323 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

All endings end the Reaper threat. We are told this explicitly. And the OP is right.

You can play the conversations with TIM perfectly talking like you don't want to destroy the Reapers but TIM just assumes that you do, or that you only want to destroy them because you see no alternative.

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Shajar wrote...
I dont want to destroy them, that would be genocide. But Shepard dies in control ending so i feel forced to do destroy ending

No he doesn't. He continues to exist as some kind of AI god, replacing the Catalyst.

But what does "you will die, you can control us but loss everything you have" mean?

It's contradictory, that's why II hate the phrasing. But I interpret it as "you will die as a human being, becoming something else, thereby losing all your connections to your earlier life". You are sacrificing your existence as a human being and an organic.

[Pride Demon]

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Did Shepard knew how to destroy the reapers before the Catalyst told/showed him s/he had to shoot the tube? No.
Did Shepard knew how to control the reapers before the Catalyst told/showed him s/he had to operate that mechanism? No.
Did Shepard knew how to execute synthesis before the Catalyst told him s/he had to jump in the beam? No.

And if it were smart then he'll probably tell you that to destroy them you have to do something that ends up not destroying them (especially true if it itself is a reaper trying to trick you), why not trick you by saying that to destroy the reapers you have to, I don't know, jump in the green beam maybe? How do you know detonating that tube will destroy the reapers rather than just blowing up the Crucible? Because if the Catalyst is a reaper that's the most reasonable course of action, trycking you into destroying the only thing that can stop them...

You are innately trusting the fact that it telling/showing you destroying the tube triggers the reaper destruction is true, because Shep has absolutely no idea on how to properly operate the Crucible to achieve any ending until the Catalyst explains it...

And again, regarding that last line on nothing being real, I assume you are referring to IT...
If that's the case, what has IT being true or not have anything to do with my point, why are you deliberately trying to turn our argument towards an IT discussion? What I said is verified REGARDLESS of IT, and indeed I never shown any intention of discussing IT in any shape or form in any of my posts, so why do you press the issue when it's not needed and has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever?

Like I said...We don't even know if it's real.

Also, I did say he only offered control and synthesis.

In my post I addressed both of those points, why do you bring them up again?

The first by saying it has no bearing on the veridicity of my original post, whether the ending is or not an illusion isn't important at all for what I was saying, it may be important for other things, but not for that.
I never EVER showed any hint of having any desire to discuss IT or whether the ending is or not true.
Frankly I don't see why you feel the need to constantly bring up a point that's outside the scope of the discussion, so allow me to ask you directly, what do you stand to gain from that? Because, by now, unless I'm painfully incapable of explaining myself (which would be problematic), it's obvious you have an agenda or some sort of ulterior motive...

The other sentence is correct if you are thinking of "did shepard knew the option existed beforehand?", but totally wrong if, as I said, you are talking about "did Shepard knew how to execute the ending, regardless of the ending chosen?", and the second one is the one I'm talking about, the second, not the first, the second.
The answer is "No", the Catalyst had to tell/show you how each ending worked and it is the only source of info on the subject... I was merely pointing out that apparently people are willing to believe that the first thing he says about destroy is true, but not what he says about the rest...
You may argue it seems to favour one over another, but again, it does explain each and every one of them...

[antares_sublight]

The reapers have one existential purpose. If they're left around, what will they do?

In Control, Shepard can become convinced to continue the cycle just as the Catalyst did.
In Synthesis, the reapers are left to do what, exactly? Awkwardly join civilization? Do a little reaping on the side just for old-times' sake?

[Zardoc]

Synthesis and Control aren't guaranteed to stop the Reapers. Destroy is. Deal with it.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Shajar wrote...
I dont want to destroy them, that would be genocide. But Shepard dies in control ending so i feel forced to do destroy ending

No he doesn't. He continues to exist as some kind of AI god, replacing the Catalyst.

But what does "you will die, you can control us but loss everything you have" mean?

It's contradictory, that's why II hate the phrasing. But I interpret it as "you will die as a human being, becoming something else, thereby losing all your connections to your earlier life". You are sacrificing your existence as a human being and an organic.

It's contriditory for a reason....It goes ageist your goal....Your say going into a systme with Machine that have a history of warping minds is a good thing?
You control the reapers, but what guarantees that you'll think the same way after?

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 mai 2012 - 01:58 .

[Vlta]

Pretty sure complete and utter destruction of the reapers would stop them........

[dreman9999]

Pride Demon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Did Shepard knew how to destroy the reapers before the Catalyst told/showed him s/he had to shoot the tube? No.
Did Shepard knew how to control the reapers before the Catalyst told/showed him s/he had to operate that mechanism? No.
Did Shepard knew how to execute synthesis before the Catalyst told him s/he had to jump in the beam? No.

And if it were smart then he'll probably tell you that to destroy them you have to do something that ends up not destroying them (especially true if it itself is a reaper trying to trick you), why not trick you by saying that to destroy the reapers you have to, I don't know, jump in the green beam maybe? How do you know detonating that tube will destroy the reapers rather than just blowing up the Crucible? Because if the Catalyst is a reaper that's the most reasonable course of action, trycking you into destroying the only thing that can stop them...

You are innately trusting the fact that it telling/showing you destroying the tube triggers the reaper destruction is true, because Shep has absolutely no idea on how to properly operate the Crucible to achieve any ending until the Catalyst explains it...

And again, regarding that last line on nothing being real, I assume you are referring to IT...
If that's the case, what has IT being true or not have anything to do with my point, why are you deliberately trying to turn our argument towards an IT discussion? What I said is verified REGARDLESS of IT, and indeed I never shown any intention of discussing IT in any shape or form in any of my posts, so why do you press the issue when it's not needed and has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever?

Like I said...We don't even know if it's real.

Also, I did say he only offered control and synthesis.

In my post I addressed both of those points, why do you bring them up again?

The first by saying it has no bearing on the veridicity of my original post, whether the ending is or not an illusion isn't important at all for what I was saying, it may be important for other things, but not for that.
I never EVER showed any hint of having any desire to discuss IT or whether the ending is or not true.
Frankly I don't see why you feel the need to constantly bring up a point that's outside the scope of the discussion, so allow me to ask you directly, what do you stand to gain from that? Because, by now, unless I'm painfully incapable of explaining myself (which would be problematic), it's obvious you have an agenda or some sort of ulterior motive...

The other sentence is correct if you are thinking of "did shepard knew the option existed beforehand?", but totally wrong if, as I said, you are talking about "did Shepard knew how to execute the ending, regardless of the ending chosen?", and the second one is the one I'm talking about, the second, not the first, the second.
The answer is "No", the Catalyst had to tell/show you how each ending worked and it is the only source of info on the subject... I was merely pointing out that apparently people are willing to believe that the first thing he says about destroy is true, but not what he says about the rest...
You may argue it seems to favour one over another, but again, it does explain each and every one of them...

The statement "
.We don't even know if it's real" Is double edge sword. We don't know what is true or not. It's implied that the star child maybe lieing about everything, even the reality of what is being see or even what what does. Understand.
That's my point. We can't trust him with out any proof.

For all we know, even one of thing show are just way to kill Shepard only.
One choice has shep grab a live wire.
Another has him run off the legde to a firy lazer.
And one hashim walk into an explotion..

Everything can be a lie.

[dreman9999]

antares_sublight wrote...

The reapers have one existential purpose. If they're left around, what will they do?


In Synthesis, the reapers are left to do what, exactly? Awkwardly join civilization? Do a little reaping on the side just for old-times' sake?

They don't need to.You already let them do what they want and what they want is to impose order on all Life. Good job.

[shep214]

destroying them is the only way, stopping is destroying

[aksoileau]

Well what did we all do to Sovereign in Mass Effect? Destroyed him. Blew him up. Sounds like a good plan to me.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

All endings end the Reaper threat. We are told this explicitly. And the OP is right.

You can play the conversations with TIM perfectly talking like you don't want to destroy the Reapers but TIM just assumes that you do, or that you only want to destroy them because you see no alternative.

Why would anyone want to control  a race of machine that can end up controling them?

[frylock23]

cogsandcurls wrote...

Admiral "Dead Reapers" Hackett disapproves of this thread.

"A lot of dead Reapers, Shepard. That's how we end this."

He's the guy giving me orders. So, destroy it is, sir!

[Doctoglethorpe]

This again.

Of the three options, one is the opposit of a solution, one is absolutely worthless and Destroy is the only one that solves the problem clean and simply.  It has a grave cost, nobody likes having to sacrifice an enitre species, but a cost that pays off none the less.  Control solves nothing, you just hand off the problem to the next generation at the cost of your own life.  Star Boy says himself that they will return even at your own choice, cause yeah you become a reaper mind and your not going to be the same person at all, all of their perspective and influence will become a part of you, controll basically is the "I want to be a reaper too!" ending.  Nope problem not solved.  And Synthasis, well we need not even get into that much.  Even if the Reapers we're no longer a threat you just destroyed the laws of nature itself so its not even worth it.  If it is worth it to you then congrats your the biggest villian in the universe. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 11 mai 2012 - 02:07 .

[Pride Demon]

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Like I said...We don't even know if it's real.

Also, I did say he only offered control and synthesis.

In my post I addressed both of those points, why do you bring them up again?

The first by saying it has no bearing on the veridicity of my original post, whether the ending is or not an illusion isn't important at all for what I was saying, it may be important for other things, but not for that.
I never EVER showed any hint of having any desire to discuss IT or whether the ending is or not true.
Frankly I don't see why you feel the need to constantly bring up a point that's outside the scope of the discussion, so allow me to ask you directly, what do you stand to gain from that? Because, by now, unless I'm painfully incapable of explaining myself (which would be problematic), it's obvious you have an agenda or some sort of ulterior motive...

The other sentence is correct if you are thinking of "did shepard knew the option existed beforehand?", but totally wrong if, as I said, you are talking about "did Shepard knew how to execute the ending, regardless of the ending chosen?", and the second one is the one I'm talking about, the second, not the first, the second.
The answer is "No", the Catalyst had to tell/show you how each ending worked and it is the only source of info on the subject... I was merely pointing out that apparently people are willing to believe that the first thing he says about destroy is true, but not what he says about the rest...
You may argue it seems to favour one over another, but again, it does explain each and every one of them...

The statement "
.We don't even know if it's real" Is double edge sword. We don't know what is true or not. It's implied that the star child maybe lieing about everything, even the reality of what is being see or even what what does. Understand.
That's my point. We can't trust him with out any proof.

For all we know, even one of thing show are just way to kill Shepard only.
One choice has shep grab a live wire.
Another has him run off the legde to a firy lazer.
And one hashim walk into an explotion..

Everything can be a lie.

Good. That's exactly what I was saying. Then let me quote you from a previous post.

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Random Geth wrote...

Okay gang, let's go over our choices.
A:
Attempt to do something literally everyone who ever attempted has
failed to do with literally no reason to think you'll fare any better
B: Give everyone Reaper implants
C: The only option that guarantees the Reapers will be destroyed (ie stopped)

HRM. I wonder which option will "STOP" them the most efficiently?

Actually, it's the choice the Catalyst tells will destroy them, other than its word you have nothing to know what will actually happen...
So
I really don't understand why some people are willing to believe he was
lying with the others and telling the truth on that one... :/

"I know your thinking of destroying us"......

Who is us? I was not thinking of destroying the cataylist?

^This post of yours, the one that started this whole discussion, if you agree with me everything could be a lie, what was its meaning?
Were you trying to post something to support my idea?
Because I still don't see how it has any bearing on the fact I noted so many people took the Cathalist explanation of destroy at face value, while doubting the rest...

Modifié par Pride Demon, 11 mai 2012 - 02:07 .

[Galifreya]

All paragon role models in the game tell you to DESTROY the reapers. Anderson, Hackett, everyone on the Normandy. They all want the reapers DEAD. Samantha Trainor wants to physically rip them in HALF. I do not feel sorry for the Reapers. The races that were murdered to make them are long dead, and once the reapers are dead, they can rest in peace. Those are Shepard's words.

"I killed Soverign, and now you." s/he says to the reaper on Rannoch.

They deserve to die. For all the horrible things they've done. For the trillions upon trillions that they have murdered, because of something that -might- happen.

OP.....you need to get your priorities in order.

[Nimrodell]

ZIPO396 wrote...

H2Ape wrote...

Destroy and Control may not truly stop the Reapers.

So the Reapers somehow rebuild themselves if they're destroyed?

The problem is - people tend to say that Catalyst is lying when it comes to 'control' or 'synthesis', but they never question if Catalyst is telling the truth in 'destroy' and if really all reapers are destroyed then - and the claim for Catalyst lying is based on exactly 'destroy' option because for those who play multiplayer or apps, there's that short scene of Shepard breathing... but they never question if Catalyst was lying then on Reapers truly being destroyed. And to be honest, it's hilarious, because majority on BSN is actually using arguments as they deem fit, at their convenience. I mean, if Catalyst is capable of lying and it is what it's doing when telling you about control or synthesis, why wouldn't be it lying about destroying the reapers as well? Who's to say that there are no other reapers left behind, maybe hidden like Sovereign was... after all, Shepard does survive in that special non-single player ending. Ah, yes, but I forgot, silly me, Shepard was indoctrinated because textures or similar sounds prove that (even though thus far ME series were never about noticing clues in trees or similar textures, or sounds that might remind us on something else) and rachni queen speaks as humans do, not using special figure of speech (oh my, those Gree droids in SWTOR are indoctrinated too, they too use synesthesia, just like rachni queen) - so the only correct ending is 'destroy', in that one Catalyst is not lying or it's offering that option because it likes to play games.

As people keep saying that Shepard's goal was destroying instead of stopping the reapers in previous games (thanks to that truly silly video), they also forget that Shepard was actually open to new concepts that were unimaginable, let's say, in whole ME1 and good chunk of ME2 (Legion and ME3 holorecord in Geth consensus or actually accepting to work with Cerberus) - it's all about - I'll remember stuff when it's conveniet and I'll forget them when it's not.

[Elite Midget]

Yeh.

I totally stopped Sovereign by Controling him or joining Saren.

I totally stopped the Collectors by becoming their Leader or making babies with them.

Ohwaitaminute!

By stopping them I destroyed them both! HMMMMMMM!

[Walsh1980]

Paraphrasing...

Joker: What were they doing down there?
Shep: Trying to control reapers.
Joker: They're crazy.
Shep: They succeeded.

A lot of people point out that someone like Hackett (dead reapers line) wants to destroy the Reapers, so that's what the players goal is. Not so, Shep may mention destroying them a couple times as a viable option, but Shep's goal is to stop them, no matter what, and yes destroying them is an option.

Hackett and Anderson are good guys, but they are military and they're idea of victory is to blow up the other guy. TIM is an evil ******, but his idea is to bring peace by using the enemies power. None of them truly know what the Crucible is going to do. When Shepard sees their are other options, he isn't blindingly in one corner either way, that choice is up to you as the player, and if you're fine with killing the Geth go for it, but if you feel they deserve to live, the other options exist.

This is why the ending sucked, each of the 3 options should have shown their outcomes, EDI and the Geth dead but Reaper corpses all around, Reapers glowing blue and flying away, but are they still dangerous, people... with green eyes? (I hate Synthesis). If we could just see what effect the endings had, it'd make me happy at least.

In short, the overall goal for Shepard, who is you, basically, is to stop them, how he goes about it isn't set in stone.

[dreman9999]

Pride Demon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Like I said...We don't even know if it's real.

Also, I did say he only offered control and synthesis.

In my post I addressed both of those points, why do you bring them up again?

The first by saying it has no bearing on the veridicity of my original post, whether the ending is or not an illusion isn't important at all for what I was saying, it may be important for other things, but not for that.
I never EVER showed any hint of having any desire to discuss IT or whether the ending is or not true.
Frankly I don't see why you feel the need to constantly bring up a point that's outside the scope of the discussion, so allow me to ask you directly, what do you stand to gain from that? Because, by now, unless I'm painfully incapable of explaining myself (which would be problematic), it's obvious you have an agenda or some sort of ulterior motive...

The other sentence is correct if you are thinking of "did shepard knew the option existed beforehand?", but totally wrong if, as I said, you are talking about "did Shepard knew how to execute the ending, regardless of the ending chosen?", and the second one is the one I'm talking about, the second, not the first, the second.
The answer is "No", the Catalyst had to tell/show you how each ending worked and it is the only source of info on the subject... I was merely pointing out that apparently people are willing to believe that the first thing he says about destroy is true, but not what he says about the rest...
You may argue it seems to favour one over another, but again, it does explain each and every one of them...

The statement "
.We don't even know if it's real" Is double edge sword. We don't know what is true or not. It's implied that the star child maybe lieing about everything, even the reality of what is being see or even what what does. Understand.
That's my point. We can't trust him with out any proof.

For all we know, even one of thing show are just way to kill Shepard only.
One choice has shep grab a live wire.
Another has him run off the legde to a firy lazer.
And one hashim walk into an explotion..

Everything can be a lie.

Good. That's exactly what I was saying. Then let me quote you from a previous post.

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Random Geth wrote...

Okay gang, let's go over our choices.
A:
Attempt to do something literally everyone who ever attempted has
failed to do with literally no reason to think you'll fare any better
B: Give everyone Reaper implants
C: The only option that guarantees the Reapers will be destroyed (ie stopped)

HRM. I wonder which option will "STOP" them the most efficiently?

Actually, it's the choice the Catalyst tells will destroy them, other than its word you have nothing to know what will actually happen...
So
I really don't understand why some people are willing to believe he was
lying with the others and telling the truth on that one... :/

"I know your thinking of destroying us"......

Who is us? I was not thinking of destroying the cataylist?

^This post of yours, the one that started this whole discussion, if you agree with me everything could be a lie, what was its meaning?
Were you trying to post something to support my idea?
Because I still don't see how it has any bearing on the fact I noted so many people took the Cathalist explanation of destroy at face value, while doubting the rest...

I can argue more than one point. I personally think the ending is an indoctrition dream all a dream but yesterday I agrued on the point of it being all real...
http://social.biowar.../index/11972753

It pretty clear I'm open minded to all logic arguements.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 mai 2012 - 02:23 .

[N7Adept]

If one idea is consistently enforced throughout it is that we must Destroy the reapers to stop them. Conversations with Javik, Anderson, Hackett and TIM reaffirm multiple times. We must destroy the reapers.

Javik confirms a splinter group in his cycle sought to control....they were indoctrinated.

Destroy is the right way

[antares_sublight]

Walsh1980 wrote...
TIM is an evil ******, but his idea is to bring peace by using the enemies power.

Just real quick, TIM's goal is for humanity to rule the galaxy as the dominant species. Not peace.

[eddieoctane]

If you believe what the Catalyst says, the cycle will continue at a later date if you choose control. So that doesn't stop the Reapers, it postpones them. Except next time, Shep will be the one exterminating sentient life.

Synthesis, unless subatomic particle are altered in the same was as AI hardware and organic organisms, likewise doesn't stop the Reapers. If the laws of physics remain the same, a new, purely organic life-form will still evolve somewhere. And if copper and silicon are still copper and silicon, a purely synthetic system can still be built from the ground up. Since the Reapers still exist and an organic can still build a synthetic, the cycle was again only postponed.

The only thing that truly stops the Reapers is destruction. Everything else is a snooze button.

[Navasha]

Sorry, only one ending STOPS the reapers. You can argue I suppose that the other two endings stop the cycles, but the reapers are still around.

To me, blue is just the "I want my cake, and eat it too" ending. People think they can just outsmart the reapers by destroying them in an end-run around solution. Sorry, pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Synthetics rebel against their creators when their creators attempt to destroy them. So, the new Shepard catalyst tries to order them into the sun... guess what happens. Over time, the Shepalyst is likely to come to the same conclusion as the Kidalyst and re-start the cycles figuring its better to "save" and "preserve" everyone before they are wiped out by the quickly evolving synthetics.

I won't even touch on the horror that is the green ending.

[Walsh1980]

antares_sublight wrote...

Walsh1980 wrote...
TIM is an evil ******, but his idea is to bring peace by using the enemies power.

Just real quick, TIM's goal is for humanity to rule the galaxy as the dominant species. Not peace.

TIM's goal, not his method in Shepard's hands.