254 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

Or the Catalyst has actually seen it happen multiple times. Javik tells you the story of organics who were taken over by VIs. And you think that this was an isolated case? That the Catalyst has not seen it happen again and again over the course of billions of years?

Hey guess what? The Zha'till Javik talks about?
You know who caused them to take over their organic hosts? THE REAPERS. Javik says so on the Geth dreadnought.

Self-fulfilling prophecy. Again.
Also, the Zha'till still had organic components. Organic life was preserved, ironically in a form analagous to synthesis.

Maybe not imediatelly (that will be subjugation) but we don't live in a world of unending space and resources. As long as there is life, there will be war.

Irrelevant. Nobody can predict the future. And whether there's war does not follow that the Geth or any synthetic will destroy organics because they never have.

True but sentient life is the most important form of life. And the synthetics would not risk an organic civilaztion advance enough to challenge them for the cosmos.

The Catalyst never makes a distinction.

Civilisations that would have been destroyed regardless. At least, the Catalyst preserves them in Reaper form which is better than complete extinction.

You mean like the Quarians, who the Reapers were controlling the Geth to exterminate them utterly?
Also, this is another presumption on the part of the Catalyst.

Why not? A being that has accumulated knowledge for billions of year will, inevitably, be much more intelligent and experienced than you. It will know better than you.

So does Sovereign.
Again. Why did you defy Sovereign?

Don't say it's because it gave no reasons. Sovereign said you wouldn't comprehend. You exist because he allows it and you will end because he demands it. Who are you to say otherwise?

No, they don't. The Catalyst does not want Shepard to destroy or Control the Reapers. It is simply presenting the facts.
The Crucible dictates the consequences of each decision, no the Catalyst.
And, of course, you are assuming that the methods the Catalyst chose to preserve organic life somehow corrupt its intentions. That is, to preserve organic life.

The Catalyst approves of all methods. It simply favours synthesis. But it is a psychopath in control of all aspects, even it's death. You are following it's will.

You have no more proof that Synthesis has negative consequences than I do that it has positives. Sure, the Catalyst can be lying and Synthesis might, instantaneously, Indocrinate everyone in the galaxy. Or it might improve everyone's life by granting us certain synthetic abilities like immortality and, yes, even cure Joker's disease in time.
Since there is no prooff one way or the other, I, at least, am choosing to remain positive and assume that the ending hardest to get will yeld the better rewards.

In time? In time? How do machine components cure something in time? It's either cured or not. 
The only thing telling us synthesis is any improvement is the Catalyst itself, and we've seen how gentle it's previous "solution" is.

Modifié par The Angry One, 19 avril 2012 - 09:18 .

[Ieldra]

The Angry One wrote...
I don't believe we were losing. Not with max EMS. I think there could be a chance for multiple scenarios to play out.
They don't, due to awful writing railroading us into following this psychopath.

Unfortunately, your belief doesn't change anything. Using any other option you could come up with would have ended in "you lose". That's what the game's telling you by the "Critical MIssion Failure" message. Or would you expect the game to present you with hundred other options that end in failure? Pfft.....I wouldn't want to see the barrage of complaints had that happened? "Hundred options and only three actually work? That's....evil! WTF were they thinking?" And you know, *these* complaints would have a point.

Personally I think a conventional victory would have been ultra-cheap. No aspect of the Reapers was so much foreshadowed than "we can't win conventionally." Denying that is ......being in denial.

[Bill Casey]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saren's personal stated goal was synthesis. It's not by association, it's by philosophy. It's the exact same thing. The Catalyst matches it almost word for word.

There's nothing wrong with his philosophy - that's the fallacy, you're assuming something is wrong with it just because HE advocated it, rather than weighing it on its own merits.

Synthesis was not possible before the Crucible, because the Reapers still had their original, unmodified programming.

EDI: Do you think I should make modifications?

Shepard: Only you can really answer that question. That’s the point of free will.

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 avril 2012 - 09:18 .

[Vox Draco]

@ Bil Casey...

*sigh* Those quotes...they make it even harder for me now thinking about this whole mess...reading these I can hardly imagine that ANYONE really can agree with the way Shepard's journey is supposed to end...Shepard's character is "violated" in those last scenes on the citadel, and this is far worse than all the illogical "choices", starkid and plotholes combined...

[KingKhan03]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

Synthesis is wrong. Shepard choosing synthesis what about every single other species in the galaxy? It's wrong to force something like that on everyone else.

The alternative is murdering all the geth for what could very well be a temporary solution, or risking the Reapers coming back in strength at an unspecified time (perhaps even 5 minutes after you die.)

Least of three evils, imo.

Destroy has been the objective since ME1 I don't care what it takes i'm destroying the Reapers not bargaining with them.

[MisterJB]

Re:Yeah, so I guess the next time somebody said he "was wrong", I'll assume he didn't really mean it.

The Catalyst never said it was wrong. It said its solution "wouldn't work anymore".
This does not mean its solution was wrong at the time it was implemented.

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Unfortunately, your belief doesn't change anything. Using any other option you could come up with would have ended in "you lose". That's what the game's telling you by the "Critical MIssion Failure" message. Or would you expect the game to present you with hundred other options that end in failure? Pfft.....I wouldn't want to see the barrage of complaints had that happened? "Hundred options and only three actually work? That's....evil! WTF were they thinking?" And you know, *these* complaints would have a point.

Personally I think a conventional victory would have been ultra-cheap. No aspect of the Reapers was so much foreshadowed than "we can't win conventionally." Denying that is ......being in denial.

You speak of meta-gaming, but you keep doing it. From an in-universe perspective, YOU DON'T KNOW.
You don't know if there are other ways. You don't know if the fleet could overcome the Reapers. Stop acting like you do.

The possibilities are there, they only have to be written in.

[PsyrenY]

KingKhan03 wrote...
Destroy has been the objective since ME1 I don't care what it takes i'm destroying the Reapers not bargaining with them.

And that is fine, I'm not telling you you're wrong for doing that.

But I could never kill the Geth, myself, not when there's another option that can end the threat.

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...
[
You don't know if there are other ways. You don't know if the fleet could overcome the Reapers. Stop acting like you do.

Hackett does, and he tells you they can't. But what does he know, he's only in charge of the whole army.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saren's personal stated goal was synthesis. It's not by association, it's by philosophy. It's the exact same thing. The Catalyst matches it almost word for word.

There's nothing wrong with his philosophy - that's the fallacy, you're assuming something is wrong with it just because HE advocated it, rather than weighing it on its own merits.

Synthesis was not possible before the Crucible, because the Reapers still had their original, unmodified programming.

Saren's philosophy was the imposition of his paradigm on all organic life whether they want it or not.
Sound familiar?

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

Saren's philosophy was the imposition of his paradigm on all organic life whether they want it or not.
Sound familiar?

You're free to prefer genocide. I don't.

[KingKhan03]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...
Destroy has been the objective since ME1 I don't care what it takes i'm destroying the Reapers not bargaining with them.

And that is fine, I'm not telling you you're wrong for doing that.

But I could never kill the Geth, myself, not when there's another option that can end the threat.

But my response to that would be isn't it possible that the peace is just temporary? If you choose control what's to stop the Reapers from breaking free and coming back. If you choose synthesis theres always the risk that the reapers are still around. It's just that other then destroy we don't know what these decisions will bring.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
[
You don't know if there are other ways. You don't know if the fleet could overcome the Reapers. Stop acting like you do.

Hackett does, and he tells you they can't. But what does he know, he's only in charge of the whole army.

Hackett is a defeatist. He doesn't even remember that it was the Geth fleet that took out most of his cruisers and not Sovereign alone.
I'm talking about the fight, right there, right then with max EMS. The fleet has a chance.

Maybe another option on the Crucible can be found. Maybe the Catalyst, now that he's exposed himself, can be destroyed. Maybe that will free the Reapers from their indoctrination if that's what's keeping them under his will.
The point is, there should be other ways.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saren's philosophy was the imposition of his paradigm on all organic life whether they want it or not.
Sound familiar?

You're free to prefer genocide. I don't.

Genocide, slavery or genetic violation.

This is not a choice.

[General User]

The Angry One wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saren's philosophy was the imposition of his paradigm on all organic life whether they want it or not.
Sound familiar?

You're free to prefer genocide. I don't.

Genocide, slavery or genetic violation.

This is not a choice.

Slavery?

[KingZayd]

There was one other option the starchild turned down "I think we'd prefer to be left alone", the starchild's answer? "No. You can't". The reapers bring it on themselves.

[KingZayd]

General User wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saren's philosophy was the imposition of his paradigm on all organic life whether they want it or not.
Sound familiar?

You're free to prefer genocide. I don't.

Genocide, slavery or genetic violation.

This is not a choice.

Slavery?

Are the reapers not sentient beings?

[a.m.p]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saren's personal stated goal was synthesis. It's not by association, it's by philosophy. It's the exact same thing. The Catalyst matches it almost word for word.

There's nothing wrong with his philosophy - that's the fallacy, you're assuming something is wrong with it just because HE advocated it, rather than weighing it on its own merits.

Synthesis was not possible before the Crucible, because the Reapers still had their original, unmodified programming.

There's nothing wrong with the philosphy of "strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break".

When however that philosophy is mutated into this and used to motivate huge armies to invade my homeland and kill my people, the original idea of their philosophy should not stop me from fighting them back until my last drop of blood.

[PsyrenY]

Bill Casey wrote...


EDI: Do you think I should make modifications?

Shepard: Only you can really answer that question. That’s the point of free will.

So she doesn't have free will anymore under Synthesis?

The Angry One wrote...

Hackett is a defeatist.

Call him whatever you like, he's still the most decorated admiral in the Alliance. If he's a defeatist, it's only because the odds are impossible.

And he still tells you "we can't win conventionally" even if you have full EMS.

[Hospitallar]

 To sum the answer as to why Shepard acted the way he did...

or poor writing. Take your pick. 

[General User]

KingZayd wrote...

General User wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saren's philosophy was the imposition of his paradigm on all organic life whether they want it or not.
Sound familiar?

You're free to prefer genocide. I don't.

Genocide, slavery or genetic violation.

This is not a choice.

Slavery?

Are the reapers not sentient beings?

I don't see them that way.  Not sentient like we are anyway.  They were designed and built by the Catalyst.  They follow it's edicts, adhere to it's plans and never, ever deviate.  I think Shepard was actually right the first time he spoke to Sovereign, the Reapers really are just machines.

Modifié par General User, 19 avril 2012 - 09:30 .

[Muhkida]

MisterJB wrote...

Re:Yeah, so I guess the next time somebody said he "was wrong", I'll assume he didn't really mean it.

The Catalyst never said it was wrong. It said its solution "wouldn't work anymore".
This does not mean its solution was wrong at the time it was implemented.

You are correct, the Catalyst never said it was wrong when I looked up a youtube video of the ending.  I apologize for being wrong.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Call him whatever you like, he's still the most decorated admiral in the Alliance. If he's a defeatist, it's only because the odds are impossible.

And he still tells you "we can't win conventionally" even if you have full EMS.

He's also wrong. He suffered a big loss at the start of the game, he's obviously psychologically scarred.
He's put all his faith in what's turned out to be a Reaper trap. It's time to shake him out of his stupor and press the real advantage against the Reapers.

[Laurencio]

Cheesesack wrote...

[*]Shepard doesn't question anything the Starchild says. You can tell it you'd 'preffer to keep your own form', but that's not really questioning and it's irrelevant because Shepard immediately accepts what it says afterwards.

Well essentially you don't really have much of a choice.. The catalyst hold all the cards in this scenario, you have absolutely no power over the outcome, only it does. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.

Cheesesack wrote...
[*]Shepard accepts the three options presented which are, to summarise again: kill yourself, kill yourself or kill yourself. Some random AI which for all Shepard knows could be a Reaper or the product of Indoctrination or just some random kids VI program which is malfunctioning tells him/her to either: electocute yourself so you dissolve, jump off a high ledge into a beam of energy which vaporises you, or shoot something which will make a massive explosion and blow up the space station you're standing on. And Shepard just goes "You, seems legit." and does it

You have 3 choices to end the threat, either accept it or lose the
game/universe, that's pretty much what the ending tells you. It wouldn't
really be all that better if starchild told you that, cause even then,
why should you believe it? Anyway, the failure of actually proving that
the Crucible was the last chance for the galaxy hurt the end choices
badly. It always felt like you were picking three endings you didn't
really have to pick.

Cheesesack wrote...
[*]Shepard does not search for any other way to solve the problem. For all Shepard knows, there's a button just abound the corner which turns off all the Reapers.

Poorly implemented story technique of trying to portray you as rather helpless. However, they are well within their rights to make Shepard that helpless, it's not like we haven't been forced to make decisions in the past. Usually however the choices haven't had such adverse ramifactions.

Cheesesack wrote..
[*]Shepard doesn't contact anyone to ask anyone for help or explain what's going on. Sure, the situation's desperate, but Shepard has a working communicator. Surely he/she should at least talk to Hackett/some of the others for a few minutes before making such a massive decision.

How would he contact them? Also, that would ruin the flow of the "moment". I'm not saying the moment is good, but stopping and going. "Yeah, Hang on I gotta make a call first" would pretty much break whatever atmosphere they were trying to create there.

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

He's also wrong.

Prove it.