913 réponses à ce sujet

[a.m.p]

POLLS:
The main poll. About whether this compromise is or isn't acceptable for you.
The price of victory:
Following the debate on how much rejecting starchild should cost us, I created two separate polls to determine that:
For those who want a conventional victory, please come here and tell how much you are willing to sacrifice for it.
For those who oppose an easy win that would undermine existing options, please come here and tell how much needs to be sacrificed to not make it an easy win.(The 'nothing should be enough option' is there too)
Please refrain from voting in both. Choose one.

If you support this, kindly bump the thread so it stays afloat.
If you are against this, bump anyway, so more people can come and state they are against this outrage.

Recommended reading:
An analysis of thematic inconsistencies (and other problems) by drayfish. Who happens to be a literature professor, unlike most of us here. The thread that contains this is a must read itself and one of the best answers to the question why we need this.
torudoom's list of encountered objections to his 'use crucible + citadel in clever ways to weaken reapers' scenario
Raynulf's FAQ about conventionally beating reapers. With a 'how to properly use relays' section.
The common effort in estimating reaper numbers. Less than a few thousands according to cutscenes and the main plot.
Raynulf's estimation of allied numbers and total firepower.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mandatory statement that removing the starchild would be the best fix for the ending]

Back to the topic.

Judging by the Extended cut announcement all key elements of the ending: the starchild, control/destroy/synthesis, relays blowing up are staying. Same announcement states that no new endings will be added.

Why?

The simple idea of adding a fourth option that allows Shepard to refuse to pick a color has been floating on this forum since people first got to the ending.

No rewriting of the starchild dialogue. No change of the explanation of the reaper cycle, no change to already existing options. No additional gameplay.

A simple “no”. Well, maybe a renegade "no" and a paragon "no". With subsequent falling back onto your war assets.

If EMS is low – the non-canon bad ending: reapers win, everybody dies. One short cinematic.
If EMS is high enough – an option to either:
1) fight conventionally and win the battle, leading to a long and bloody war that could eventually be won, with remaining reapers retreating into dark space
2) same, but also use the fact that the citadel apparently controls the reapers to weaken them and even the odds
3) argue them away

If the rumors that the control choice will allow to eventually rebuilt the relays are true, such an ending would in the long run be similar to control: relays would be still around and the reapers will be somewhere out there.

Bioware is already doing cutscenes and cinematics for an extended epilogue for the three existing endings. Such a fourth ending would not require anything other than cutscenes and cinematics. It would not change anything except for Shepard who was supposed to be the character that we, the player, created.

Bioware keeps their vision, we keep our Shepard.

Also, if done carefully and balanced in terms of consequences with other endings, this should not in any way affect the game for anyone who liked it.

EDIT: People in the thread have come up with detailed ideas (see below) how to make rejecting the starchild and still winning more plausible, by weakening the reapers to the point where the allied fleets can beat them.
So we don't contradict Hackett's statements that we can never beat them too much.

Infinitely more different suggestions and opinions are to be found in the Data Cache.

Modifié par a.m.p, 16 mai 2012 - 06:25 .

[a.m.p]

Detailed examples:
THIS

1) Conventional victory
That youtube video by Archengeia. This one is about the crucible being a trap, but at 15:25 starts conventional reaper-fighting.
Choices Matter by FlyinElk212. Linking the part that is relevant to the discussion. Lots more than that in the thread.
Alternative ending by Byronic-Knight. Also has the arguing reapers away option.
DLC or patch could add a fourth option: REFUSE by DeinonSlayer. That one has a poll attached to it.

2) Conventional victory with unconventional use the the crucible+citadel
Here is one by Sad Dragon.
Here is one by torudoom.
That one alternative ending that everyone loved so much by Arkis. Here is the BSN thread with the same thing.
Fixing the endings on a shoestring budget by Noelemahc. The shove off option is in the second post.
Alternate endings by Grub Fisher. This one is huge.
The Saren-Sovereign theory alternate ending by Enichan.
An alternate to Indoctrination - Option 4 by SamFlagg
And another one by LucasShark
The most reasonable response to the Catalyst by Delta_V2
Not quiet a fourth option but still a semi-conventional win by Raynulf

3) Arguing reapers away
The final paragon interrupt and the final renegade interrupt by Samuel_Valkyrie.
Alternative ending by Byronic-Knight. Also has conventional victory option.
And another one by Capt Sheridan. Obviously.

More about why we need such an option:
A writeup of the problem and some suggestions by cerberus1701
On the betrayal of hope in Mass Effect 3's endings by Sainta117. Probably one of the best writeups.
A post on the same thread, which is a great read in it's own right. by knightnblu.
Open letter to Bioware by pikey1969. An in-depth analysis of the ending choices is in section 3.
The reapers let you win by Enichan. A look from a slightly different angle at the same problem and lots of discussions.
"It's Art" defense about the ending makes the ending worse by Dhraconus
The Ending was Racist and Offensive, a 40+ page thread by Zine2, discussing the moral implications of existing choices
All That Matters is the Ending, Part 2: Mass Effect 3 by Jim Stevenson. Excellent and long. For purposes of this discussion see section 2: Abandoning of Established Themes and Characters.
Who Really Owns Mass Effect 3 by Dennis C. Scimeca of the Escapist. An interesting prespective on the role of the player in creating interactive storytelling
Why can't we just do the unexpected? by QuanManChu. Yet another thread with people who want to punch/shoot the starchild.
Ending decision from an in-universe point of view by Ingvarr Stormbird.
Why would Shepard even listen to Starchild? by Phange2001
Major Problem: Shepard's Blind Trust by Pairikas
Synthetics v. Organics, Makes No Sense On Any Level! by SolidisusSnake1
I don't get the 'reject starchild's options' idea by Funkdrspot. Long, lots of discussion.
You don't have to change your ending Bioware, but just give us ours too by Phillips94.
An analysis of thematic inconsistencies (and other problems) by drayfish. As stated above, a must read.
Why is Shepard so stupid in the ending? by Cheesesack. Exactly what it says. Also features some heavy fire exchange on the conventional warfare topic.
A common gripe: "But winning against odds is unrealistic!" by LucasShark
Counterpoint:Why the Catalyst's Truthfulness is Irrelevant for the Crucible by JShepppp. Lots of discussions in the thread.
Why Changing Mass Effect’s Ending Won’t Compromise Art by Ross Lincoln at gamefront.com
Who here just doesn't want to pick any of the three options given? by Eain
What are you implying Bioware? by Taboo-XX. A thread specifically dealing with various implications of synthesis and the disconnect between the fans' and the creators' understanding of it.
Why Conventional Victory Is A Bad Idea by Hatikvah07. Despite the title not exactly a counterpoint. Good discussion of the price of victory.
Here's the truly amazing thing by httinks2006. The truly amazing thing is Shepard believing starchild.

Discussing conventional warfare:
Reapers aren't that tough, and the math proves it by moater boat
Conventional victory: Not just possible, but easy by DeinonSlayer
Defeating the Reapers conventionally and why it works from a story perspective by Sepharih
Counterpoint: Defeating the reapers using conventional means is IMPOSSIBLE by IntoTheDarkness
Was victory possible using conventional means? by Jesusland
Excluding conventional warfare, what would have been your solution? by Lyrandori. People coming up with all sorts of crazy ideas.
Conventional means are always the best endings by The Vanquished1
My FTL anti-reaper torpedo idea
How the Reapers could have been beaten conventionally by Nuchy
Long and coherent analysis by Raynulf. Highly recommended.
A question about Conventional Victory by Death2sheep
How many Reaper capital ships do you think there are? by A0170. With a poll attached to it.
Why the Codex says we can't win conventionally. by A0170.
Daro'Xen, the Geth and the Citadel A cut quest discovered by Noelemahc.
Counterpoint: Why the Crucible may really be the only way to defeat the Reapers by JShepppp
Thanix Cannons are actually underestimated by Flextt
Admiral Hackett is incompetent. by The Angry One
What good is infantry in a space war? by Dean_the_Young. A hypothetical solution that could be used for planetary defense if the plot allowed to use planetary defense.
So you can't beat the Reapers by conventional means? by Ryoten.

Also this thread itself has some in-depth discussion throughout it.
My relevant findings, for reference and with pictures:
The Rannoch reaper did not take a fleet to shoot down
The reapers are unable to fix the relay control mechanism
The reaper numbers. As stated above, not that much.

The general outcome of the above threads is that there's evidence to turn the story either way. It's up to the writers.

Any one knows any other good examples, please post them. (Bonus points if the example explains how rejecting the starchild in your case doesn't equal immediate defeat).

[Mandatory statement that formatting on these forums is a pain]

Modifié par a.m.p, 13 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[tomcplotts]

playing devil's advocate here, i think the "saying no" is by choosing the pretty red ending. In a sense, that really *is* a refusal of the child's logic. killing a reigning deity shouldn't be easy or without high cost is what I would assume Hudson would say if not in so many words. I think for players insisting that you have choice until the very end, that's the only road you can take and still really be shepard.

I don't like the low quality of the ending sequence at all, but from a narrative point of view, this is actually defensible. There are really only two endings philosophically: you can reject this god's right to rule by destroying him and regaining orgnic agency or you can submit at the last minute to a divine will that you have been fighting against the entire time.

So in that sense, it's not like all roads lead to Star Rome. It was handled as crappily as it could have been, granted, but there is a defensible rationale there.

[BarrelDrago]

Well to be honest we can alway had a NO option to the wheel that make you CRITICAL MISSION FAILIOR each time you press it

[xxSanitysuxx]

BarrelDrago wrote...

Well to be honest we can alway had a NO option to the wheel that make you CRITICAL MISSION FAILIOR each time you press it

tbh, id still choose it every single time

[MPSai]

B-Because you're supposed to think it's really deep, you guys! C'mon, it's really good and thought-provoking! You just don't know ART! I'm gonna tell Ray on you!

[Verit]

tomcplotts wrote...

playing devil's advocate here, i think the "saying no" is by choosing the pretty red ending. In a sense, that really *is* a refusal of the child's logic. killing a reigning deity shouldn't be easy or without high cost is what I would assume

Except you still kill all synthetics, so you're not actually saying no to its reasoning that synthetics are a problem that need to be dealt with. It doesn't make sense to refuse the Star Child's logic, and then wipe out the synthetics that convinced you that peace between synthetics and organics is possible. All the options agree with the Star Child's reasoning, which is not surprising as the three options are meant to be solutions to the Star Child's perceived problem. It really doesn't have anything to do with Shepard anymore.

Modifié par -Draikin-, 06 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[a.m.p]

tomcplotts wrote...

playing devil's advocate here, i think the "saying no" is by choosing the pretty red ending. In a sense, that really *is* a refusal of the child's logic. killing a reigning deity shouldn't be easy or without high cost is what I would assume Hudson would say if not in so many words. I think for players insisting that you have choice until the very end, that's the only road you can take and still really be shepard.

I don't like the low quality of the ending sequence at all, but from a narrative point of view, this is actually defensible. There are really only two endings philosophically: you can reject this god's right to rule by destroying him and regaining orgnic agency or you can submit at the last minute to a divine will that you have been fighting against the entire time.

So in that sense, it's not like all roads lead to Star Rome. It was handled as crappily as it could have been, granted, but there is a defensible rationale there.

When I am picking destroy I am accepting the terms that the starchild gives me. Namely the death of all synthetics and the destruction of the relays. Yes this is the closest it gets to 'go to hell', that's why I picked it, but it still isn't what my Shepard would have done.

This would also bring a real understandable meaning to the war assets, that so far are just a number that determines whether you get to play god with all life in the galaxy or not.

[BarrelDrago]

xxSanitysuxx wrote...

BarrelDrago wrote...

Well to be honest we can alway had a NO option to the wheel that make you CRITICAL MISSION FAILIOR each time you press it

tbh, id still choose it every single time

*bro fist*

[CapnManx]

It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.

Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).

[tomcplotts]

-Draikin- wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

playing devil's advocate here, i think the "saying no" is by choosing the pretty red ending. In a sense, that really *is* a refusal of the child's logic. killing a reigning deity shouldn't be easy or without high cost is what I would assume

Except you still kill all synthetics, so you're not actually saying no to its reasoning that synthetics are a problem that need to be dealt with. It doesn't make sense to refuse the Star Child's logic, and then wipe out the synthetics that convinced you that peace between synthetics and organics is possible. All the options agree with the Star Child's reasoning, which is not surprising as the three options are meant to be solutions to the Star Child's perceived problem. It really doesn't have anything to do with Shepard anymore.

yes, and no. I agree with you that the consequences of destroying the synthetics is unfair, BUT the destruction of non-Reaper synthetics is incidental to the purpose of the red choice. The primary purpose--and he says it clearly--is to destroy the reapers AND him. You are, in effect, killing god. Don't get me wrong: I totally get your point here, but I'm suggesting that the larger point trying to be made by the writer(s) isn't the question about synthetics at all, but about the validity of the controlling AIs logic about inevitably of conflict.

Now this distinction is fairly complex--probably too complex for a fast-moving video game--and it was handled very poorly. But it *is* a very defensible position.

Obviously, that we have to parse like this is in itself a testament to the poor handling of a complex proposition. Deus Ex did a much better job of handling the same question, but that's because that entire series openly revolves around that question explicitly. ME glosses over it.

[tomcplotts]

a.m.p wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

playing devil's advocate here, i think the "saying no" is by choosing the pretty red ending. In a sense, that really *is* a refusal of the child's logic. killing a reigning deity shouldn't be easy or without high cost is what I would assume Hudson would say if not in so many words. I think for players insisting that you have choice until the very end, that's the only road you can take and still really be shepard.

I don't like the low quality of the ending sequence at all, but from a narrative point of view, this is actually defensible. There are really only two endings philosophically: you can reject this god's right to rule by destroying him and regaining orgnic agency or you can submit at the last minute to a divine will that you have been fighting against the entire time.

So in that sense, it's not like all roads lead to Star Rome. It was handled as crappily as it could have been, granted, but there is a defensible rationale there.

When I am picking destroy I am accepting the terms that the starchild gives me. Namely the death of all synthetics and the destruction of the relays. Yes this is the closest it gets to 'go to hell', that's why I picked it, but it still isn't what my Shepard would have done.

This would also bring a real understandable meaning to the war assets, that so far are just a number that determines whether you get to play god with all life in the galaxy or not.

For this specific question, I think the war assets are irrelevant. In my view, they are another topic entirely. This one seems to be about whether or not you can reject the god's logic and retain your artistic integrity. I argued that, in fact, that rejection is arguably already in the game. Check out my response to draikken (sp?) to see if that clears it up.

[KustomDeluxe]

Because everyone knows the only way to solve the universe's problems is by having a god descend from on high and wave its hand in order to solve them.

What, you think people can solve their own problems? *snicker*

[Sparse]

Well if there artistic vision is something along the lines of 'man cannot stand up to machine' then adding that ending would be sacrificing their artistic integrity. If it isn't then it wouldn't.

[a.m.p]

CapnManx wrote...

It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.

Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).

I disagree. I never got the impression that fighting them was absolutely impossible. There are ways of doing damage to them that are never brought up or discussed. Arrival teaches us how to make supernovas. We have thanix cannons. Concentrated fire from several ships can take out a sovereign-class reaper. The galaxy map shows us that there are small groups of them all over the galaxy. How about we go after those? How about we apply some goddamn strategy and tactics?
The previous cycles were defeated largely because the reapers took the citadel and disabled the relay network. This cycle has an advantage. If they manage to push the reapers back from Sol, the citadel is under their control again.

[a.m.p]

tomcplotts wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

playing devil's advocate here, i think the "saying no" is by choosing the pretty red ending. In a sense, that really *is* a refusal of the child's logic. killing a reigning deity shouldn't be easy or without high cost is what I would assume

Except you still kill all synthetics, so you're not actually saying no to its reasoning that synthetics are a problem that need to be dealt with. It doesn't make sense to refuse the Star Child's logic, and then wipe out the synthetics that convinced you that peace between synthetics and organics is possible. All the options agree with the Star Child's reasoning, which is not surprising as the three options are meant to be solutions to the Star Child's perceived problem. It really doesn't have anything to do with Shepard anymore.

yes, and no. I agree with you that the consequences of destroying the synthetics is unfair, BUT the destruction of non-Reaper synthetics is incidental to the purpose of the red choice. The primary purpose--and he says it clearly--is to destroy the reapers AND him. You are, in effect, killing god. Don't get me wrong: I totally get your point here, but I'm suggesting that the larger point trying to be made by the writer(s) isn't the question about synthetics at all, but about the validity of the controlling AIs logic about inevitably of conflict.

Now this distinction is fairly complex--probably too complex for a fast-moving video game--and it was handled very poorly. But it *is* a very defensible position.

Obviously, that we have to parse like this is in itself a testament to the poor handling of a complex proposition. Deus Ex did a much better job of handling the same question, but that's because that entire series openly revolves around that question explicitly. ME glosses over it.

Well I prefer to look at the situation from an in-universe point of view (like I did with the previous 99% of the series before the deep meaningful symbolism suddenly showed up) rather then analyse said symbolism, mainly because analysing the symbolism proved to be very confusing.
Now in-universe the situation is such: I meet an entity that claims to control the reapers and the cycle. It states that the creator/created conflict is inevitable and will always end with synthetics killing all organics everywhere. It tells me that the cycle was a solution and now we need to find a new solution.
He offers me his three choices. All of which he believes are solutions (some temporary) to this problem.
Now I think he's a moron and the problem he is trying to solve does not work the way he thinks it works.
And yet I'm forced to accept one of his solutions.

Modifié par a.m.p, 06 avril 2012 - 05:36 .

[tomcplotts]

a.m.p wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

playing devil's advocate here, i think the "saying no" is by choosing the pretty red ending. In a sense, that really *is* a refusal of the child's logic. killing a reigning deity shouldn't be easy or without high cost is what I would assume

Except you still kill all synthetics, so you're not actually saying no to its reasoning that synthetics are a problem that need to be dealt with. It doesn't make sense to refuse the Star Child's logic, and then wipe out the synthetics that convinced you that peace between synthetics and organics is possible. All the options agree with the Star Child's reasoning, which is not surprising as the three options are meant to be solutions to the Star Child's perceived problem. It really doesn't have anything to do with Shepard anymore.

yes, and no. I agree with you that the consequences of destroying the synthetics is unfair, BUT the destruction of non-Reaper synthetics is incidental to the purpose of the red choice. The primary purpose--and he says it clearly--is to destroy the reapers AND him. You are, in effect, killing god. Don't get me wrong: I totally get your point here, but I'm suggesting that the larger point trying to be made by the writer(s) isn't the question about synthetics at all, but about the validity of the controlling AIs logic about inevitably of conflict.

Now this distinction is fairly complex--probably too complex for a fast-moving video game--and it was handled very poorly. But it *is* a very defensible position.

Obviously, that we have to parse like this is in itself a testament to the poor handling of a complex proposition. Deus Ex did a much better job of handling the same question, but that's because that entire series openly revolves around that question explicitly. ME glosses over it.

Well I prefer to look at the situation from an in-universe point of view rather then analyse the symbolism, mainly because analysing the symbolism proved to be very confusing.
Now in-universe the situation is such: I meet an entity that claims to control the reapers and the cycle. It states that the creator/created conflict is inevitable and will always end with synthetics killing all organics everywhere. It tells me that the cycle was a solution and now we need to find a new solution.
He offers me his three choices. All of which he believes are solutions (some temporary) to this problem.
Now I think he's a moron and the problem he is trying to solve does not work the way he thinks it works.
And yet I'm forced to accept one of his solutions.

yes, he's god, he outranks you... but he explicitly tells you that red solution also gets him and his minions out of galactic life forever, which might be his solution, but hey, it's also probably shepard's, too. yes, they are his propositions, but shep's not in a position to be too choosy here. it's contrived and constraining, I agree, but it *does* meet the OPs standards of rejecting the child's logic even if it's an option he gives you instead of one you somehow take for yourself.

one thing we'll definitely agree on, analyzing the muddled symbolism is confusing...  I could cry when I think of what I could have done with this ending if I had written it. But I'm sure half the fans here are saying the same thing.

[CapnManx]

a.m.p wrote...

CapnManx wrote...

It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.

Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).

I disagree. I never got the impression that fighting them was absolutely impossible. There are ways of doing damage to them that are never brought up or discussed. Arrival teaches us how to make supernovas. We have thanix cannons. Concentrated fire from several ships can take out a sovereign-class reaper. The galaxy map shows us that there are small groups of them all over the galaxy. How about we go after those? How about we apply some goddamn strategy and tactics?
The previous cycles were defeated largely because the reapers took the citadel and disabled the relay network. This cycle has an advantage. If they manage to push the reapers back from Sol, the citadel is under their control again.

Even if it would work, they can't take the time to do that; their populations are being harvested, it's not just about blowing up Reapers, it has to be done while there is still something to save.  That means keeping them from spreading to other worlds (preventing invasions was something they had absolutely no luck with, even before their fleets got thrashed). 

Since Reapers just make troops as they go, they suffer no personell shortages; every single world they attack gets swarmed with Reaper forces and would take a full scale ground war to reclaim.  Every world lost means fewer resources to work with, fewer populations to draw upon, and fewer places to seek refuge.  Think what they needed to go through in preparation for the recapture of Earth, and that was before the Citadel was taken there and the Reaper presence was reinforced.  They wouldn't even attempt it without the Cruicible.

Anyway, it was Admiral Hackett who claimed that they couldn't defeat the Reapers conventionally; I'd take the assessment of an in-universe veteran fleet commander as an 'expert opinion'.

[a.m.p]

tomcplotts wrote...

yes, he's god, he outranks you... but he explicitly tells you that red solution also gets him and his minions out of galactic life forever, which might be his solution, but hey, it's also probably shepard's, too. yes, they are his propositions, but shep's not in a position to be too choosy here. it's contrived and constraining, I agree, but it *does* meet the OPs standards of rejecting the child's logic even if it's an option he gives you instead of one you somehow take for yourself.

one thing we'll definitely agree on, analyzing the muddled symbolism is confusing...  I could cry when I think of what I could have done with this ending if I had written it. But I'm sure half the fans here are saying the same thing.

Actually, I am the OP, and I insist that it doesn't meet my standards.
See, I don't see a valid reason why saying no and relying on your fleets is not an option.
But whatever, let's say picking destroy is rejecting his logic. Then why does he even offer it as a choice?
If he's god and his sole purpose is to solve this problem why does he allow me to kill him?

[Tovanus]

Why does the Crucible change his logic from "Reapers are the solution" to "you're standing here, I guess I have to give you three choices for changing the galaxy" ? We'll never know.

War assets alone though should never beat the Reapers. Of all the things they drill into you over and over again, that really stands out. But they should have been more important.

[Alamar2078]

Personally I'd be happy with a "What If" DLC of alternate but non-canon, unofficial endings and would be happy with that [assuming I'm given what was promised along with lots of divergent endings [no abc], etc.]

[a.m.p]

CapnManx wrote...

Even if it would work, they can't take the time to do that; their populations are being harvested, it's not just about blowing up Reapers, it has to be done while there is still something to save.  That means keeping them from spreading to other worlds (preventing invasions was something they had absolutely no luck with, even before their fleets got thrashed). 

Since Reapers just make troops as they go, they suffer no personell shortages; every single world they attack gets swarmed with Reaper forces and would take a full scale ground war to reclaim.  Every world lost means fewer resources to work with, fewer populations to draw upon, and fewer places to seek refuge.  Think what they needed to go through in preparation for the recapture of Earth, and that was before the Citadel was taken there and the Reaper presence was reinforced.  They wouldn't even attempt it without the Cruicible.

Anyway, it was Admiral Hackett who claimed that they couldn't defeat the Reapers conventionally; I'd take the assessment of an in-universe veteran fleet commander as an 'expert opinion'.

It is admittedly a problem of the whole main plot line revolving around the crucible. Let's say this. Whether the reapers could or could not be defeated conventionally was up to Bioware. They decided to make the crucible plot and thus told us that no, no conventional fighting. It was an arbitrary decision, regardless of everything previously established. When I was talking to Hackett, I felt it was awfully forced and more like Bioware through Hackett beating me over the head with the idea that I have to go build the crucible and nothing else would work.

Reintroducing the idea of beating them conventionally at the last moment, after everyone has been obsessing over the crucible for the whole game would cause certain disconnect, but I really think it could solve more problems then it causes.

[Verit]

tomcplotts wrote...
yes, he's god, he outranks you... but he explicitly tells you that red solution also gets him and his minions out of galactic life forever, which might be his solution, but hey, it's also probably shepard's, too. yes, they are his propositions, but shep's not in a position to be too choosy here. it's contrived and constraining, I agree, but it *does* meet the OPs standards of rejecting the child's logic even if it's an option he gives you instead of one you somehow take for yourself.

So this is what Shepard would basically say when rejecting the Catalyst's login with the red ending:

"I disagree with your reasoning, EDI and the geth showed me that peace between organics and synthetics is possible. And to prove it, I will now proceed to wipe out all synthetic life! That'll show you!"

Modifié par -Draikin-, 06 avril 2012 - 06:01 .

[SovereignWillReturn]

But here's the thing, the Star Child LETS you choose red, and end his existence along with all the reapers.

If I did red, and the Star Child was all, "WTF SHEP! STOP! And then I shot his brains out, along with the red"
Then I would be okay.

[a.m.p]

Tovanus wrote...

Why does the Crucible change his logic from "Reapers are the solution" to "you're standing here, I guess I have to give you three choices for changing the galaxy" ? We'll never know.

Oh, don't even start me on this. I got a headache trying to understand the endings.

Tovanus wrote...
War assets alone though should never beat the Reapers. Of all the things they drill into you over and over again, that really stands out. But they should have been more important.

Wouldn't war assets beating the reapers be more consistent with the themes of the series than going along with the options presented by a genocidal space ghost though? And I'm definitely not suggesting one battle and the reapers flee. I'm suggesting a battle that breaks the flow of the war. And years of fighting following it.
Surely that wouldn't be more unbelievable than a wave of green spacemagic that merges organic and synthetic DNA, whatever that is.