233 réponses à ce sujet

[Chrome tater tot]

Wow there's a ton of info here. I guess i should give some input.

I can see how your choices might give pause at the end of the game and actually factor into destruction if you saved the geth and quarians, or worse yet only the geth, but for those of us who couldn't the choices were all as useless as each other.

During my experience the game literally ended on Rannoch. Moving forward after watching my romance have her hand forced by our mutual ally was inconceivable to me. I was told by a friend that the games final choice was much harder, and I couldn't even see how. Then when the time came I realized that his choice was hard because it was the same choice regarding the geth I had already made. For me there was little hesitation toward destroying all synthetic life, because the only ones worth saving were already gone. But for others it would be difficult to wipe out a species you just saved, even more so if you did so by wiping out another.

So ultimately it would seem that your choices can affect your ending, even if it doesn't seem so.

Though, personally, by the time I reached starchild and the crucible I was looking for choice D: destroy all records of the crucible and let the cycle start over. In other words, let the reapers keep on keepin' on. This was, however, the result of being forced to take the catalyst info at face value. Still it ultimately didn't sit right because, as Sepharih argued, it is completely at odds with what we've been led to believe up to that point in the series. The reapers have been portrayed with deliberate intent to kill, simply for the sake of their own superiority. Yet we are now told they are simply doing a task placed upon them by some higher lifeform. There's just too many incongruities.

Ultimately your choices throughout the games affected the ending for you the player rather than your character, which could have been beautifully artistic, but it was presented to you at the cost of the plots quality in your eyes, thus losing it's value and rendering the games moot to most fans.

[shodiswe]

I hope bioware will give us a proper ending that ends this limbo of wonderign what that was all about, didn't seem to conclude anything..

The Reapers seem to die when you choose the destroy ending Iguess that's about as good as it gets but everything else is left in the air... also picing one of 3 choices given by your archenemesis seems weird... How can you even trust it, maybe the destroy option is actualy a destroy shepard plot? the tube blows up in your face and kills you, the godchild give you a dying evil laugh.

It would have made more sense if EDI would have confirmed it for you through holo.. Just pop up a big ****** holo of EDI and let her do the explaining through your omni-tool. At the same time EDI can take the oportunity to send a few zetabytes of explicit immages to the catalyst godchild.

[eventhewaves]

shodiswe wrote...

It would have made more sense if EDI would have confirmed it for you through holo.. Just pop up a big ****** holo of EDI and let her do the explaining through your omni-tool. At the same time EDI can take the oportunity to send a few zetabytes of explicit immages to the catalyst godchild.

"... and that's how Joker's porn collection ended the Reaper War and saved the galaxy!"

[Lord Raine]

We were never even close to winning.

Really? That's funny. Because the game tells me otherwise when I have Galactic Readiness maxed out. If you've got massive War Assets and a maxed out GR, the game flat out tells you that you're winning.

The whole 'there was never any hope' spiel is pure bollocks. The game itself contradicts that. Maybe it was a desperate struggle if you rushed, didn't use diplomacy, and didn't pump up your GR, but that's on you. Just filling up the GR has the game give you a "yeah, you're all beating face and driving the Reapers back at every turn" line.

Maybe your file was different, but I. Was. Winning. All my Shepard had to do was stand there and quirk an eyebrow at the random delusional AI, and it would have been in the bag.

Honestly, it came across less as "I have no choice but to fire the Crucible because the Reapers are destroying everything," and more "I am apparently obligated by higher powers to use this Plot Device even though we are clearly winning and my being Commander Shepard has rendered it, and by extension the entire first half of the plot, totally irrelevant."

Maybe if we had used all those resources and manpower to build more guns, ships, and robots instead of a giant pointless space station that we didn't really need and don't fully understand the purpose of, we could have wrapped all of this up sooner.

Modifié par Lord Raine, 09 avril 2012 - 09:17 .

[Erixxxx]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

I'll rip apart the ending on a much simpler level: Why doesn't Sovereign simply call for the reapers when synthetics rebel against their organic creators? Why don't the reapers make reapers from rebellious Synthetics and leave organics alone?

He tried. But the Keepers had messed up the Citadel, which is why Sovereign needed Saren in the first place.

And the Reapers are made of the organic minds of civilizations throughout galactic history for over a billion years. The Reapers exist for a very specific purpose. Using synthetics would violate that purpose in so many ways.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Sigh. You can't debate him because time-constrained scriptwriter didn't want waste time of thinking several moves ahead. "Just shut up and do what I say". Easy way out.

[PsyrenY]

Lord Raine wrote...

Really? That's funny. Because the game tells me otherwise when I have Galactic Readiness maxed out. If you've got massive War Assets and a maxed out GR, the game flat out tells you that you're winning.

Funny, I had 6000+ war assets and Garrus still had to order the entire Turian fleet into full retreat (see link in earlier post). I guess he didn't get the memo?

Do you mean the "winning in key theaters" line on Galactic Readiness? Because GR is only ground skirmishes, not space/air superiority where it actually might matter.

[humes spork]

Optimystic_X wrote...
Funny, I had 6000+ war assets and Garrus still had to order the entire Turian fleet into full retreat (see link in earlier post). I guess he didn't get the memo?

Do you mean the "winning in key theaters" line on Galactic Readiness? Because GR is only ground skirmishes, not space/air superiority where it actually might matter.

Indeed. Someone suggesting the organic races were winning that war are so deeply in denial they can't be argued with, or flatly weren't paying attention during the game.

Hackett -- the Alliance's fleet admiral, and all things ultimately considered its commander-in-chief, and someone who in all likelihood knows something about strategy -- lays it out for you the war cannot be won. The "Reaper war" is ultimately a delaying action for the construction and deployment of the Crucible.

It all boils down to logistics. All the tactical and operational victories in the 'verse don't help you if the war you're fighting is logistically unsustainable. The galactic news blips outright state the war is economically unsustainable. The shadow broker terminal e-mails outright state the war is materially unsustainable -- hell, the construction of the Crucible itself was a dicey affair, made possible by Liara's intelligence capabilities as the shadow broker to find and divert raw materiel to the project. Various discussions with Victus, Garrus, Tactus, hell name a turian and he'll bring it up, outright state the war is materially unsustainable, from a manpower and war materiel perspective.

What it boils down to is a series of short-term tactical victories that are strategic losses. That's all the organics can deal out. The Battle for Palaven, in which a turian fleet held the mass relay and were destroying capital ships left and right, until the Reapers zerg rushed Palaven? Short-term operational victory, strategic loss. The turians held the mass relay, but eventually were forced back to Palaven to defend civilians and ceded the relay to the Reapers and got pinned in-system and eventually were forced to retreat nevertheless. Those losses incurred in that action could not be replaced in the short-term, since the Reapers were simultaneously targeting industry and manufacturing centers -- i.e. the Reapers were attacking organic races' capability to wage war itself.

Hell, this is something the two ground pounders who weren't even supposed to be on the Normandy in the first place, who were assigned to guarding the war room's door for lack of any place better to put them, figured out on their own. They talk about it in a bit of ambient chatter.

Modifié par humes spork, 09 avril 2012 - 02:32 .

[Sepharih]

shodiswe wrote...
Maybe destroy wont destroy all the geth, just hurt a little.. least if you get the good destroy ending that seems less destructive. After all the geth have just evolved beyond the networking AI's the catalyst assumes they are, assuming you allow Legion to comlete the geth transformation saving both the geth and quarians. This is one of the things I wish Bioware could be more specific on, does the destroy endign kill all get, just a few of them or will it jsut sting them and they shrug it of? Because the Reaper destruction field wasn't calibrated to destroy the new geth? Since I saved them both and the destroy option becomes central on this point it seems like something I would want clarity on.

Problem is, it's all speculative.  Here's some more:  some of the Geth are uploading to quarian suits in order to help them readapt to their environment.  Are those Geth still alive?  Hell...what exactly fits the definition of a "synthetic" in this universe anyway.  All we know is that the catalyst says that choosing destroy wipes out all synthetic life, including the geth.

Personally though, I favor indoctrination interpretation even though it was clear forever ago bioware never intended it......so I just assume starchild was completely full of it, I pick the one and only decision that doesn't compromise with the reapers, and that Shepard woke up five minutes later on London and did what he was born to do.

Modifié par Sepharih, 09 avril 2012 - 02:58 .

[Fruit of the Doom]

Should have just told Hackett to accelerate the Crucible to ramming speed.

[Eshaye]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

Shepard was going to debate with him through the dialogue wheel/investigate, but that was cut from the game because the developers thought the ending spoke for itself.

It spoke and said "we have no idea how to end this". 

[Fruit of the Doom]

Eshaye wrote...

Vigil_N7 wrote...

Shepard was going to debate with him through the dialogue wheel/investigate, but that was cut from the game because the developers thought the ending spoke for itself.

It spoke and said "we have no idea how to end this". 

I think it just said, "Derp derp derp."

[humes spork]

Sepharih wrote...

Problem is, it's all speculative.  Here's some more:  some of the Geth are uploading to quarian suits in order to help them readapt to their environment.  Are those Geth still alive?  Hell...what exactly fits the definition of a "synthetic" in this universe anyway.  All we know is that the catalyst says that choosing destroy wipes out all synthetic life, including the geth.

Personally, I think it's funny when people make all these TLDR posts, or vehemently agree with said posts, about how the Catalyst uses faulty logic, is an unreliable narrator, or is flatly lying to Shepard -- or, better, argue there should be a "screw you, starbrat!" fourth option for those very reasons -- then proceed to take it completely at face value when it says the destroy option eradicates EDI and the geth.

Modifié par humes spork, 09 avril 2012 - 03:20 .

[Fruit of the Doom]

humes spork wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

Problem is, it's all speculative.  Here's some more:  some of the Geth are uploading to quarian suits in order to help them readapt to their environment.  Are those Geth still alive?  Hell...what exactly fits the definition of a "synthetic" in this universe anyway.  All we know is that the catalyst says that choosing destroy wipes out all synthetic life, including the geth.

Personally, I think it's funny when people make all these TLDR posts, or vehemently agree with said posts, about how the Catalyst uses faulty logic, is an unreliable narrator, or is flatly lying to Shepard -- or, better, argue there should be a "screw you, starbrat!" fourth option for those very reasons -- then proceed to take it completely at face value when it says the destroy option eradicates EDI and the geth.

It all just really feeds back into the main problem: nothing about the ending makes any goddamn sense.

[Sepharih]

humes spork wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

Problem is, it's all speculative.  Here's some more:  some of the Geth are uploading to quarian suits in order to help them readapt to their environment.  Are those Geth still alive?  Hell...what exactly fits the definition of a "synthetic" in this universe anyway.  All we know is that the catalyst says that choosing destroy wipes out all synthetic life, including the geth.

Personally, I think it's funny when people make all these TLDR posts, or vehemently agree with said posts, about how the Catalyst uses faulty logic, is an unreliable narrator, or is flatly lying to Shepard -- or, better, argue there should be a "screw you, starbrat!" fourth option for those very reasons -- then proceed to take it completely at face value when it says the destroy option eradicates EDI and the geth.

I'm not really sure what your point is.  I don't take anything the starchild says at face value.  In point of fact I would argue he shouldn't even exist in the first place.  I'm just pointing out that even within the context of Bioware wanting you to listen to him and believe what he says, there's a lot of gaps in the information.

[StillOverrated]

Optimystic_X wrote...
(...) just as you went into ME2 knowing that Shepard wouldn't die because the series was a trilogy, suicide mission or no suicide mision.

Yeah... Screw up hard enough and Shepard dies for realz. So...

[inko1nsiderate]

Sepharih wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...
Even if the Geth make peace, point 1 could still stand, even EDI remarks that we hardly have enough examples of synthetic civilization to properly generalize. This is a case were empirical evidence of many synthetic civilizations would allow you to at least induce whether or not statement 1 is reasonable. A single example of a synthetic civilization isn't going to give you enough confidence to say 'point 1 has been disproved'.

Regardless, there is one point I will make that I've yet to feel has been answered.
Let's suppose that the conclusion the catalyst has made is inevitable without his "solution".
If that's the case then show, don't tell.  If you are going to show the viewer/player that peace between the Organics and synthetics is possible through things like the Geth and EDI, then telling them in the last five minutes of the story that peace is impossible is both a blatant contradiction of the stories themes as well as a massive failure from a narrative perspective.  The divine proclamations of a previously unseen character ring pretty hollow when you've seen evidence to the contrary of what he's saying.  It's poor storytelling.

I'd grant you that not seeing it is poor storytelling... but with Javik in the game you get to learn about how the Protheans were fighting against an AI threat that was pretty significant.  This combined with the fact that the Geth had the oppurtunity to destroy all Quarians, and you should be a little less certain that your singular instance of a synthetic civilization not destroying all organics actually counts as 'evidence' against htis point.  EDI even flat out states that she can't make proper generalizations from the Geth situation because it is a single sample of synthetic civilization.

It might be poor story telling (even more so in the context of speculative fiction), but it is at least logically sound.  I believe this thread was intended to discuss the logical soundness of the Catalst argument... 

All I am saying is that the OP set up a strawman of the Catalyst's logic.

[CavScout]

daecath wrote...

CavScout wrote...

daecath wrote...

I actually took the time to deconstruct all the logical fallacies in starbrat's argument in another forum post. I think I found 6 or 7 standard fallacies that apply to the starbrat's logic, and that was without even trying.

Curious: How many fallacies did you have to commit to get to them?

Begging the question to a degree. I started with the premise that there were problems with his logic, then went through the wiki article on logical fallacies looking for specific ones that fit the arguments he used. There were a few that were less solid than others. I would say 4 or 5 really strong instances where there was a clear mistake made on the part of the starbrat, and 2 or 3 instances where the argument for a fallacy is weaker. Those are typically just plain stupid statements on the part of the kid that I was trying to turn into an actual fallacy. Unfortunately there is no specific one for being a moron.

So short answer: Many.

[The Night Mammoth]

CavScout wrote...

daecath wrote...

CavScout wrote...

daecath wrote...

I actually took the time to deconstruct all the logical fallacies in starbrat's argument in another forum post. I think I found 6 or 7 standard fallacies that apply to the starbrat's logic, and that was without even trying.

Curious: How many fallacies did you have to commit to get to them?

Begging the question to a degree. I started with the premise that there were problems with his logic, then went through the wiki article on logical fallacies looking for specific ones that fit the arguments he used. There were a few that were less solid than others. I would say 4 or 5 really strong instances where there was a clear mistake made on the part of the starbrat, and 2 or 3 instances where the argument for a fallacy is weaker. Those are typically just plain stupid statements on the part of the kid that I was trying to turn into an actual fallacy. Unfortunately there is no specific one for being a moron.

So short answer: Many.

A yes, he's wrong, because he is.

Don't explain why. 

[CavScout]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CavScout wrote...

daecath wrote...

CavScout wrote...

daecath wrote...

I actually took the time to deconstruct all the logical fallacies in starbrat's argument in another forum post. I think I found 6 or 7 standard fallacies that apply to the starbrat's logic, and that was without even trying.

Curious: How many fallacies did you have to commit to get to them?

Begging the question to a degree. I started with the premise that there were problems with his logic, then went through the wiki article on logical fallacies looking for specific ones that fit the arguments he used. There were a few that were less solid than others. I would say 4 or 5 really strong instances where there was a clear mistake made on the part of the starbrat, and 2 or 3 instances where the argument for a fallacy is weaker. Those are typically just plain stupid statements on the part of the kid that I was trying to turn into an actual fallacy. Unfortunately there is no specific one for being a moron.

So short answer: Many.

A yes, he's wrong, because he is.

Don't explain why. 

And you accept daecath's claims. Because?

[jokey javik]

if shepard is you and you are logical you would dismiss the catalyst however if you do not posses spock like logic you are irrational but you have soul so you fight back overcoming a hologram's logic rallying the fleets to fight for life and unity the odds put against the universe are pushed aside you live your life how you choose.

[The Night Mammoth]

CavScout wrote...

TheNightMammoth wrote...

CavScout wrote...

So short answer: Many.

A yes, he's wrong, because he is.

Don't explain why. 

And you accept daecath's claims. Because?

I didn't accept anything, I haven't posed a view on the OP's point, not do I intend to until I get my head round his liitle diagrams because it's something I've never seen before. 

But you're dodging the issue. He's wrong, because you say he is. No explanation, no reasoning. Provide these things, that's how you foster interesting discussions. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 10 avril 2012 - 12:47 .

[CavScout]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

CavScout wrote...

TheNightMammoth wrote...

CavScout wrote...

So short answer: Many.

A yes, he's wrong, because he is.

Don't explain why. 

And you accept daecath's claims. Because?

I didn't accept anything, I haven't posed a view on the OP's point, not do I intend to until I get my head round his liitle diagrams because it's something I've never seen before. 

But you're dodging the issue. He's wrong, because you say he is. No explanation, no reasoning. Provide these things, that's how you foster interesting discussions. 

You do accept his "reasons" without anything other than his say so. You demand more of me, why? Other than acceptance of one point of view over the other. Do not pretend to have no bias...

[SilentPhenomed]

what?