254 réponses à ce sujet

[a.m.p]

Can we agree on one thing: that the 'reapers are unbeatable' premise was only established in the beginning of ME3 and in the previous two games there was no conclusive information on that and zero foreshadowing for a reaper off button?

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

He's also wrong.

Prove it.

He was wrong about the battle against Sovereign, the codex on Reaper tactics and weaknesses has entry after entry on ways to consistently take down Reapers.

[Reptilian Rob]

The Angry One wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

He's also wrong.

Prove it.

He was wrong about the battle against Sovereign, the codex on Reaper tactics and weaknesses has entry after entry on ways to consistently take down Reapers.

Lots of speculation.

From ****ing everyone. 

[The Angry One]

a.m.p wrote...

Can we agree on one thing: that the 'reapers are unbeatable' premise was only established in the beginning of ME3 and in the previous two games there was no conclusive information on that and zero foreshadowing for a reaper off button?

Don't think anyone can dispute that. Hell the whole human Reaper thing in ME2 seemed to hint that the Reapers were at a massive disadvantage.. but they threw that whole plot point away making ME2 a massive waste of time.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Shepard suffered a massive concussion from the laser blast. She's apparently what is called punch drunk.

[KingKhan03]

The Angry One wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Can we agree on one thing: that the 'reapers are unbeatable' premise was only established in the beginning of ME3 and in the previous two games there was no conclusive information on that and zero foreshadowing for a reaper off button?

Don't think anyone can dispute that. Hell the whole human Reaper thing in ME2 seemed to hint that the Reapers were at a massive disadvantage.. but they threw that whole plot point away making ME2 a massive waste of time.

BioWare made ME2 a giant filler. Quite an accomplishment.

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

He was wrong about the battle against Sovereign, the codex on Reaper tactics and weaknesses has entry after entry on ways to consistently take down Reapers.

First was shorthand, second the codex has next to nothing on Reaper's own tactics/countermeasures, third and final no other general/admiral (including Victus, Gerrell, Wrex etc) contradicted him - so he's either right, or they're all too stupid to win conventionally anyway, and that includes Shepard.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
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.

I will admit that I was not aware of that.

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.

The best way to predict the future is to analyse the past. And there is nothing older than the Catalyst.
And just because you haven't seen it happen, it does not mean it has not happened. The reason a solution is implemented is because there was a problem to begin with. If there wasn't any risk of the synthetics destrying organics, there wouldn't be any Reapers. You are simply assuming that the Catalyst imagined that this problem existed which is nonsensical.

And, in ME3 itself, the geth can destroy the quarians. Oh sure, you can say that it was the quarian's fault and that peace is possible but the point is that it can happen.
Even if destruction was averted this one time, it has probrably not been averted in the past and the Catalyst witnessed this and decided the risk was too great.

The Catalyst never makes a distinction.

So? What's your point?

You mean like the Quarians, who the Reapers were controlling the Geth to exterminate them utterly?

Maybe the quarian's population was just not great enough to form a new Reaper. And the Reapers thus decided that the quarians were unsalvageable; because of the organic/synthetic conflict during the Morning War mind you; and that they couldn't be allowed to join their forces with those of species that could be salvaged like humans and turians.
It was tragic but it had to be done. From their point of view anyway.

Also, this is another presumption on the part of the Catalyst.

And you presume to decide that extinction is better than new life as a Reaper.

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?

Because Sovereign wanted humans to become a Reaper. Had the Catalyst presented no choice besides being Harvested, I would have fought until it became obvious we just couldn't win.
As it is, it presented a solution I found beautiful thus, I chose Synthesis.

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.

It lost all control when Shepard entered the room. It wanted Shepard to unite organic and synthetics AND AGAIN just because a bad person believes in something, that does not make that something bad.
I don't mind following the Catalyst's will if it leads to a brigher future for the galaxy and I believe Synthesis does.

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.

Much like it takes time for Adjuntants to rewrite the victim's genetic code. Only this time, it will be doing it for our benefit.
And there are no visible negative effects from Synthesis as well. Maybe it will be better explained in the Extended Cut.

[a.m.p]

The Angry One wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Can we agree on one thing: that the 'reapers are unbeatable' premise was only established in the beginning of ME3 and in the previous two games there was no conclusive information on that and zero foreshadowing for a reaper off button?

Don't think anyone can dispute that. Hell the whole human Reaper thing in ME2 seemed to hint that the Reapers were at a massive disadvantage.. but they threw that whole plot point away making ME2 a massive waste of time.

Then I think we could agree that the causality here is crucible plot=> reapers are unbeatable, not reapers are unbeatable=>crucible plot.

[MsKlaussen]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

Alright, try to imagine this.

Think of the greatest pain you've ever experienced. It bloody hurt a heck of a lot I bet. Now imagine how much pain you'd be under if you were LASERED by the largest and oldest of all the reapers.

Nightmarish stuff right? Well imagined if you survived that, and now half your armor is burnt onto your SKIN. One minute you were running to the conduit, and now half of Hammer Fleet is dead, your armor is destroyed and burnt, you're near death and your damn confused at what the hell happened.

Then when you finally reach the conduit - you're teleported to some bizarre place on the citadel in which hundreds of dead humans lie in front of you, waiting to be processed. When you finally reach the control room, an indoctrinated Illusive Man is there with Anderson, an argument breaks out, and best case scenario TIM kills himself, mortally wounding Anderson in the process.

After spending your final moments with your mentor, father-like figure in Anderson, you "activate" the crucible, but nothing happens, losing a lot of blood and feeling dazed, you faint.

When you get up, you're greeted with this strange, ghost-like presence. As you look around your location, you can see the hulking reapers destroying Alliance fleets,

At this point, dazed, losing a lot of blood, confused, you see that you actually have a way to end the reaper threat, even if it means listening to this ghost-like presence. You know it can end in one of two ways at that point, you don't use the catalyst and the reapers win, or you choose one of the solutions and hope for the best.

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

Now tell me, if you were in Shepard's position, do you really think you would've acted any different? Shepard doesn't have the luxury of dissecting the Catalyst's circular logic, hell, most of BSN struggle to come to a consensus from their own comfortable chairs months after the ending has been released - how can you expect Shepard to act on logic based on the situation he was in?

Shepard did the only thing he could, choose one of the three options and hope for the best.

Shepard, when faced with choices 1, 2, and 3, has made a career out of choosing "F".

It happened at the beginning of ME2 when she faced what was probably a lot worse than being lasered; namely being lasered by a Collector ship and then either blown into space to drift forever or to plummet to the nearby planet facing re-entry decompression and impact in a rather skimpy spacesuit.

Didn't stop her from doing what she thought was best, and totally in character.

There's really no rationalizing out of this. A beat up Shepard is still Shepard. She's spent the entire saga making big decisions under threat of death. Her death, the death of her close friends and teammates, etc. Whether injured or not. How on Earth does she get to the last and biggest decision of the bunch, the one that if made wrong causes every other decision to be in vain, and then throws her convictions and goals to the winds and tosses the football underhand to the opposing team on the goal line so to speak?

Uhh uhh. Naw. Nope. Nein. Negatory. Ahh...no.

[KingZayd]

General User wrote...

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.

Sovereign seemed pretty sentient to me... Harbinger too.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

He was wrong about the battle against Sovereign, the codex on Reaper tactics and weaknesses has entry after entry on ways to consistently take down Reapers.

First was shorthand,

No it wasn't. Hackett uses it as an example of Reaper superiority, when it's not. Sovereign was barely involved in the fight and when he was, he took out 1-3 cruisers at most.

second the codex has next to nothing on Reaper's own tactics/countermeasures,

Yes it does. On the topic of FTL jumping behind Sovereigns for example, the Sovereign can either turn slowly and get it's ass shot off, or compromise it's barriers to turn quickly and get it's ass shot off even faster.

third and final no other general/admiral (including Victus, Gerrell, Wrex etc) contradicted him - so he's either right, or they're all too stupid to win conventionally anyway, and that includes Shepard.

Because they were all convinced into putting their faith into the magic Reaper off button instead of facing reality.

[MisterJB]

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?

And his paradigm was "Using machines, organics can becomes stronger"
What part of that is false?

It wouldn't have worked because he was Indrocrinated. Shepard isn't as evidenced by how he can take control of the Reapers.

[wright1978]

MisterJB 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?

And his paradigm was "Using machines, organics can becomes stronger"
What part of that is false?

It wouldn't have worked because he was Indrocrinated. Shepard isn't as evidenced by how he can take control of the Reapers.

Stronger doesn't mean better. If synthesis lobotomises life so it doesn't have the temerity to dare create anything like AI life again but that life is more durable that isn't a good thing imo.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
Because they were all convinced into putting their faith into the magic Reaper off button instead of facing reality.

Ironically, you are the one who's not facing reality.
It was said time and time and time again by the best military minds of the ME universe that the Reapers simply can't be defeated conventionally. We have yet to see a single Capital Ship destroyed by conventional means and no Sovereign doesn't count, Shepard had to destroy its avatar. Before that, it was pushing two fleets against the ropes alone.

[KingZayd]

MisterJB 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?

And his paradigm was "Using machines, organics can becomes stronger"
What part of that is false?

It wouldn't have worked because he was Indrocrinated. Shepard isn't as evidenced by how he can take control of the Reapers.

can he really though? a mad man see what he sees.

[MisterJB]

wright1978 wrote...
Stronger doesn't mean better. If synthesis lobotomises life so it doesn't have the temerity to dare create anything like AI life again but that life is more durable that isn't a good thing imo.

There's no evidence it works like that. It could simply mean that any AI created would, automatically, have the same characteristics the Synthesis imparted on the geth or EDI.
People insist in assuming the worst rather than look at the good Synthesis can offer.

Modifié par MisterJB, 19 avril 2012 - 09:50 .

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

The best way to predict the future is to analyse the past. And there is nothing older than the Catalyst.
And just because you haven't seen it happen, it does not mean it has not happened. The reason a solution is implemented is because there was a problem to begin with. If there wasn't any risk of the synthetics destrying organics, there wouldn't be any Reapers. You are simply assuming that the Catalyst imagined that this problem existed which is nonsensical.

The Catalyst is nonsensical, as is it's solution. It's not much of a stretch.
The Catalyst can't give a single example to back up it's claims. It's age is not good enough.

And, in ME3 itself, the geth can destroy the quarians. Oh sure, you can say that it was the quarian's fault and that peace is possible but the point is that it can happen.

Sure, if the Quarians give them no other option.
However it should be pointed out that, again, this is the Reaper's fault. If they hadn't given the Geth the upgrade, Legion wouldn't have been able to subvert it and distribute it to all free Geth, and hey would have been destroyed.

Like the Zha'till, the ones responsible for organics being annihilated by synthetics are... the Reapers.

Even if destruction was averted this one time, it has probrably not been averted in the past and the Catalyst witnessed this and decided the risk was too great.

Knowing the Catalyst's track record the Reapers probably directly caused that one too.

So? What's your point?

That the survival of sentient organic life is not an issue. As long as a puddle of primordial soup remains on a single world, the Catalyst's objective is successful.

Maybe the quarian's population was just not great enough to form a new Reaper. And the Reapers thus decided that the quarians were unsalvageable; because of the organic/synthetic conflict during the Morning War mind you; and that they couldn't be allowed to join their forces with those of species that could be salvaged like humans and turians.
It was tragic but it had to be done. From their point of view anyway.

It's still hypocrisy at best.

And you presume to decide that extinction is better than new life as a Reaper.

It is. Reapers aren't even free.

Because Sovereign wanted humans to become a Reaper. Had the Catalyst presented no choice besides being Harvested, I would have fought until it became obvious we just couldn't win.
As it is, it presented a solution I found beautiful thus, I chose Synthesis.

That's not what you said, you said the Catalyst was undefiable due to being a god, a god is not obligated to present you with choices you like.

It lost all control when Shepard entered the room. It wanted Shepard to unite organic and synthetics AND AGAIN just because a bad person believes in something, that does not make that something bad.

No, it's bad because.. it's bad.

I don't mind following the Catalyst's will if it leads to a brigher future for the galaxy and I believe Synthesis does.

You assume this based on no evidence, in spite of a ton of evidence to the contrary such as the Reapers, their creations, the Zha'till, Saren and so on.

Much like it takes time for Adjuntants to rewrite the victim's genetic code. Only this time, it will be doing it for our benefit.
And there are no visible negative effects from Synthesis as well. Maybe it will be better explained in the Extended Cut.

We don't know do we? Also, it's a horrific imposition to make on the trillions of inhabitants of the galaxy.
You've just turned everyone and everything into a Reaper. Made in their image, for no logical benefit.

[Ieldra]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

You continue to miss the point. Yes, you don't know, but there is a reality independent of your wishes. AND YOU CANNOT CHANGE IT. You cannot change the outcome of your decisions, you can only make them and see what happens. In an ideal game where what you can do is only limited by your imagination, Shepard can try a million things and they would all fail because the (unprovable) reality of the situation is like that. Well, actually, he could only try one thing and fail if it wasn't one of the three solutions that work. You cannot *seriously* expect the game to present you with a million options that won't work.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about the fallacy of "there must be a different solution". No, there need not be a different solution. A reality where everything but a finite set of solutions ends in failure is perfectly plausible.  Just as whatever shapes reality in real life has no obligation to make our decsions turn out as we want, the writers of the ME universe have no obligation to make anything work except the solutions they want to work.

If I may ask again: if there were infinite options, how many failures would it take you to accept that there is no other option?

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
Because they were all convinced into putting their faith into the magic Reaper off button instead of facing reality.

Ironically, you are the one who's not facing reality.
It was said time and time and time again by the best military minds of the ME universe that the Reapers simply can't be defeated conventionally. We have yet to see a single Capital Ship destroyed by conventional means and no Sovereign doesn't count, Shepard had to destroy its avatar. Before that, it was pushing two fleets against the ropes alone.

With max EMS, sovereigns are going down in the final battle. The Turians took out several too. The codex, again, shows proper tactics to take sovereigns down. The bulk of the Reaper fleet are made up of destroyers, who can be taken down by a single cruiser.
Remember, every Reaper that's lost can never be replaced.

What are Reaper production numbers? 1 Sovereign + 10 or so Destroyers every 50,000 years?
That's garbage. In a war of attrition they will lose.

[lordnyx1]

MisterJB wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
Because they were all convinced into putting their faith into the magic Reaper off button instead of facing reality.

Ironically, you are the one who's not facing reality.
It was said time and time and time again by the best military minds of the ME universe that the Reapers simply can't be defeated conventionally. We have yet to see a single Capital Ship destroyed by conventional means and no Sovereign doesn't count, Shepard had to destroy its avatar. Before that, it was pushing two fleets against the ropes alone.

if your ems is high the assembled fleet blows the f out of a capital reaper on the push to earth.

Modifié par lordnyx1, 19 avril 2012 - 09:54 .

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

No it wasn't. Hackett uses it as an example of Reaper superiority, when it's not. Sovereign was barely involved in the fight and when he was, he took out 1-3 cruisers at most.

And when they tore through the 2nd Fleet stationed around Earth like tissue paper? While simultaneously engaging the Turians? Was Hackett imagining that?

The Angry One wrote...
Yes it does. On the topic of FTL jumping behind Sovereigns for example, the Sovereign can either turn slowly and get it's ass shot off, or compromise it's barriers to turn quickly and get it's ass shot off even faster.

And Reapers can't use FTL because...?

The Angry One wrote...

Because they were all convinced into putting their faith into the magic Reaper off button instead of facing reality.

Out of desperation, or stupidity? Because neither of those are a good omen for your "winning conventionally" argument.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 19 avril 2012 - 09:56 .

[General User]

KingZayd wrote...
Sovereign seemed pretty sentient to me... Harbinger too.

At the time, I thought so too. 

Then, in ME3 we see hundreds, thousands even, of Reapers all marching in lockstep.  They all had the same plans, the same actions, the same attitudes, and even the same (or very similar) physical appearances.  It really gave lie to the "we are each a nation" line Sovereign put out in ME1.  If they were "each a nation" why were there no differences of any note between them? 

Then it was at the very end, when the StarKid tells Shepard that you could just take control of the Reapers, that was the final nail in the coffee: the Reapers are, and always had been just robots.  Sophisticated robots to be sure, with a manufacturing process as unusual as it was horrific, but still just robots.

Modifié par General User, 19 avril 2012 - 10:02 .

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You continue to miss the point. Yes, you don't know, but there is a reality independent of your wishes. AND YOU CANNOT CHANGE IT. You cannot change the outcome of your decisions, you can only make them and see what happens. In an ideal game where what you can do is only limited by your imagination, Shepard can try a million things and they would all fail because the (unprovable) reality of the situation is like that. Well, actually, he could only try one thing and fail if it wasn't one of the three solutions that work. You cannot *seriously* expect the game to present you with a million options that won't work.

Again, you're meta gaming. The reality of the situation is only like that BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN LIKE THAT.
IT CAN BE WRITTEN OTHER WAYS. There ARE other solutions. I can seriously expect the game to present me with ONE solution that works. ONE.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about the fallacy of "there must be a different solution". No, there need not be a different solution. A reality where everything but a finite set of solutions ends in failure is perfectly plausible.  Just as whatever shapes reality in real life has no obligation to make our decsions turn out as we want, the writers of the ME universe have no obligation to make anything work except the solutions they want to work.

Mac Walters does not speak for the other writers, he took the story into his own direction which utterly contradicts the trilogy. So no, I won't accept it. Again, I want another option. The option Commander Shepard would take, not the snivelling weasel that took her place at the end.

If I may ask again: if there were infinite options, how many failures would it take you to accept that there is no other option?

Irrelevant question, but I'd sooner take a million failures than those three choices.
Those three choices are the revolting action of a coward. Those choices represent the fact that Shepard is a selfish loser who gave up. I refuse to accept that. It makes me want to vomit. I spit on the Catalyst and his sickening choices.

[B10h4z4rd1990]

Cheesesack wrote...

I've seen this mentioned in lots of various forms, but I thought I'd condense and summarise. Perhaps one of the worst things with the ending currently, even if you accept the Starchild has to be there (which he shouldn't be because it's a retarded idea) is how utterly stupid Shepard is in the final moments.

Now, it's obvious that Shepard isn't a retard. Regardless of whether you play Paragon or Renegade, Shepard always eloquates well and is able to justify their actions or at least explain them. Think of all the heroic speeches, or the dialouge with a tech-shop assistant, or any of the other countless examples where Shepard proves they are a competant human being.

So why-oh-why does Shepard say/do so much idiotic stuff in the end? Let's make a list:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

In conclusion, the Crucible must emit an energy field that makes all organics nearby temporarily moronic.

[*]Walking toward an exploding tube while shooting it is pretty stupid xD