315 réponses à ce sujet

[Laurencio]

tractrpl wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...
Look at what you write and look at what decided at the end. Stop contridicting yourself. In your own words "If Shepard had stepped aside and let Saren go ahead with his plan, what
do you think would have happened?  If you actually think the end result
would have been synthesis, and not Soveriegn betraying Saren and
processing him along with all the other organics, then you haven't been
paying attention to how the Reapers think and act." Replace those with sheaprd and catalystit ( reaper god). Big contridcition here if you don't see it your a lost cause. Cause nothing is gonna go through that thick head of yours.

It's not a contradiction.  I was quite clear with what I was saying.  Synthesis is what Saren hoped to achieve via Reaper tech.  Control is what the Illusive Man hoped to achieve via Reaper tech.  Neither was possible, because the Reapers stick to their own goal no matter what.  The Crucible is not of Reaper origin, is not Reaper tech, and is capable of synthesis and control.  That is my point.  The means Saren and the Illusive man used made their goals impossible, but through the Crucible, which is not of the Reapers, it is possible.  That's not my opinion, that's not speculation, that's right there in the game.  You see it happen.  If you're going to call me thick-headed at least pay attention to what I'm actually saying. 

Indocrinated players lead to control and synsthesis ideology . These are reaper ideologies. Why is it considered reaper ideologies. Cause by chooosing both of these choices you are agreeing with the catalyst that sythetics will always kill organics. You are not giving humanity a chance of hope to solve their own probelms in the future. You are some how doing exactly what the reapers want. If you do not realise this than I can not be bothered to keep arguing with you cause obviously your in self denial and don't think.

Yeah, if I don't agree with you, I'm in self-denial or I don't think.  Get over yourself.  No, synthesis and control are not Reaper ideologies, they're lies that two antagonists were led to believe they could achieve by using Reaper tech.  They were illusions until the Crucible, which is not of Reaper origin, made them a reality.  That is the key difference, and that is why your argument fails.

Control and Synthesis are both ideaologies associated with reaper indocrination. Your arguing that the crucible is not reaper origin. But it uses the catalyst as  a source of Power which is of reaper origin. How the hell does the catalyst know so well what will happen once you made your choice? Does not matter if it is not the reapers who camp us with the concept. In the end it was still using reaper technology.

The Citadel is of Reaper origin, but it does not carry the same characteristics as the most volatile Reaper tech.  It doesn't indoctrinate, for instance.  It is a power source for the Crucible, nothing more.  The Crucible is still doing all the work. 

In last cycle there were two groups , one wanted control the other wanted to destroy. It was found out later the ones that wanted to control were the ones who were indocriniated. Control = associate with reaper ideology.

That is a logical fallacy.  It's like, say someone gives you a gun, telling you it's real, but it's actually a plastic toy or something.  You go and try to use it, and it fails, because it was never real.  Does that mean there are no real guns?  No.  Nothing about synthesis and control as they are achieved via the Crucible coincides with Reaper ideology. 

He JUST SAID IT. He said ALL synthetics would be destroyed, then reminded you how you are partly synthetic, that is BLATANT. Besides, I just thought you said we were supposed to take what the kid says at face value? So the kid doesnt know what he is talking about, and he was guessing....great.

At face value the Catalyst doesn't say "You will die."  He says "you are partly synthetic".  And the end result?  Shepard might die, or he might not, depending on how well the Crucible functions.  That is taking it at face value.

Sorry I already proven you wrong. Wether you chose to accepet the information given in the game is your own choice. I can't be bothered to type how your wrong cause your obviously choosing to ignore and interpret the information given about TIM and Saren in a 180 degrees.

Your example is not even close to what I am saying. Using a ending with lots of speculations is not gonna help your case. It is indocrination meaning reaper ideals are pushed or forced in the character. And nothing proves control and sysnthesis are not reaper ideologies. Everything given in the game proves that. I don't feel like arguing with someone who obviously ignoress this.

The destroy ending doesn't necessarily mean you won out of endoctrination. You initiate the destroy ending by damaging a crucial piece of equipment needed for the Crucible to operate. So in the end, you may have just "thought" you destroyed the Reapers, when in the end you just destroyed the only thing capable of actually killing them. I know, the cutscenes make it seem as though you succeeded, but if IT is to be believed, then none of the endings are real and they are all just hallucinations.

In which case, none of it matters?

[kingofkings276]

Delta_V2 wrote...

The biggest problem I have with Control is how much control do you actually have? You see the Reapers leaving, but do you actually have control over their specific actions (like telling them to fly into the sun or using them as a glorified taxi service until the relays are rebuilt), or do you only control general directives (telling them to begin/end the cycle). I just think there are way too many unknowns and ways for it to go wrong.

That's the thing though, there's no actual answers to your questions. It's whatever you think will happen can happen.

Bioware didn't create it and leave out the part where you can only partially control the reapers. It's whatever you want.

[Meltemph]

It's not a hard concept to grasp. He says you are partly synthetic, and synthetics will die. So if you choose the ending to 100% destroy the reapers, there's a chance you could die. The point of it is to make the decision difficult, to see if you are willing to sacrifice yourself.

So then you don't take what the kid says at face value, and it is only a writing tool to try and force emotion? And this is a good thing, why? If what you are saying is true, then the kid at minimum is being intellectually dishonest or doesn't understand the choices either, which then throws issues into every ending.

[Cobra's_back]

OdanUrr wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

kingofkings276 wrote...

Control allows to take over the reapers and fly them into the sun without anybody dying. That already makes it the best ending, but if it also saves the relays that's another plus

He didn't say you can kill them. The reapers could rebel. Need final DLC to see what actually can happen. Ending is too vague at this time to know for sure.

Funny you should say that:

http://social.biowar...405288#11405288

Very nice read. Thank you

[kingofkings276]

Meltemph wrote...

It's not a hard concept to grasp. He says you are partly synthetic, and synthetics will die. So if you choose the ending to 100% destroy the reapers, there's a chance you could die. The point of it is to make the decision difficult, to see if you are willing to sacrifice yourself.

So then you don't take what the kid says at face value, and it is only a writing tool to try and force emotion? And this is a good thing, why? If what you are saying is true, then the kid at minimum is being intellectually dishonest or doesn't understand the choices either, which then throws issues into every ending.

The kid didn't say YOU WILL DIE. He didn't imply that YOU WILL DIE. He implied that there is a chance that you will die. Why is that so hard for you to get. That's why in some endings Shepard dies and some he lives.

[Meltemph]

The kid didn't say YOU WILL DIE. He didn't imply that YOU WILL DIE. He implied that there is a chance that you will die. Why is that so hard for you to get. That's why in some endings Shepard dies and some he lives.

Huh? There is no implication of "chance" He talks about how ALL synthetics will be destroyed and how even the geth will be destroyed and on that exact same subject also reminds you that you are partly synthetic. There is no" saying you "could" die".

[tractrpl]

Laurencio wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...
Look at what you write and look at what decided at the end. Stop contridicting yourself. In your own words "If Shepard had stepped aside and let Saren go ahead with his plan, what
do you think would have happened?  If you actually think the end result
would have been synthesis, and not Soveriegn betraying Saren and
processing him along with all the other organics, then you haven't been
paying attention to how the Reapers think and act." Replace those with sheaprd and catalystit ( reaper god). Big contridcition here if you don't see it your a lost cause. Cause nothing is gonna go through that thick head of yours.

It's not a contradiction.  I was quite clear with what I was saying.  Synthesis is what Saren hoped to achieve via Reaper tech.  Control is what the Illusive Man hoped to achieve via Reaper tech.  Neither was possible, because the Reapers stick to their own goal no matter what.  The Crucible is not of Reaper origin, is not Reaper tech, and is capable of synthesis and control.  That is my point.  The means Saren and the Illusive man used made their goals impossible, but through the Crucible, which is not of the Reapers, it is possible.  That's not my opinion, that's not speculation, that's right there in the game.  You see it happen.  If you're going to call me thick-headed at least pay attention to what I'm actually saying. 

Indocrinated players lead to control and synsthesis ideology . These are reaper ideologies. Why is it considered reaper ideologies. Cause by chooosing both of these choices you are agreeing with the catalyst that sythetics will always kill organics. You are not giving humanity a chance of hope to solve their own probelms in the future. You are some how doing exactly what the reapers want. If you do not realise this than I can not be bothered to keep arguing with you cause obviously your in self denial and don't think.

Yeah, if I don't agree with you, I'm in self-denial or I don't think.  Get over yourself.  No, synthesis and control are not Reaper ideologies, they're lies that two antagonists were led to believe they could achieve by using Reaper tech.  They were illusions until the Crucible, which is not of Reaper origin, made them a reality.  That is the key difference, and that is why your argument fails.

Control and Synthesis are both ideaologies associated with reaper indocrination. Your arguing that the crucible is not reaper origin. But it uses the catalyst as  a source of Power which is of reaper origin. How the hell does the catalyst know so well what will happen once you made your choice? Does not matter if it is not the reapers who camp us with the concept. In the end it was still using reaper technology.

The Citadel is of Reaper origin, but it does not carry the same characteristics as the most volatile Reaper tech.  It doesn't indoctrinate, for instance.  It is a power source for the Crucible, nothing more.  The Crucible is still doing all the work. 

In last cycle there were two groups , one wanted control the other wanted to destroy. It was found out later the ones that wanted to control were the ones who were indocriniated. Control = associate with reaper ideology.

That is a logical fallacy.  It's like, say someone gives you a gun, telling you it's real, but it's actually a plastic toy or something.  You go and try to use it, and it fails, because it was never real.  Does that mean there are no real guns?  No.  Nothing about synthesis and control as they are achieved via the Crucible coincides with Reaper ideology. 

He JUST SAID IT. He said ALL synthetics would be destroyed, then reminded you how you are partly synthetic, that is BLATANT. Besides, I just thought you said we were supposed to take what the kid says at face value? So the kid doesnt know what he is talking about, and he was guessing....great.

At face value the Catalyst doesn't say "You will die."  He says "you are partly synthetic".  And the end result?  Shepard might die, or he might not, depending on how well the Crucible functions.  That is taking it at face value.

Sorry I already proven you wrong. Wether you chose to accepet the information given in the game is your own choice. I can't be bothered to type how your wrong cause your obviously choosing to ignore and interpret the information given about TIM and Saren in a 180 degrees.

Your example is not even close to what I am saying. Using a ending with lots of speculations is not gonna help your case. It is indocrination meaning reaper ideals are pushed or forced in the character. And nothing proves control and sysnthesis are not reaper ideologies. Everything given in the game proves that. I don't feel like arguing with someone who obviously ignoress this.

The destroy ending doesn't necessarily mean you won out of endoctrination. You initiate the destroy ending by damaging a crucial piece of equipment needed for the Crucible to operate. So in the end, you may have just "thought" you destroyed the Reapers, when in the end you just destroyed the only thing capable of actually killing them. I know, the cutscenes make it seem as though you succeeded, but if IT is to be believed, then none of the endings are real and they are all just hallucinations.

In which case, none of it matters?

That's the problem with people that buy into IT. Look, all the endings do exactly what they say they will and the Reapers are definitely and for all time defeated no matter which ending you choose according to canon. The fact that none of them make any sense matters at all. The only way to correct the logical loopholes in the ending is to totally change the ending, but saying that "control is what the Reapers want" or "synthesis is what the Reapers want" doesn't make any sense because you could say the exact same thing with Destroy. If you're going to say that only Destroy actually works, I can say that you're wrong, not only according to canon, but by pointing out that all the endings don't make any sense on a logical level.

[OdanUrr]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

kingofkings276 wrote...

Control allows to take over the reapers and fly them into the sun without anybody dying. That already makes it the best ending, but if it also saves the relays that's another plus

He didn't say you can kill them. The reapers could rebel. Need final DLC to see what actually can happen. Ending is too vague at this time to know for sure.

Funny you should say that:

http://social.biowar...405288#11405288

Very nice read. Thank you

You're welcome.

[Dragoni89]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...
Sorry I already proven you wrong. Wether you chose to accepet the information given in the game is your own choice. I can't be bothered to type how your wrong cause your obviously choosing to ignore and interpret the information given about TIM and Saren in a 180 degrees.

Nothing I said was my interpretation, it's the information in the game.  Which you are ignoring.  You're comparing a lie that Saren and the Illusive Man believe to an event that you can witness happening at the end of the game.  The game itself proved you wrong long before I did.

Your example is not even close to what I am saying. Using a ending with lots of speculations is not gonna help your case. It is indocrination meaning reaper ideals are pushed or forced in the character. And nothing proves control and sysnthesis are not reaper ideologies. Everything given in the game proves that. I don't feel like arguing with someone who obviously ignoress this.

Then by all means, quit responding to me, but don't sit there and act like it's because you're obviously right and I just won't listen to reason.  I've responded to you point by point every step of the way and explained why you were wrong about this particular issue.

What the hell you talking about the ending proved nothing. Thats why people are even talking and complaining. Are you liveing a cave wiith your laptop?

I already said why your wrong, crucible is still very reaper tech. And the catalyst knows exactly what it does. So it is which reapers calculation how it is going to turn out if you pick control and synthesis. So your wrong.

Control and systhesis are clearly shown to be  idealogies of indocrinated characters. So once again your wrong.

Ending is so speculative, and unclear what the result of shepards actions are. It does not prove anything. So your wrong again.

Why do I think destory is acatully the correct move. Lets see we had TIM and Saren. Did you agree with those guys?

Modifié par Dragoni89, 15 avril 2012 - 05:26 .

[cerberus1701]

"Control" the best ending?

I really don't see how since the game spends inordinate amounts of time telling you how it really is impossible to control them.

[Meltemph]

cerberus1701 wrote...

"Control" the best ending?

I really don't see how since the game spends inordinate amounts of time telling you how it really is impossible to control them.

According to some, everything we learned in the game doenst matter, because the only thing that truely matters is the ending, and that because we see scenes taht seem to indicate what the starbrat said happens(mostly) that, that cancels out anything else in the game.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 avril 2012 - 05:28 .

[Cobra's_back]

Delta_V2 wrote...

The biggest problem I have with Control is how much control do you actually have? You see the Reapers leaving, but do you actually have control over their specific actions (like telling them to fly into the sun or using them as a glorified taxi service until the relays are rebuilt), or do you only control general directives (telling them to begin/end the cycle). I just think there are way too many unknowns and ways for it to go wrong.

So do I. I hope they clear this up with the final DLC.

[nicksmi56]

How about: there is no best ending and all three endings stink cause all I'm reading is speculation

[tractrpl]

cerberus1701 wrote...

"Control" the best ending?

I really don't see how since the game spends inordinate amounts of time telling you how it really is impossible to control them.

It's a bad ending, for sure, but Bioware implies that any ending ends with the defeat of the Reapers for good and for all time. This is according to canon. The fact that it doesn't make sense is irrelevent.

[Cobra's_back]

cerberus1701 wrote...

"Control" the best ending?

I really don't see how since the game spends inordinate amounts of time telling you how it really is impossible to control them.

It sure did.

[tractrpl]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...

The biggest problem I have with Control is how much control do you actually have? You see the Reapers leaving, but do you actually have control over their specific actions (like telling them to fly into the sun or using them as a glorified taxi service until the relays are rebuilt), or do you only control general directives (telling them to begin/end the cycle). I just think there are way too many unknowns and ways for it to go wrong.

So do I. I hope they clear this up with the final DLC.

Yes, but we already know the answer. Any choice ends with the defeat of the reapers forever and for good. The fact that it doesn't make sense is irrelevent. So, given that, then control is the best ending, because it ends with the definite defeat of the Reapers, no one gets "DNA raped" and the Geth and EDI all survive.

[Dragoni89]

Justifying why any of the endings is correct is a pain in the ass. Cause the Shepard I know from ME1 and ME2 and ME3 before the star-child. Would never suddenly start agreeing with the reapers aka Catalyst.

[Dragoni89]

tractrpl wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...

The biggest problem I have with Control is how much control do you actually have? You see the Reapers leaving, but do you actually have control over their specific actions (like telling them to fly into the sun or using them as a glorified taxi service until the relays are rebuilt), or do you only control general directives (telling them to begin/end the cycle). I just think there are way too many unknowns and ways for it to go wrong.

So do I. I hope they clear this up with the final DLC.

Yes, but we already know the answer. Any choice ends with the defeat of the reapers forever and for good. The fact that it doesn't make sense is irrelevent. So, given that, then control is the best ending, because it ends with the definite defeat of the Reapers, no one gets "DNA raped" and the Geth and EDI all survive.

You don't know if they don't get gene raped. You don't know if it ends the reapers? Aren't the control ending where the reapers are all in tact supposely? And in sythesis you kind of became reapers? Destory pretty sure you wiped out the galaxy their bud? Before someone tells me all the beams are harmless. Why was Normandy fleeing from the mass energy wave if it was harmless? If it does destory parts of the ship, does this not mean the entire space fleet would be destoryed?
It is confusing as **** and makes no sense. Joker fleeing scene just does not make sense if the beam was harmless.

Modifié par Dragoni89, 15 avril 2012 - 05:38 .

[Cobra's_back]

tractrpl wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

"Control" the best ending?

I really don't see how since the game spends inordinate amounts of time telling you how it really is impossible to control them.

It's a bad ending, for sure, but Bioware implies that any ending ends with the defeat of the Reapers for good and for all time. This is according to canon. The fact that it doesn't make sense is irrelevent.

Good input where can I find this stated. Is it implied or stated ? My guide actually has one of the 16 endings as Shepard saves Earth but becomes a Reaper. Again, there is much room for confusion.

[Meltemph]

Dragoni89 wrote...

Justifying why any of the endings is correct is a pain in the ass. Cause the Shepard I know from ME1 and ME2 and ME3 before the star-child. Would never suddenly start agreeing with the reapers aka Catalyst.

Ya, it is kinda funny.  With the control dialog is counterdicts itself and it is pretty baltent, but nobody gives 2 craps about it, apaprently. In the beginning, the kid says that he controls the reapers and that they are his solution. Then when he starts talking about the control ending he specifically says "Think you can control us?"...  Either that was an error in the script/reading of it or we were meant to catch that.  

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 avril 2012 - 05:42 .

[tractrpl]

Dragoni89 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...

The biggest problem I have with Control is how much control do you actually have? You see the Reapers leaving, but do you actually have control over their specific actions (like telling them to fly into the sun or using them as a glorified taxi service until the relays are rebuilt), or do you only control general directives (telling them to begin/end the cycle). I just think there are way too many unknowns and ways for it to go wrong.

So do I. I hope they clear this up with the final DLC.

Yes, but we already know the answer. Any choice ends with the defeat of the reapers forever and for good. The fact that it doesn't make sense is irrelevent. So, given that, then control is the best ending, because it ends with the definite defeat of the Reapers, no one gets "DNA raped" and the Geth and EDI all survive.

You don't know if they don't get gene raped. Why was Normandy fleeing from the mass energy wave if it was harmless? If it does destory parts of the ship, does this not mean the entire space fleet would be destoryed?
It is confusing as **** and makes no sense. Joker fleeing scene just does not make sense if the beam was harmless.

The Normandy was in FTL transit when the wave hit. It is implied it was only damaged because it was in FTL traveling away from the wave that cause it damage. All other ships that are in normal space are unharmed.

[Cobra's_back]

Meltemph wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...

Justifying why any of the endings is correct is a pain in the ass. Cause the Shepard I know from ME1 and ME2 and ME3 before the star-child. Would never suddenly start agreeing with the reapers aka Catalyst.

Ya, it is kinda funny.  With the control dialog is counterdicts itself and it is pretty baltent, but nobody gives 2 craps about it, apaprently. In the beginning, the kid says that he controls the reapers and that they are his solution. Then when he starts talking about the cotrol ending he specifically says "Think you can control us?"...  Either that was an error in the script/reading of it or we were meant to catch that.  

I remembered that. It really didn't help me trust him.

[tractrpl]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

"Control" the best ending?

I really don't see how since the game spends inordinate amounts of time telling you how it really is impossible to control them.

It's a bad ending, for sure, but Bioware implies that any ending ends with the defeat of the Reapers for good and for all time. This is according to canon. The fact that it doesn't make sense is irrelevent.

Good input where can I find this stated. Is it implied or stated ? My guide actually has one of the 16 endings as Shepard saves Earth but becomes a Reaper. Again, there is much room for confusion.

Just read official replies from Bioware regarding the ending. They have stated in no uncertain terms that the fleets do no starve and civilization is not thrown into a crisis because of the destruction of the Mass Relays. They confirm that no ending results in the Reapers actually "winning".

[Dragoni89]

tractrpl wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...

The biggest problem I have with Control is how much control do you actually have? You see the Reapers leaving, but do you actually have control over their specific actions (like telling them to fly into the sun or using them as a glorified taxi service until the relays are rebuilt), or do you only control general directives (telling them to begin/end the cycle). I just think there are way too many unknowns and ways for it to go wrong.

So do I. I hope they clear this up with the final DLC.

Yes, but we already know the answer. Any choice ends with the defeat of the reapers forever and for good. The fact that it doesn't make sense is irrelevent. So, given that, then control is the best ending, because it ends with the definite defeat of the Reapers, no one gets "DNA raped" and the Geth and EDI all survive.

You don't know if they don't get gene raped. Why was Normandy fleeing from the mass energy wave if it was harmless? If it does destory parts of the ship, does this not mean the entire space fleet would be destoryed?
It is confusing as **** and makes no sense. Joker fleeing scene just does not make sense if the beam was harmless.

The Normandy was in FTL transit when the wave hit. It is implied it was only damaged because it was in FTL traveling away from the wave that cause it damage. All other ships that are in normal space are unharmed.

Pretty sure he was in FTL because of the explostion. Even if somehow by a long shot I belieave what you say(imagination) is true. Why was the joker the only ship in FTL. Why did I see some ship explostions right after the ship fires? Wasn't the first relay you destoryed the charon relay? So Why was the joker ship not even in the SoL system. This can go on.

What they state contrdicts with what is shown and what we know. So that why the ending needs to get changed before they start spouting random crap. Thats why space magic has become the most used word to explain the endings.

Modifié par Dragoni89, 15 avril 2012 - 05:43 .

[Cobra's_back]

tractrpl wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

"Control" the best ending?

I really don't see how since the game spends inordinate amounts of time telling you how it really is impossible to control them.

It's a bad ending, for sure, but Bioware implies that any ending ends with the defeat of the Reapers for good and for all time. This is according to canon. The fact that it doesn't make sense is irrelevent.

Good input where can I find this stated. Is it implied or stated ? My guide actually has one of the 16 endings as Shepard saves Earth but becomes a Reaper. Again, there is much room for confusion.

Just read official replies from Bioware regarding the ending. They have stated in no uncertain terms that the fleets do no starve and civilization is not thrown into a crisis because of the destruction of the Mass Relays. They confirm that no ending results in the Reapers actually "winning".

Thank you