23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

---snipped---
He says his solution won't work any more and he needs to find a new solution.

He never says his goal has changed or that he was proven wrong in wanting to achieve that goal.  He still thinks synthetics will always destroy organics.  He still thinks organics must be ascended and turned into goo.  He only says he can't continue to do it the way he's been doing it.  He tells Shepard organics must be ascended, so he hasn't changed his mind at all.


Shepard is told they are ascended to reaper form and Shepard says they'd like to keep their current form-the kid says they can't.

Really? www.youtube.com/watch

Try at around 2:30 where he says "It also proves my solution wont work anymore" Thats him admiting he was wrong.

His solution won't work anymore-hmm, I said he said that.  And he didn't say Shepard proved that-he said Shepard being there did. 

That is not the same as admitting he was wrong.  His solution has been to send reapers to make people goo.  That doesn't change his goal which is still to make people goo.  He tells Shepard people cannot keep their current form and must be ascended.  He only admits that the way he's been doing it isn't working anymore.  We have no clue as to what that means.  He might want to do it faster and the reapers are too slow.  Or since some of them have been destroyed, he now sees they are vulnerable. 

The core concept and goal is the kid wants to stop chaos by destroying organics so synthetics won't destroy them.  Nothing about this has changed.  He's only saying he needs to change how he is doing it. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 juin 2012 - 03:01 .

[Jerrybnsn]

So did the earth get destroyed along with the mass relay in the solar system? I don't remember being told by this god child that earth would get destroyed in any of the options.

[Goneaviking]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Try at around 2:30 where he says "It also proves my solution wont work anymore" Thats him admiting he was wrong.

That's him admitting that it won't work anymore. He needs to try a different solution.

He doesn't concede that his premise if flawed. He doesn't concede that it's not his place to impose a solution on the rest of the galaxy. He doesn't acknowledge that it was never his prerogative to decide what form advanced intelligent life could be allowed to exist as (a reaper), nor how far it would be allowed to evolve.

All he concedes is that his strategy is no longer effective.

[akenn312]

3DandBeyond wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

I was just checking out this thread and they make some really good points about the Reapers harvesting cycle.  It's basically about how harvesting is not preserving organics or an ascension, but actually trapping millions of organic consciousness inside a Reaper.

If you think about it, it's pretty much a virtual nightmare. Not dead or alive but trapped inside this monstrous hive mind forever...well until someone kills a Reaper. But basically the organics are still killed to do this. You are killing the person and the civilization by turning them into goo to suck up its consciousness to make a new Reaper.

http://social.biowar...ndex/12437669/4

So basically to save organics from a fate of being just killed by synthetics, which I would assume the synthetics would basically just kill them. Baby Reaper instead chooses to melt organics down, kill them, suck up their being into a Reaper trapping them there forever so they have to kill and destroy civilizations for eternity.  

This again does not make sense, how is allowing organics to die naturally worse than trapping them in a monster mind forever and forcing them to kill their organic civilizations cycle after cycle? That's gotta be a fate worse than death, than basically just dying.

Another point, if a Reaper is destroyed that's freeing millions and billions of tortured organic souls or if you don't believe in a soul their consciousness. So again why are we not doing everything we can to kill every Reaper possible? 

Just another thing that makes me see how the Reaper threat is a billion times worse than some AI possibly destroying us all. At least there is a fighting chance against the synthetics and if organics die then at least we won't be trapped ghosts in the machine committing genocide forever. I'l thake my chances against the Geth & the Citadel ponzi sceme Robot rather than what the Reapers do anyday.

I agree with you a hundred times over-the reapers are the threat.

The problem is both "threats" of course if true (one is real and happening and one is conjecture and unproven), yield the same results with one being infinitely worse.

Reapers are efficient killing machines and pretty hard to stop.
Synthetics can be created with an "off" switch.  This is something that anyone with half a brain would come up with if a threat is perceived.  Data in STNG, anyone?

So, instead of creating a failsafe solution in case there are problems, of course it makes sense to kill people to save them from something that could be stopped.

I'd rather fight a Geth any day than a reaper.

But it does boil down to this stuff makes no sense at all and so what some codices imply and state is in my opinon way more logical-they come out to basically feed (intake of organic sludge) and make new reapers.

Unless Bioware in some way with the EC pulls another retcon thing out of their behind to make the AI threat worse than what the Reapers are doing to "save" organics, even the most obtuse will eventually see how illogical this current end concept is. Which they would be correct in thinking so. Bioware pulls a lot of unbelievable stuff even for Sci-fi but this one I think most people just couldn't look past.

There is no possible way an intelligent person can buy into and believe the unknown "possible" threat of synthetic destruction, is worse than the current destruction going on with the Reapers cycle, or think that Shepard has on his own ended the Reaper threat by agreeing with the Catalyst's logic that the synthetic's are the bigger threat and organics must change themselves to appease the Reapers to stop the cycle.

I'm actually surprised Bioware doesn't see this since they created the Reaper motivation originally. What could organics creating synthetics or a super synthetic possibly do to destroy organics that is worse than the Reaper invasions? AI's and synthetics are not even seen as having a huge potential for evil anymore. You can blame Bioware's EDI and Legion stories for that.

Reapers are not only wiping out entire civilizations they are destroying them, trapping them then doing it all over again... it's basic sadism. It's playing with your kill over an over. It's torture rather than putting the victims out of their misery. To say it's doing it for our own good because of synthetics just makes it dumb, and probalby why people feel like he is lying, but this is not Bioware creating a flawed AI that was changed by Shepard's actions, this is Bioware creating a bad reason for the Reaper threat.

There is no way you can get around this, This is what it will always come back to and make the ending feel unsatisfying, this is why the choices feel like a defeat. Why most people have to head cannon a different ending to make it work because the choices come from a entity that is causing all this horror & destruction. The fact that the Reapers are almost given a sort of redemption and then the blame placed on organics for all this destruction is additionally laughable.

Modifié par akenn312, 06 juin 2012 - 03:05 .

[3DandBeyond]

Benchpress610 wrote...

The reapers cease to be the primary adversary at the end of the game; the shiny blob is now the main foe. The way it is presented, Shepard has no choice (pun intended) but to choose one of the equally self-defeating choices offered by his enemy. I will call that a defeat.

Yep. At the very least it defeats the very essence of the game-the player had control, made true choices.  The ending locks the player into stupid mode.  Utter defeat.

[3DandBeyond]

akenn312 wrote...


Unless Bioware in some way with the EC pulls another retcon thing out of their behind to make the AI threat worse than what the Reapers are doing to "save" organics, even the most obtuse will eventually see how illogical this current end concept is. Which they would be correct in thinking so. Bioware pulls a lot of unbelievable stuff even for Sci-fi but this one I think most people just couldn't look past.

There is no possible way an intelligent person can buy into and believe the unknown "possible" threat of synthetic destruction, is worse than the current destruction going on with the Reapers cycle, or think that Shepard has on his own ended the Reaper threat by agreeing with the Catalyst's logic that the synthetic's are the bigger threat and organics must change themselves to appease the Reapers to stop the cycle.

I'm actually surprised Bioware doesn't see this since they created the Reaper motivation originally. What could organics creating synthetics or a super synthetic possibly do to destroy organics that is worse than the Reaper invasions? AI's and synthetics are not even seen as having a huge potential for evil anymore. You can blame Bioware's EDI and Legion stories for that.

Reapers are not only wiping out entire civilizations they are destroying them, trapping them then doing it all over again... it's basic sadism. It's playing with your kill over an over. It's torture rather than putting the victims out of their misery. To say it's doing it for our own good because of synthetics just makes it dumb, and probalby why people feel like he is lying, but this is not Bioware creating a flawed AI that was changed by Shepard's actions, this is Bioware creating a bad reason for the Reaper threat.

There is no way you can get around this, This is what it will always come back to and make the ending feel unsatisfying, this is why the choices feel like a defeat. Why most people have to head cannon a different ending to make it work because the choices come from a entity that is causing all this horror & destruction. The fact that the Reapers are almost given a sort of redemption and then the blame placed on organics for all this destruction is additionally laughable.

Yes in a game that is at least partly (but I'd assert primarily) about redemption, organics are to blame for the kid sending reapers to kill them for something they might do.  Kill me now.

In fact, in this cycle creating a true AI has been considered not ethical.  Yes, people do it, but boy have they been pretty bad at it.  And I'd say if you make something that can kill you and it does, well that's your fault.  However, why some must die because of the mistakes of others is beyond me.  But it's still even stupider.  It's supposedly because the AIs are evil (which in this cycle isn't so true) and that's why the ones they might kill must die.  Oh crap.  So, if some guy night want to shoot me in the future the only sensible thing to do is shoot myself.  And we are expected to trust the guy that thinks this makes sense-we are expected to risk trillions of lives, and our own, and the lives of those we love and care about, on this.

The fact that some people can follow this and say, "makes sense to me," really worries me in real life.

[3DandBeyond]

Goneaviking wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Try at around 2:30 where he says "It also proves my solution wont work anymore" Thats him admiting he was wrong.

That's him admitting that it won't work anymore. He needs to try a different solution.

He doesn't concede that his premise if flawed. He doesn't concede that it's not his place to impose a solution on the rest of the galaxy. He doesn't acknowledge that it was never his prerogative to decide what form advanced intelligent life could be allowed to exist as (a reaper), nor how far it would be allowed to evolve.

All he concedes is that his strategy is no longer effective.

Very well stated.

[3DandBeyond]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

So did the earth get destroyed along with the mass relay in the solar system? I don't remember being told by this god child that earth would get destroyed in any of the options.

This is what we are supposed to believe.

The mass relays are destroyed-the citadel is destroyed and it's right next to Earth and would be a pretty big explosion.

In the game, there are 2 examples of what can happen if a mass relay explodes or at least ruptures.  Both would effectively destroy Earth (the rupture ruins all terrestrial worlds).

The kid never says Earth will be destroyed and it won't be unless:

You don't have a high enough EMS and choose destroy-then the Earth will be vaporized.  Why?  I have no idea.  Same thing kind of impacts whether shooting the tube in Destroy will kill Shepard or not.  There's no sensible reason for either thing.

But, what other people are trying to say (with no evidence) is that the mass relay explosions were small or different or limited or not so bad.  Well, they look pretty big and bad and at the very least they look like they ruptured which would ruin all terrestrial worlds in a system-that would be any world that supports organic life.

[sdinc009]

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Really???? You need to replay the game cause the catalyst said just that when he remarked shepard was the first to ever make it that far.

The catalyst never says Shepard showed him he was wrong. He never said he couldn't keep doing what he's doing at all.  In fact, the catalyst is still doing what he's been doing while they are talking.  People are still being killed in the background.

He says his solution won't work any more and he needs to find a new solution.

He never says his goal has changed or that he was proven wrong in wanting to achieve that goal.  He still thinks synthetics will always destroy organics.  He still thinks organics must be ascended and turned into goo.  He only says he can't continue to do it the way he's been doing it.  He tells Shepard organics must be ascended, so he hasn't changed his mind at all.

You really need to replay the ending again (you don't have to play the whole game to get there, they have things called saved games that work well-oh and youtube), because he never said what you think he said.

Are you purpously being Obtuse ? Or do you seriously not know what happened at the end?

Are you purpously being Obtuse ? Or do you seriously not know what happened at the end?
See what I did there Bubbles

[Holger1405]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

---  Okay, Holger, I think I get what you're saying. From what I can surmise you're saying that, in the current universe where we have no option other than to trust the catalyst, you can at least reason that the options, uncolored by assumption and in the light of having NO option to deny them, can be rationalized and, after they play out, accepted to have done what they before claimed to be.

---  I myself chose Controll, reluctantly, witha  bad taste in my mouth, because even though I assumed it would fail, I felt like it was at least the opportunity where I violate the least free, sentient beings.

---  That said, if we HAD the option to just kill the Catalyst because he's basically the heart of the enemy, we would all have just killed him.

I would love to pull the plug on him! (if I had this option.) But would that, or rejecting the "new solutions," accomplish anything? The Reaper think on their own, they are obvious "programmed" to execute the cycle every 50000 years.

So probably not.

The important thing, the only thing that matters, the only reason why Shepard is there, is to stop the cycle.
That is Shepard's goal, not to seek revenge, or justice.

---  Well, I'd give the "Shepard's Goal" consideration over to each player specifically.  A Paragon Shepard might want justice, a Renegade Shepard might want revenge.  A Shepard who assembled a giant fleet might want to let them fight it out.  Judging entirely on information that the game gives me, I believe that we could actually kill the reapers Conventionally.

Sorry, but the game clearly stated that you can't beat the Reapers Conventionally. Several times btw.
And the main storyline of the Mass Effect games is to find a way to stop the cycle.   

BlueStorm83 wrote...
My Shepard, specifically, was there not to stop the cycles, not even to kill the reapers, but more specifically to save my allies.  That's why I picked Control, because even though it disgusted me morally, I hoped that at the very least my allies would get out alive.  Also, at the time, I wasn't aware that even Control would destroy the Relays.  Starboy was very vague about that.

Shepard can't accomplish one without the other. She/he must end the cycle to save her/his allies and friends.  

BlueStorm83 wrote...
---  Even accepting that IF the three choices work they'd at least end the cycles and prevent this all from happening again in the future, Synthesis is still disgusting, controll is still at the very best Amoral, and destruction still murders my allies.  And those three choices are still being presented by someone who just popped out of nowhere and said, "Hi, I'm the Reapers.  It's my fault that your friends died.  Please do what I want you to do now."

I agree on Synthesis.
Destruction is Renegade, but in the grand scheme of things acceptable.
But why is control amoral?

in addition, Shepard didn't do what the catalyst want him to do. (at least when you didn't choose Synthesis) If you choose destruction or control the outcome clearly contradicts the Catalyst logic and his believes.    

[BlueStorm83]

--- As a side note, the first time I beat the game, I didn't actually see the ending video for Control; all my screen showed me were the blue colors with big black gaps where any non colored-explosion-related effects would be. To me, that just SCREAMS two tracks, one for objects, one for colored overlay. Lazy, and allows you to slap the Green Saran Wrap over it to change Control to Synthesis.

--- ANOTHER humorous note: A friend of mine is red/green colorblind. He had recently beaten ME3, and asked me why the hell the Synthesis ending and the Destroy ending were 100% identical.

[LiarasShield]

Holger1405 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

---  Okay, Holger, I think I get what you're saying. From what I can surmise you're saying that, in the current universe where we have no option other than to trust the catalyst, you can at least reason that the options, uncolored by assumption and in the light of having NO option to deny them, can be rationalized and, after they play out, accepted to have done what they before claimed to be.

---  I myself chose Controll, reluctantly, witha  bad taste in my mouth, because even though I assumed it would fail, I felt like it was at least the opportunity where I violate the least free, sentient beings.

---  That said, if we HAD the option to just kill the Catalyst because he's basically the heart of the enemy, we would all have just killed him.

I would love to pull the plug on him! (if I had this option.) But would that, or rejecting the "new solutions," accomplish anything? The Reaper think on their own, they are obvious "programmed" to execute the cycle every 50000 years.

So probably not.

The important thing, the only thing that matters, the only reason why Shepard is there, is to stop the cycle.
That is Shepard's goal, not to seek revenge, or justice.

---  Well, I'd give the "Shepard's Goal" consideration over to each player specifically.  A Paragon Shepard might want justice, a Renegade Shepard might want revenge.  A Shepard who assembled a giant fleet might want to let them fight it out.  Judging entirely on information that the game gives me, I believe that we could actually kill the reapers Conventionally.

Sorry, but the game clearly stated that you can't beat the Reapers Conventionally. Several times btw.
And the main storyline of the Mass Effect games is to find a way to stop the cycle.   

BlueStorm83 wrote...
My Shepard, specifically, was there not to stop the cycles, not even to kill the reapers, but more specifically to save my allies.  That's why I picked Control, because even though it disgusted me morally, I hoped that at the very least my allies would get out alive.  Also, at the time, I wasn't aware that even Control would destroy the Relays.  Starboy was very vague about that.

Shepard can't accomplish one without the other. She/he must end the cycle to save her/his allies and friends.  

BlueStorm83 wrote...
---  Even accepting that IF the three choices work they'd at least end the cycles and prevent this all from happening again in the future, Synthesis is still disgusting, controll is still at the very best Amoral, and destruction still murders my allies.  And those three choices are still being presented by someone who just popped out of nowhere and said, "Hi, I'm the Reapers.  It's my fault that your friends died.  Please do what I want you to do now."

I agree on Synthesis.
Destruction is Renegade, but in the grand scheme of things acceptable.
But why is control amoral?

in addition, Shepard didn't do what the catalyst want him to do. (at least when you didn't choose Synthesis) If you choose destruction or control the outcome clearly contradicts the Catalyst logic and his believes.    

Mass effect 1 and 2 and most of three was not about stoping the cycle it was about shepard trying to convince the council that the reapers are a threat and if we don't prepare or be ready for when they arrive they will annihlate or destroy us all and shepard has always been about finding either different ways to destroy or beat the reapers not about ending the cycle they automaticlly broke or ran off with the narrative to change the main objective in the last 5 or 10 minutes of a triliogy

[Alyrina]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Alyrina wrote...

Ok.

I'm not much of a poster (usually just read) hoewever

I just finished ME3 (I had the game from start but was very bussy rl and didn't had too much time to play)

Now, I spended so much time in previeus me and i also did in me3 doing tons of side missions, weight all possible choises to make etc. But now at the end everything "just" get's destroyed ...

Credits where rolling in and was just starting at my screen thinking "WTH"

ME was really one of best games made for me but now i'm not sure i'll even buy future me or dlc ...

The only thing I can say is that hopefully they will fix some things when the (free) extended cut DLC comes out, summer or whenever.

There is much evidence that they never intended this to be the end, but who knows if that meant that this was always supposed to be the end of Shepard in ME3.  Since it's obvious they always intended for us to buy DLC to add to the ME3 story.  That blue screen at the end is proof of that.  They may always have intended to continue ME3 and Shepard's story in DLC.  Since this is a new trend in videogaming (to get people to pay for an ending, I wouldn't put anything past them).  You can do youtube searches on this to see a number of high profile games that don't have endings.

It may be that the EC DLC was always planned and was not going to be free.  But it now will be free and hopefully (all we have is hope) it will do more than just explain things that can't be explained away.

The one other point related to this that is a real failure on Bioware's part is they promised multiplayer would not be needed for success in single player, but it is and strategy videos they made say that it is.  And in order to access online content (such as an ending DLC or the extended cut DLC, and MP), people need to have an internet connection.  Many people can't afford one, can't get broadband, or can't or don't have xboxlive gold.  Where I live (in between 2 large US cities) we have 1 broadband provider and I do have a gold membership, but I know that others don't have that. 

Well I play on PC and have broadband, Also i only play MP in FPS genres so i'm not really bothered about that.

I also read biowares post about the new DLC but as far as i readed/know so far there won't be much "changing to the end" but rather explains a bit of our questions. Still i wonder what did happen to the normandy on end as i saw joker trying to avoid that blast from the crucibel beam but then saying he didn't avoided it and then later seeing it crashlanding on a tropical island ...
Anyway i'll give that a try but i doubt it will bring me back into ME 

[Holger1405]

BlueStorm83 wrote...
Also, at the time, I wasn't aware that even Control would destroy the Relays. Starboy was very vague about that.

BTW, the video sequence regarding the Relays is different in control. You actually can't see them blow up like in destruction and in synthesis. The Catalyst however said that the energy released from the crucible would destroy the Relays and didn't made an exception.

I would bet that, after the DLC is released, the Relays in control will be intact...

[BlueStorm83]

Holger1405 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

---  Okay, Holger, I think I get what you're saying. From what I can surmise you're saying that, in the current universe where we have no option other than to trust the catalyst, you can at least reason that the options, uncolored by assumption and in the light of having NO option to deny them, can be rationalized and, after they play out, accepted to have done what they before claimed to be.

---  I myself chose Controll, reluctantly, witha  bad taste in my mouth, because even though I assumed it would fail, I felt like it was at least the opportunity where I violate the least free, sentient beings.

---  That said, if we HAD the option to just kill the Catalyst because he's basically the heart of the enemy, we would all have just killed him.

I would love to pull the plug on him! (if I had this option.) But would that, or rejecting the "new solutions," accomplish anything? The Reaper think on their own, they are obvious "programmed" to execute the cycle every 50000 years.

So probably not.

The important thing, the only thing that matters, the only reason why Shepard is there, is to stop the cycle.
That is Shepard's goal, not to seek revenge, or justice.

---  Well, I'd give the "Shepard's Goal" consideration over to each player specifically.  A Paragon Shepard might want justice, a Renegade Shepard might want revenge.  A Shepard who assembled a giant fleet might want to let them fight it out.  Judging entirely on information that the game gives me, I believe that we could actually kill the reapers Conventionally.

Sorry, but the game clearly stated that you can't beat the Reapers Conventionally. Several times btw.
And the main storyline of the Mass Effect games is to find a way to stop the cycle.   

BlueStorm83 wrote...
---  Even accepting that IF the three choices work they'd at least end the cycles and prevent this all from happening again in the future, Synthesis is still disgusting, controll is still at the very best Amoral, and destruction still murders my allies.  And those three choices are still being presented by someone who just popped out of nowhere and said, "Hi, I'm the Reapers.  It's my fault that your friends died.  Please do what I want you to do now."

I agree on Synthesis.
Destruction is Renegade, but in the grand scheme of things acceptable.
But why is control amoral?

in addition, Shepard didn't do what the catalyst want him to do. (at least when you didn't choose Synthesis) If you choose destruction or control the outcome clearly contradicts the Catalyst logic and his believes.    

I don't believe that the game ever stated that the reapers can't be killed conventionally.  The Codex explains that they are defended by armored plating and kinetic barriers; the same technology we have for our weapons and ships. 

Some were killed by the Turian Fleet on their own at the Battle of Palaven, without the benefit of proven tactics, without the combined might of Sword Fleet.
One was killed on Rannoch by orbital strikes that were being carefully, CAREFULLY aimed and measured to not hit Shepard who was close to the reaper.
One was shot by some kind of weapon and left paralysed orbiting a brown dwarf, indicated by the trench on Klendagon, in a previous cycle.
One was killed by being wrestled by a Thresher Maw.  No technology there, just pure animal force.

If you have your multiplayer whatsit score up, the Alliance Network says on the menu screen "Allied forces are holding steady and winning in key locations."  Wow, not counting the Crucible at all, only counting what I've done in Multiplayer, Allied forces are holding steady (Not retreating, not losing ground) and WINNING in Key Locations.  Key Locations.  Not SOME locations.  Key means important.  Strategic.  If we hold the KEY locations, what do the Reapers have?  Nothing of value.

What the game has stated is that in the past, no cycle HAS beat the Reapers conventionally.  What we can also deduce is that no previous cycle beat the reapers with the Crucible: There are still Reapers.  The Crucible is no more proven than conventional warfare.

From what we read in the game, we know that Suicide Strikes on harvesting Reapers is working.
From what we hear in the game, Krogan support on Tuchanka turned the tide of battle.
From what we DO in the game, we know that one badass with a Kain or even a targeting laser can take down a Reaper in 1 on 1 MORTAL KOMBAT.
We know that never before has such a diverse group come together against the Reapers.
We know that in at least one previous cycle, Synthetics were destroyed before the Reapers came by, and so the reapers might have never fought another Synthetic life form.
We know that Geth Programming (represented by the computer gun that Legion gave us while we were in the consensus) can disrupt and even destroy portions of Reaper Code.
We know that Reaper Tech, while dangerous, can OCCASIONALLY be totally cleansed of its badness and used for good (EDI's body was partially made of Reaper Tech, TIM said so in a hidden database on the Cerberus Station.)
And we know that at least TWICE before, the Reapers' key flaw of overconfidence has led to their defeat.  When the Reapers say "We'll win, we always win, there's nothing you can do about it," that's usually followed by a Reaper dying and Shepard pissing on its corpse.

[LiarasShield]

ney holger it was not about ending the cycle

[BlueStorm83]

--- Oh, and Control is at best Amoral because Reapers are still made up of ground up Life Forms, murdered and combined against their will, and I do NOT want to be responsible for controlling that for a second, even if all I control them to do is to die.

[LiarasShield]

hey bluestorm can you come comment on my thread ^^

[sdinc009]

Holger1405 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

---  Okay, Holger, I think I get what you're saying. From what I can surmise you're saying that, in the current universe where we have no option other than to trust the catalyst, you can at least reason that the options, uncolored by assumption and in the light of having NO option to deny them, can be rationalized and, after they play out, accepted to have done what they before claimed to be.

---  I myself chose Controll, reluctantly, witha  bad taste in my mouth, because even though I assumed it would fail, I felt like it was at least the opportunity where I violate the least free, sentient beings.

---  That said, if we HAD the option to just kill the Catalyst because he's basically the heart of the enemy, we would all have just killed him.

I would love to pull the plug on him! (if I had this option.) But would that, or rejecting the "new solutions," accomplish anything? The Reaper think on their own, they are obvious "programmed" to execute the cycle every 50000 years.

So probably not.

The important thing, the only thing that matters, the only reason why Shepard is there, is to stop the cycle.
That is Shepard's goal, not to seek revenge, or justice.

---  Well, I'd give the "Shepard's Goal" consideration over to each player specifically.  A Paragon Shepard might want justice, a Renegade Shepard might want revenge.  A Shepard who assembled a giant fleet might want to let them fight it out.  Judging entirely on information that the game gives me, I believe that we could actually kill the reapers Conventionally.

Sorry, but the game clearly stated that you can't beat the Reapers Conventionally. Several times btw.
And the main storyline of the Mass Effect games is to find a way to stop the cycle.   

Holger I think you're not understanding what the word conventional means. It in no way means that they can't be beaten or implies that their defeat is impossible. It only means that traditional methods won't work and an imaginative strategy will be required.

con·ven·tion·al 
ADJECTIVE:

• Based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice; customary: conventional symbols; a conventional form of address.
• Conforming to established practice or accepted standards; traditional: a conventional church wedding.
• 
  
  • Devoted to or bound by conventions to the point of artificiality; ceremonious.
    Unimaginative; conformist: longed to escape from their conventional, bourgeois lives.
• Represented, as in a work of art, in simplified or abstract form.
• Law Based on consent or agreement; contractual.
• Of, relating to, or resembling an assembly.
• Using means other than nuclear weapons or energy: conventional warfare; conventional power plants.

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...
Also, at the time, I wasn't aware that even Control would destroy the Relays. Starboy was very vague about that.

BTW, the video sequence regarding the Relays is different in control. You actually can't see them blow up like in destruction and in synthesis. The Catalyst however said that the energy released from the crucible would destroy the Relays and didn't made an exception.

I would bet that, after the DLC is released, the Relays in control will be intact...

We won't know what happens until it happens of course, but if they do leave the relays intact then they are creating one canon ending which is something they said was never within the game-nothing is supposedly canon.

Control is just as much space magic as Synthesis is and abhorrent for any variety of reasons as we've discussed and as gets ignored repeatedly.  The biggest space magic part of it is that Shepard is shown to die instantly, but somehow controls the reapers also instantly.  That means the Catalyst controls life and will itself, because Shepard's "essence" or being or whatever, existed long enough to make a decision and tell the reapers to go away.  Of course, no one knows what that means.

Did Shepard live long enough to tell them to go away for good or did Shepard just say leave and did that mean they all left or only the ones near Shepard left or what?  How much time did Shepard have to play god over the reapers and to become the Catalyst Junior.  And since the kid said chaos will return and since he has always controlled the reapers, how can this possibly even mean they are definitely gone?  Shepard is dead, committed suicide for what may only last a short time, because the kid could say, "well, he's gone and no longer controls you-I do, so come on back."  Or, does Shepard control them after death.  Did Shepard's life force continue on and put him/her in the driver's seat?  Well, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Some think the kid may have had some good motives, maybe originally he was a super nice being and he just went crazy because he had to continually look at reaper's butts and he had to always tell them what to do.  Crazy is as crazy does.

We have no context on which to base any informed decision and any further information might only make things seem stupider.

I'd also like to know what this means, "you can control them but you will lose everything you have."  Prior to this the kid already told Shepard if s/he chose control Shepard would die, so WTF does that mean?

There are many that see Synthesis as the canon choice and others that see Destroy, whereas I see no choice as the only sensible one, but the game doesn't allow that.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 juin 2012 - 04:07 .

[Holger1405]

BlueStorm83 wrote...


I don't believe that the game ever stated that the reapers can't be killed conventionally.  The Codex explains that they are defended by armored plating and kinetic barriers; the same technology we have for our weapons and ships. 

Some were killed by the Turian Fleet on their own at the Battle of Palaven, without the benefit of proven tactics, without the combined might of Sword Fleet.
One was killed on Rannoch by orbital strikes that were being carefully, CAREFULLY aimed and measured to not hit Shepard who was close to the reaper.
One was shot by some kind of weapon and left paralysed orbiting a brown dwarf, indicated by the trench on Klendagon, in a previous cycle.
One was killed by being wrestled by a Thresher Maw.  No technology there, just pure animal force.

If you have your multiplayer whatsit score up, the Alliance Network says on the menu screen "Allied forces are holding steady and winning in key locations."  Wow, not counting the Crucible at all, only counting what I've done in Multiplayer, Allied forces are holding steady (Not retreating, not losing ground) and WINNING in Key Locations.  Key Locations.  Not SOME locations.  Key means important.  Strategic.  If we hold the KEY locations, what do the Reapers have?  Nothing of value.

What the game has stated is that in the past, no cycle HAS beat the Reapers conventionally.  What we can also deduce is that no previous cycle beat the reapers with the Crucible: There are still Reapers.  The Crucible is no more proven than conventional warfare.

From what we read in the game, we know that Suicide Strikes on harvesting Reapers is working.
From what we hear in the game, Krogan support on Tuchanka turned the tide of battle.
From what we DO in the game, we know that one badass with a Kain or even a targeting laser can take down a Reaper in 1 on 1 MORTAL KOMBAT.
We know that never before has such a diverse group come together against the Reapers.
We know that in at least one previous cycle, Synthetics were destroyed before the Reapers came by, and so the reapers might have never fought another Synthetic life form.
We know that Geth Programming (represented by the computer gun that Legion gave us while we were in the consensus) can disrupt and even destroy portions of Reaper Code.
We know that Reaper Tech, while dangerous, can OCCASIONALLY be totally cleansed of its badness and used for good (EDI's body was partially made of Reaper Tech, TIM said so in a hidden database on the Cerberus Station.)
And we know that at least TWICE before, the Reapers' key flaw of overconfidence has led to their defeat.  When the Reapers say "We'll win, we always win, there's nothing you can do about it," that's usually followed by a Reaper dying and Shepard pissing on its corpse.

True, the game never stated that the Reapers "can't be killed conventionally", but it clearly stated that they can't be defeated conventionally.

Modifié par Holger1405, 06 juin 2012 - 04:15 .

[LiarasShield]

Those of us who hate the ending or do not like it please come to my thread in my signature

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

True, the game never stated that the Reapers "can't be killed conventionally", but it clearly stated that they can't be defeated conventionally.

Again, the point is that conventional methods are those used traditionally.  Colonists in the American Revolution defeated the British by not using conventional means.  They actual demoralized and fought them using some tactics that were not considered "honorable" at the time-a time when fighting was between lines of soldiers on battlefields.

There are many unconventional means that can defeat an enemy.  Cyberwarfare is one.  Not trying to fight one on one is another or face to face.  Divide and conquer was a radical strategy and unconventional.  War used to be one of attrition-often were overwhelming force was determined by counting mere numbers, but there have been many wars won unconventionally by smaller, outgunned Davids that fought Goliaths.

The idea that the reapers can't be defeated conventionally isn't something Hackett seems to say to Shepard when they are about to hit the Cerberus base.  Nor is it something that my EMS readout says-that says we are holding even, which means we have just as much chance for success as failure.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 juin 2012 - 04:16 .

[3DandBeyond]

LiarasShield wrote...

Those of us who hate the ending or do not like it please come to my thread in my signature

Good thread-only thing is this is stickied.  I've seen a lot of other threads come and go unfortunately, but this one will be here unless they unsticky it.

[Benchpress610]

Please explain to me…again…how am I controlling anything when I’m DEAD?...please include diagrams, schematics, flowcharts and bullet-points…I’m kinda dense for these things…

Modifié par Benchpress610, 06 juin 2012 - 04:31 .