9089 réponses à ce sujet

[ruggly]

Fandango9641 wrote...

What you don’t get to do is use your headcannon to debunk the views of those people who take what the game is literally telling and showing them at face value. Well you can, but you’ll have no authority whatsoever.

That...isn't what Ieldra is doing. At all.  All Ieldra is doing is providing another way that synthesis could have been used within the game.  People are free to agree/accept it or not.  And I do agree with a lot of what is said, I too don't like the way synthesis is presented, others do, and nobody here has said that you can't.

[Ieldra]

@Fandango:
Your agenda appears to be:
(1) You don't like Synthesis.
(2) Because of that, you want to make it appear as bad as possible in every way.
(3) You insist that everyone has to accept the most nonsensical stuff at face value, even in the face of obvious evidence that it's not meant to be taken that way.

Nothing new here. Others have tried that before. It's actually an interesting pattern that the people with the strongest moral objection to Synthesis always insist on a literal interpretation.

No, I do not have to accept obvious nonsense that breaks the established ground rules. Even more, if there is such obvious nonsense, it is intellectually dishonest to just accept it instead of calling the writers out on it, and even more dishonest to insist others should accept it too.

There is a contract between writer and reader/viewer/player. We agree to suspend our disbelief in order to experience the fantastic story the writer comes up with, and the writer agrees to keep things as consistent as possible and avoid putting things like pink unicorns orbiting Earth into a serious story.

Readers/viewers/players can break that contract by insisting that, say, "eezo doesn't exist". The writer can break that contract by, say, suggesting that in the MEU, something can be achieved by the mere fact of "sacrificing your soul". Or by implying that evolution works in ways completely unlike the real world, where exactly the opposite has been implied before. Or by implying that any entity in the MEU can have the default moral authority of a deity. Or by insisting that "biosynthetic DNA" makes sense without further elaboration.

I won't even go into the "new...DNA" again, because this is so obviously an analogy that insisting on a literal interpretation just makes you look ignorant of basic storytelling elements.

The plain fact is, the writers of ME3's endings focused on thematic elements like the organic/synthetic conflict and their unification in Synthesis without bothering to ground their stuff in in-world logic. Instead, they used buzzwords like "final" "evolution" "DNA" in a context where they can't mean anything concrete without dismissing their denotative meaning altogether. If you're trying to analyze what happens and want to get a concrete result using only these buzzwords, you're left hanging in the void. So I refer to the thematic level and try to come up with something concrete from that. That actually works, even though it still doesn't fit the story that came before.

Edit:
This is more than a simple "I don't like it". Do you know what I don't like? Inter-species romance. I can level the same accusations of biological nonsense at it as I do at certain elements of the Synthesis exposition, and in fact, I have done so. However, this was an element established early and openly in the story, and it was always obvious that the Rule of Sexy was supposed to overrule common sense. I hate that, really, but it's a part of the MEU. As opposed to that, genetics and evolution were always very much implied to work like in the real world - see Miranda, see Mordin and the genophage discussion.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 août 2013 - 11:39 .

[Ieldra]

I'm just defending the idea of not believing absurdities, and the idea of calling out those who insist I should.

If faced with such absurdities, we have the option to dismiss the whole scenario featuring them, thus dismissung Synthesis (which I think is fully justified) or working around them in order to keep our stories reasonably intact (my preferred approach).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 août 2013 - 11:59 .

[Indy_S]

Ieldra has said that Synthesis is out of place in ME. I don't think calling her out for changing the rules for her own judgment is going to be that damning.

[Ice Cold J]

 To be perfectly honest, to me Synthesis is probably the best outcome for all involved HOWEVER, this is basically having you assume the mantle of God and determining the fate and future of all things in existence. That is something that I, as Shepard, would never do.

Do I have a problem with Synthesis? Not really. But it is probably my least favorite choice.

[Ieldra]

@Fandango:
I feel my interpretation is vindicated through the fact that the EC epilogue shows and tells large parts of what I'd been claiming about the final outcome of Synthesis in this thread a month before the EC came out (that's when most of the non-EC-specific parts of the OP were written). Note also that I don't see any reason to work around that outcome.

And btw, the details I've been working around because they make no sense are all about how Synthesis is implemented, which is, in the end, irrelevant for the outcome as shown in the EC epilogue. I like the outcome. What I take issue with is that the writers couldn't be bothered to create an exposition that makes sense. I find that to be insulting to my intelligence, and given by the fact that for many players it's enough to reject Synthesis outright, this is not a trivial matter.

[Ieldra]

Ice Cold J wrote...
To be perfectly honest, to me Synthesis is probably the best outcome for all involved HOWEVER, this is basically having you assume the mantle of God and determining the fate and future of all things in existence. That is something that I, as Shepard, would never do.

I don't see it quite the same way. Yes, you do assume powers traditionally thought to be reserved for deities, but you do that anyway when making a decision about the galaxy's future. Also, while you lay a new basis for future development, you don't actually determine the future. Once Synthesis is done, people can live their lives as they want and you will not further control the future. Control is much more of a power trip than Synthesis, which is why I'm not quite comfortable with it in spite of its having no moral downside like the other two options.

[His Name was HYR!!]

[quote]Fandango9641 wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
You're not demonstrating, definitively, what the genetic change at hand is. [/quote]

Before I waste my time answering your question, could I ask what would constitute definitive proof to you?[/quote]

Something stated within the narrative (dialogue, Codex entry, whatever...) that supports the claim you're making.

You've said: Sync = eugenics, and "New DNA" / "final evolution" prove it. I dispute that these lines are too unclear; they can mean something other than eugenics without changing the meaning of those lines in any way (augmentation).

And then there's the fact that eugenics, as an explanation, simply does not make any sense. But we'll get to that.


[quote][quote]It’s ridiculous to call any old change to one's genetic composition "eugenics."[/quote]

And who here is arguing that point? My contention is that the immediate, intentional and directed merging of all organics and synthetics into a new form of life - with a new kind of DNA no less - constitutes eugenics. And you disagree because…[/quote]

That is your argument (see your next line from the bolded).

Also, eugenics does not aim to create a new form of life, it improves upon the genetics of an already-existing one.

To that end, I don't see how Sync itself is creating a new form of life, either. I understand that all species are intact with some "upgrades" yet they are no less their old selves/species. I could post a pic of Shepard's squad standing at the Normandy memorial wall from two different epilogues -- Sync, and non-Sync -- and you'd be helpless to tell the difference.


[quote][quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
If the solution is "eugenics," from where does he get the genes that brings organic life closer to synthetic life? [/quote]

I don’t need to answer that question HYR. I don’t need to provide you with a scientific explanation for the space magic that devastates ME3’s wretched ending. If you want a scientific explanation for the strange claims of Synthesis, go pester Mac & Casey![/quote]

You do need to answer it.

Without showing the actual practice of eugenics taking place, your claim holds no water.

Laying the blame on Mac & Casey for bad writing/space-magic only makes it worse. By doing that, you're just saying there's no rational explanation to be found. That, unfortunately, includes any claim you're going to attempt to make.


[quote]For me to make my case, all I have to do is confirm what the game is showing and telling us and its showing and telling us that Synthesis uses technology to merge organics and synthetics into a new form of life.[/quote]

... which is not "eugenics." It's basically augmentation.


[quote][quote]Oh, sure. But if you want an answer, you have to accept my rules on valid literary interpretation.

Rules are simple: he whose interpretation makes most sense and does not contradict canon is the most valid, and not just headcanon. You don't have to accept that anywhere else, but when you're dealing with me, you do have to.

Deal? [/quote]

Deal.[/quote]

I always interpreted "final evolution of life" to mean that, if both organic and synthetic life forms coexist without one side ever wiping out the other completely, they will evolve to the point where the effect of Sync (as we know it) would take place naturally. Over time, organics would adopt transhumanism to put themselves on the same level as synthetic life. Transhumanism, of course, is not something that can/will ever be reached through any natural processes (breeding). By achieving it, it is assured that no synthetics like the Catalyst will arise/overtake organics. They finally coexist for good.

I don't believe that contradicts what is stated. It makes sense, a hell of a lot more of it than the interpretation of: "evolution stops here." As such, I consider my interpretation to be the best one out there, until/unless someone can come up with a better one. One that: (1) makes sense; (2) does not contradict the stated line.

Again, those are my rules.


[quote][quote]For the fourth time now, no, eugenics can not be called "improving human genetic qualities" -- you're leaving out what makes eugenics... eugenics: selectively filtering certain traits within the gene pool to get the desired effects.[/quote]

Ok HYR, for the sake of moving things forward, I’ll concede the point.[/quote]

Good.


[quote]I think we can all agree with that HYR. What’s the relevance to this discussion? I mean, we’re discussing the consolidating of all forms of life into a single species right? That’s no small process HYR, even by the standards of science fiction.[/quote]

I never took away the idea that Sync = all forms of life become 1 species.

Time for another silly hypothetical: if I gave all ME-U species a set of synthetic wings attached to their backs, which are capable of passing on to the next generations through space-magic, would all species become 1 bird master-race?

I'm sure many around here would say they are, but I would say "no." I'd say all species received a (weird) upgrade.


[quote]You know it strikes me as strange that you would understand eugenics to mean ‘selectively filtering certain traits within the gene pool to get the desired effects’ but reject out of hand the idea that Synthesis is eugenics simply because I can’t provide you with a scientific explanation for that process. Indeed, that Synthesis clearly trespasses on the ideological - mine-strewn -  grounds of eugenics, that Synthesis clearly meets the criteria by which many eugenicists would consider it eugenics, that Synthesis circumvents the need for controlled, selective breeding and can instead skip straight to eugenic ‘go’ is ignored by you because Mac and Casey couldn’t be bothered to ground Synthesis in contemporary science? Why would you be so bloody-minded? Oh hang on, I know why…

You like synthesis, don’t you HYR? You like it so much, you’re actually offering a rebuke for my using two of the most informative and revealing proclamations of that end conversation as a means to make my case against you. A (brief) conversation, incidentally, with the only being in the Mass Effect universe who knows what the Catalyst does and how it does it. Astonishing![/quote]

What's strange about it? I do not see anything in the context of the story (where Sync is concerned) that fits the definition of eugenics. I could not support that notion even if I tried because there's nothing there. On the other hand, I can come up with an alternative explanation that makes sense and does not contradict what we're told. I go with that instead.

You accepted my rules on interpretation validity: he whose interpretation does not contradict the narrative and makes the most sense wins out. I have my own interpretation on this, but this is not about me, it's about you and your claim. Well, I've challenged your interpretation and it simply does not make any kind of sense (you yourself have admitted as much and blamed it on the ending not making sense). As such, I reject your interpretation (in favor of my own).

In fact, I dare say that anti-enders (not the sensible ones, the particularly sour and stubborn ones) make a point of actively trying not to make sense of the ending (for if they do, they'll have less reason to hate it). So they make these bogus charges of the ending ("it's promotan eugenics!!") and then when cornered about their charges, they just turn around and blame the ending for being too unclear as if that makes it okay to make up crap and pelt it at the big-bad-endan.

If you want to hate ME3, fine, but don't go dragging me/others into your self-pity.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 août 2013 - 07:45 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

shingara wrote...

O really, so prove it. Lets see its mentioned how many times how the reapers used this tactic to co opt the races to not kill the reapers. Hmm ye cant wait for you to prove to me that the catalyst isnt lying.

It's your claim that the Catalyst is lying, so the burden-of-proof falls on you, not me.

That said, I can prove it.

I'll just wait to see you try to do it, first.

[shingara]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

O really, so prove it. Lets see its mentioned how many times how the reapers used this tactic to co opt the races to not kill the reapers. Hmm ye cant wait for you to prove to me that the catalyst isnt lying.

It's your claim that the Catalyst is lying, so the burden-of-proof falls on you, not me.

That said, I can prove it.

I'll just wait to see you try to do it, first.

 actualy its your claim saying it isnt so its your burden. thanks.

[His Name was HYR!!]

shingara wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

O really, so prove it. Lets see its mentioned how many times how the reapers used this tactic to co opt the races to not kill the reapers. Hmm ye cant wait for you to prove to me that the catalyst isnt lying.

It's your claim that the Catalyst is lying, so the burden-of-proof falls on you, not me.

That said, I can prove it.

I'll just wait to see you try to do it, first.

 actualy its your claim saying it isnt so its your burden. thanks.

You said:

shingara wrote...

Here is how synthesis works, you belive the catalyst and walk straight into the laser. You melt and the catalyst laughs its nuts off that you were stupid enough to walk into a laser cos it said you would save everyone. Game over you died and the catalyst has completed what it has been trying todo for 3 games.

Your claim. Prove it.

I don't blame you for trying to back-out of it, though. It's a stupid claim that can't be supported (and you know it).

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 août 2013 - 07:47 .

[shingara]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

O really, so prove it. Lets see its mentioned how many times how the reapers used this tactic to co opt the races to not kill the reapers. Hmm ye cant wait for you to prove to me that the catalyst isnt lying.

It's your claim that the Catalyst is lying, so the burden-of-proof falls on you, not me.

That said, I can prove it.

I'll just wait to see you try to do it, first.

 actualy its your claim saying it isnt so its your burden. thanks.

You said:

shingara wrote...

Here is how synthesis works, you belive the catalyst and walk straight into the laser. You melt and the catalyst laughs its nuts off that you were stupid enough to walk into a laser cos it said you would save everyone. Game over you died and the catalyst has completed what it has been trying todo for 3 games.

Your claim. Prove it.

I don't blame you for trying to back-out of it, though. It's a stupid claim that can't be supported.

 Whos backing off it lol, that is laughable, your stand point is that the AI cant lie and wont lie to save itself. This is false. EDI lied to the alliance with the help of joker to seem like a VI, EDI also lies at will in a joking fashion alot of times when conversing with shepard. Legion can lie as he has also done on multiple occasions.

 This shows the president that AI's lie when faced with the possiblity of deactivation or deletion. And from this standing the Catalyst has aslo liied throughout its history.

 It lied to the races that it was harvesting by convincing them that control and synthesis was the better option as the reapers arnt the evil beings they are thought tobe and are infact there to help and that controling and working with the reapers is the correct action to take.


 As seen by the protheans and innusani and arrival scientists who took this aproach, the indoctrinated hanar who trys to take down his planetery defences for the reapers, from TIM being convinced by the catalyst that control is the correct action to take.

 From this stand point it is doing what it has always done by trying to convince shepard through lies that the correct action to take is by controlling or working with the reapers and not destroying them. It is the theme through the history of the reapers from the previous harvests right upto this one.

 Thanks have a good day.

Modifié par shingara, 07 août 2013 - 07:58 .

[CronoDragoon]

What specific statement is a lie from the Catalyst?

[shingara]

CronoDragoon wrote...

What specific statement is a lie from the Catalyst?

 that controling the reapers and working with the reapers eg synthesis are the correct actions to take. The protheans and arrival scientists thought this was the correct action. In terms of the protheans this was tried and failed, with tim it was tried and failed.


 So if it was previously tried and failed then it is obviously a lie and the tactic that has been employed time and again through all harvests by the catalyst for the reapers to continue the harvest. Its written into the galactic history from all the harvests that have previously come before.

Modifié par shingara, 07 août 2013 - 08:05 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

shingara wrote...

 Whos backing off it lol, that is laughable,

I said very clearly that I'd wait for you, first.

your stand point is that the AI cant lie and wont lie to save itself.

I never said that so quit putting words in my mouth.

This is false. EDI lied to the alliance with the help of joker to seem like a VI, EDI also lies at will in a joking fashion alot of times when conversing with shepard. Legion can lie as he has also done on multiple occasions.

 This shows the president that AI's lie when faced with the possiblity of deactivation or deletion. And from this standing the Catalyst has aslo liied throughout its history.

 It lied to the races that it was harvesting by convincing them that control and synthesis was the better option as the reapers arnt the evil beings they are thought tobe and are infact there to help and that controling and working with the reapers is the correct action to take.


 As seen by the protheans and innusani and arrival scientists who took this aproach, the indoctrinated hanar who trys to take down his planetery defences for the reapers, from TIM being convinced by the catalyst that control is the correct action to take.

 From this stand point it is doing what it has always done by trying to convince shepard through lies that the correct action to take is by controlling or working with the reapers and not destroying them. It is the theme through the history of the reapers from the previous harvests right upto this one.

All you've done is say that AI can lie and the Reapers can lie. And by doing so you're invoking appeal-to-probability (a fallacy) that because it is probable, it is certain that the Catalyst is lying. Your logic is demonstratably flawed.

And holy hell, fix your spelling and grammar (don't know why I'm even bothering to debate a teenager at this point).


As for my part:

Low-EMS runs prove it wrong. The Catalyst can keep Shepard from choosing Destroy (Low-EMS + Collector Base = only Control can be picked). It does not offer Sync without Destroy, ever. If it wants Shepard dead, it can easily (1) block the path to Destroy and force him to choose only Sync (or Refuse and die later); (2) call a nearby Reaper to shoot him down.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 août 2013 - 08:10 .

[shingara]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Whos backing off it lol, that is laughable,

I said very clearly that I'd wait for you, first.

your stand point is that the AI cant lie and wont lie to save itself.

I never said that so quit putting words in my mouth.

This is false. EDI lied to the alliance with the help of joker to seem like a VI, EDI also lies at will in a joking fashion alot of times when conversing with shepard. Legion can lie as he has also done on multiple occasions.

 This shows the president that AI's lie when faced with the possiblity of deactivation or deletion. And from this standing the Catalyst has aslo liied throughout its history.

 It lied to the races that it was harvesting by convincing them that control and synthesis was the better option as the reapers arnt the evil beings they are thought tobe and are infact there to help and that controling and working with the reapers is the correct action to take.


 As seen by the protheans and innusani and arrival scientists who took this aproach, the indoctrinated hanar who trys to take down his planetery defences for the reapers, from TIM being convinced by the catalyst that control is the correct action to take.

 From this stand point it is doing what it has always done by trying to convince shepard through lies that the correct action to take is by controlling or working with the reapers and not destroying them. It is the theme through the history of the reapers from the previous harvests right upto this one.

All you've done is say that AI can lie and the Reapers can lie. And by doing so you're invoking appeal-to-probability (a fallacy) that because it is probable, it is certain that the Catalyst is lying. Your logic is demonstratably flawed.

And holy hell, fix your spelling and grammar (don't know why I'm even bothering to debate a teenager at this point).

 When the person your debating with resorts to insults you know that you have won the debate. The fact that you think that its not is flawed. Not only based upon the previous cycles and there outcomes but also this cycles outcomes and the actions and consiquences of the actions taken by everyone who has tried this tactic before.

 That you feel that all of a sudden the reapers are gonna flip around and go "ow well ye your right, we give in. Please take us over or work with us" is somehow now more true then previous harvests.


  It just shows that when taking the choice to either try and control or work with the reapers that you have fallen into the same trap that previous cycles have fallen into and what happened when they did they employed this tactic. The harvest continued.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

As for my part:

Low-EMS runs prove
it wrong. The Catalyst can keep Shepard from choosing Destroy (Low-EMS
+ Collector Base = only Control can be picked). It does not offer Sync
without Destroy, ever. If it wants Shepard dead, it can easily (1) block
the path to Destroy and force him to choose only Sync (or Refuse and
die later); (2) call a nearby Reaper to shoot him down.

 And this is wrong. http://uk.ign.com/wi...-_With_Spoilers low ems only provides destroy.

Modifié par shingara, 07 août 2013 - 08:22 .

[CronoDragoon]

shingara wrote...
 that controling the reapers and working with the reapers eg synthesis are the correct actions to take.

The Catalyst never says that Control is the right action to take. On the contrary, in low EMS he flat out tells you that he doesn't want you to pick it.

As for Synthesis, there is a difference between lying and being mistaken. The Reapers themselves are evidence that the Catalyst wants Synthesis since that is what they are - failed attempts at Synthesis.

So if it was previously tried and failed then it is obviously a lie and the tactic that has been employed time and again through all harvests by the catalyst for the reapers to continue the harvest. Its written into the galactic history from all the harvests that have previously come before.

The belief that Synthesis leads to a continuation of the harvests is proven wrong by the Synthesis epilogue.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 07 août 2013 - 08:18 .

[3DandBeyond]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

O really, so prove it. Lets see its mentioned how many times how the reapers used this tactic to co opt the races to not kill the reapers. Hmm ye cant wait for you to prove to me that the catalyst isnt lying.

It's your claim that the Catalyst is lying, so the burden-of-proof falls on you, not me.

That said, I can prove it.

I'll just wait to see you try to do it, first.

The idea that the Catalyst is lying is supported not only by what he says in contradicting himself but also in what those under his control have said. 

And even the use of indoctrination as a tool to make people believe or do something they would not otherwise is at best deception, a form of lying if not strictly lying.

The kid's idea is that the harvest and ascension into reaper form is not killing anyone but then he says his creators were turned into reapers, had to be destroyed.  His minions in the form of Sovereign and Harbinger are not over-stessed about saving anyone and indicate a desire to inflict pain and to kill.

But it needn't even be as to whether he is straight up lying or not but is rather more deluded (for want of a better term as applied to an AI or computer).

He uses a non-working solution to solve a problem.  That's the equivalent of seeing a fire, knowing that throwing grease on it won't put it out, but throwing grease on it anyway.  Or at best seeing a problem and applying something that won't work and promoting it as a solution, even when you know it isn't.  So while it's not strictly lying it is the promotion of a falsity.  He also looks at the reapers as being merely like a force of nature that must do what they must do.  Except that's not what Sovereign and Harbinger said-they were doing things because they wanted to.  That's a big difference.  If you have a choice to NOT do something but then say you are doing it because you MUST, then it's a lie.  The kid says the reapers don't care about conflict or war (I don't have the exact quote), but this is nonsense.  Clearly they wanted it again as said by Sovereign and Harbinger. 

Here is what the kid is saying in effect.  The reapers are doing what they must.  He is doing what he must do which is to save organics from their creations.  In doing this, he is knowingly destroying those he's saving.  He's using a solution that no longer works.  His minions don't care about conflict but they were specifically created based upon his need to prevent conflict but which he does not ever prevent because his solution is to keep organics from creating synthetics and yet, they have always created them.  He is saying then that he knows what conflict is but conflict that is happening is not really conflict to worry about.

As for the choices and the whole ball of wax, there's enough that could lead you or should lead you to consider that the kid was the creator of all of that.  The "person" who created the crucible plans would have had to know about the kid AI (and those who know about him did not create the plans) AND would have created them to change his programming and to change the reapers.  Those who knew of his existence are the Leviathans, reapers, and Shepard and the kid himself.  So, who created the plans?

And the kid uses a lot of other deceptive things throughout-he gives no certifiable specific explanation for anything.  He's evasive when asked anything.  Even in Destroy alone he makes the statement that "there will be losses but no more than have already occurred"--paraphrased, but we clearly see that EDI dies.  So that alone is a lie.  And presumably others will die as well when that tech is damaged.  The kid is a mess-at best deceptive, evasive, and tending to lie.

[shingara]

CronoDragoon wrote...

shingara wrote...
 that controling the reapers and working with the reapers eg synthesis are the correct actions to take.

The Catalyst never says that Control is the right action to take. On the contrary, in low EMS he flat out tells you that he doesn't want you to pick it.

As for Synthesis, there is a difference between lying and being mistaken. The Reapers themselves are evidence that the Catalyst wants Synthesis since that is what they are.

So if it was previously tried and failed then it is obviously a lie and the tactic that has been employed time and again through all harvests by the catalyst for the reapers to continue the harvest. Its written into the galactic history from all the harvests that have previously come before.

The belief that Synthesis leads to a continuation of the harvests is proven wrong by the Synthesis epilogue.

 Low EMS only allows destroy, and the assumption that what we see as cutscenes as what actualy happens are an assumption that it worked, not that it actualy did.

[CronoDragoon]

shingara wrote...
 Low EMS only allows destroy

That is not correct. In Low EMS situations you get either Destroy or Control, depending on whether you destroyed or saved the Collector Base.

and the assumption that what we see as cutscenes as what actualy happens are an assumption that it worked, not that it actualy did.

By this logic, you cannot prove to me that anything we see in the Mass Effect series after Shepard encounters the beacon in ME1 actually happened.

[shingara]

CronoDragoon wrote...

shingara wrote...
 Low EMS only allows destroy

That is not correct. In Low EMS situations you get either Destroy or Control, depending on whether you destroyed or saved the Collector Base.

and the assumption that what we see as cutscenes as what actualy happens are an assumption that it worked, not that it actualy did.

By this logic, you cannot prove to me that anything we see in the Mass Effect series after Shepard encounters the beacon in ME1 actually happened.

 Actually its not correct, let me show you. uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/End_Game_Chart_-_With_Spoilers

 Destruction is the only option at the lowest EMS rating, The higher the EMS rating the more refined the weapon becomes allowing for earth, squadmates and ultimatly shepard to survive.



 And its not an argument about anything that happened after ME1 beacon happend. Its the fact that this tactic has been employed by the catalyst within multiple harvest, most notable within this harvest through tim and the previous harvest with the protheans. Its also stated by vigil and vengence this has been employed in previous harvests aswell.


 Edit, ow and 3dand makes an amazing point, the plans for the crucible, simple yet elegant in its design. Has been passed down through all the harvests. No one knows who came up with it. How funny that the only thing beyond the mass relays to survive all the harvests is the plans to destroy or control the reapers.


 Funny that isnt it, a huge weapon of unknown qualitys that happens to join with the very thing that controls the reapers. A way to move man power and fleet presence away from the theatre of war and drain resources from other areas that could do with them more, like shoring up planitery defenses, bigger fleets etc.

 When the reapers remove all existance of the previous races they just happen to leave those plan around to be found.

Modifié par shingara, 07 août 2013 - 08:53 .