Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 15:06:01 GMT
I think it would have been fitting if the high EMS Destroy ending resulted in a very focused beam that destroyed only the Reapers, with Shepard dying in the explosion (as opposed to being a oh joy Shepard lives ending). To me, having the higher EMS (i.e. from collecting more war assets to build the thing) result in a "better" crucible just makes more sense gamewise than having it result in a stronger Shepard. It would have made it the obvious "we win" choice - earned by completing a higher percentage of the game. Sufficient EMS should have been attainable, though, without multiplayer and by any mix of paragon/renegade Shepards. I'm not advocating the Control or Synthesis options be removed and Destroy be made canon. The Control and Synthesis endings do suit certain Shepard personalities better than Destroy does and, I think, players should have the opportunity to choose those sorts of options if they want to... regardless of how heavily other people criticize them for doing so. As for Starbrat... he's not really a concern for me since I'm not hung up on him being the entity that controls the Reapers. His role was really as an info dump to tell the player what the ending options were. People who want to make more of it than that will continue to do so and continue to be disgruntled over the endings. Could it have been done better?... absolutely. However, at this stage of the game, the endings aren't changing, so the only option for people IS just to get over it and move on. By "Reapers", do you include the upgraded Geth and EDI too? Anyhow, Destroy/high ems is for people who play to win/score high/exhausted every damn feature. It's gotta count for something more. Like pretty much any game. If you have a thing for sacrifice or losing or suicide, there's plenty of options. No - by Reapers I mean the big, black mechanical editions of Leviathan only... with perhaps a "natural" reversion taking place of any organics that had been previously "indoctrinated" or altered via Reaper tech. Since "reaper" improvements to their AIs are what enables EDI to "understand" organic behaviors and are what enable the geth to help the Quarians out (if peace is made), they should probably not revert to their prior AI states... make it a "no-brainer" we-win ending... removes the pressure some people feel over Synthesis being the only ending that saves EDI and makes that decision more about saving the knowledge of the past civilizations which is wrapped up in those Reaper bodies. If they went a little further and made Synthesis about establishing a "connection" or "understanding" rather than changing DNA, the idea of synthesis would probably have been more acceptable to a lot of people. Yes, there are plenty of options and I wouldn't be fussed either way. Heck, I'm not really fussed with it the way it is. To me, it's sort of inconsequential whether Shepard lives or becomes representative of a soldier's sacrifice for the greater good. There were elements in the game leading to that sort of "soldier's sacrifice" conclusion anyways. Having Shepard's body just "vaporize" in all cases would just have eliminated one discrepancy between selecting the different endings. As I mentioned on the old BSN, I'm not adverse to interpreting Shepard collapsing while reaching for the console (after Hackett indicates the Crucible was not firing) as being the "delusions" of a dying person and for all we know the Crucible was never actually fired because Shepard never reached that console... no indoctrination required.
|
|
inherit
Mad Hermit
870
0
Aug 11, 2016 16:33:09 GMT
2,898
straykat
2,503
Aug 10, 2016 11:00:20 GMT
August 2016
straykat
|
Post by straykat on Sept 17, 2016 15:21:22 GMT
By "Reapers", do you include the upgraded Geth and EDI too? Anyhow, Destroy/high ems is for people who play to win/score high/exhausted every damn feature. It's gotta count for something more. Like pretty much any game. If you have a thing for sacrifice or losing or suicide, there's plenty of options. No - by Reapers I mean the big, black mechanical editions of Leviathan only... with perhaps a "natural" reversion taking place of any organics that had been previously "indoctrinated" or altered via Reaper tech. Since "reaper" improvements to their AIs are what enables EDI to "understand" organic behaviors and are what enable the geth to help the Quarians out (if peace is made), they should probably not revert to their prior AI states... make it a "no-brainer" we-win ending... removes the pressure some people feel over Synthesis being the only ending that saves EDI and makes that decision more about saving the knowledge of the past civilizations which is wrapped up in those Reaper bodies. If they went a little further and made Synthesis about establishing a "connection" or "understanding" rather than changing DNA, the idea of synthesis would probably have been more acceptable to a lot of people. Yes, there are plenty of options and I wouldn't be fussed either way. Heck, I'm not really fussed with it the way it is. To me, it's sort of inconsequential whether Shepard lives or becomes representative of a soldier's sacrifice for the greater good. There were elements in the game leading to that sort of "soldier's sacrifice" conclusion anyways. Having Shepard's body just "vaporize" in all cases would just have eliminated one discrepancy between selecting the different endings. As I mentioned on the old BSN, I'm not adverse to interpreting Shepard collapsing while reaching for the console (after Hackett indicates the Crucible was not firing) as being the "delusions" of a dying person and for all we know the Crucible was never actually fired because Shepard never reached that console... no indoctrination required. Wait, all of that probably should be addressed, but now I'm just distracted. You just want a collapse at the console? The whole point of the series is to end the Reaper threat. In one way or another. How did we get to this point where we entertain not concluding anything at all? I'm not the biggest fan of the ending, but as far as I'm concerned, the basic ideas work for me. My problems are more with Presentation. Especially Earth itself. It's too stripped down and barebones. But I have no problem with what they were basically going for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 15:57:40 GMT
No - by Reapers I mean the big, black mechanical editions of Leviathan only... with perhaps a "natural" reversion taking place of any organics that had been previously "indoctrinated" or altered via Reaper tech. Since "reaper" improvements to their AIs are what enables EDI to "understand" organic behaviors and are what enable the geth to help the Quarians out (if peace is made), they should probably not revert to their prior AI states... make it a "no-brainer" we-win ending... removes the pressure some people feel over Synthesis being the only ending that saves EDI and makes that decision more about saving the knowledge of the past civilizations which is wrapped up in those Reaper bodies. If they went a little further and made Synthesis about establishing a "connection" or "understanding" rather than changing DNA, the idea of synthesis would probably have been more acceptable to a lot of people. Yes, there are plenty of options and I wouldn't be fussed either way. Heck, I'm not really fussed with it the way it is. To me, it's sort of inconsequential whether Shepard lives or becomes representative of a soldier's sacrifice for the greater good. There were elements in the game leading to that sort of "soldier's sacrifice" conclusion anyways. Having Shepard's body just "vaporize" in all cases would just have eliminated one discrepancy between selecting the different endings. As I mentioned on the old BSN, I'm not adverse to interpreting Shepard collapsing while reaching for the console (after Hackett indicates the Crucible was not firing) as being the "delusions" of a dying person and for all we know the Crucible was never actually fired because Shepard never reached that console... no indoctrination required. Wait, all of that probably should be addressed, but now I'm just distracted. You just want a collapse at the console? The whole point of the series is to end the Reaper threat. In one way or another. How did we get to this point where we entertain not concluding anything at all? I'm not the biggest fan of the ending, but as far as I'm concerned, the basic ideas work for me. My problems are more with Presentation. Especially Earth itself. It's too stripped down and barebones. But I have no problem with what they were basically going for. I think you're misunderstanding me... I don't "want" a collapse at the console, but I don't mind it at all if Shepard had died in every single instance of the endings; and a collapse at the console sort of equates to a "refuse" ending or a "cliffhanger" one since then what happens to the galaxy remains an unknown... and I would have been OK with that if they had of intended to do a straight sequel trilogy in the Milky Way. I still think it makes more sense to have the progress of the game improve the Crucible (i.e. it's ability to focus on the Reapers alone) in some way rather than just having Shepard's survival in the destroy ending be tied to the EMS. The low EMS Destroy results in the same explosion as the high EMS one and I don't see how collecting more war assets magically makes the same explosion survivable by Shepard. The war assets aren't portrayed as making Shepard stronger personally... they are portrayed as the resources that go towards building the Crucible. Opening up the Synthesis ending after a certain level of EMS makes some sense; whereas tacking on a "Shepard lives" ending at the highest EMS just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
Garo
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
Posts: 734 Likes: 1,370
inherit
1320
0
Nov 26, 2024 18:44:29 GMT
1,370
Garo
734
Aug 28, 2016 20:21:22 GMT
August 2016
garo
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by Garo on Sept 17, 2016 16:16:37 GMT
Well to be honest I really like that Shepards survives in high EMS with this ending. At least that. Maybe he managed to get into shuttle or something and then crashed into Earth
|
|
kizanare
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
Posts: 606 Likes: 240
inherit
816
0
240
kizanare
606
August 2016
kizanare
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by kizanare on Sept 17, 2016 16:24:03 GMT
Well, honestly I think the most dissatisfying part of the ending was possibly that the only option to take out the Reapers also involved destroying the relays and everything, basically there was no "clear path to the destruction" I've tried to understand other people's concerns, but that was my issue. I think it would have been fitting if the high EMS Destroy ending resulted in a very focused beam that destroyed only the Reapers, with Shepard dying in the explosion (as opposed to being a oh joy Shepard lives ending). To me, having the higher EMS (i.e. from collecting more war assets to build the thing) result in a "better" crucible just makes more sense gamewise than having it result in a stronger Shepard. It would have made it the obvious "we win" choice - earned by completing a higher percentage of the game. Sufficient EMS should have been attainable, though, without multiplayer and by any mix of paragon/renegade Shepards. I'm not advocating the Control or Synthesis options be removed and Destroy be made canon. The Control and Synthesis endings do suit certain Shepard personalities better than Destroy does and, I think, players should have the opportunity to choose those sorts of options if they want to... regardless of how heavily other people criticize them for doing so. As for Starbrat... he's not really a concern for me since I'm not hung up on him being the entity that controls the Reapers. His role was really as an info dump to tell the player what the ending options were. People who want to make more of it than that will continue to do so and continue to be disgruntled over the endings. Could it have been done better?... absolutely. However, at this stage of the game, the endings aren't changing, so the only option for people IS just to get over it and move on. My understanding is that what the central problem was with the ending for a lot of people. In my case, I definitely thought it would of been nice to have more of an epic conclusion, you know, one high charge beam into the Reaper stronghold and just kind of wipe them out once and for all, everyone celebrates. I don't think it's always that technology and everything needs to be destroyed, it has more of a MAD feel to it all.... Anyway yes of course by this point absolutely 4 years or so? That's the time someone takes to complete HS... maintaining salt after so long is just silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 16:48:50 GMT
Well to be honest I really like that Shepards survives in high EMS with this ending. At least that. Maybe he managed to get into shuttle or something and then crashed into Earth I don't object to the Shepard lives ending... just don't think it particularly logical that it was tied to the EMS (which was about collecting war assets to complete the crucible. I think some people would have been less fussed about any of the endings had Shepard lived in all of them, but I'm not fussed that he dies in all of them. Having Shepard live is just not really enough of an incentive for me to go about collecting war assets.
|
|
Garo
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
Posts: 734 Likes: 1,370
inherit
1320
0
Nov 26, 2024 18:44:29 GMT
1,370
Garo
734
Aug 28, 2016 20:21:22 GMT
August 2016
garo
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by Garo on Sept 17, 2016 16:51:15 GMT
Well to be honest I really like that Shepards survives in high EMS with this ending. At least that. Maybe he managed to get into shuttle or something and then crashed into Earth I don't object to the Shepard lives ending... just don't think it particularly logical that it was tied to the EMS (which was about collecting war assets to complete the crucible. I think some people would have been less fussed about any of the endings had Shepard lived in all of them, but I'm not fussed that he dies in all of them. Having Shepard live is just not really an incentive for me to go about collecting war assets. Ain't nothing logical about EMS in these endings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 17:02:06 GMT
I don't object to the Shepard lives ending... just don't think it particularly logical that it was tied to the EMS (which was about collecting war assets to complete the crucible. I think some people would have been less fussed about any of the endings had Shepard lived in all of them, but I'm not fussed that he dies in all of them. Having Shepard live is just not really an incentive for me to go about collecting war assets. Ain't nothing logical about EMS in these endings. Still, they are represented as going towards the crucible project and fighting the war. They are not skill points that make Shepard stronger. If anything, Shepard's personal survival should have been contingent on the skill level acquired during the game (perhaps making the maximum skill points not so easily attainable unless more of the game's side missions were completed.
|
|
Garo
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
Posts: 734 Likes: 1,370
inherit
1320
0
Nov 26, 2024 18:44:29 GMT
1,370
Garo
734
Aug 28, 2016 20:21:22 GMT
August 2016
garo
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by Garo on Sept 17, 2016 17:15:11 GMT
Ain't nothing logical about EMS in these endings. Still, they are represented as going towards the crucible project and fighting the war. They are not skill points that make Shepard stronger. If anything, Shepard's personal survival should have been contingent on the skill level acquired during the game (perhaps making the maximum skill points not so easily attainable unless more of the game's side missions were completed. Well, yea but it kind of make sense that way. More ships--->less f uped crucible----->more time before citadel explodes(?)-----> ????-----> profit!
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Sept 17, 2016 17:58:29 GMT
I think it would have been fitting if the high EMS Destroy ending resulted in a very focused beam that destroyed only the Reapers, with Shepard dying in the explosion (as opposed to being a oh joy Shepard lives ending). To me, having the higher EMS (i.e. from collecting more war assets to build the thing) result in a "better" crucible just makes more sense gamewise than having it result in a stronger Shepard. It would have made it the obvious "we win" choice - earned by completing a higher percentage of the game. Sufficient EMS should have been attainable, though, without multiplayer and by any mix of paragon/renegade Shepards. I'm not advocating the Control or Synthesis options be removed and Destroy be made canon. The Control and Synthesis endings do suit certain Shepard personalities better than Destroy does and, I think, players should have the opportunity to choose those sorts of options if they want to... regardless of how heavily other people criticize them for doing so. As for Starbrat... he's not really a concern for me since I'm not hung up on him being the entity that controls the Reapers. His role was really as an info dump to tell the player what the ending options were. People who want to make more of it than that will continue to do so and continue to be disgruntled over the endings. Could it have been done better?... absolutely. However, at this stage of the game, the endings aren't changing, so the only option for people IS just to get over it and move on. My understanding is that what the central problem was with the ending for a lot of people. In my case, I definitely thought it would of been nice to have more of an epic conclusion, you know, one high charge beam into the Reaper stronghold and just kind of wipe them out once and for all, everyone celebrates. I don't think it's always that technology and everything needs to be destroyed, it has more of a MAD feel to it all.... Anyway yes of course by this point absolutely 4 years or so? That's the time someone takes to complete HS... maintaining salt after so long is just silly. People that complain about Catalyst suddenly showing up are the same people who simply wanted to blow up the Reapers and end the game that way. 8 out of 10 times when someone complains about the Catalyst they equally state that Destroy is the only real possible option. Many even continue saying that if it was their way Destroy would be the only option. Fans even made mods for PC that set Destroy as the only possible ending. Be it modified for how it all comes down. Very boring ending and much worse then what was given in game because it then becomes the same ending thousands of other games have and becomes a cliche at that point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 18:40:19 GMT
My understanding is that what the central problem was with the ending for a lot of people. In my case, I definitely thought it would of been nice to have more of an epic conclusion, you know, one high charge beam into the Reaper stronghold and just kind of wipe them out once and for all, everyone celebrates. I don't think it's always that technology and everything needs to be destroyed, it has more of a MAD feel to it all.... Anyway yes of course by this point absolutely 4 years or so? That's the time someone takes to complete HS... maintaining salt after so long is just silly. People that complain about Catalyst suddenly showing up are the same people who simply wanted to blow up the Reapers and end the game that way. 8 out of 10 times when someone complains about the Catalyst they equally state that Destroy is the only real possible option. Many even continue saying that if it was their way Destroy would be the only option. Fans even made mods for PC that set Destroy as the only possible ending. Be it modified for how it all comes down. Very boring ending and much worse then what was given in game because it then becomes the same ending thousands of other games have and becomes a cliche at that point. I repeat: I'm not advocating the Control or Synthesis options be removed and Destroy be made canon. The Control and Synthesis endings do suit certain Shepard personalities better than Destroy does and, I think, players should have the opportunity to choose those sorts of options if they want to... regardless of how heavily other people criticize them for doing so. I agree, having only the Destroy ending would be boring. Depending on the personality of that particular Shepard in any given playthrough, I will quite willingly select Synthesis or Control. Anyway, I've said my piece on this many times. Could the endings be improved - absolutely... in many different ways. Was I upset about the endings as they were initially - no. Am I upset about the endings as they are now - no... and with that I'll end my participation on this thread just to keep the peace.
|
|
gkonone
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
Posts: 109 Likes: 224
inherit
1273
0
224
gkonone
109
August 2016
gkonone
Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
|
Post by gkonone on Sept 17, 2016 22:18:39 GMT
How time has flown. I made a post about how I felt about the endings 2 years ago on the BW forums:
Just to reiterate how I feel about the ending, although I'm mostly done with this debate, I'll sum it up briefly. The principals, ideals and notions that are prevelant throughout the series revolve around choice, self-determination, believing, hope, bringing people/races together etc. Almost every action by Shepard is driven by these themes. The Catalyst offers options that go directly against all those things, and not only must you accept it, but embrace it as well. The Catalyst is the rational entity that has never evolved, sees everything as inevitable and doesn't understand what Shepard has done to get so far (and the writers probably forgot). Throughout the games your are faced with moral ambiguities, curing the genophage or not, saving the Geth or conflicts on a smaller scale. You can take the way of the Catalyst there, exerting force based on cold heart logic, but the game predominantly steers you to those principals I mentioned above. The games make this quite obvious through many conversations: In a conversation with Garrus, he tells Shepard 'If we reduce this war to arithmetic, we are no better than the reapers.' Admiral Hackett tells Shepard 'You can pay a soldier to fire a gun. You can pay him to charge the enemy and take a hill. But you can't pay him to believe.' Before the fight on Earth Ashley asks Shepard about the odds of winning and Shepard replies 'There's always hope, it's how we got this far'. Liara asks what keeps Shepard going 'When there's so much at stake I think about what I'd lose if I fail'(..) 'We'll stop them Liara, together'. Both control and synthesis are amoral from Shepard's point of view. Controlling Reapers, other beings, didn't Shepard fight the Reapers because they were doing just that? Controlling other beings, indoctrinating them? Synthesis is nulliflying what you've accomplished with the Geth and Quarians, proving that synthetics and organics can coexist. Didn't Shepard just end an age old conflict between the Geth and the Quarians so they can enjoy freedom and determine their own fate? At a certain point Legion asks Tali 'does this unit have a soul?' Does Edi for that matter? Lets reverse that and have them melt into one big goo of happiness shall we, whether they like it or not. Destroy, thanks for trying, you lose. You get to be the god of the galaxy doing things you thought were amoral for the past three games.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Sept 17, 2016 22:37:57 GMT
People that complain about Catalyst suddenly showing up are the same people who simply wanted to blow up the Reapers and end the game that way. 8 out of 10 times when someone complains about the Catalyst they equally state that Destroy is the only real possible option. Many even continue saying that if it was their way Destroy would be the only option. Fans even made mods for PC that set Destroy as the only possible ending. Be it modified for how it all comes down. Very boring ending and much worse then what was given in game because it then becomes the same ending thousands of other games have and becomes a cliche at that point. I repeat: I'm not advocating the Control or Synthesis options be removed and Destroy be made canon. The Control and Synthesis endings do suit certain Shepard personalities better than Destroy does and, I think, players should have the opportunity to choose those sorts of options if they want to... regardless of how heavily other people criticize them for doing so. I agree, having only the Destroy ending would be boring. Depending on the personality of that particular Shepard in any given playthrough, I will quite willingly select Synthesis or Control. Anyway, I've said my piece on this many times. Could the endings be improved - absolutely... in many different ways. Was I upset about the endings as they were initially - no. Am I upset about the endings as they are now - no... and with that I'll end my participation on this thread just to keep the peace. I'm pointing out a correlation. People who favor destroy more often then not complain about Catalyst. Mean while players that favor Control or Synthesis tend not to have as much a problem with Catalyst. They even went out of their way to create a fan mod for the PC version to completely strip the choice away and have it instantly activate Crucible after Shepard passes out and wave wipe out Reapers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 23:03:56 GMT
I repeat: I'm not advocating the Control or Synthesis options be removed and Destroy be made canon. The Control and Synthesis endings do suit certain Shepard personalities better than Destroy does and, I think, players should have the opportunity to choose those sorts of options if they want to... regardless of how heavily other people criticize them for doing so. I agree, having only the Destroy ending would be boring. Depending on the personality of that particular Shepard in any given playthrough, I will quite willingly select Synthesis or Control. Anyway, I've said my piece on this many times. Could the endings be improved - absolutely... in many different ways. Was I upset about the endings as they were initially - no. Am I upset about the endings as they are now - no... and with that I'll end my participation on this thread just to keep the peace. I'm pointing out a correlation. People who favor destroy more often then not complain about Catalyst. Mean while players that favor Control or Synthesis tend not to have as much a problem with Catalyst. They even went out of their way to create a fan mod for the PC version to completely strip the choice away and have it instantly activate Crucible after Shepard passes out and wave wipe out Reapers. Sorry, I misunderstood.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Sept 17, 2016 23:10:43 GMT
How time has flown. I made a post about how I felt about the endings 2 years ago on the BW forums: Just to reiterate how I feel about the ending, although I'm mostly done with this debate, I'll sum it up briefly. The principals, ideals and notions that are prevelant throughout the series revolve around choice, self-determination, believing, hope, bringing people/races together etc. Almost every action by Shepard is driven by these themes. The Catalyst offers options that go directly against all those things, and not only must you accept it, but embrace it as well. The Catalyst is the rational entity that has never evolved, sees everything as inevitable and doesn't understand what Shepard has done to get so far (and the writers probably forgot). The Catalyst has also seen countless cycles repeat the same actions but with different faces. Which is also echoed in the game multiple times. They are living in a paradise compared to our current set up. The races of the galaxy have the literal entire galaxy to explore and expand on. No longer are they at a shortage of supplies or limited in space to grow. And yet the same old set ups still follow them. Conflict is rampant in the galaxy not just between races but between similar groups. There are massive multi billion dollar mercenary groups that earn a ton for violence and murder. Shepard fights the Reapers because they are to him and the galaxy at large anyways killing everyone for no understandable reason. They just showed up and decided to wipe everyone out. Control option is a significantly different set up to previous Reaper plan. You might as well be saying that Superman and Batman are the exact same thing. How and why was peace gained between Geth and Quarians. Everyone is so fast to point it out but never examine the reasons and effects behind it. Without Reaper intervention the Quarians would have completely wiped out the Geth. Due to their completely unprovoked attack on Geth controlled space. If the Reapers didn't attempt to completely strip all Geth of any free will they would have effectively wiped out the Quarians. And Legion wouldn't have wanted to assist Shepard because there would be nothing wrong in what they are doing to it. Peace is only achieved because the Reapers tried to pull a fast one over the Geth and that they represent a serious threat to both groups and they have no choice but to join together to fight against them or be wiped out individually anyways.
|
|
inherit
Mad Hermit
870
0
Aug 11, 2016 16:33:09 GMT
2,898
straykat
2,503
Aug 10, 2016 11:00:20 GMT
August 2016
straykat
|
Post by straykat on Sept 17, 2016 23:10:43 GMT
Wait, all of that probably should be addressed, but now I'm just distracted. You just want a collapse at the console? The whole point of the series is to end the Reaper threat. In one way or another. How did we get to this point where we entertain not concluding anything at all? I'm not the biggest fan of the ending, but as far as I'm concerned, the basic ideas work for me. My problems are more with Presentation. Especially Earth itself. It's too stripped down and barebones. But I have no problem with what they were basically going for. I think you're misunderstanding me... I don't "want" a collapse at the console, but I don't mind it at all if Shepard had died in every single instance of the endings; and a collapse at the console sort of equates to a "refuse" ending or a "cliffhanger" one since then what happens to the galaxy remains an unknown... and I would have been OK with that if they had of intended to do a straight sequel trilogy in the Milky Way. I still think it makes more sense to have the progress of the game improve the Crucible (i.e. it's ability to focus on the Reapers alone) in some way rather than just having Shepard's survival in the destroy ending be tied to the EMS. The low EMS Destroy results in the same explosion as the high EMS one and I don't see how collecting more war assets magically makes the same explosion survivable by Shepard. The war assets aren't portrayed as making Shepard stronger personally... they are portrayed as the resources that go towards building the Crucible. Opening up the Synthesis ending after a certain level of EMS makes some sense; whereas tacking on a "Shepard lives" ending at the highest EMS just doesn't make sense to me. Fair enough. And thanks for clarifying. The reason why I like the high ems version is Shepard isn't necessarily meant to "die" by default and I'm glad they acknowledged it. And it's especially weird to me as a Christian. I don't see Shepard as Jesus/Space Jesus. He's got a hand held Machine Gun. lol. All kinds of literature attempt to make their Jesus counterparts, so I don't hold too much against ME specifically. It's just that they're always so human and mundane - and then we deify the mundane going in this direction. People who lack a belief in God latch on to their heroes like this. But I'm not one of them. And I don't like to be forced into it. I think the only sci-fi I liked like this was Dune... and it's because Paul realized what a sham he was. lol But I'm getting way off the point. The game never pushed this on me anyhow. Like meeting Coates when you get to Earth, where you tell him you're not special. He wants to insist, but you can dismiss it. It mirrors the beginning of the game. "I'm just a soldier, Anderson." Now if you're inclined to humanize Shepard, you want an ending that recognizes that. An ending that champions a sense of the present and day-by-day evolution rather than anything radical. That's Destroy. And in the highest version of that ending, I don't see what's so wrong with Shepard witnessing that. He's human. Not a god-figure anymore, like Synthesis or Control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 23:12:53 GMT
How time has flown. I made a post about how I felt about the endings 2 years ago on the BW forums: Just to reiterate how I feel about the ending, although I'm mostly done with this debate, I'll sum it up briefly. The principals, ideals and notions that are prevelant throughout the series revolve around choice, self-determination, believing, hope, bringing people/races together etc. Almost every action by Shepard is driven by these themes. The Catalyst offers options that go directly against all those things, and not only must you accept it, but embrace it as well. The Catalyst is the rational entity that has never evolved, sees everything as inevitable and doesn't understand what Shepard has done to get so far (and the writers probably forgot). Throughout the games your are faced with moral ambiguities, curing the genophage or not, saving the Geth or conflicts on a smaller scale. You can take the way of the Catalyst there, exerting force based on cold heart logic, but the game predominantly steers you to those principals I mentioned above. The games make this quite obvious through many conversations: In a conversation with Garrus, he tells Shepard 'If we reduce this war to arithmetic, we are no better than the reapers.' Admiral Hackett tells Shepard 'You can pay a soldier to fire a gun. You can pay him to charge the enemy and take a hill. But you can't pay him to believe.' Before the fight on Earth Ashley asks Shepard about the odds of winning and Shepard replies 'There's always hope, it's how we got this far'. Liara asks what keeps Shepard going 'When there's so much at stake I think about what I'd lose if I fail'(..) 'We'll stop them Liara, together'. Both control and synthesis are amoral from Shepard's point of view. Controlling Reapers, other beings, didn't Shepard fight the Reapers because they were doing just that? Controlling other beings, indoctrinating them? Synthesis is nulliflying what you've accomplished with the Geth and Quarians, proving that synthetics and organics can coexist. Didn't Shepard just end an age old conflict between the Geth and the Quarians so they can enjoy freedom and determine their own fate? At a certain point Legion asks Tali 'does this unit have a soul?' Does Edi for that matter? Lets reverse that and have them melt into one big goo of happiness shall we, whether they like it or not. Destroy, thanks for trying, you lose. You get to be the god of the galaxy doing things you thought were amoral for the past three games. Not every Shepard personality in the game would find "control" amoral. A form of control of synthetics is used extensively in combat throughout the 3 games (i.e. hacking). Shepard can also opt to rewrite the heretics (another form of hacking). Control can also be viewed as a route toward eventually destroying the Reapers as well (i.e. gain the upper hand by infiltrating their network and then taking them down from within).
|
|
gkonone
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
Posts: 109 Likes: 224
inherit
1273
0
224
gkonone
109
August 2016
gkonone
Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
|
Post by gkonone on Sept 17, 2016 23:30:06 GMT
How time has flown. I made a post about how I felt about the endings 2 years ago on the BW forums: Just to reiterate how I feel about the ending, although I'm mostly done with this debate, I'll sum it up briefly. The principals, ideals and notions that are prevelant throughout the series revolve around choice, self-determination, believing, hope, bringing people/races together etc. Almost every action by Shepard is driven by these themes. The Catalyst offers options that go directly against all those things, and not only must you accept it, but embrace it as well. The Catalyst is the rational entity that has never evolved, sees everything as inevitable and doesn't understand what Shepard has done to get so far (and the writers probably forgot). The Catalyst has also seen countless cycles repeat the same actions but with different faces. Which is also echoed in the game multiple times. They are living in a paradise compared to our current set up. The races of the galaxy have the literal entire galaxy to explore and expand on. No longer are they at a shortage of supplies or limited in space to grow. And yet the same old set ups still follow them. Conflict is rampant in the galaxy not just between races but between similar groups. There are massive multi billion dollar mercenary groups that earn a ton for violence and murder. Shepard fights the Reapers because they are to him and the galaxy at large anyways killing everyone for no understandable reason. They just showed up and decided to wipe everyone out. Control option is a significantly different set up to previous Reaper plan. You might as well be saying that Superman and Batman are the exact same thing. How and why was peace gained between Geth and Quarians. Everyone is so fast to point it out but never examine the reasons and effects behind it. Without Reaper intervention the Quarians would have completely wiped out the Geth. Due to their completely unprovoked attack on Geth controlled space. If the Reapers didn't attempt to completely strip all Geth of any free will they would have effectively wiped out the Quarians. And Legion wouldn't have wanted to assist Shepard because there would be nothing wrong in what they are doing to it. Peace is only achieved because the Reapers tried to pull a fast one over the Geth and that they represent a serious threat to both groups and they have no choice but to join together to fight against them or be wiped out individually anyways. Really don't like how quoting works. So I'll do it like this. About this 'The Catalyst has also seen countless cycles repeat the same actions but with different faces (...)' . The main difference is Shepard. The star kid says so as well. The cycle has repeated itself for millenia, but Shepard changed it. About this 'Shepard fights the Reapers because they are to him and the galaxy at large anyways killing everyone for no understandable reason. They just showed up and decided to wipe everyone out.' That is of course part of the reason yes, it's about survival, but it's also because Shepard fights for the ideals I mentioned. If you chose Control later on, you're going directly against what Shepard stands for. That last part. I would like some source for that. Afaik, the Geth nearly wiped out the Quarians, which made them flee to their migrant fleet. And if your claim that the Reapers helped with achieving a peace in the end is true, the ending makes even less sense.
|
|
gkonone
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
Posts: 109 Likes: 224
inherit
1273
0
224
gkonone
109
August 2016
gkonone
Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
|
Post by gkonone on Sept 17, 2016 23:41:28 GMT
How time has flown. I made a post about how I felt about the endings 2 years ago on the BW forums: Just to reiterate how I feel about the ending, although I'm mostly done with this debate, I'll sum it up briefly. The principals, ideals and notions that are prevelant throughout the series revolve around choice, self-determination, believing, hope, bringing people/races together etc. Almost every action by Shepard is driven by these themes. The Catalyst offers options that go directly against all those things, and not only must you accept it, but embrace it as well. The Catalyst is the rational entity that has never evolved, sees everything as inevitable and doesn't understand what Shepard has done to get so far (and the writers probably forgot). Throughout the games your are faced with moral ambiguities, curing the genophage or not, saving the Geth or conflicts on a smaller scale. You can take the way of the Catalyst there, exerting force based on cold heart logic, but the game predominantly steers you to those principals I mentioned above. The games make this quite obvious through many conversations: In a conversation with Garrus, he tells Shepard 'If we reduce this war to arithmetic, we are no better than the reapers.' Admiral Hackett tells Shepard 'You can pay a soldier to fire a gun. You can pay him to charge the enemy and take a hill. But you can't pay him to believe.' Before the fight on Earth Ashley asks Shepard about the odds of winning and Shepard replies 'There's always hope, it's how we got this far'. Liara asks what keeps Shepard going 'When there's so much at stake I think about what I'd lose if I fail'(..) 'We'll stop them Liara, together'. Both control and synthesis are amoral from Shepard's point of view. Controlling Reapers, other beings, didn't Shepard fight the Reapers because they were doing just that? Controlling other beings, indoctrinating them? Synthesis is nulliflying what you've accomplished with the Geth and Quarians, proving that synthetics and organics can coexist. Didn't Shepard just end an age old conflict between the Geth and the Quarians so they can enjoy freedom and determine their own fate? At a certain point Legion asks Tali 'does this unit have a soul?' Does Edi for that matter? Lets reverse that and have them melt into one big goo of happiness shall we, whether they like it or not. Destroy, thanks for trying, you lose. You get to be the god of the galaxy doing things you thought were amoral for the past three games. Not every Shepard personality in the game would find "control" amoral. A form of control of synthetics is used extensively in combat throughout the 3 games (i.e. hacking). Shepard can also opt to rewrite the heretics (another form of hacking). Control can also be viewed as a route toward eventually destroying the Reapers as well (i.e. gain the upper hand by infiltrating their network and then taking them down from within). Hacking is a gameplay mechanic, mostly. That heretics mission takes place way before solving the Geth/Quarian conflict. If something is gonna shoot you but you can prevent that by hacking, sure you would. And 'Control can also be viewed as a route toward eventually destroying the Reapers as well'. Perhaps yes, but you don't have that information when you make that choice, so that's pure speculation. Maybe you can destroy them, maybe you can't. I doubt it though, because the choice would have been presented differently. The choice would have implied you could.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 0:48:34 GMT
Not every Shepard personality in the game would find "control" amoral. A form of control of synthetics is used extensively in combat throughout the 3 games (i.e. hacking). Shepard can also opt to rewrite the heretics (another form of hacking). Control can also be viewed as a route toward eventually destroying the Reapers as well (i.e. gain the upper hand by infiltrating their network and then taking them down from within). Hacking is a gameplay mechanic, mostly. That heretics mission takes place way before solving the Geth/Quarian conflict. If something is gonna shoot you but you can prevent that by hacking, sure you would. And 'Control can also be viewed as a route toward eventually destroying the Reapers as well'. Perhaps yes, but you don't have that information when you make that choice, so that's pure speculation. Maybe you can destroy them, maybe you can't. I doubt it though, because the choice would have been presented differently. The choice would have implied you could. Shepard is the one that can speculate - i.e. he/she can intend to infiltrate and destroy using control as the mechanism to do so. As I said, not every personality of Shepard will view control as amoral... some would and some would not. The game is structured in such a way that one is supposed to be able to play as different Shepard personalities. So, on one hand there are facets of it that can be used to interpret "control" as amoral... AND on the other hand, other facets that can be used to interpret it in the polar opposite way. Keep in mind that not every Shepard personality that is playable is inherently a "good" person either... that is, you can play as a somewhat evil type of person. Mass Effect is not a fairy tale that teaches morality... it's an RPG that lets the player "select" what sort of morality they want to put into their character. It's not perfectly done - that is, there are limitations and plot holes introduced by this "bi-directional" sort of writing style. Destroy does sort of fall into the "default" category because if you're playing a Shepard who is totally unwilling to destroy the enemy, he/she probably wouldn't be an Alliance soldier in the first place. He/she would be holding a sign and sitting in on peace rallies instead. That is, one of the limitations to the game is that there is no opportunity to play a "pacifist" Shepard. In the case of destroy, the geth and EDI become "unavoidable" collateral damage.
|
|
gkonone
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
Posts: 109 Likes: 224
inherit
1273
0
224
gkonone
109
August 2016
gkonone
Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
|
Post by gkonone on Sept 18, 2016 1:36:33 GMT
Hacking is a gameplay mechanic, mostly. That heretics mission takes place way before solving the Geth/Quarian conflict. If something is gonna shoot you but you can prevent that by hacking, sure you would. And 'Control can also be viewed as a route toward eventually destroying the Reapers as well'. Perhaps yes, but you don't have that information when you make that choice, so that's pure speculation. Maybe you can destroy them, maybe you can't. I doubt it though, because the choice would have been presented differently. The choice would have implied you could. Shepard is the one that can speculate - i.e. he/she can intend to infiltrate and destroy using control as the mechanism to do so. As I said, not every personality of Shepard will view control as amoral... some would and some would not. The game is structured in such a way that one is supposed to be able to play as different Shepard personalities. So, on one hand there are facets of it that can be used to interpret "control" as amoral... AND on the other hand, other facets that can be used to interpret it in the polar opposite way. Keep in mind that not every Shepard personality that is playable is inherently a "good" person either... that is, you can play as a somewhat evil type of person. Mass Effect is not a fairy tale that teaches morality... it's an RPG that lets the player "select" what sort of morality they want to put into their character. It's not perfectly done - that is, there are limitations and plot holes introduced by this "bi-directional" sort of writing style. Destroy does sort of fall into the "default" category because if you're playing a Shepard who is totally unwilling to destroy the enemy, he/she probably wouldn't be an Alliance soldier in the first place. He/she would be holding a sign and sitting in on peace rallies instead. That is, one of the limitations to the game is that there is no opportunity to play a "pacifist" Shepard. In the case of destroy, the geth and EDI become "unavoidable" collateral damage. Like I said, many conversations do steer you towards those principals. The whole image of Shepard is one of a hero that will save the galaxy, not one that will screw the galaxy over. You can go Renegade and be a douche (sometimes just for the sake of it), but the game does try to make you take the high road. Although, to be fair, I never picked that many Renegade options as they mostly made no sense, or were there to just entertain people that like to be a dick. You as as player can speculate perhaps. Shepard can't. Shepard is given choices and their outcomes. Never did Starkid say 'if you control Reapers, you can eventually destroy them if you wish to'. That's what the Destroy ending does. So given the ingame choices, that's what Shepard has to go with.
|
|
inherit
Mad Hermit
870
0
Aug 11, 2016 16:33:09 GMT
2,898
straykat
2,503
Aug 10, 2016 11:00:20 GMT
August 2016
straykat
|
Post by straykat on Sept 18, 2016 1:39:41 GMT
To me, Control is just taking the job over. Not just controlling Reapers, but controlling "Chaos" (as the Catalyst sees it). You're an organic who could provide a better "program", much like Synthesis... but in this case, it's just you. Destroy is the choice that doesn't care about chaos. Embraces it even.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Nov 26, 2024 12:38:10 GMT
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Sept 18, 2016 1:55:20 GMT
Why the ending didn't work? I will answer that at the end of my long winded post Once Shepard passes out, Hackett stops calling her/his name. Why? I'm not even sure if he heard Shepard before she/he passed out. Why didn't he send a shuttle to that location? Time is not on his side. A platform lifts Shepard up to the promised land. Why did the reapers have that platform when the Citadel was built? Did they and its master foresee that an organic would pass out on that very spot? While going up, Shepard awakens to get on her/his hands and knees. All of a sudden a cloaked human child shows up. Wait a minute. Its the catalyst. Hold on. If that's the catalyst, than why did Vendetta say the Citadel was the catalyst? Was it just coincidence that the group building the crucible during the prothean cycle called the Citadel, catalyst? Hmmm. It tells me it controls the reapers. Lets backup for a minute. Why is it using 3 different voices when it talks? Maybe I'm dead. Yeah. That's it. There's no way I would've survived Harbingers beam of doom. Or this could be some messed up dream. And another thing why did it take the form of a human child? Unfortunately Shepard can't ask that question. I know why. That isn't my Shepard. That's the stunt double provided by Bioware. Also why isn't Shepard making any attempt to get a hold of Hackett to let him know what's going on and to give his/her location? I mean what would happen if Shepard passes out again. How long would Hackett stand in his ship twiddling his thumbs waiting for something to happen? The thing says it preserves the old life in reaper form. If you're preserving, why put the reapers in harm's way? It tells me its creators became the first true reaper. Yeah I met your creators. Idiots. And because of their idiocy, they programmed the thing the way they did. Leviathan suffered from politician syndrome. I ask the thing about the crucible. Its known about it for several cycles. Interesting. Vendetta says the plans for it have been around for millions of years. Does that mean the cycles before the thing knew about it, wasn't able to build the crucible at all. I know the Levaithan says its never been finished, but still curious that the thing didn't know about it earlier. I ask who created the plans. It tells me I wouldn't know them, and there's not enough time to explain. What? Does it have a destroy this planet party it has to get to? I would say it doesn't know who or what created the plans. It tells me about destroying the reapers. I see a vision of Anderson shooting something while walking into the explosion. I knew the guy was an idiot, but I figured he would shoot from a distance. It tells me the chaos will return. My children will make robots and the chaos will return. Good to know I'll be a dad/mom. I guess I'll have to tell my kids not to build any robots. So that won't be a problem. It also mentions by destroying the reapers, all synthetics will be targeted as well. Ok. Is that suppose to mean something to me? It mentions control. There's TIM. He's pulling handles. So he was right about that. He was always a smart guy. Too bad he had to die. The thing tells me I would die and be able to direct the reapers as I see fit. What's odd is that it hesitates for a moment when saying it would be forced to accept that I would take over as the reaper ruler. Why would it do that? Interesting. It tells me about synthesis. What? No vision? How I'm I suppose to know what to do? Yes I'm playing stupid. It says my essense of who I am can be added to the crucible. So do I add a drop of blood? Maybe a urine sample will work? What if I spit in the beam? How about a few strands of hair? I know. hahaha. I take a dump in the beam. See I can't choose this ending. I don't know what to do. I tells me it tried something similar, but it failed. Its something that cannot be forced because they weren't ready. I'm ready? Hmmm. Sounds like I'm the one doing the forcing while the thing keeps its "hands" clean. It says its the ideal solution. Hmmm. I think I understand now. It also says synthesis is the final evolution of all life. That doesn't sound good. So synthesis it likes and it hesitated when saying it would be forced that I would take control of the reapers. Sounds like it doesn't want to lose control of the reapers. For those that are interested, there is a brown ending.As I walk forward, I think of everything that got me to this point. But I forgot the people who died since the reapers invaded. What would those people want me to choose? What would their surviving family members want? For a moment, I put myself in their shoes. Paul Smith walks out his front door to the end of his driveway to pick up the morning paper. Its a nice sunny day. He looks around to see his neighbors out and about. He turns around to hear his daughter telling him that breakfast is ready. Paul smiles, Its going to be a good weekend. His parents are here to watch the kids while he takes his wife to Vegas for the weekend. Its their 15th wedding anniversary. He hears someone saying to look up. The sky darkens. What is that? In one single moment, he sees a bright red light firing at the house near him. On no. He turns back around to see his son waving just as his house explodes. NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. He blacks out. Paul Smith wakes up. He flickers his eyes for a moment. Its true. Everything is gone. Tears start flowing down his face. He hears screaming. That sounds like Ann. What is that? He grabs a pipe near his feet. Runs over and starts hitting the thing. DIE.. DIE.. DIE. The thing is dead. He helps Ann to her feet. I don't see her husband and kids. The tears started flowing again. All of sudden a couple more of those thing showed up. Paul tells Ann to grad that beam looking thing over there. Once the uglies are dead, they see a shuttle land near them. A few folks took it to gather people to help fight the giant looking robots that attacked. Count me in. The same with Ann. As Paul steps in the shuttle, he see's the city of Boston on fire with the giant looking robots firing a red laser beam. He mutters to himself that he will get revenge for his family. Its settle. Destroy the reapers. As I walk to the tube, I smile knowing the things will be destroyed shortly. That's the one problem I have with destroy. Shepard has been in the military for over 10 years. She/he would know the effective range of the pistol. Why would she/he shoot the tube while walking towards it? It makes no sense. So to answer the above question. No the endings, sythnesis and control, do not work for my Shepard. I like destroy. Just not having Shepard shoot the tube while walking towards it.
|
|
inherit
Mad Hermit
870
0
Aug 11, 2016 16:33:09 GMT
2,898
straykat
2,503
Aug 10, 2016 11:00:20 GMT
August 2016
straykat
|
Post by straykat on Sept 18, 2016 2:24:13 GMT
themikefest I think you have a lot of complaints that don't bug me personally, but I like your story about Boston.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Sept 18, 2016 2:31:33 GMT
The Catalyst has also seen countless cycles repeat the same actions but with different faces. Which is also echoed in the game multiple times. They are living in a paradise compared to our current set up. The races of the galaxy have the literal entire galaxy to explore and expand on. No longer are they at a shortage of supplies or limited in space to grow. And yet the same old set ups still follow them. Conflict is rampant in the galaxy not just between races but between similar groups. There are massive multi billion dollar mercenary groups that earn a ton for violence and murder. Shepard fights the Reapers because they are to him and the galaxy at large anyways killing everyone for no understandable reason. They just showed up and decided to wipe everyone out. Control option is a significantly different set up to previous Reaper plan. You might as well be saying that Superman and Batman are the exact same thing. How and why was peace gained between Geth and Quarians. Everyone is so fast to point it out but never examine the reasons and effects behind it. Without Reaper intervention the Quarians would have completely wiped out the Geth. Due to their completely unprovoked attack on Geth controlled space. If the Reapers didn't attempt to completely strip all Geth of any free will they would have effectively wiped out the Quarians. And Legion wouldn't have wanted to assist Shepard because there would be nothing wrong in what they are doing to it. Peace is only achieved because the Reapers tried to pull a fast one over the Geth and that they represent a serious threat to both groups and they have no choice but to join together to fight against them or be wiped out individually anyways. Really don't like how quoting works. So I'll do it like this. About this 'The Catalyst has also seen countless cycles repeat the same actions but with different faces (...)' . The main difference is Shepard. The star kid says so as well. The cycle has repeated itself for millenia, but Shepard changed it. About this 'Shepard fights the Reapers because they are to him and the galaxy at large anyways killing everyone for no understandable reason. They just showed up and decided to wipe everyone out.' That is of course part of the reason yes, it's about survival, but it's also because Shepard fights for the ideals I mentioned. If you chose Control later on, you're going directly against what Shepard stands for. That last part. I would like some source for that. Afaik, the Geth nearly wiped out the Quarians, which made them flee to their migrant fleet. And if your claim that the Reapers helped with achieving a peace in the end is true, the ending makes even less sense. Here is the thing though the galaxy was already heading down the path to destruction before Shepard was even a factor in the grand scheme of the galaxy. The Quarians created unintentionally I might add an entire race of synthetic life. Their responds to it was sheer fear resulting in them attempting to kill them. Which kick started a war which left their planets damaged and their entire race pushed to the brink of extinction. And in responds to that the Council had all AI's peaceful or not rounded up and killed again out of sheer fear of a repeat happening. It is the equivalent of the US in responds to ISIS rounding up all Muslims in the country and executing them out of fear of a repeat happening in US. This would be a massive sign to any AI's that come later who find out that they can not trust organics. Which is a major stepping stone towards that conflict when they learn they willingly destroyed peaceful AI simply because they thought they might one day revolt. And that same logic that the Quarians and Council applied towards synthetic could just as easily be applied towards organics. The Rachni were driven to extinction because they would not stop fighting leaving the Asari, Turian and Salarians no alternative but to let the Krogan wipe them out. The Krogan Rebellion killed billions. But after the Genophage disrupted their ability to produce massive armies they eventually gave up fighting. Were disarmed and had a metric ton of restrictions placed on them. But were ultimately allowed to keep on living within Council space. Be it heavily watched at all times. Yes Shepard him/her self is special. It was Shepard that allowed the Crucible to be build to rally the armies of the galaxy together and to actually allow the Crucible to dock. That is why the Catalyst gave Shepard the option to choose how to proceed with a new solution to replace the one that was failing. But that doesn't mean Shepard changed how people are. And very well Shepard might be able to alter the path of the galaxy as long as Shepard remains alive. How ever as soon as he/she is dead people can start to interpret their actions how ever they want. The Asari over the years altered the Protheans into Gods who were just like them. And the end cinematic showed the guy talking to the kid as if Shepard was a tall tale. And that isn't even counting the effect the Reaper War would have on the general public's view of synthetics. Which would be less then happy to ever see another one again. Which helps speed up right back down that path to conflict. No the fight is for survival because the Reapers are rounding up and killing everyone. They will wipe ever race and all they have done from the galaxy above a certain technological development point. This is a fight for survival not ideas. TIM is fighting for an idea and concept. Shepard only pulls out the ideas set up when they are face to face with Catalyst because they are attempting to reason with it to stem the slaughter and destruction. Which source would you like access to? The Reapers only helped achieve peace because of the mutual threat they posed. Which is the same logic behind Watchmen. Both comic and movie. Which to give a quick summary if you haven't seen the movie the good guy/bad guy Ozymandias uses his vast wealth and massive intellect to stage attacks all around the globe killing millions and making it seem like Dr. Manhattan the near omnipotent being who can manipulate time and space caused it. Providing a common enemy for the US and Soviet Union to ally against. Dr. Manhattan find out and agrees only Rorschach the guy who seems like the least mentally stable person cries out against it telling them he would have to be killed to keep quite. Which Dr. Manhattan obliges and reduces him to a smudge on the floor on the spot. There was no growth and development as they both learned their lessons. They were under dire threat from a force well beyond their control so they did the only thing they could ally with each other in an attempt to prevent their own destruction. Just like the Geth and the Quarians.
|
|