323 réponses à ce sujet

[Subject M]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Through out the entire game the main objective is to "STOP the Reaper" its this phraze that is used repeatedly.

I've seen a good few people corrupting it into "destroy the reapers" to force their prefered Genocide ending.

One thing is true whatever ending you pick the Reapers are STOPPED.

I agree.

[jijeebo]

@Night Mammoth

If someone says something to me and my response is "I don't trust you."

I am implying that they are lieing.

[Nimrodell]

dreman9999 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

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.

But Shepard is not open mind to unnessiary mass lobotamy orkeeping the cycle going which is what synthesis and control is.

Did you read what I said? Who's to say that Catalyst is not lying to you about destroying reapers too? If anyone here claims that Catalyst is lying about control or synthesis or basic reasons for cycles, then why wouldn't it lie about destroy too? Why to tell the truth only about destroy option and the whole 'lying' thing stems from that non-single player ending - if Shepard survived and Catalyst said s/he won't, then Catalyst might be lying too about all reapers being destroyed -  or it's not convenient to actually judge correctly then if Catalyst is lying or not. And about mass lobotomy bull or keeping cycle going on - destroy may bring that too, if you claim that Catalyst is lying - as I said, it may lie to you in this option too, sorry if you don't fancy having that on your plate, but that's how things are... Btw, I'll take you seriously when you give me answers on these questions - who is Catalyst and what's its nature? How it all begun? And where did you find this information on cycles continuing or having mass lobotomy - where exactly did you find that in current story of Mass Effect? I'm OK with people projecting their own fears and prejudices but I'm not OK with this constant imposing of one doctrine, one thought on BSN - it's like having bunch of zealots here, people with already predetermined thought that write here only to argue not to actually read and understand those who have different interpretation, and none of them answered simple questions, none of them - what's the nature of Catalyst, how it all begun and where in game they actually found references on how different outcomes played out - where is that Shepard's lobotomy? Where is that lost diversity? Where's that Shepard turned into reapers, is being Catalyst being a reaper or reapers are just keepers/servants of former grand design? What do we actually know about endings apart from our own projections? How do we know that Catalyst lied when it offered synthesis or control but didn't lie when it said we'll destroy reapers and synthetics - where's that proof that shows all reapers dead except for those around and on Earth, do we even know their numbers, were they all there or some of them were actually in other systems, hidden, just like one on Rannoch?

These forums will become something more again when people stop being so selective and single-minded and actually serious when they're posting their interpretations and theories again - and when this horrible 'only destroy is right choice' witch hunt stops. I sincerely hope that BioWare will correct this mess with EC, because I did love these boards, so many good posters were posting here, good posts, liberal, open-minded ones - now, this is one unpleasant place and I don't blame posters for the state of things - I blame BioWare for letting things go this far, for making these endings without proper closure and better hints on what actually happened. People keep laughing at that sheet and 'Lots of speculation from everyone' without realizing that they actually fulfilled and keep fulfilling that intent this whole time... So, is the joke on BioWare or on BSN? The fact is, we don't know a squat what happened at the end - the only thing we know is that Shepard became a legend and stopped the reaper threat, and I'm sincerely sorry to say this, but that's the only thing we know for sure.

[Pride Demon]

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Never said otherwise, your capability to be open minded was not in question here, nor would I offend you by putting it into question. That's not what I asked you...
I asked what bearing that original post of yours had on what I said, I merely asked clarification from you, because by what you said on the top quote you apparently agree with me, but the very reason our discussion started is that the first of your posts directed at me (the bottom quote) didn't seem to have a clear logical connection (at least for me) to the point I was trying to make...

When I asked you to clarify, reiterating what I was saying (thinking maybe I had explained myself wrongly or had been unclear), you started arguing as if you were opposing what I said, this started a debate, etc...
Now that we have verified we actually agree on the point the catalyst may be lying for all the options, including destroy, my curiosity has simply returned to the meaning of your original post directed at me.

I ask again, were you trying to support my point with it? Because if we agree on the premise behind my arguement, I really don't understand what else you were implying with it...

EDIT: Corrected the last link, I linked the wrong post...

My arguement will always be for not trusting anything the starchild say. And if they are all true,destroy is the only option.

Very well, you still haven't actually explined to me what I asked you to, but let's leave it be, I don't want to drag this along to the point of sounding annoying, prickly or worse...

dreman9999 wrote...
Learn how indoctrination works first.....It's base on a conection to a
will. If all the reapers are dead, they have no will to us to
indoctriante any one. Not one will be indoctrianted anymore because they
areall dead.

Technically the derelict reaper was fully capable of indoctrinating even while being "brain dead"...
The result of such a thing will probably always be a drooling lunatic or a husk, but the reapers have been proved to be "natural hazards" regardless of whether or not they are operational...
Then again we probably don't know enough about how indoctrination works or how it actually originates to reach a proper conclusion, one way or the other...

[The Night Mammoth]

jijeebo wrote...

@Night Mammoth

If someone says something to me and my response is "I don't trust you."

I am implying that they are lieing.

Then you'd be wrong in your implication, and I'm also not you. 

If you think someone's lying then say you don't believe them. I don't trust people I've just met, but that doesn't mean that if they tell me something its not the truth. 

Kind of a moot point. 

[Warbuckaz]

EsterCloat wrote...

I want to stop them by destroying them.

I AGREE....

The reapers have destroyed countless species without hesitation.  Yes, they should be stopped...by getting destroyed!!!.
 
They're differnt from the krogan, the geth, or rachni because they cant be swayed or negotiated with. A second chance wasnt an option to me...

[jijeebo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

@Night Mammoth

If someone says something to me and my response is "I don't trust you."

I am implying that they are lieing.

Then you'd be wrong in your implication, and I'm also not you. 

If you think someone's lying then say you don't believe them. I don't trust people I've just met, but that doesn't mean that if they tell me something its not the truth. 

Kind of a moot point. 

My wording may have been a bit off, but you're getting bogged down by semantics rather than addressing my actual point.


Why do people assume the catalyst is telling the truth concerning destroy, but not control and synthesis?

[The Night Mammoth]

jijeebo wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

@Night Mammoth

If someone says something to me and my response is "I don't trust you."

I am implying that they are lieing.

Then you'd be wrong in your implication, and I'm also not you. 

If you think someone's lying then say you don't believe them. I don't trust people I've just met, but that doesn't mean that if they tell me something its not the truth. 

Kind of a moot point. 

My wording may have been a bit off, but you're getting bogged down by semantics rather than addressing my actual point.

You've not helped that then, by talking about the same apparent semantics. 

Why do people assume the catalyst is telling the truth concerning destroy, but not control and synthesis?

Some people have flawed reasoning, like you said. 

Others don't necessarily think the Catalyst is lying, they just don't trust it, so go with the most appealing option. Hindsight reasoning partly. 

[vixvicco]

EsterCloat wrote...

I want to stop them by destroying them.

Same here. Why let them live? Strop, destroy, kill, who cares? The Reapers must end.
And the genocide thing, that's assuming the Catalyst isnt lying. He's clearly manipulative.

Modifié par vixvicco, 11 mai 2012 - 04:10 .

[NUM13ER]

My intention was always to destroy them. It's a fairly final stopping measure. The Reapers sentience is not sufficient enough to ignore the fact they are abominations that must be destroyed. Now I'm usually against wiping out an entire species even if they are evil but the problem is each Reaper is essentially a grim monument to the enslavement and extermination of an entire race.

So yeah, I weigh the vengeance of the dead race used to create them a little higher on my morality scale. I reluctantly sacrificed the Geth and EDI simply because the other two notions were even more heinous in my opinion. Did I want to? No. But god child left me little choice.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 11 mai 2012 - 04:11 .

[dreman9999]

Pride Demon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Never said otherwise, your capability to be open minded was not in question here, nor would I offend you by putting it into question. That's not what I asked you...
I asked what bearing that original post of yours had on what I said, I merely asked clarification from you, because by what you said on the top quote you apparently agree with me, but the very reason our discussion started is that the first of your posts directed at me (the bottom quote) didn't seem to have a clear logical connection (at least for me) to the point I was trying to make...

When I asked you to clarify, reiterating what I was saying (thinking maybe I had explained myself wrongly or had been unclear), you started arguing as if you were opposing what I said, this started a debate, etc...
Now that we have verified we actually agree on the point the catalyst may be lying for all the options, including destroy, my curiosity has simply returned to the meaning of your original post directed at me.

I ask again, were you trying to support my point with it? Because if we agree on the premise behind my arguement, I really don't understand what else you were implying with it...

EDIT: Corrected the last link, I linked the wrong post...

My arguement will always be for not trusting anything the starchild say. And if they are all true,destroy is the only option.

Very well, you still haven't actually explined to me what I asked you to, but let's leave it be, I don't want to drag this along to the point of sounding annoying, prickly or worse...

dreman9999 wrote...
Learn how indoctrination works first.....It's base on a conection to a
will. If all the reapers are dead, they have no will to us to
indoctriante any one. Not one will be indoctrianted anymore because they
areall dead.

Technically the derelict reaper was fully capable of indoctrinating even while being "brain dead"...
The result of such a thing will probably always be a drooling lunatic or a husk, but the reapers have been proved to be "natural hazards" regardless of whether or not they are operational...
Then again we probably don't know enough about how indoctrination works or how it actually originates to reach a proper conclusion, one way or the other...

Last time I checked...At that time there other reaper that can take control of the indoctrinated people at that time. Cerberus prove that it can be cut off, meaning indoctriation itself doesn't cause the change of behavior, the controler does....It the controler is gone, no one will be controled.

[dreman9999]

Nimrodell wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

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.

But Shepard is not open mind to unnessiary mass lobotamy orkeeping the cycle going which is what synthesis and control is.

Did you read what I said? Who's to say that Catalyst is not lying to you about destroying reapers too? If anyone here claims that Catalyst is lying about control or synthesis or basic reasons for cycles, then why wouldn't it lie about destroy too? Why to tell the truth only about destroy option and the whole 'lying' thing stems from that non-single player ending - if Shepard survived and Catalyst said s/he won't, then Catalyst might be lying too about all reapers being destroyed -  or it's not convenient to actually judge correctly then if Catalyst is lying or not. And about mass lobotomy bull or keeping cycle going on - destroy may bring that too, if you claim that Catalyst is lying - as I said, it may lie to you in this option too, sorry if you don't fancy having that on your plate, but that's how things are... Btw, I'll take you seriously when you give me answers on these questions - who is Catalyst and what's its nature? How it all begun? And where did you find this information on cycles continuing or having mass lobotomy - where exactly did you find that in current story of Mass Effect? I'm OK with people projecting their own fears and prejudices but I'm not OK with this constant imposing of one doctrine, one thought on BSN - it's like having bunch of zealots here, people with already predetermined thought that write here only to argue not to actually read and understand those who have different interpretation, and none of them answered simple questions, none of them - what's the nature of Catalyst, how it all begun and where in game they actually found references on how different outcomes played out - where is that Shepard's lobotomy? Where is that lost diversity? Where's that Shepard turned into reapers, is being Catalyst being a reaper or reapers are just keepers/servants of former grand design? What do we actually know about endings apart from our own projections? How do we know that Catalyst lied when it offered synthesis or control but didn't lie when it said we'll destroy reapers and synthetics - where's that proof that shows all reapers dead except for those around and on Earth, do we even know their numbers, were they all there or some of them were actually in other systems, hidden, just like one on Rannoch?

These forums will become something more again when people stop being so selective and single-minded and actually serious when they're posting their interpretations and theories again - and when this horrible 'only destroy is right choice' witch hunt stops. I sincerely hope that BioWare will correct this mess with EC, because I did love these boards, so many good posters were posting here, good posts, liberal, open-minded ones - now, this is one unpleasant place and I don't blame posters for the state of things - I blame BioWare for letting things go this far, for making these endings without proper closure and better hints on what actually happened. People keep laughing at that sheet and 'Lots of speculation from everyone' without realizing that they actually fulfilled and keep fulfilling that intent this whole time... So, is the joke on BioWare or on BSN? The fact is, we don't know a squat what happened at the end - the only thing we know is that Shepard became a legend and stopped the reaper threat, and I'm sincerely sorry to say this, but that's the only thing we know for sure.

Can you please brack that up better....And narrow it down more...Your ranting.

[Wabajakka]

Ahh, you're wrong there OP.

Everyone Shepard knows (Squad, crew, Admirals) says stopping the Reapers means destroying them, nothing else matters.

This is the main theme of the game my friend.

[TheClonesLegacy]

EsterCloat wrote...

I want to stop them by destroying them.

[The JoeMan]

Standing orders from your superiors ie. Hackett and Anderson are to destroy the Reapers. That's enough for me.

[Isichar]

Im sure its been said lots here already OP but control and synthesis (aside from been very badly explained) are submitting and doing what the reapers want. And they dont "stop" the reapers. Theres nothing to imply the reapers can be controlled long term sept the word of the biggest mass murdered who popped up in the last 10 minutes with 14 lines of dialogue. Synthesis is even worse as it pretty much accepts the mass murderers logic and does exactly what the reapers wanted to begin with (turns everyone into husks)

Honestly I couldn't even imagine picking anything other then destroy regardless of the kind of play through I have. Both the geth and EDI have stated they would rather die then work with the reapers, what do you think control and synthesis is?

Even if you like the ending your going to have to realize A LOT of people dont accept the catalysts logic and will not regardless of what you say. Introducing a new godlike character in the last 10 minutes with 14 lines of dialogue to explain everything was a terrible decision from an objective standpoint and any chance they could have made the other 2 endings work was ruined with the catalyst.

[jijeebo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

@Night Mammoth

If someone says something to me and my response is "I don't trust you."

I am implying that they are lieing.

Then you'd be wrong in your implication, and I'm also not you. 

If you think someone's lying then say you don't believe them. I don't trust people I've just met, but that doesn't mean that if they tell me something its not the truth. 

Kind of a moot point. 

My wording may have been a bit off, but you're getting bogged down by semantics rather than addressing my actual point.

You've not helped that then, by talking about the same apparent semantics. 

When it comes to wording I seldom help anything.

Why do people assume the catalyst is telling the truth concerning destroy, but not control and synthesis?

Some people have flawed reasoning, like you said. 

Others don't necessarily think the Catalyst is lying, they just don't trust it, so go with the most appealing option. Hindsight reasoning partly. 

Yeah, I just don't understand why that means anyone who chose otherwise is a moron who played right into the reapers hands... Which is what a lot of people say about the other two endings.

[Pride Demon]

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Never said otherwise, your capability to be open minded was not in question here, nor would I offend you by putting it into question. That's not what I asked you...
I asked what bearing that original post of yours had on what I said, I merely asked clarification from you, because by what you said on the top quote you apparently agree with me, but the very reason our discussion started is that the first of your posts directed at me (the bottom quote) didn't seem to have a clear logical connection (at least for me) to the point I was trying to make...

When I asked you to clarify, reiterating what I was saying (thinking maybe I had explained myself wrongly or had been unclear), you started arguing as if you were opposing what I said, this started a debate, etc...
Now that we have verified we actually agree on the point the catalyst may be lying for all the options, including destroy, my curiosity has simply returned to the meaning of your original post directed at me.

I ask again, were you trying to support my point with it? Because if we agree on the premise behind my arguement, I really don't understand what else you were implying with it...

EDIT: Corrected the last link, I linked the wrong post...

My arguement will always be for not trusting anything the starchild say. And if they are all true,destroy is the only option.

Very well, you still haven't actually explined to me what I asked you to, but let's leave it be, I don't want to drag this along to the point of sounding annoying, prickly or worse...

dreman9999 wrote...
Learn how indoctrination works first.....It's base on a conection to a
will. If all the reapers are dead, they have no will to us to
indoctriante any one. Not one will be indoctrianted anymore because they
areall dead.

Technically the derelict reaper was fully capable of indoctrinating even while being "brain dead"...
The result of such a thing will probably always be a drooling lunatic or a husk, but the reapers have been proved to be "natural hazards" regardless of whether or not they are operational...
Then again we probably don't know enough about how indoctrination works or how it actually originates to reach a proper conclusion, one way or the other...

Last time I checked...At that time there other reaper that can take control of the indoctrinated people at that time. Cerberus prove that it can be cut off, meaning indoctriation itself doesn't cause the change of behavior, the controler does....It the controler is gone, no one will be controled.

Cerberus didn't cut it off, they coopted it! (the basis behind the "control idea")
That's why TIM implanted himself with reaper tech, so that his troops (that are made of indoctrinated civilians augmented with reaper tech) would be indoctrinated to his will (Cerberus') rather than the reapers'...
This is why he managed to obtain such an enourmous amount of fanatical troopers in such a short window of time.

He eventually probably planned to use the crucible as an amplificator to "indoctrinate" the reapers too, of course, in the end it was him that got indoctrinated through his implants, rather than him using them to indoctrinate others, which ended up making the whole point  of indoctrinating his troops to Cerberus' will moot, but this proves indoctrination can exist apart from the reapers and their will.

And there is no proof of other reapers interfering with the derelict one.
Besides, others may take control of indoctrinated agents/husks, but the fact the derelict reaper was capable of indoctrinating them in the first place demonstrates they don't need to be operational to indoctrinate...

Nimrodell wrote...
Did you read what I said? Who's to say that Catalyst is not lying to you
about destroying reapers too? If anyone here claims that Catalyst is
lying about control or synthesis or basic reasons for cycles, then why
wouldn't it lie about destroy too? Why to tell the truth only about
destroy option and the whole 'lying' thing stems from that non-single
player ending - if Shepard survived and Catalyst said s/he won't, then
Catalyst might be lying too about all reapers being destroyed -  or it's
not convenient to actually judge correctly then if Catalyst is lying or
not. And about mass lobotomy bull or keeping cycle going on - destroy
may bring that too, if you claim that Catalyst is lying - as I said, it
may lie to you in this option too, sorry if you don't fancy having that
on your plate, but that's how things are... Btw, I'll take you seriously
when you give me answers on these questions - who is Catalyst and
what's its nature? How it all begun? And where did you find this
information on cycles continuing or having mass lobotomy - where exactly
did you find that in current story of Mass Effect? I'm OK with people
projecting their own fears and prejudices but I'm not OK with this
constant imposing of one doctrine, one thought on BSN - it's like having
bunch of zealots here, people with already predetermined thought that
write here only to argue not to actually read and understand those who
have different interpretation, and none of them answered simple
questions, none of them - what's the nature of Catalyst, how it all
begun and where in game they actually found references on how different
outcomes played out - where is that Shepard's lobotomy? Where is that
lost diversity? Where's that Shepard turned into reapers, is being
Catalyst being a reaper or reapers are just keepers/servants of former
grand design? What do we actually know about endings apart from our own
projections? How do we know that Catalyst lied when it offered synthesis
or control but didn't lie when it said we'll destroy reapers and
synthetics - where's that proof that shows all reapers dead except for
those around and on Earth, do we even know their numbers, were they all
there or some of them were actually in other systems, hidden, just like
one on Rannoch?

These forums will become something more again
when people stop being so selective and single-minded and actually
serious when they're posting their interpretations and theories again -
and when this horrible 'only destroy is right choice' witch hunt stops. I
sincerely hope that BioWare will correct this mess with EC, because I
did love these boards, so many good posters were posting here, good
posts, liberal, open-minded ones - now, this is one unpleasant place and
I don't blame posters for the state of things - I blame BioWare for
letting things go this far, for making these endings without proper
closure and better hints on what actually happened. People keep laughing
at that sheet and 'Lots of speculation from everyone' without realizing
that they actually fulfilled and keep fulfilling that intent this whole
time... So, is the joke on BioWare or on BSN? The fact is, we don't
know a squat what happened at the end - the only thing we know is that
Shepard became a legend and stopped the reaper threat, and I'm sincerely
sorry to say this, but that's the only thing we know for sure.

I agree, miss/mister... I know how you feel...
It's frankly starting to get tiresome, I really really hope EC will finally fix everything.

As for the Catalyst thing, I also believe he either is being totally truthful or is lying about everything, otherwise that thing is even dumber then most people make it.
After all if it's not trying to trick you it has no reason to lie, but if it is trying to trick you telling you how to destroy them makes no sense, why give Shep a way to win if it can give him/her no way to win? Why deliberately introduce risk if you can avoid it? It could have simply avoided mentioning destroy or told Shepard destroy worked some other way.
If it can lie twice, why not go all the way and do it thrice?

[pro5]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Through out the entire game the main objective is to "STOP the Reaper" its this phraze that is used repeatedly.

I've seen a good few people corrupting it into "destroy the reapers" to force their prefered Genocide ending.

One thing is true whatever ending you pick the Reapers are STOPPED.

Only if you believe that the other 2 solutions (Control and Synthesis) will work as the Catalyst describes.

Which they won't, because he lies.

Both those choices are a trap, and by picking them you are failing the test of your resolve which is what the final sequence basically is.

[jijeebo]

pro5 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Through out the entire game the main objective is to "STOP the Reaper" its this phraze that is used repeatedly.

I've seen a good few people corrupting it into "destroy the reapers" to force their prefered Genocide ending.

One thing is true whatever ending you pick the Reapers are STOPPED.

Only if you believe that the other 2 solutions (Control and Synthesis) will work as the Catalyst describes.

Which they won't, because he lies.

Both those choices are a trap, and by picking them you are failing the test of your resolve which is what the final sequence basically is.

Then what reason do you have to assume that Destroy will work as the catalyst describes? Not every Shepard was hell bent on destroying the reapers no matter the cost.

[dreman9999]

Pride Demon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Never said otherwise, your capability to be open minded was not in question here, nor would I offend you by putting it into question. That's not what I asked you...
I asked what bearing that original post of yours had on what I said, I merely asked clarification from you, because by what you said on the top quote you apparently agree with me, but the very reason our discussion started is that the first of your posts directed at me (the bottom quote) didn't seem to have a clear logical connection (at least for me) to the point I was trying to make...

When I asked you to clarify, reiterating what I was saying (thinking maybe I had explained myself wrongly or had been unclear), you started arguing as if you were opposing what I said, this started a debate, etc...
Now that we have verified we actually agree on the point the catalyst may be lying for all the options, including destroy, my curiosity has simply returned to the meaning of your original post directed at me.

I ask again, were you trying to support my point with it? Because if we agree on the premise behind my arguement, I really don't understand what else you were implying with it...

EDIT: Corrected the last link, I linked the wrong post...

My arguement will always be for not trusting anything the starchild say. And if they are all true,destroy is the only option.

Very well, you still haven't actually explined to me what I asked you to, but let's leave it be, I don't want to drag this along to the point of sounding annoying, prickly or worse...

dreman9999 wrote...
Learn how indoctrination works first.....It's base on a conection to a
will. If all the reapers are dead, they have no will to us to
indoctriante any one. Not one will be indoctrianted anymore because they
areall dead.

Technically the derelict reaper was fully capable of indoctrinating even while being "brain dead"...
The result of such a thing will probably always be a drooling lunatic or a husk, but the reapers have been proved to be "natural hazards" regardless of whether or not they are operational...
Then again we probably don't know enough about how indoctrination works or how it actually originates to reach a proper conclusion, one way or the other...

Last time I checked...At that time there other reaper that can take control of the indoctrinated people at that time. Cerberus prove that it can be cut off, meaning indoctriation itself doesn't cause the change of behavior, the controler does....It the controler is gone, no one will be controled.

Cerberus didn't cut it off, they coopted it! (the basis behind the "control idea")
That's why TIM implanted himself with reaper tech, so that his troops (that are made of indoctrinated civilians augmented with reaper tech) would be indoctrinated to his will (Cerberus') rather than the reapers'...
This is why he managed to obtain such an enourmous amount of fanatical troopers in such a short window of time.

He eventually probably planned to use the crucible as an amplificator to "indoctrinate" the reapers too, of course, in the end it was him that got indoctrinated through his implants, rather than him using them to indoctrinate others, which ended up making the whole point  of indoctrinating his troops to Cerberus' will moot, but this proves indoctrination can exist apart from the reapers and their will.

And there is no proof of other reapers interfering with the derelict one.
Besides, others may take control of indoctrinated agents/husks, but the fact the derelict reaper was capable of indoctrinating them in the first place demonstrates they don't need to be operational to indoctrinate...

That still means someone to control it has to be there...Which is my point...All the reapers are dead, there would be no one to take control.

[Lord Goose]

I think to truly understand morality between final choices, one should pay attention to the final speech which Shepards delievers just before the mission begins.

Paragon speech.


Renegade option


*character is not mine, video isn't made by me*

Pay attention to the subtle details. Renegade Shepards states, what every soldier should be ready to die to accomplish the main goals. He also states, that its kill or be killed. On the other hand, Paragon states goal in more ambigous manner ("win the future free from Reaper's threat).

It's perfectly illustrates the point. Making geth and EDI perish is exactly what renegade Shepard would expect from his soldiers: they would be sacrificed for the mission to be completed. 

Actually "kill or be killed" idea is perfectly corresponds to him surviving in the red ending. He chooses to kill, so he lives. 

Modifié par Lord Goose, 11 mai 2012 - 05:14 .

[Lord Goose]

Lord Goose wrote...

I think to truly understand morality of final choices, one should pay attention to the final speech which Shepards delievers just before the mission begins.

Paragon speech.


Renegade option


*character is not mine, video isn't made by me*

Pay attention to the subtle details. Renegade Shepards states, what every soldier should be ready to die to accomplish the main goals. He also states, that its kill or be killed. On the other hand, Paragon states goal in more ambigous manner ("win the future free from Reaper's threat).

It's perfectly illustrates the point. Making geth and EDI perish is exactly what renegade Shepard would expect from his soldiers: they would be sacrificed for the mission to be completed.

[Hadeedak]

In control, you keep the geth, there's no pile of may-or-may-not-be-problematic Reaper corpses on earth, the relays don't explode, just fizzle, and you still get the message telling you Shepard ENDED the Reaper threat, all at the low cost of the heroic sacrifice of your Commander Shepard.

Also, it has the best death scene and I like blue

Until the extended cut or new information, Control is MY personal favorite. Yeah, it's a gamble. That's what makes these choices interesting. If Control killed all the reapers and Shepard lived... Well, who'd pick anything else? If Destroy kept the geth and didn't explode the Mass Relays, the choice would seem a bit pointless. And if synthesis was clearer and less SPACE MAGIC, people might stop interpreting it as the WORST POSSIBLE THING or the FINAL EDEN ON EARTH ending.