222 réponses à ce sujet

[aimlessgun]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Like I said, the "Space God" which I refuse to call him by the way, Cannot, modify the choices.  The Crucible is the modifier.

I disagree. The Catalyst (space god) and the Crucible together create the choices. And the Catalyst is clearly considering and rethinking at that very moment due to Shepard's presence.

It is reasonable to think that the Catalyst has modified its relationship to the Crucible at this juncture to account for new possibilities and create these specific choices. It is also possible that things are as you believe, and these possibilities were somehow preprogrammed into the Crucible/Catalyst as some sort of backup plan. I prefer my interpretation, but from the information presented, both seem equally valid. 

The fact that Shepard does not even try to get the Catalyst to modify the options is the worst part though. Good god man, at least try.  If you fail, ok, that sucks but at least your character wasn't hijacked by Mac Walters. 

HrzRanok wrote...

I find it very funny that people say "don't believe the guardian.."
Yet expect shephard to leave in place contraptions like the citadel and the relays which were created by the guardian and the reapers. 

Does anyone fathom the possibility that the relays if left in place would mean the end to all life everywhere? and that now with them gone they now have a chance to rebuild and evolve freely without the reapers to worry about? 

 

Without the Reapers, the relays have no nefarious purposes. They become neutral. Yes, they affect galactic development. Just like mountains and rivers affect urban development. The relays, sans reapers, are just part of the galactic landscape. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 11 mars 2012 - 04:42 .

[thoaloa]

Osiris273 wrote...

"Synthetics killing organics, don't worry, I'll send more synthetics to kill you before they do!!"
That makes so much sense.

No their just turning you into synthics after wiping out your entire civilization and bottling you up in ships to make war and get blown up peroidically making ultragenocide a reality.

[ecarden]

Biotic Sage wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

ecarden wrote...

HrzRanok wrote...

Snip

Why? Because eventually as has been shown throughout the series. If society left to its own evolution without intervention would have eventually created a synthetic form that would have wiped out all organic life and then eventually been gone themselves.

Snip

IT'S NOT SHOWN! It's asserted by the leader of your enemy.

Not only that, it's shown to be incorrect through uniting the Quarians and the Geth in peace (in my ending).

All I wanted was an interrupt where my Shepard would just point out at the fleet and say "Look at that!"

Ok, look, temporary cooperation does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  It doesn't prove it either, but it certainly doesn't disprove it.  I cannot take people seriously when they make this fallacious argument.

The beauty of the ending is that you don't have to accept the Catalyst's assertion, you can choose the destroy ending or the control ending, which is basically saying: give us a chance to see what happens if organics are just allowed to live naturally.

Ah, yes, the: let's leave the genocidal monsters out in space until they figure out a way to come back and the let's commit genocide against the Geth endings. Beautiful indeed.

[Paulinius]

"This scenario that the reapers faced had never been done before. IE the interupted signal.
Plus your also assuming the Reapers had only one way to get into the galaxy."

They have/had the Citadel, Alpha Relay, and FTL travel into the galaxy. If they had other means, I would assume they would have used it.

"Also it took hundreds of years for the reapers to do their job. How long do you think it would have taken a rougue Ai in wiping out everything?
Much much longer. The reapers would have intervened long before that kind of thing got out of hand and put a stop to it."

That's fair enough. Hypothetically, Von Neumann machines can replicate themselves at an exponential rate (assuming resources exist) but that is another discussion.

[The Angry One]

HrzRanok wrote...

I find it very funny that people say "don't believe the guardian.."
Yet expect shephard to leave in place contraptions like the citadel and the relays which were created by the guardian and the reapers.

Like it or not the galaxy needs these devices. They are not evil. Reaper tech isn't evil.

Does anyone fathom the possibility that the relays if left in place would mean the end to all life everywhere? and that now with them gone they now have a chance to rebuild and evolve freely without the reapers to worry about?

Or we could find another way. That's what Shepard has been doing for 3 damn games.

Also understand that what shephard did was NOT for nothing. The actions he did prepared the galaxy for a life without the mass relays. Without shephards interactions, the galaxy would have been in much worse shape.

Yeah, stranding the entire galaxy's military, police, independant and criminal fleets in one system is going to do wonders for that.

Also, shephard knew the only way to end the cycle, save earth, and kill all the reapers was to do exactly what he did.

Yep yep nothing will save earth like dropping a 7.11 billion ton colony onto it.
Oh wait no that's going to devastate it utterly.

I don't think Shephard believed the guardian at all and simply made up his own mind. Your assuming he believed the guardian. You don't understand that he didn't have to believe him.

Shepard not only believed, but gave in and submitted. S/he took the choices given by the idiot child, and only those choices.

[Biotic Sage]

ecarden wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Snip

Like I said, the "Space God" which I refuse to call him by the way, Cannot, modify the choices.  The Crucible is the modifier.

With that established: Ok, so you just don't like the rules that the writers set up.  That's fine.  But within the parameters of those rules, the ending is not illogical.  It makes complete sense.  I for one am on board with the writing, but others don't have to be.  So like I said, you can criticize the endings, but don't act like they don't make sense.

You assert those are the rules, but that's not what he says. He says you've proven the cycles can't continue, so he gives you these three options.

And, even if they were the rules, they aren't mentioned anywhere except that final scene. They exist only to falsely limit your choices.

ETA: Speaking of rules, suddenly relays being destroyed doesn't destroy the system they're in because...magic?

Oh, and Shepard, despite being the only person to destroy a relay and potentially being haunted by said decision, never even asks if it will? BULL****.

You do make a point about the relays and Shepard knowing what happens when they are "destroyed" by an asteroid.  While I think it's implied that this is not what will happen, I agree that Shepard should have asked the question, especially after the events of Arrival, just to make sure.

That is the only point I will concede.  The rules were clear to me other than that, especially with the Catalyst itself having no power to do anything.  It is simply a consciousness that exists in the Citadel and the Reapers are a part of it, and they have been programmed or whatever you want to call it to harvest life and facilitate the Cycle. 

[ecarden]

Biotic Sage wrote...

ecarden wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Snip

Like I said, the "Space God" which I refuse to call him by the way, Cannot, modify the choices.  The Crucible is the modifier.

With that established: Ok, so you just don't like the rules that the writers set up.  That's fine.  But within the parameters of those rules, the ending is not illogical.  It makes complete sense.  I for one am on board with the writing, but others don't have to be.  So like I said, you can criticize the endings, but don't act like they don't make sense.

You assert those are the rules, but that's not what he says. He says you've proven the cycles can't continue, so he gives you these three options.

And, even if they were the rules, they aren't mentioned anywhere except that final scene. They exist only to falsely limit your choices.

ETA: Speaking of rules, suddenly relays being destroyed doesn't destroy the system they're in because...magic?

Oh, and Shepard, despite being the only person to destroy a relay and potentially being haunted by said decision, never even asks if it will? BULL****.

You do make a point about the relays and Shepard knowing what happens when they are "destroyed" by an asteroid.  While I think it's implied that this is not what will happen, I agree that Shepard should have asked the question, especially after the events of Arrival, just to make sure.

That is the only point I will concede.  The rules were clear to me other than that, especially with the Catalyst itself having no power to do anything.  It is simply a consciousness that exists in the Citadel and the Reapers are a part of it, and they have been programmed or whatever you want to call it to harvest life and facilitate the Cycle. 

What, in anything it says or does makes you think that? And what in it's tricky, genocidal behavior makes you think that my, or your Shepard would believe it if it said it?

[Paulinius]

Also, I may have missed it, but was the God-Child/Reaper's creators organic or synthetic?

If they were synthetic, then the God-Child's assertions that synthetics would exterminate all organics is a lie seeing that its programming is, according it God-Child, is to allow organic life to continue developing. Albeit, the races that have advanced to a certain level are turned into a Reaper, it still allows organics to survive and develop instead of wiping them out in their entirety planet by planet.

If they were organic, then well that makes even less sense.

[aimlessgun]

All this discussion about space god's motives, creators, and philosophy is making my head spin. It's starting to get paradoxical.

That should be the DLC ending option. You engage space god in a philosphical conversation and eventually it gets so confused that it blows up, taking the reapers with it.

Modifié par aimlessgun, 11 mars 2012 - 04:47 .

[MrAtomica]

Every time someone uses the argument that the relays needed to be destroyed because they're Reaper tech, I die a little inside.

Is the gun that I use to kill someone deserving of destruction? Do the Krogan blame the nuclear missiles that they fired on each other for ruining their civilization? Do the people of the galaxy blame FTL tech for starting the Reaper Invasion? Of course not. All of these situations are attributed to choices by sentient beings.

A tool is a tool is a tool. The relays are a means of transportation. Without the Reapers, they serve no ill purpose whatsoever.

[Zourin]

None of the choices make sense for Shepard.

A renegade Shepard would let the illusive man bite the 'i'm gonna die' bullet to control the Reapers and save his ass.

A Paragon Shepard would 'go for' the Synthesis option, but this is more a middling cop-out for a palatable ending, or for a heel-face bit of conscience from a Renegade Shepard

A Paragon would want to first convince the 'god child' for a better option first before opting for Synthesis. A paragon Shepard that just busted his/her gluteus to get the Geth/Quarians together and incited a cyber-romance on board his/her own ship wouldn't want synthetic life simply bombed out of existence as promised. Saving Anderson and letting him bite the bullet would have staged a better 'Shepard survives' ending than the 'teaser' they sharted at the end.

[Biotic Sage]

ecarden wrote...

What, in anything it says or does makes you think that? And what in it's tricky, genocidal behavior makes you think that my, or your Shepard would believe it if it said it?

As I said before, Shepard has no choice but to act on the assumption the Catalyst is telling the truth.  Logically there is no other path to defeating the Reapers.  There are too many of them and even just 3 or 4 Reapers can decimate an entire fleet.  The military commanders have already agreed that the most they can do is provide a distraction while Shepard activates the Crucible, because it is their last hope.

Besides that fact, the Catalyst has very little reason to lie.  If it wanted to have the Reapers finish the job, it would have just let them continue doing what they're doing and not tell Shepard anything.  From the evidence I've seen, the Crucible modified the Catalyst into being able to set up "new possibilities," which to me implies that it had a specific "programming" or whatever you want to call it that could not be deterred from before.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 04:53 .

[ecarden]

Biotic Sage wrote...

ecarden wrote...

What, in anything it says or does makes you think that? And what in it's tricky, genocidal behavior makes you think that my, or your Shepard would believe it if it said it?

As I said before, Shepard has no choice but to act on the assumption the Catalyst is telling the truth.  Logically there is no other path to defeating the Reapers.  There are too many of them and even just 3 or 4 Reapers can decimate an entire fleet.  The military commanders have already agreed that the most they can do is provide a distraction while Shepard activates the Crucible, because it is their last hope.

Besides that fact, the Catalyst has very little reason to lie.  If it wanted to have the Reapers finish the job, it would have just let them continue doing what they're doing and not tell Shepard anything.  From the evidence I've seen, the Crucible modified the Catalyst into being able to set up "new possibilities," which to me implies that it had a specific "programming" or whatever you want to call it that could not be deterred from before.

Shepard probably can't force the Catalyst to do what he wants (though, he never even tries. For all we know, the Crucible is a massive control collar that would force the Catalyst to do whatever Shepard says, but he gets tricked into choosing from three crappy options without even trying).

Even acknowledging that, he could try to convince space god. It's what my Shepard does. Convincing Saren, Miranda, Jack, etc. He fails occasionally (see, Council Member, Turian) but he always tries. Except here, at the end.

[NoUserNameHere]

Biotic Sage wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

ecarden wrote...

HrzRanok wrote...

Snip

Why? Because eventually as has been shown throughout the series. If society left to its own evolution without intervention would have eventually created a synthetic form that would have wiped out all organic life and then eventually been gone themselves.

Snip

IT'S NOT SHOWN! It's asserted by the leader of your enemy.

Not only that, it's shown to be incorrect through uniting the Quarians and the Geth in peace (in my ending).

All I wanted was an interrupt where my Shepard would just point out at the fleet and say "Look at that!"

Ok, look, temporary cooperation does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  It doesn't prove it either, but it certainly doesn't disprove it.  I cannot take people seriously when they make this fallacious argument.

The beauty of the ending is that you don't have to accept the Catalyst's assertion, you can choose the destroy ending or the control ending, which is basically saying: give us a chance to see what happens if organics are just allowed to live naturally.

Eh? It was the organic Quarians who started both conflicts against their creations.

Also, the destroy ending is offered to you by God-Kid. That's hardly a rebellion, working within the rules.


Truth be told, it'd make slightly more sense given the examples in-universe if the Reaper's goal was to protect synthetics from their masters. Not the other way around.

[movieguyabw]

HrzRanok wrote...

I don't think Shephard believed the guardian at all and simply made up his own mind. Your assuming he believed the guardian. You don't understand that he didn't have to believe him.

You don't understand, though, that not everyone plays Shepard the same way.  Because not everyone thinks the same way.  Not everyone's Shepard would've gone along with the three choices given.

My Paragon Shepard would never have chosen any of the three options.  He would've attempted to find a way to save everyone's - synthetic or non - life.  Doesn't matter if it's possible or not.  But I play him with the idea that he's going to try to save everyone, because that's the closest to my outlook.  You might think this means I'd go with Control or Magically rewrite DNA, but my Shep would never sacrifice himself, either.  He's a very "...rage against the dying of the light" hero.

He also (and this is more of a personal preference issue) would never believe, or accept Space kid god, because he is an atheist (because I am.  And so happy you can establish this when talking to Ashley in ME1), and rather than accepting the presence of a divine being, he'd stand against it - especially one who has such a disregard for life, that it commits multiple genocides every 50,000 years, for the sake of "keeping the peace".


My FemShep wouldn't go along with these choices, either.  Though, her reasons are slightly different.  Yes, I play her as an atheist as well, but she's 100% Renegade, has no regard for anyone's life if they stand in her way, and if someone were to give her an ultimatum like this, her response would be to take out a gun, shoot them, then make a quip about how we're going to do things her way.

And those are my only two characters.

So yeah, the way I've been RPing my only two characters, since day 1, tell me that neither of my characters would've taken the advice of a Deus Ex Machina Space god-child.

My Paragon would've resisted the decision, like Luke at the end of Return of the Jedi.  And my Renegade would've just killed the guardian...  hey, it's Commander Shepard.  They should be able to talk or shoot their way out of anything.

[aimlessgun]

ecarden wrote...
He fails occasionally (see, Council Member, Turian) but he always tries. Except here, at the end.

Yup. I couldn't convince the quarian admiral to stop attacking the Geth. Things went horribly, I lost two squadmates. It made for a great story and I enjoyed it thoroughly, because even though I could not avert a disastrous outcome, at least I had the chance to try and fail. 

In the conversation with space god, there is no chance to try and fail. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 11 mars 2012 - 05:00 .

[Biotic Sage]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Eh? It was the organic Quarians who started both conflicts against their creations.

The circumstances are irrelevant.  The Pattern is that synthetics will eventually destroy organics.  It doesn't matter who starts it in each iteration, the premise is that it will eventually happen.  Sometimes it could take a couple of years after Singularity, sometimes it could take thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands.  So maybe the Catalyst is right or maybe it isn't, but the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't disprove anything.

[Biotic Sage]

ecarden wrote...

Shepard probably can't force the Catalyst to do what he wants (though, he never even tries. For all we know, the Crucible is a massive control collar that would force the Catalyst to do whatever Shepard says, but he gets tricked into choosing from three crappy options without even trying).

Even acknowledging that, he could try to convince space god. It's what my Shepard does. Convincing Saren, Miranda, Jack, etc. He fails occasionally (see, Council Member, Turian) but he always tries. Except here, at the end.

Maybe Shepard should have tried.  But the story would instantly turn lame for me if Shepard tried and succeeded in persuading the Catalyst (that would be like an, oh...cool.  thanks for the easy out!), so to me it's irrelevant either way.  If it would satisfy people then sure, I support Shepard trying and failing.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 05:03 .

[lasertank]

Biotic Sage wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Eh? It was the organic Quarians who started both conflicts against their creations.

The circumstances are irrelevant.  The Pattern is that synthetics will eventually destroy organics.  It doesn't matter who starts it in each iteration, the premise is that it will eventually happen.  Sometimes it could take a couple of years after Singularity, sometimes it could take thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands.  So maybe the Catalyst is right or maybe it isn't, but the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't disprove anything.

If you worry about synthetics destroying all organics and you all so mighty would you do? You tell synthetics not to do that. You control them and make laws for them to obey. Not ****ing kill the organics to say "we kill you so you wont be killed by synthetics." Idiot logic the Catalyst has.

[Biotic Sage]

lasertank wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Eh? It was the organic Quarians who started both conflicts against their creations.

The circumstances are irrelevant.  The Pattern is that synthetics will eventually destroy organics.  It doesn't matter who starts it in each iteration, the premise is that it will eventually happen.  Sometimes it could take a couple of years after Singularity, sometimes it could take thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands.  So maybe the Catalyst is right or maybe it isn't, but the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't disprove anything.

If you worry about synthetics destroying all organics and you all so mighty would you do? You tell synthetics not to do that. You control them and make laws for them to obey. Not ****ing kill the organics to say "we kill you so you wont be killed by synthetics." Idiot logic the Catalyst has.

Reapers do not kill.  They harvest and "preserve."  A Reaper is made up of the DNA of an entire species.  In a twisted way they are preserving organics the best way they can if they truly believe in the Pattern.  That's not bad logic when you are basing it off the assumption of the Pattern.

[ecarden]

Biotic Sage wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Eh? It was the organic Quarians who started both conflicts against their creations.

The circumstances are irrelevant.  The Pattern is that synthetics will eventually destroy organics.  It doesn't matter who starts it in each iteration, the premise is that it will eventually happen.  Sometimes it could take a couple of years after Singularity, sometimes it could take thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands.  So maybe the Catalyst is right or maybe it isn't, but the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't disprove anything.

This is the evidence available to my Shepard:

Quarians attack Geth. Geth defend themselves. Quarians attack Geth again. Geth defend themselves. I convince them to stop and work together. Yay!

EDI is created and kills a bunch of people. I almost kill her. We learn to work together. She falls in love with Joker. They're happy together. Yay!

Prothy the Prothean ****, tells us about warring with synthetics of his time. Uh-oh. He tells us of warring with everyone else. Huh.

Space god says it's inevitable for synthetics to destroy organics.

Okay space god. You're the boss, because Bioware says so. What were those options you gave me again?

[movieguyabw]

lasertank wrote...

Idiot logic the Catalyst has.

oi40.tinypic.com/8vrri9.jpg

[The Angry One]

Did you somehow miss the part where the Geth spared the Quarians who fled their world?
The Geth, synthetic lifeforms, chose to not exterminate organics, They CHOSE.

That alone disproves all of idiot childs brainless assertions.

[ecarden]

Biotic Sage wrote...

ecarden wrote...

Shepard probably can't force the Catalyst to do what he wants (though, he never even tries. For all we know, the Crucible is a massive control collar that would force the Catalyst to do whatever Shepard says, but he gets tricked into choosing from three crappy options without even trying).

Even acknowledging that, he could try to convince space god. It's what my Shepard does. Convincing Saren, Miranda, Jack, etc. He fails occasionally (see, Council Member, Turian) but he always tries. Except here, at the end.

Maybe Shepard should have tried.  But the story would instantly turn lame for me if Shepard tried and succeeded in persuading the Catalyst (that would be like an, oh...cool.  thanks for the easy out!), so to me it's irrelevant either way.  If it would satisfy people then sure, I support Shepard trying and failing.

Would it satisfy me? No. Would it be consistent with the overarching theme of the series? No. Would it be internally consistent and in character for my Shepard if not the Mass Effect universe? Yes.

[Biotic Sage]

ecarden wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Eh? It was the organic Quarians who started both conflicts against their creations.

The circumstances are irrelevant.  The Pattern is that synthetics will eventually destroy organics.  It doesn't matter who starts it in each iteration, the premise is that it will eventually happen.  Sometimes it could take a couple of years after Singularity, sometimes it could take thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands.  So maybe the Catalyst is right or maybe it isn't, but the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't disprove anything.

This is the evidence available to my Shepard:

Quarians attack Geth. Geth defend themselves. Quarians attack Geth again. Geth defend themselves. I convince them to stop and work together. Yay!

EDI is created and kills a bunch of people. I almost kill her. We learn to work together. She falls in love with Joker. They're happy together. Yay!

Prothy the Prothean ****, tells us about warring with synthetics of his time. Uh-oh. He tells us of warring with everyone else. Huh.

Space god says it's inevitable for synthetics to destroy organics.

Okay space god. You're the boss, because Bioware says so. What were those options you gave me again?

You don't have to believe him.  Haven't we been over this?  You can choose to accept that he is telling the truth or not, but you have to pick one of the choices if you want to even have a chance at stopping the Reapers.