definitely an argument for that ending given that Shepard has just found out that what they had all hoped would be a non-sentient reaper-killing device is in fact not only an insane and unpredictable AI but the same AI that set the Reapers loose in the first place.

 

The only thing Shepard actually knows about it is that it gave the reapers their modus operandi, and it offering him/her three different galaxy-affecting conclusions to the war on a silver platter with very little explanation should be enough to make anyone suspicious. It makes perfect sense for Shepard to decide that anything s/he might do could be playing right into the reapers' hands and just hope that the gathered fleets are enough to win the fight without a Shepard ex machina for once. It especially makes sense if Shepard has secured every possible alliance and military asset and a fleet that's far superior to what anyone imagined at the start of the game when we were hedging our bets on the Crucible anyway. And while it doesn't pan out at all, Shepard can't know that.

 

I never said anything about it being a reason to disapprove of the other endings compared to Destroy, just that it's a pretty obvious con that the Refuse ending simply doesn't share, making it a perfectly plausible ending for Shepards who wouldn't trust the Catalyst's sell over the fleet's ability to take on the reapers, which can be understandable depending on the Shepard and the war assets brought to bear.

 If I have enough confidence in the fleets that I believe there is some (however small) possibility of conventional victory, there should be the option to throw the Crucible away altogether, rather than launching suicide missions to activate devices whose functionality I know nothing about. . 

 

There is absolutely no dialogue, in any capacity, which indicates that Shepard, Hackett, or anyone else thinks that conventional victory has any sort of plausibility to it, at any point in the story. All we have is an implicit assumption that firing the Crucible is our only chance at victory.  

[ThomasBlaine]

 If I have enough confidence in the fleets that I believe there is some (however small) possibility of conventional victory, there should be the option to throw the Crucible away altogether, rather than launching suicide missions to activate devices whose functionality I know nothing about. . 

 

There is absolutely no dialogue, in any capacity, which indicates that Shepard, Hackett, or anyone else thinks that conventional victory has any sort of plausibility to it, at any point in the story. All we have is an implicit assumption that firing the Crucible is our only chance at victory.  

 

I disagree. All the talk about how a "conventional victory" is impossible is in the beginning of the game before even the krogan join their forces to the conflict and all Hackett and Anderson dare hope for is some assistance from the Council, it's never brought up in the context of every military in the galaxy united and coordinated as one, which is essentially what Shepard has by the end of the game if s/he plays his/her cards right.

 

And all the while Shepard is led to believe that the Crucible is a potential instant-win button, so of course every effort should be made to activate it regardless of anyone's confidence in the fleet. Ignoring that opportunity would be idiotic, and that's not Shepard's call in any case. But by the time Shepard gets to choose how to use it s/he's also aware that the instructions s/he's given in doing so come from the same AI that's been orchestrating the reapers' harvest for over a billion years and that every presented use is potentially catastrophic or even fatal to the galaxy. Isolated as s/he is from all communication with the fleet, it's plausible for him/her to give up on the Crucible as a wasted effort at that point and put his/her trust in everyone else for once.

 

I agree that the situation is presented as pretty desperate even with the ideal amount of war assets, that the Catalyst seems more or less sincere and that the Destroy ending seems like - and turns out to be - a much better deal, but under the right circumstances I still feel that the decision to Refuse has merit from a roleplaying standpoint. A lot more than Control or Synthesis do, in any case. Which is why I think Destroy and Refuse are the most sensible endings for Shepard to choose, and that a LOT more could and should have been done with Refuse.

[Il Divo]

I disagree. All the talk about how a "conventional victory" is impossible is in the beginning of the game before even the krogan join their forces to the conflict and all Hackett and Anderson dare hope for is some assistance from the Council, it's never brought up in the context of every military in the galaxy united and coordinated as one, which is essentially what Shepard has by the end of the game if s/he plays his/her cards right.

 

And all the while Shepard is led to believe that the Crucible is a potential instant-win button, so of course every effort should be made to activate it regardless of anyone's confidence in the fleet. Ignoring that opportunity would be idiotic, and that's not Shepard's call in any case. But by the time Shepard gets to choose how to use it s/he's also aware that the instructions s/he's given in doing so come from the same AI that's been orchestrating the reapers' harvest for over a billion years and that every presented use is potentially catastrophic or even fatal to the galaxy. Isolated as s/he is from all communication with the fleet, it's plausible for him/her to give up on the Crucible as a wasted effort at that point and put his/her trust in everyone else for once.

 

I agree that the situation is presented as pretty desperate even with the ideal amount of war assets, that the Catalyst seems more or less sincere and that the Destroy ending seems like - and turns out to be - a much better deal, but under the right circumstances I still feel that the decision to Refuse has merit from a roleplaying standpoint. A lot more than Control or Synthesis do, in any case. Which is why I think Destroy and Refuse are the most sensible endings for Shepard to choose, and that a LOT more could and should have been done with Refuse.

 

But there is no role-playing stand-point for this argument in terms of in game support. Let's lay this out clearly, in the most basic elements what we know about the Crucible prior to firing:

 

It is a massive energy source.

It was modified over the course of mutliple cycles. 

 

And that is all we get. There is no "this is how we win!". Nobody even knows what the hell we're building. It's not an instant win button from any in character perspective, only from the meta "we know it's useful" standpoint. It's quite literally, the most insane plan imaginable, that would only be attempted as a last resort by someone who had completely and utterly given up all hope of any reasonable means of survival. 

 

If we are actually role-playing a Shepard who believed, for even a fraction of a second, that conventional victory was a possibility, then throwing those forces away into a suicidal assault to activate a device whose functionality is completely unknowable is pure insanity. Add on top of that....the Reapers now have the Citadel and can shut off the whole network whenever they'd like. 

 

There is no framework in place that makes Refuse a reasonable possibility in the context of Mass Effect, as written. Hypothetically what is everyone going to do united, given that the Reapers had no problem dividing their forces enough to overwhelm each planet individually, not to mention to hijack the Citadel with absolutely no consequences? 

[ThomasBlaine]

But there is no reasonable role-playing stand-point for this argument in terms of in game support. Let's lay this out clearly, in the most basic elements what we know about the Crucible prior to firing:

 

It is a massive energy source.

It was modified over the course of mutliple cycles. 

 

And that is all we get. There is no "this is how we win!". Nobody even knows what the hell we're building. It's not an instant win button from any in character perspective, only from the meta "we know it's useful" standpoint. It's quite literally, the most insane plan imaginable, that would only be attempted as a last resort by someone who had completely and utterly given up all hope of any reasonable means of survival. 

 

If we are actually role-playing a Shepard who believed, for even a fraction of a second, that conventional victory was a possibility, then throwing those forces away into a suicidal assault to activate a device whose functionality is completely unknowable is pure insanity. Add on top of that....the Reapers now have the Citadel and can shut off the whole network whenever they'd like. 

 

There is no framework in place that makes Refuse a reasonable possibility in the context of Mass Effect, as written. Hypothetically what is everyone going to do united, given that the Reapers had no problem dividing their forces enough to overwhelm each planet individually, not to mention to hijack the Citadel with absolutely no consequences? 

 

Liara explicitly states that from what data she's been able to decode it's a weapon built specifically for destroying the reapers, and Hackett tells Shepard that his scientists think it could definitely release enough energy to destroy them. As in enough of them at once or in quick succession to completely turn the tables. We later find out that it was modified by each cycle but has never been completed before because nobody could determine what the missing "Catalyst" was, possibly because the reapers immediately seized the Citadel as the first step in their invasion in each and every cycle.

 

That is not a meta standpoint. Shepard knows nothing about the data or the Crucible's technology, but everyone who does believes that the Crucible can win us the war if we build it and use it right, enough for Hackett to commision and prioritize its construction on top of everything else. That's called listening to your experts. Again, it's not Shepard's call to build it or launch a suicide mission to activate it, it's Hackett's, and Shepard is following orders because it'd be ridiculous not to given expert opinions.

 

Then Shepard actually activates it, and it turns out not to be a weapon at all but the possibly unreliable AI responsible for the reapers in the first place with its own motivations that says it'll let him/her use it to either sabotage all advanced technology in the galaxy, turn everybody into inexplicable organic-synthetic hybrids, or personally try to control the reapers. Somehow. There's no way to verify if this AI is capable of or inclined to lie, and it won't go into detail about any of those options or what they entail.

 

Standing back and letting your gargantuan fleet do its best instead of messing with that AI when you have no idea what you're doing and nobody to advise you is a perfectly understandable choice of action.

[Kookoo]

I personally think that the refuse option is not a very solid one. Our fleet barely survives during the attack on the reapers at earth and there are far more reapers left in the rest of the galaxy. So I really don't see a conventional victory being a thing.

But I wondered about another thing... As the catalysts home is the citadel and he is the one in charge, wouldn't it be enough to just blow it up? Is that even possible?

 

I dunno, but sadly every ending seems to have that big grain of salt. I simply prefer the galaxy being able to decide its own fate instead of me being the one who decides everything. What makes me believe that destruction is the best thing is that the catalyst mentions that we'll be able to rebuild all technology that will get destroyed which kinda indicates that we can rebuild EDI and the geth. At least to a certain extend.

In the end it's all a matter of personal prefference, just wanted to state my opinion on it