276 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

Until we know exactly what Stargazer's tech level is, speculating is pointless. He could have been making a genuine statement of wonder and mystery, or simply speaking to a child in flowery language.

[SovereignWillReturn]

KingZayd wrote...

the way to defy the starchild is to pick destroy. It's the only option it doesn't like.

It's not defying him. THe kid let's ypou waltz up and blow the hell out of his entire race's existence, including himself.

That's him trying to play god, and Sheperd playing right into his game.

Defying him would be picking nothing, and beating the Reapers anyways

[a.m.p]

Optimystic_X wrote...

1) Like it or not, even the most renegade of Shepards is a hero. No matter how much of a bastard you are, for instance, you still stop Saren's Geth, stop the Collectors, and of course stop the Reapers' harvest.

2) Where did he say it wasn't done? You're reading an awful lot into that scene.

1) She's no renegade, she's moslty paragon in fact. She also did some pretty awful things, that didn't even help anyone much. That's why the idea of turning her into a messianic figure to be worshipped (if that is how we interpret "the Shepard") makes me beyond uncomfortable. It wasn't her that stopped the reapers, it was the whole galaxy that stopped the reapers she's just one woman and putting her on a pedestal is disrespectful of everyone else who died in this war. Heroes are needed, yes, to give the events a human face. A messiah - I'll pass, thank you.

2) I'm reading what I'm reading. "Each of those stars could have many worlds. Every world could be home to a different kind of life". The old man has no idea what is out there in space. Therefore his planet is not part of a spacefaring community.

[Xellith]

If you wasnt directly given the destroy option - but you could still walk up and shoot the pipe (shoot why?? lol) That woulda gone down better imo.

[CanadianGunshy]

My first playthrough: I didn't like any of the options. I was paralyzed with indecision, before I could decide I was informed "The Crucible has been destroyed".

Had to restart from the last autosave. I guess its almost the same as telling the star child off?

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

It's amusing how quickly some people bow to reaper king, and how peeved they appear if anybody suggest there could've been an alternative. Well, I kind of understand this.
Especially funny are the people who go as far as "Shepard would never do this!", well, your Shepard maybe, but remember, there is no "canon Shepard".
Also its amusing how some people in their agitated defence of their "inevitable choices" managed to sound almost exactly like Saren did 

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 16 avril 2012 - 06:32 .

[Jeb231]

It's the equivalent of asking for a new ending regardless of the intent of the writers. No I may not agree with the way the trilogy was written but I do respect the fact that it's their game.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Jeb231...
It's the equivalent of asking for a new ending regardless of the intent of the writers

Umm, is asking for a new ending is some kind of heresy now? Did I miss something?

[Computron2000]

If Shepard said "Go to hell" to the reaper kid, he would not be stupidly standing there. He would try to reach Hackett or anyone available and report.

"ACCESS TO THE REAPER GOD" was never a variable in Hackett's plans. If he is informed then do people here think that he would not switch to another plan?

Think about it. You have a Reaper god who idiotically tells you he can let you control (or destroy or synthesize) the Reapers but the side effects are
i) You die (no biggie)
ii) The relays are destroyed

Now think about this. How many times has shepard, tali and so on repurposed a synthetic or other tech?

Who is to say further examination of said blue structure will not allow the races to send out the control pulse without killing the sender or destroying the relay? If Shepard tells Hackett the entire event, then any Admiral worth his rank would pull back, regroup and send in strike teams to try access the blue structure.

Even of greater enjoyment is the synthesis option repurposed. Instead of creating "new DNA" (which is not possible with machines in RL), how about isolating the changes to the Reapers only and joining them to a snail?

[Jeb231]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Jeb231...
It's the equivalent of asking for a new ending regardless of the intent of the writers

Umm, is asking for a new ending is some kind of heresy now? Did I miss something?

It's disrespectful if you simply refute it without trying to understand or respect it. If you simply hate it then you should ask for the ending (and crucible) to be amended. The issue isn't the ending itself (or at least won't be in after the extended cut) but the catalyst scene and the crucible.
What do you think the fourth ending should be? A happy ending? Then you are effectively rendering all the other endings, whatever the message the writers were trying to convey and the plot for ME3 meaningless without fixing anything wrong with the endings. Basically what I'm saying is that it's ok for us to ask for a better ending as long as it's in the spirit of the story the writers were trying to convey originally. Since nobody knows, we should let them do this.

BTW, leaked script says synthesis is the perfect ending.

Modifié par Jeb231, 16 avril 2012 - 06:53 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

What I am trying to refute? I am just trying to add to existing content. I am not trying to refute anything, or be disrespectful or whatever.
Personally I don't need a happy ending, just ability to try keep fighting (even if they *think* its a losing battle). As long as I don't get "instant game over". I don't need to know if we will win or lose at the end, as long as hope remains. You may believe I will lose. I could hope that I'll win. So we both should be fine.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 16 avril 2012 - 06:57 .

[Jeb231]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

What I am trying to refute? I am just trying to add to existing content. I am not trying to refute anything, or be disrespectful or whatever.
Personally I don't need a happy ending, just ability to try keep fighting (even if they *think* its a losing battle). As long as I don't get "instant game over". I don't need to know if we will win or lose, as long as hope remains. You may believe I will lose. I could hope that I'll win. So we both should be fine.

And this is a fair point. I'd love this too as long as the guys behind the game are happy with it, I think it makes sense in this context. Sorry, I'm getting a bit cranky being around here for too long, I didn't mean to sound harsh.

[BouncyCaitian]

Shepard: So let me see if I get this straight: Option One allows be to become the Controlling intellect Behind the Reapers, and I croak. Option Two lets me spread my Reaper Tech augmentations to everything in the Galaxy and I croak. Option Three Let's me save all Organic Life by killing all synthetic life and fragging the reapers, And I croak. Is that a fair interpretation?

'Bob' The StarChild: While crude, that is a fair summation.

Shepard: In spite of the fact that I have the Quarrians and Geth working together in relative harmony, rebuilding Rannoch, My ships A.I. and pilot/navigator are starting to date, you are saying that conflict is inevitable and that we shouldn't even try.

'Bob' The Starkid: After a few million years of observation, I would say yes.

Shepard: Have you ever seen any previous instances of Synthetics and Organics successfully working together for and extended period of time before you annihilated them?

'Bob' The StarKid: No. Elimination when the Reapers are deployed is usually swift and certain.

Shepard: So you have nothing to base your logic on other than species with their backs against them wall on the verge of being wiped out.

'Bob' The StarKid: In essence, yes.

Shepard: I detect an invalid hypothesis here...

[Neophoenix 78]

I personally feel that Shepard does not act anything like he has prior to the catalyst interaction.  He just sits and takes what Starchild says as Dogma.

I am the creator of the things that you are currently fighting in an attempt to not get wiped out from the galaxy because I stereotype all organics and synthetics and thus I always know the outcome. But then I admit that your presence here says that my "logic" is wrong.  Also the whole Geth & Quarian truce and EDI totally contradict every trite thing I say about the relationship between organics and synthetics. Actually it is shown that the organics are the ones who would cause this rift (Quarians).  If he created something to "save" organics from synthetics wouldn't it make sense to save the synthetics because they are the victims? Nope he "saves" the organics.

At this point why does Shepard even think of a second that what this "thing" in front of me (which picks the visual of a child that may or may not be real but definately dead at this point either way).  The Starchild has already stated that his options are no longer viable. He discusses this with Shepard. Then he describes the 3 actions that Shepard can take and their outcomes. Since Shepard is now the "gamebreaker" of the Starchild's ideas why are we listening to him. He is stating that the mere presence of an organic at the catalyst shows he was wrong. But here are my 3 options due to my logic. But you just proved him wrong. It would be like listening to a scientist who says the Earth is flat after it is shown the Earth is round. But you still listen to him anyway. Why does my Shepard have the option to state you are wrong. You are wrong at your core principals. I will not take solace in anything you have to say.

Sacrifice. It has been in the series from game one. Why am I not given a "Scott Mitchell" choice of raining hellfire on my mark. The Starchild is broken. Things will change anyway. But those 3 options are the changes of an antiquated thinking that was proven to be wrong by Shepard being there. At 5000 EMS I am holding and winning at strategic points. At this point we have a war of attrittion if Shepard decides on conventional warfare. Sure they say the entire game a conventional warfare is not possible. I was also told reversing the Genophage was impossible. I was told the Krogan/Turian alliance was not possible. I was told the Geth working with the alliance was impossible. Shepard has been doing the impossible since ME1. Why at this point am I not allowed an option to do the impossible, to blow up the citadel and launch an offensive on the Reapers.

I will make some statements on why this cycle is different. I will state why I feel conventional warefare is plausible.  Shepard interacting with all of the races is first and foremost. The Protheons were the cycle that came closest to defeating the Reapers. Why did they fail? Indoctrination was a part of it.  The other part of it was arrogance. The same arrogance that the Asari have. We are the prime culture and nothing can stop us. They were an isolated race. Not my Shepard and not my alliance. I have Krogans, Turians, Asari, Geth, Quarian, Human, Volus, Elcor, Hanar, Drell, and Salarians. I might have missed some. But they make up a team. The Protheons only had themselves and they were isolated. That is not the case now. Without my Shepard going to all of those places and bringing people together there would be no chance for this.

And this is what I mean when I said sacrifice earlier. People stated that if I make a4th choice of non-compliance to the leader of my enemy then I subject my friends to death and the galaxy too. I have subjected my friends to death before. Ashley/Kaiden. Wrex, Mordin, Legion, Thane,etc etc. I sacrificed them for the greated good. At least my perceived greater good. We are not supposed to know the outcome. We are taught in ME3 what sacrifice is. We do it in a hope to secure the galaxy from Reaper influence. I would have liked to have told Hackett who Starchild is. Told him to nuke the citadel. Destroy the one thing the Reapers always use in every cycle against the organics. Then send a msg to all my allies. Tell them the truth. Tell them I am destroying the citadel. Tell them we will most likely all die. Tell them we are not only fighting for our cycle. But future cycles. Why does the concept of hero sacrifice for the future be something that is seflish and evil. You care more about your crew members than organics of the future.  And I think that is why the other cycle's failed. People were scared and tried to save themselves instead of the galaxy. See also why every citadel race will not help you until they are getting screwed.

Stargazer. 10k years in the future. Uses "could"  in his speech to a child. Could mean something. Could mean nothing. But if there is space flight kudos. If not then it means 2 things. As a civilization we are so scared to get to spaceflight because of the Reapers we no longer progress due to fear. Or the Reapers are alive and we know the truth so we are on the downlow. Either way that does not seem like winning to me.

I just find it hard to believe that military men when given an option by the leader of their enemy will resort to Stockholm Syndrome-esque decisions. If we are going to lose we are going to take some of you with us. And if we take enough of you with us and take out your citadel maybe just maybe the next cycle will have an easier time. I mean look at the Protheons. They were close. Sheperd's cycle made it closer. Maybe if they damage the Reapers enough the next cycle will have it easier. The info that Liara sends out would help too. Maybe the death of all intelligenct life in the galaxy would result in a win against the Reapers in the future.  I mean we did have Thanix. Do some damage with those things. Don't be like that little jerk in Saving Private Ryan who has a weapon but just watches his squadmate get killed by the same enemy he protected ealier.

That is the fight I wanted my Shepard  to have. That is the decision I wanted him to make. The hard decisions of war. Not this spoon fed tripe. I would say the destruction of the galaxy is not a happy one. But it is one that would make sense. I would argue that the RGB endings I was given were much happier endings than the one I just stated.  But I think my view would have been more in line with the mood of ME1,ME2, and everything up until London in ME3. 

[Lyrebon]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Now, granted, I don't like Starchild either. I thought the crucible would be more of a conventional weapon that would be like a super laser but I don't get everyone who obsesses over this idea of being able to tell the starchild off. The options he describes aren't HIS options, they're the triggers for firing the crucible. The crucible isn't an Improbability Drive so it's not going to give you the option to turn reapers into bowls of petunias and sperm whales. It's primary design is to kill off all synthetic life in the galaxy but you get some other options if you understand the tech behind it better.

So yes, the options between control, synth (we just spent 3 games fighting against these options and just talked TIM into an hero b/c it was too risky ) and destroy( we just brokered peace between the geth and quarians and have EDI ), do kinda suck, but sometimes life is complicated. I dislike having to kill my new geth buddies or EDI but I appreciate a game that can incorporate a moral delimma.

If you're that turned off by having to decide and you think you should be able to 'defy' the starchild, then don't pick anything. Shepard bleeds out on the Citadel, the fleets lose to the reapers and the current cycle ends. Simple as that.

Everything the Starchild says is counter-intuitive to Shepard's personality. "I control the Reapers." - perfectly good stimulus to raise suspicion and rage in Shepard ("So you're the one blindly killing my species?"). The Starkid's logic is also flawed. Why can't Shepard counteract the statement of inevitability with evidence countrary to the theory (the geth-quarian alliance, EDI-Joker).

Even if the three options are for firing the Crucible, human innovation allows capabilities beyond those expressly stated. Maybe firing the Crucible in whatever form other than destroy allows the Reapers to win. Why wouldn't Shepard consider this possibility after being told he/she MUST fire the Crucible by a being confirmed as the Reaper mastermind.

The very fact that we can't question the Starchild and have to watch Shepard accept its word as gospel is illogical and frustrating. The ending would be a lot better removing the Starkid and ending it where Shepard/Anderson pass out and extended that part in the DLC.

[Funkdrspot]

I see some very passionate responses, which is good. Unfortunately most of them simply are either not reading my OP or are outrigh ignoring the point I was driving home that the starchild is not GIVING you the options, he is merely EXPAINING the choices you have GIVEN YOURSELF. he is basically a poorly instituted instruction manual.

[Funkdrspot]

Ftl forums

[Neophoenix 78]

So the crucible kills all synthetics. The Reapers kill all organics. So Starchild has set up a double sided doomsday device in your opinion? If the organics can make it this far then they have 3 choices for the future of the galaxy. But if they fail then they are wiped and the synthetics live. That sounds even worse than those Japanese game shows.

My post was about a 4th choice which is more congruent with previous decisions and themes in the ME universe. Sure there are 3 things the catalyst can do. But that does not mean there are only 3 things that Shepard can do. He is just forced into it by a tied together ending.

[translationninja]

I can't believe I just read this whole thread!

But come to think of it, somewhere around page 6 someone mentioned it and it struck me. If they really wanted bittersweet and sacrifice and Shep dying and all that they should have gone with "so you control the reapers, hum?" and then ordering all fleets to open up on the citadel.

Kaplow, King Reaper dead, Shep dead all is well, and then flesh out the "remaining leaderless, uncontrolled reapers" issue with whatever artsy fartsy shmoo they felt they needed to do.

[Delta_V2]

I wanted to reject his options, but that doesn't mean I want to just sit back and do nothing. I wanted to do something like this:

Shepard: "Wait, you control the Reapers? So your linked to them, like Sovereign was to Saren?"
*to Hackett* "Admiral, the Crucibal is not going to work. The Citadel is controlling the Reapers. Remember what happened to Sovereign when we killed Saren? The arms are open. Blow this thing to hell."

edit:

Modifié par Delta_V2, 16 avril 2012 - 10:57 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Funkdrspot wrote...

I see some very passionate responses, which is good. Unfortunately most of them simply are either not reading my OP or are outrigh ignoring the point I was driving home that the starchild is not GIVING you the options, he is merely EXPAINING the choices you have GIVEN YOURSELF. he is basically a poorly instituted instruction manual.

Your OP is just a speculation. What is the point of structuring the whole conversation that starkid is in control, if he is just "instruction manual"? Yet he's acting like he in control. What the point, just to confuse the player? 

Also, even if we for a moment assume that you right, even if he just illustrates the choices of that all outcomes the crucible can generate - we still don't have to accept them if they go against every fibre of our Shepard's being.

[Oldbones2]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Now, granted, I don't like Starchild either. I thought the crucible would be more of a conventional weapon that would be like a super laser but I don't get everyone who obsesses over this idea of being able to tell the starchild off. The options he describes aren't HIS options, they're the triggers for firing the crucible. The crucible isn't an Improbability Drive so it's not going to give you the option to turn reapers into bowls of petunias and sperm whales. It's primary design is to kill off all synthetic life in the galaxy but you get some other options if you understand the tech behind it better.

So yes, the options between control, synth (we just spent 3 games fighting against these options and just talked TIM into an hero b/c it was too risky ) and destroy( we just brokered peace between the geth and quarians and have EDI ), do kinda suck, but sometimes life is complicated. I dislike having to kill my new geth buddies or EDI but I appreciate a game that can incorporate a moral delimma.

If you're that turned off by having to decide and you think you should be able to 'defy' the starchild, then don't pick anything. Shepard bleeds out on the Citadel, the fleets lose to the reapers and the current cycle ends. Simple as that.

There was a thread going around that offered that choice.  You'd be suprised how many people picked it.


But the problem is currently if you do refuse, the game doesn't end, you just get the mission failed and start over. 


Let us defy and die and have that be the end.

[recentio]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Now, granted, I don't like Starchild either. I thought the crucible would be more of a conventional weapon that would be like a super laser but I don't get everyone who obsesses over this idea of being able to tell the starchild off. The options he describes aren't HIS options, they're the triggers for firing the crucible. The crucible isn't an Improbability Drive so it's not going to give you the option to turn reapers into bowls of petunias and sperm whales. It's primary design is to kill off all synthetic life in the galaxy but you get some other options if you understand the tech behind it better.

So yes, the options between control, synth (we just spent 3 games fighting against these options and just talked TIM into an hero b/c it was too risky ) and destroy( we just brokered peace between the geth and quarians and have EDI ), do kinda suck, but sometimes life is complicated. I dislike having to kill my new geth buddies or EDI but I appreciate a game that can incorporate a moral delimma.

If you're that turned off by having to decide and you think you should be able to 'defy' the starchild, then don't pick anything. Shepard bleeds out on the Citadel, the fleets lose to the reapers and the current cycle ends. Simple as that.

Arguing verbally isn't the same thing as getting a full-blown 4th option. The point of defying the Starchild is to maintain Shepard's character instead of turning him into a doormat in the climactic scene of his trilogy. Then, despite Shepard's vehement protests, the Starchild is like, "Well, tough cookies. This is how it is." And *then* you choose. Shepard is still the man or woman s/he's always been; yet the choices remain the same.

[viperabyss]

KingZayd wrote...

the way to defy the starchild is to pick destroy. It's the only option it doesn't like.

No. All three options are based on Catalyst's logic. Picking the destroy ending just means you accept his logic, and you accept the risk. There's no option to defy the Catalyst.

Defying him would be argue against him, convince his logic is wrong, or go "James Vega" on his console. 

[viperabyss]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Now, granted, I don't like Starchild either. I thought the crucible would be more of a conventional weapon that would be like a super laser but I don't get everyone who obsesses over this idea of being able to tell the starchild off. The options he describes aren't HIS options, they're the triggers for firing the crucible. The crucible isn't an Improbability Drive so it's not going to give you the option to turn reapers into bowls of petunias and sperm whales. It's primary design is to kill off all synthetic life in the galaxy but you get some other options if you understand the tech behind it better.

So yes, the options between control, synth (we just spent 3 games fighting against these options and just talked TIM into an hero b/c it was too risky ) and destroy( we just brokered peace between the geth and quarians and have EDI ), do kinda suck, but sometimes life is complicated. I dislike having to kill my new geth buddies or EDI but I appreciate a game that can incorporate a moral delimma.

If you're that turned off by having to decide and you think you should be able to 'defy' the starchild, then don't pick anything. Shepard bleeds out on the Citadel, the fleets lose to the reapers and the current cycle ends. Simple as that.

Moral dilemma implies reality. For instance, a moral dilemma would be like arresting someone for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving son, or sending a woman to jail for murdering her husband, when he has been constantly abusing her, physically and emtionally.

In the ME3 ending, there wasn't a moral dilemma, because there are just so many other options that were not explored. Why couldn't we convince the Catalyst? Why couldn't the Reapers just show up when the synthetics have a hostile intention against the organics? Why couldn't Shepard demonstrate how Geth have never intended to destroy the Quarians (in fact if you talk to Legion in ME2, he'll explain the reason why he is spying on the Quarians was to 'understand why the creators would attack us')?

The original intention of Bioware was for us to make a morally difficult decision based on lack of information. However, that is not a moral dilemma. It is just simply guessing. If there are "what if" questions, it is not a moral dilemma.