55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Salient Archer]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

byne wrote...

All right. I'm headed to the airport. Depending on the state of internet access where I'm going, I may or may not be back until late Monday night or early Tuesday morning.

Later.

Oh man we're gonna be short a soldier for the Op this weekend. I got a feeling we might actually fail this one too.... No no can't talk of losing before the battles fought, will do my part regardless!

Not with me on the case   ...taking down Reapers on gold is kind of my thing.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us." - Admiral David Anderson

"The Reapers are repulsive." - EDI

If you want to add on to that EDI one, "The Reapers are dedicated to nothing but self-preservation... I am different."
May be misquoting that, can't find a vid of it.

Also, Doesn't Udnia say smething in the beginning aboiut destroying the Reapers? And Anderson at the end of ME1.

I dont think you can find a single non-villian major character in the Mass Effect series who dosent at some point say a line which can be translated to "The Reapers must be destroyed," I mean really there are so many variations, like Samara with her line: "Treat them like any other enemy, show no quarter, mercy or weakness."

Those lines of dialogue are repeated by so many characters, many of which are your squad, former squad or just people on your ship that I refuse to beleive it was a coincedence and remain one of the things that really makes me beleive in IT.

Anti-IT often use the counter agurment that the people saying the lines did not know about the Catalyst and that it changes everything, but they forget taht Bioware, the ones who wrote these lines, knew about the Catalyst. They could have easily left out lines like that, or only added them with a few characters.

But when every character of importance (non villian) has a line which amounts to it, I refuse to beleive it is a mere coincedence.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Salient Archer wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

byne wrote...

All right. I'm headed to the airport. Depending on the state of internet access where I'm going, I may or may not be back until late Monday night or early Tuesday morning.

Later.

Oh man we're gonna be short a soldier for the Op this weekend. I got a feeling we might actually fail this one too.... No no can't talk of losing before the battles fought, will do my part regardless!

Not with me on the case   ...taking down Reapers on gold is kind of my thing.

Only need to extract on gold once for squad goal, allied goal is extraction against Reapers on any difficulty. Would recommened bronze to get the most done as quickly as possible, silver for slight challenge and more credit gain... unless you're beyond N7 Elite I suppose then Gold away

[RavenEyry]

"We destroy them or they destroy us, that's the plan!" Not much room for interpretation there.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us." - Admiral David Anderson

"The Reapers are repulsive." - EDI

If you want to add on to that EDI one, "The Reapers are dedicated to nothing but self-preservation... I am different."
May be misquoting that, can't find a vid of it.

Also, Doesn't Udnia say smething in the beginning aboiut destroying the Reapers? And Anderson at the end of ME1.

I dont think you can find a single non-villian major character in the Mass Effect series who dosent at some point say a line which can be translated to "The Reapers must be destroyed," I mean really there are so many variations, like Samara with her line: "Treat them like any other enemy, show no quarter, mercy or weakness."

Those lines of dialogue are repeated by so many characters, many of which are your squad, former squad or just people on your ship that I refuse to beleive it was a coincedence and remain one of the things that really makes me beleive in IT.

Anti-IT often use the counter agurment that the people saying the lines did not know about the Catalyst and that it changes everything, but they forget taht Bioware, the ones who wrote these lines, knew about the Catalyst. They could have easily left out lines like that, or only added them with a few characters.

But when every character of importance (non villian) has a line which amounts to it, I refuse to beleive it is a mere coincedence.

I'm much the same on that topic. Otherwise there's just far too many coincidences to ignore.

Hm, thinking about what characters we can quote for Synthesis and controling the Reapers. Saren and TIM come to mind of course but beyond that who else?

[RavenEyry]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...
I'm much the same on that topic. Otherwise there's just far too many coincidences to ignore.

Hm, thinking about what characters we can quote for Synthesis and controling the Reapers. Saren and TIM come to mind of course but beyond that who else?

Mordin's very negative comment on what the reapers did to the protheans constantly comes to mind.

EDIT: Oh, and a random c-sec guy says something about it being easier if everyone was the same.

Modifié par RavenEyry, 13 juillet 2012 - 08:35 .

[The Heretic of Time]

So a question for you my dear IT cultists:

With the addition of the new Refusal ending in the EC (refusing the Catalyst and all his trickery outright), what is now "the correct" decision to beat this so called "indoctrination" at work? Why does refusing the Catalyst end in the death of your entire cycle and no waking-up Shepard? Shouldn't Refusal logically lead to Shepard beating the "indoctrination"? Shouldn't Shepard wake up in the rubble after Refusal? But he doesn't, does he?

I think the Refusal ending pretty much disproves this silly theory, but I gladly hear how you IT cultists defend your little religion against this.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Sigh....Alright who wants this one? I really don't, I'm tired. Arian, you've got a way with words, give it a shot?

Suppose we can just let it stew and fester.

[RavenEyry]

Shepard retreats into their mind instead of breaking out. Probably just dies.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

RavenEyry wrote...

Shepard retreats into their mind instead of breaking out. Probably just dies.

Thought about it that way, still didn't like it because Shepard seems very ...brave? Courageous? Confident lets say, in his/her speech to Starbringer. If anything, it would support the willpower theory, but we still don't see Shepard  waking up in rubble. From an IT perspective, choosing Refuse, we see what would happen without the use of the Crucible. Everyone fights together and it's not enough, but it's just enough to give the next cycle hope.

I think Refuse might sldo be Bioware's way of telling us that we need to use the Crucible in some way after fighting off indoctrination.

Still unsure why anyone would think a literal ending to seeing Shepard alive in high EMS import/NG+ Destroy ending. Doesn't make sense for Shepard to survive that many explosions and still be in a big enough chunk to take a breath. But again, don't get it with Refuse so it must mean something.

Perhaps once you "wake up" depending on numerous factors (reputation, number of squadmates across the trilogy alive, EMS) and what choice you made during the "attempt" you will be limited to that choice once you reach the "real" Crucible room. Though I suspect the outcomes will be different than what we saw this time around.

Modifié par gunslinger_ruiz, 13 juillet 2012 - 09:01 .

[Dam0299]

@Heretic_Hanar:

I always saw the 3 endings as a game harbinger had for Shepard within their own minds, with one in which Shepard can win yet still within the rules harbinger allows (if Shepard choose destroy then he/she wins and breaks out much like killing Saran disables Sovereign, Therefor breaking Indoctrination for Shepard). By outright rufusing to play the game he had constructed within Shepards mind, You can see the outright anger the catalyst has by its pause before yelling (most likely harbinger broke character due to rage at Shepard) So rather then attempting to indoctrinate Shepard any further, Harbinger sees it as a lost cause and just kills shepard outright, while he/she is unconscious/walking around hallucinating. Just my opinion, you in no way need to share it.


-By game I mean the same way James Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes would refer to one as.

Modifié par Dam0299, 13 juillet 2012 - 09:29 .

[Arian Dynas]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Sigh....Alright who wants this one? I really don't, I'm tired. Arian, you've got a way with words, give it a shot?

Suppose we can just let it stew and fester.

Can I be blunt and admit I'm sick of this guy?

Fine fine, I'll deal with him.

[lex0r11]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So a question for you my dear IT cultists:

With the addition of the new Refusal ending in the EC (refusing the Catalyst and all his trickery outright), what is now "the correct" decision to beat this so called "indoctrination" at work? Why does refusing the Catalyst end in the death of your entire cycle and no waking-up Shepard? Shouldn't Refusal logically lead to Shepard beating the "indoctrination"? Shouldn't Shepard wake up in the rubble after Refusal? But he doesn't, does he?

I think the Refusal ending pretty much disproves this silly theory, but I gladly hear how you IT cultists defend your little religion against this.

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So a question for you my dear IT cultists:

With the addition of the new Refusal ending in the EC (refusing the Catalyst and all his trickery outright), what is now "the correct" decision to beat this so called "indoctrination" at work? Why does refusing the Catalyst end in the death of your entire cycle and no waking-up Shepard? Shouldn't Refusal logically lead to Shepard beating the "indoctrination"? Shouldn't Shepard wake up in the rubble after Refusal? But he doesn't, does he?

I think the Refusal ending pretty much disproves this silly theory, but I gladly hear how you IT cultists defend your little religion against this.

I will begin by pointing out the considerable irony of comparing us to cultists... when you consider your internet handle there.

Don't call me "My dear". The only thing dear between us is if you grew antlers.

Destroy remains the descision that breaks indoctrination.

Think of it like this; each represents an action or thought process one can take in relation to the Reapers.

Control, you attempt to take The Illusive Man's  "The Ends Justify the Means" philosophy and defeat the enemy with their own technology.

You can't.

They own that technology, and using it places you under their control.

You can attempt to do what Saren did, and try to placate and make peace with the Reapers.

You can't.

You mean nothing to them, you are bacteria, dust upon cosmic winds. You cannot negotiate, you have no bargaining position, they will destroy you and you can only stand and watch. You only end up accepting their doctrine in the end.

You can believe you can defeat them with conventional tactics and warefare.

You can't.

We simply do not have the means to do so, and while Shepards who choose Refuse have the wisdom to not be seduced by Synthesis or Control, they lack the conviction to follow through with Destroy, now that a consequence has been tacked on. Shepard is by his very nature a man of action, he simply would NOT choose to do nothing, every option you have ever been given whether Paragon or Renegade was stil Shepard doing something, you merely chose the method he did so.

Destroy is Shepard sticking to his guns, choosing to ignore all else and focus on the mission as he himself as said countless times to his squad, standing by the conviction he has held for three years now. There will be casualties, and there will be sacrifice, in fact sacrifice is described as a major theme of the story by Bioware themselves. And note that every, single, one, of those groups, the Geth and EDI both have expressed to Shepard in the past, a willingness to die if it meant the defeat and destruction of the Reapers. EDI herself describes the Reapers as repulsive in nature.

If you ever played Mass Effect 1, then I will simply remind you of something Vigil told you.

"Your future relies on stopping them. Not understanding them."

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 13 juillet 2012 - 09:19 .

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Arian Dynas wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Sigh....Alright who wants this one? I really don't, I'm tired. Arian, you've got a way with words, give it a shot?

Suppose we can just let it stew and fester.

Can I be blunt and admit I'm sick of this guy?

Fine fine, I'll deal with him.

I don't think he's even here any more. Either that or he's formulating another plan to hurdle arguements at the thread.

[Lord Goose]

Still unsure why anyone would think a literal ending to
seeing Shepard alive in high EMS import/NG+ Destroy ending.
Doesn't make sense for Shepard to survive that many
explosions and still be in a big enough chunk to take a
breath.

The Citadel post-destroy seems to be damaged, but not really torn into pieces. Also, where was some unofficial interview, about people on Citadel, who may have survived due to its size, cyclonic barriers and kinetic shields. Of course, it was unofficial, but what makes such scenario completely impossible?

[Dam0299]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Sigh....Alright who wants this one? I really don't, I'm tired. Arian, you've got a way with words, give it a shot?

Suppose we can just let it stew and fester.

Can I be blunt and admit I'm sick of this guy?

Fine fine, I'll deal with him.

I don't think he's even here any more. Either that or he's formulating another plan to hurdle arguements at the thread.

Let him try I say. It would not be much fun if he just gave up already .

[Rosewind]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Sigh....Alright who wants this one? I really don't, I'm tired. Arian, you've got a way with words, give it a shot?

Suppose we can just let it stew and fester.

Can I be blunt and admit I'm sick of this guy?

Fine fine, I'll deal with him.

I don't think he's even here any more. Either that or he's formulating another plan to hurdle arguements at the thread.

He has I seen him before

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Easy to spot a trouble maker when the "R" word pops up. Not to mention name calling <_<

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Lord Goose wrote...

Still unsure why anyone would think a literal ending to
seeing Shepard alive in high EMS import/NG+ Destroy ending.
Doesn't make sense for Shepard to survive that many
explosions and still be in a big enough chunk to take a
breath.

The Citadel post-destroy seems to be damaged, but not really torn into pieces. Also, where was some unofficial interview, about people on Citadel, who may have survived due to its size, cyclonic barriers and kinetic shields. Of course, it was unofficial, but what makes such scenario completely impossible?

Sigh...

The sheer size of the explosions behind/around the Citadel ring. Regardless of it's origin (either the Crucible exploding or part of the Citadel exploding or both) it's big enough to envelop more than the Docking Ring. Shepard would be atomized by it unless he/she grew at least Cruiser grade kinetic barriers and that's being generous with my speculating.

On top of that, Shepard was near-death already from Harbinger's attack. Barely being held together by the cybernetics.
On top of that, the Red Wave was hinted as shutting down Shepard's cybnernetics as well since he/she is "partly synthetic."
On top of that, shooting the Destroy Tube causes it to explode in Shepard's face with enough force to knock him/her back and probably char the ever-lovins out of his/her exposed flesh and cause unknown damage to his/her insides with sheer force.

[Assuming "Shepard's Breath" takes place on Earth, London]
On top of that, Shepard somehow would have to manage being in open space without air.
On top of that, manage to survive Re-entry into Earth's atmo without a full suit.
On top of that, impact with the ground.

Waking up and being in one piece to take a clear Breath of air...Implications...Speculative.

EDIT: That quote you're talking about was from Jessica Merizan (I think) and I believe was speculating. But true, it's possible that there's some safe areas on the Citadel arms that the explosions didn't reach or were shielded for V I Ps but we just don't know. And if we did know I doubt someone built a shielded safe room on backside of the Presidum/the Citadel's ass. Even if there was it'd have to be one tough sonofa**** to withstandthat strong of an explosion.

Modifié par gunslinger_ruiz, 13 juillet 2012 - 09:38 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

We simply do not have the means to do so, and while Shepards who choose Refuse have the wisdom to not be seduced by Synthesis or Control, they lack the conviction to follow through with Destroy, now that a consequence has been tacked on. Shepard is by his very nature a man of action, he simply would NOT choose to do nothing, every option you have ever been given whether Paragon or Renegade was stil Shepard doing something, you merely chose the method he did so.

This is just plain not true. There are plenty of moments in Mass Effect where a Paragon or Renegade decision is equal do doing nothing, or lets say: NOT doing something.

In ME1, you could choose to NOT save the council (neutral or renegade).
In ME2, you could choose to NOT save the workers during Zaeed's mission (renegade).
In ME3, you could choose to NOT stop Legion from uploading the Reaper code (paragon).

These are just 3 different examples from all 3 games, there are many more.


In Refuse, it's not really that you do nothing. You REJECT the Catalyst. You REJECT everything he says, that INCLUDES the Destroy option. 

If the Catalyst is indeed indoctrinating you and lying about the Control and Synthesis option, then why would he speak the truth about the Destroy option? There are only 2 options:

1) Either the Catalyst is lying outright, which means ALL 3 options are INVALID and not to be trusted, INCLUDING Destroy.

2) Or the Catalyst speaks the truth, which means ALL 3 options are valid, INCLUDING Control and Synthesis.


If 1 is true, than Refusal is the only logical and reasonable decision. In other words, if the Indoctrination "theory" is true, then that means 1 is true, the Catalyst is lying, he's indoctrinating us, he cannot be trusted at all. That means Refusal is the only logical and correct decision, not Destroy.

If 2 is true, than all 3 Crucible options are equally valid. The Catalyst is speaking the truth, so Refusal seems pointless. It also means the indoctrination "theory" is not true.


So if the indoctrination "theory" is true, then by definition you should believe in 1 (Catalyst lying), then logically you should choose Refuse. But Refuse does not lead to the Shepard waking up scene, which completely shatters your "theory", and you know it.

Whether Shepard believes he/she can win this war conventionally has nothing to do with indoctrination. Your belief in how you can win this way (by either using the Crucible or not) is in NO WAY linked to indoctrination. So to say "you can't win the war conventionally, therefor Refuse is not the right answer" is bull****. Yes, I too believe that the war cannot be won conventionally, but some people believe they can. And some people just call the Catalyst out in his bullcrap. They decide they cannot trust him, nor the whole situation they're in, so they logically choose Refuse.

If you ever played Mass Effect 1, then I will simply remind you of something Vigil told you.

"Your future relies on stopping them. Not understanding them."

And how is this related to this discussion? If they indoctrination "theory" isn't true (and it isn't) then all 3 Crucible options stops the Reapers, so all 3 options are valid.
And even Refusal is valid if you honestly believe you have the power to destroy the conventionally, or if you simply do not trust the Catalyst. No option, no decision deviates from what Vigil said. 

[The Heretic of Time]

Dam0299 wrote...

@Heretic_Hanar:

I always saw the 3 endings as a game harbinger had for Shepard within their own minds, with one in which Shepard can win yet still within the rules harbinger allows (if Shepard choose destroy then he/she wins and breaks out much like killing Saran disables Sovereign, Therefor breaking Indoctrination for Shepard). By outright rufusing to play the game he had constructed within Shepards mind, You can see the outright anger the catalyst has by its pause before yelling (most likely harbinger broke character due to rage at Shepard) So rather then attempting to indoctrinate Shepard any further, Harbinger sees it as a lost cause and just kills shepard outright, while he/she is unconscious/walking around hallucinating. Just my opinion, you in no way need to share it.


-By game I mean the same way James Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes would refer to one as.

And why in the world would Harbinger play a game with Shepard that allows Shepard to win if he picks the proper option? Does Harbinger not care about his cycle anymore? Does Harbinger not want to win this war and continue the cycle? 

Here is a more pressing problem: Why indoctrinating Shepard at all? Why not just kill him and be done with it?


I swear, the whole indoctrination "theory" doesn't make any sense at all, especially not after the EC.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:02 .

[Jadebaby]

Arian Dynas wrote...

We simply do not have the means to do so, and while Shepards who choose Refuse have the wisdom to not be seduced by Synthesis or Control, they lack the conviction to follow through with Destroy, now that a consequence has been tacked on. Shepard is by his very nature a man of action, he simply would NOT choose to do nothing, every option you have ever been given whether Paragon or Renegade was stil Shepard doing something, you merely chose the method he did so.

No, destroy is now tainted as well, in the sense it definitely kills the Geth and now represents greed, in that to achieve your goal, you're willing to sacrifice an entire species to get there.

I agree that Shepard is a person of action, but refusal is an action in itself.

[The Heretic of Time]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

No, destroy is now tainted as well, in the sense it definitely kills the Geth and now represents greed, in that to achieve your goal, you're willing to sacrifice an entire species to get there.

I agree that Shepard is a person of action, but refusal is an action in itself.

How is it greedy to want to stop the Reapers no matter what the cost?

I mean my previous posts should make clear that I in no way defend the indoctrination "theory", nor do I defend the Destroy option (if you look at my avatar, you can see I chose Control), but to say Destroy = greed is kind of silly.

I do agree though that Refuse is an action in itself.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:14 .

[Salient Archer]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Salient Archer wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

byne wrote...

All right. I'm headed to the airport. Depending on the state of internet access where I'm going, I may or may not be back until late Monday night or early Tuesday morning.

Later.

Oh man we're gonna be short a soldier for the Op this weekend. I got a feeling we might actually fail this one too.... No no can't talk of losing before the battles fought, will do my part regardless!

Not with me on the case   ...taking down Reapers on gold is kind of my thing.

Only need to extract on gold once for squad goal, allied goal is extraction against Reapers on any difficulty. Would recommened bronze to get the most done as quickly as possible, silver for slight challenge and more credit gain... unless you're beyond N7 Elite I suppose then Gold away

Does averaging 15 minute firebase glacier speed runs against Reapers on gold qualify for elite?