4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Shallyah wrote...

Seival wrote...

In ME1 there were a lot of cruisers also in that battle. And even dreadnoughts (not just destiny, but also turian ships). Also, you can see how three combined fleets tried to focus-fire Nazara for 10 min (or so) - no damage. Someone in the cutscene even suggested to fall back and leave the Citadel. The only reason why Nazara was killed - Shepard managed to shut down its shild temporary. And Nazara was only one Reaper.

In ME3 Reaper fleet has the same numbers (or even more) then the United Fleet. And Reapers completely outnumbered United Fleet in terms of Dreadnoughts' quantity... Finally, All that United Fleet could do is to damage one Dreadnought. They didn't even manage to destroy it. So all these 1000000 Thanix Cannons were not effective against  Reapers' shields.

I can't call Shepard becoming a new Catalist "Shepard died". I consider it as survived. If you call it "Shepard died" - well, it's your opinion, but I disagree.

I killed a Reaper with two missiles shot from a random truck stranded in Earth. You are so delusional that it's starting to be a bit sad.

(1) It was a Destroyer, that has much weaker defences.
(2) It was not just 2 missiles, but also a lot of heavy weapons used by 100+ soldiers nearby.
(3) The Destroyer was not killed actually.

...Yes, it was not killed. As we all know, we need a couple of hundred heavy ship guns to kill one Destroyer (remember Rannoch?). And the Destroyers are not the main Reaper force. Ships like Nazara or Harbinger are... the 2kml-long-dreadnoughts with unpenetratable shields and unstoppable weapons.

[Shallyah]

You're still dreaming, speculating and being delusional. As usual, I'll keep with the facts:

1) The Reaper in Rannoch was being shot at with conventional weapons, not Thanix weapons.
2) The Codex says that a Reaper Capital Ship can be killed by 3 Dreadnaughts. Before Thanix weapons were taken into account.
3) The Destroyer in Earth is killed by two Thanix missiles. You see it explode and never stand in your way again as you advance through it. Just two truck-launched missiles. Imagine the decimation that a Thanix loaded Dreadnaught would cause.

Now keep dreaming and stuff, I'll keep posting proven facts.

Modifié par Shallyah, 28 mai 2012 - 12:32 .

[Ageless Face]

Shallyah wrote...

Firstly, Javik's time was also subject to the Mass Relays and the Citadel, so of course there would be galactic conflicts. The level of technology is irrelevant, so long evolution's pace was broken in any way.

As for current Earth, yes there are wars, but that's the process of our evolution. The human race has become less and less violent, more and more charitative and diplomatic over time. The most civilized countries of the world now act as peacekeepers in less advanced nations and provide aid, food and charity to their innocent.

If you look at our past, at first the strongest guy used to be the ruler of his land. Whoever disagreed got clubbed down. Some hundreds of years later there were terrible and bloody wars followed by pillaging and worse. We've all read or known about these stories. Hell, not even 300 years ago Europe was plagued by the Inquisition. Imagine you give a spaceship and a Mass Relay jump to a medieval templar, or a hun pillager, or a bloodtihrsty viking.

But look now how far we've got. We learn as a race, and one day we'll be ready to completely avoid wide scale violence as a whole. And perhaps that day is the day we'd be learn how to build our first Mass Relay.

Well, I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with it. You don't have to be the creator of a certain technology to use it. I'm using a computer, yet I did not make it. My country did not invent the democracy, yet the govrement is a democracy. Some things needs to be simply learned, it does not have to be ours, and ours alone. We need to learn from others, Both their mistakes and their successes. If there are the mass relays already, no matter if reapers created them, aliens created them, or another country created them, we should use the knowlage. There is no need for humans to create mass relays if they are already existing. There is no need to destroy the mass relays just to get to the same place after what can be possibly centuries, which will bring all the races to the same place of being dependent on the mass relays anyway. 

[Archontor]

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]Archontor wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]Archontor wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]Archontor wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]Archontor wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]Archontor wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]Archontor wrote...

How does Shep control them, he's did, he vaporised on considerable pain whilst surrounded by lightning. If it really was brain uploading they'd just strap some electrodes to their head and fall over dead.[/quote]

More and more people are starting to realize that Shepard becomes a new Catalist in control ending
[/quote] 

Didn't answer a thing, if you get vaporised you die. 

More importantly Shep becomes another genocidal ****. 

That's more than a defeat it's just depressing.

[/quote]

As a new Catalist, Shepard keeps her personality. You can see the proof of it in the ending itself - Reapers go away, remaining under full Shepard's control. I just can't call this "Shepard died" no matter Shepard lost her body. I can call it only "Shepard survived, and become heavily upgraded". Citadel is her new body. Beautiful, isn't it?
[/quote]

Except the Catalyst exactly states that you will loose everything you are. Moreover your just using headcannon as an answer. I could just as easily say that they received Shep's tactical skill and pulled back to regroup you know in that giant in penetrable fortress filled with people to make reapers out of.

My headcannon is bigger than yours.[/quote]

Pull back? From what? A united fleet that can't do any real damage to them?

The entire United Fleet was just a distraction, nothing more.

By "loose everything" and "die" Catalist meant human body and everything that comes with it. If it was not the case, then Catalist could just say - "you will die" and add nothing to it.[/quote]

Actually they would pull back for a number of reasons. There are enough ships to seriously dmage and or kill many many Reapers even sovreign type before being exterminated (espescially if they do those suicide nuje things like palaven) combined with Liara's chests of information there is a great potential for the next cycle to develop enough to roflstomp them. If they just sit back the fractured races (now devoid of mass relays) will squable for land and resources, those that don't die of starvation and illness or the effects of eezo contamination/ stray shots during the battle that hit earth will see new divisions and they'll either go to war seriously weakening their forces or just have to demilitarise to free up resources to feed the people stuck on earth. At that point you charge in and kill them all suffering minimal losses and pry the location of liara's databoxes. Shep would know.

And no lose everything you are means more than die. Death as you have pointed out can simply mean biological death, people have survived being 'dead' for a few hours and do so commonly. To lose everything you are sounds like a more metaphysical loss of your memories or opinions or personality, in essence it strips the organic facets from you and lets you become a cold collection of uninflected experiences and imoral logic that provides logistical control but dosen't take moral authority.

Hey your right he does become the catalyst.

[/quote]

In ME1 three different fleets combined couldn't do any damage to Nazara. They killed it finally ONLY because Shepard somehow turned off Nazara's shield (defeating Nazara's Avatar was clearly involved).

In ME3 only Destroyers are weak enough so they can be actually damaged. Reaper dreadnoughts (like the Harbinger or Nazara) are almost invulnerable to United Fleet attacks. You can see it in the battle for the Earth. Combined United fleet attack barely damaged only one Reaper Dreadnought. And the Dreadnoughts are most represented ships in the Reaper fleet.

United Fleet role was a distraction. It could not do anything else but distract the Reapers, so Shepard's work will become easier. Reapers had no reason to pull back.



And as I already said, in case of Shepard "loose everything" doesn't mean loose her personality. You can see the proof of it in the final cutscene - where the Reapers were actually indeed Pulled Back... Because Shepard ordered them to do so.[/quote]

soveriegn took the citadel by surprise and had geth assistance against mostly frigates and cruisers with primative mass drivers and even then it was a miscomunication with the cinematic team that made him look that strong. This time they're going up against prepared ships
armed with Thanix cannons. And as I said people may well be desperate to just try a massive nuclear strike and take as many reapers as they can with them. The Reapers would probably win this cycle but they'd lose the next with diminished numbers and a lost technical high ground. One way or another the Reapers will lose if they don't reconsolidate their power and kill off this cycle first and hunt down any data caches. Sheppard would know that, and my assessment that all of shep that survives is memories and perhaps their logical schemas--enough to alter Reper procedure without being enough to constitute remaining as a person is just as valid as your...theory.

the catalyst implicitly says "You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have." So you're saying that when it says shepard will die Shepard dosen't die and when ot says you will lose everything you have you don't lose everything you have.

You've either deluded yourself with positive thinking (thanks for making paragons look bad by the way) or you admit the catalyst is a lying warmonger in which case trusting it is the worst possible decision.[/quote]

You should watch ME1 and ME3 endings more carefull. Nazara died only because Shepard turned off Nazara's shield. And all these Thanix cannons are not good enough against the Reapers.

BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" scenario for reason - Reapers were intended to be unstoppable.

You just misunderstood the phrase "You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have." . Catalist means that Shepard will no longer be a human being. If that was not the case, then Catalist could say just "you will die" and add nothing to it.[/quote]

I have watched them, there were mostly frigates beside the destiny ascension (which was bullrushed so it's long range oriented tactics were of little use) up against an admittedly small portion of the geth fleet--the largest known fleet in the galaxy and one of the most advanced. In comparisson we now have somewhere up to around twenty thousand ships, all armed with thanix weapons which can largely bypass sheilds and all of them are expecting reapers and have planned accordingly. We have evidence of the Turians taking down numerous dreadnoughts alone and outnumbered and codex entries to confirm it.

And no you have misuunderstood to "You will die" and "you will loose everything you have" to mean "you will survive" and "you won't loose much at all." Also known of as delusion. frankly adding "you will lose everything you have" suggests that it is more than a physical death for the endless optimists like you.

[/quote]

In ME1 there were a lot of cruisers also in that battle. And even dreadnoughts (not just destiny, but also turian ships). Also, you can see how three combined fleets tried to focus-fire Nazara for 10 min (or so) - no damage. Someone in the cutscene even suggested to fall back and leave the Citadel. The only reason why Nazara was killed - Shepard managed to shut down its shild temporary. And Nazara was only one Reaper.

In ME3 Reaper fleet has the same numbers (or even more) as the United Fleet. And Reapers completely outnumbered United Fleet in terms of Dreadnoughts' quantity... Finally, All that United Fleet could do is to damage one Dreadnought. They didn't even manage to destroy it. So all these 1000000 Thanix Cannons were not effective against  Reapers' shields.

I can't call Shepard becoming a new Catalist "Shepard died". I consider it as survived. If you call it "Shepard died" - well, it's your opinion, but I disagree.
[/quote]

According to the Wiki the majoraty of the citadel defence fleet was guarding other relays because they beleived Saren would never attack the citadel. They weren't just unprepared they were confused and that is what Sovreign drew on. Also no, the only models we see in the initial engagement are turian ships the artbook and wiki both refer to as frigates, which makes sense it's only a token force at the moment of the attack.

And when you say they only managed to defeat that one capital ship in the battle of earth you miss several key facts. As I've said off screen and according to codez and ANN information the turians took back much of palaven and killed a few capital ships on their own. Also we aren't seeing much of the battle, it was only a few minutes. Also that attck severely damaged it, possibly fataly and it was only being fired on by a few ships.

You can't call it shepard died because you don't want to. Shepard died=shepard is no longer alive is not an opinion it means the same thing.

[Shallyah]

HagarIshay wrote...

Well, I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with it. You don't have to be the creator of a certain technology to use it. I'm using a computer, yet I did not make it. My country did not invent the democracy, yet the govrement is a democracy. Some things needs to be simply learned, it does not have to be ours, and ours alone. We need to learn from others, Both their mistakes and their successes. If there are the mass relays already, no matter if reapers created them, aliens created them, or another country created them, we should use the knowlage. There is no need for humans to create mass relays if they are already existing. There is no need to destroy the mass relays just to get to the same place after what can be possibly centuries, which will bring all the races to the same place of being dependent on the mass relays anyway. 

Your race created computers, that's what matters. Your race provided you computers because it falls within their grasp and comprehension. The day computers are too dangerous for your race, you will lose your computer because your race will decide so. 

Democracy is used because your race invented it one day, and your leaders belong to that race. As individual you are member of a race and follow its paces. A few people contribute to the paces of its race, but what matters is the evolution of the race as a whole.

Modifié par Shallyah, 28 mai 2012 - 12:34 .

[Ageless Face]

Shallyah wrote...


Your race created computers, that's what matters. Your race provided you computers because it falls within their grasp and comprehension. The day computers are too dangerous for your race, you will lose your computer because your race will decide so. 

Democracy is used because your race invented it one day, and your leaders belong to that race. As individual you are member of a race and follow its paces. A few people contribute to the paces of its race, but what matters is th evolution of the race as a whole.

So only if my race created the computers or democracy it matters? Why other races cannot use the same idealistic thoughts or use the same devices humans have? 

If a specie think it's a good idea to start democracy because they think it works well on Earth, should they not use the idea just because we are not of the same race? Should they think of a different idea?

The same can be said about the technology. If humans want to a device only Turians have, they should not because "it's not their time"?

Modifié par HagarIshay, 28 mai 2012 - 12:58 .

[Jackums]

The arguments I keep seeing against Control are:
1. "The Catalyst is lying": That's a nice theory, but the endgame message that states Shepard became a legend after ending the Reaper threat strongly disagrees with your claim.
2. "The Reapers are evil, letting them live is immoral": The Catalyst states it controls the Reapers, therefore the blame rightfully belongs on the Catalyst itself. The Reapers were nothing more than puppets.
3. "TIM wanted it, therefore it's evil": That's quite the simple-minded conclusion you've come to there. There was nothing wrong with TIM's notion of control, simply his execution. TIM was indocrinated and a human elitist, which would have resulted negatively. Shepard is neither of those, and as the Catalyst confirms, the Reapers will obey Shepard. Control is not inherently evil, it's the person doing the controlling that determines the results of said choice. The Reapers can quite easily be used as a force of good.

nicksmi56 wrote...

Control, to me, is the only one that refutes Catalyst's problem. It only affects the Reapers and diversity is still out there. The relays aren't destroyed and I can repair them, I can send a Reaper to save my friends, and the Citadel is intact. For everyone that says to destroy all Reaper tech, we pretty much know their whole plan is: use Citadel to bring Reapers and shut off relays, then kill everyone. If Reapers are GOOD now, why would they do any of those things or indoctrinate anyone? They're mine. The mass relays aren't evil anymore. Neither is the Citadel. Heck, we could even use the Reapers to help out the next time a galaxy wide threat comes along. Control saves the galaxy without screwing everyone else over.

Very well said. These are my thoughts, too.

Modifié par JackumsD, 28 mai 2012 - 12:56 .

[Seival]

Shallyah wrote...

You're still dreaming, speculating and being delusional. As usual, I'll keep with the facts:

1) The Reaper in Rannoch was being shot at with conventional weapons, not Thanix weapons.
2) The Codex says that a Reaper Capital Ship can be killed by 3 Dreadnaughts. Before Thanix weapons were taken into account.
3) The Destroyer in Earth is killed by two Thanix missiles. You see it explode and never stand in your way again as you advance through it. Just two truck-launched missiles. Imagine the decimation that a Thanix loaded Dreadnaught would cause.

Now keep dreaming and stuff, I'll keep posting proven facts.

The proven fact is that Reapers can't be defeated without "Deus Ex Machina". If the Reapers could be defeated as easy as you suggest, then BioWare would never make Crucible and Catalist for ME3. The ending concept was finalized, so you will never see United Fleet killing the Reapers with Thanix cannons, missiles or anything else.

The game itself tells you that United Fleet can't kill the Reapers. It can only distract them from Shepard's "sneak attack". You will see the same thing in the Extended Cut. But in the Extended Cut it will be explained in more details.

[Archontor]

JackumsD wrote...

The arguments I keep seeing against Control are:
1. "The Catalyst is lying": That's a nice theory, but the endgame message that states Shepard became a legend after ending the Reaper threat strongly disagrees with your claim.
2. "The Reapers are evil, letting them live is immoral": The Catalyst states it controls the Reapers, therefore the blame rightfully belongs on the Catalyst itself. The Reapers were nothing more than puppets.
3. "TIM wanted it, therefore it's evil": That's quite the simple-minded conclusion you've come to there. There was nothing wrong with TIM's notion of control, simply his execution. TIM was indocrinated and a human elitist, which would have resulted negatively. Shepard is neither of those, and as the Catalyst confirms, the Reapers will obey Shepard. Control is not inherently evil, it's the person doing the controlling that determines the results of said choice. The Reapers can quite easily be used as a force of good.

nicksmi56 wrote...

Control, to me, is the only one that refutes Catalyst's problem. It only affects the Reapers and diversity is still out there. The relays aren't destroyed and I can repair them, I can send a Reaper to save my friends, and the Citadel is intact. For everyone that says to destroy all Reaper tech, we pretty much know their whole plan is: use Citadel to bring Reapers and shut off relays, then kill everyone. If Reapers are GOOD now, why would they do any of those things or indoctrinate anyone? They're mine. The mass relays aren't evil anymore. Neither is the Citadel. Heck, we could even use the Reapers to help out the next time a galaxy wide threat comes along. Control saves the galaxy without screwing everyone else over.

Very well said. These are my thoughts, too.

I refute you on claim one , that message comes out of literally a black screen after the credits and tells me to buy DLC, pressumably that wasn't discovered in universe or they're going to realise that they're in a game and the drell have only existed for two years as all of 3 people.

I refute you on claim two, If the reapers are being controlled then what you do is even more immoral than killing them, it forces them to be re-enslaved, no matter what you do with slavery it is still wrong.

I refute you on claim 3, Contoll isn't inherrantly evil but the temptation is always there and has infinty to happen as shep slowly loses humanity.  

[vixvicco]

It's not really a paragon choice, but I think its a decent choice compared to Synthesis.

[Naamah_bb]

JackumsD wrote...

The arguments I keep seeing against Control are:
1. "The Catalyst is lying": That's a nice theory, but the endgame message that states Shepard became a legend after ending the Reaper threat strongly disagrees with your claim.
2. "The Reapers are evil, letting them live is immoral": The Catalyst states it controls the Reapers, therefore the blame rightfully belongs on the Catalyst itself. The Reapers were nothing more than puppets.
3. "TIM wanted it, therefore it's evil": That's quite the simple-minded conclusion you've come to there. There was nothing wrong with TIM's notion of control, simply his execution. TIM was indocrinated and a human elitist, which would have resulted negatively. Shepard is neither of those, and as the Catalyst confirms, the Reapers will obey Shepard. Control is not inherently evil, it's the person doing the controlling that determines the results of said choice. The Reapers can quite easily be used as a force of good.

nicksmi56 wrote...

Control, to me, is the only one that refutes Catalyst's problem. It only affects the Reapers and diversity is still out there. The relays aren't destroyed and I can repair them, I can send a Reaper to save my friends, and the Citadel is intact. For everyone that says to destroy all Reaper tech, we pretty much know their whole plan is: use Citadel to bring Reapers and shut off relays, then kill everyone. If Reapers are GOOD now, why would they do any of those things or indoctrinate anyone? They're mine. The mass relays aren't evil anymore. Neither is the Citadel. Heck, we could even use the Reapers to help out the next time a galaxy wide threat comes along. Control saves the galaxy without screwing everyone else over.

Very well said. These are my thoughts, too.

You assume that Catalyst is speaking the truth.
And also, my 2 cents: there are numerous exmples (be it fictional or real) of people trying to control and manipulate things that are way too powerful to them. You play with fire and you will burn...eventually. Over and out.

Modifié par Naamah_bb, 28 mai 2012 - 01:24 .

[Seival]

Archontor wrote...

According to the Wiki the majoraty of the citadel defence fleet was guarding other relays because they beleived Saren would never attack the citadel. They weren't just unprepared they were confused and that is what Sovreign drew on. Also no, the only models we see in the initial engagement are turian ships the artbook and wiki both refer to as frigates, which makes sense it's only a token force at the moment of the attack.

And when you say they only managed to defeat that one capital ship in the battle of earth you miss several key facts. As I've said off screen and according to codez and ANN information the turians took back much of palaven and killed a few capital ships on their own. Also we aren't seeing much of the battle, it was only a few minutes. Also that attck severely damaged it, possibly fataly and it was only being fired on by a few ships.

You can't call it shepard died because you don't want to. Shepard died=shepard is no longer alive is not an opinion it means the same thing.

Forget about the wiki. I remember What I've seen and heard in the game itself.

Turinas + Krogan on Palavan were "successfull" only against the enemy's ground forces. So they just managed to kill a lot of their "fallen comrads". This is not a victory or success. This is just a small delay.

A couple of Reaper dreadnoughts were most likely killed (if they were really killed) on Palavan by using some smart traps that will work only on the ground, and will not work in space combat... Something similar to "Tuchanka's trick", but in larger scale. And this didn't stop the Reapers on Palavan. It's just stopped their progress a little. Turian fleets had to retreat with heavy casualties in the end.

I can't tell that Shepard died, because the Reapers are under her control. She has to be alive to control them. Dead people are unable to do anything, because they not exist anymore. This is just simple logic

Modifié par Seival, 28 mai 2012 - 01:35 .

[Jackums]

Archontor wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

The arguments I keep seeing against Control are:
1. "The Catalyst is lying": That's a nice theory, but the endgame message that states Shepard became a legend after ending the Reaper threat strongly disagrees with your claim.
2. "The Reapers are evil, letting them live is immoral": The Catalyst states it controls the Reapers, therefore the blame rightfully belongs on the Catalyst itself. The Reapers were nothing more than puppets.
3. "TIM wanted it, therefore it's evil": That's quite the simple-minded conclusion you've come to there. There was nothing wrong with TIM's notion of control, simply his execution. TIM was indocrinated and a human elitist, which would have resulted negatively. Shepard is neither of those, and as the Catalyst confirms, the Reapers will obey Shepard. Control is not inherently evil, it's the person doing the controlling that determines the results of said choice. The Reapers can quite easily be used as a force of good.

nicksmi56 wrote...

Control, to me, is the only one that refutes Catalyst's problem. It only affects the Reapers and diversity is still out there. The relays aren't destroyed and I can repair them, I can send a Reaper to save my friends, and the Citadel is intact. For everyone that says to destroy all Reaper tech, we pretty much know their whole plan is: use Citadel to bring Reapers and shut off relays, then kill everyone. If Reapers are GOOD now, why would they do any of those things or indoctrinate anyone? They're mine. The mass relays aren't evil anymore. Neither is the Citadel. Heck, we could even use the Reapers to help out the next time a galaxy wide threat comes along. Control saves the galaxy without screwing everyone else over.

Very well said. These are my thoughts, too.

I refute you on claim one , that message comes out of literally a black screen after the credits and tells me to buy DLC, pressumably that wasn't discovered in universe or they're going to realise that they're in a game and the drell have only existed for two years as all of 3 people.

I refute you on claim two, If the reapers are being controlled then what you do is even more immoral than killing them, it forces them to be re-enslaved, no matter what you do with slavery it is still wrong.

I refute you on claim 3, Contoll isn't inherrantly evil but the temptation is always there and has infinty to happen as shep slowly loses humanity.  

Irrelevant. It says the Reaper threat was ended.

The Reapers were created to prevent technological singularity. It's their purpose. If they're being used as a safeguard against this, and to protect organics (which was the Catalyst's ultimate goal), then it's not slavery so much as it's just using them as they were intended. It's like using a fork to eat your food. You're simply utilising the Reapers for their intended purpose. It's not like Shepard went out and enslaved some race of uninvolved aliens and forced them to do his bidding.

This is not guarnateed. The Catalyst was level-headed. It handed its power over the moment it realised its solution was no longer going to work. Shepard won't be subject to the psychological torments of being organic once he becomes the new Catalyst. Either way, there are just as potentially severe consequences involved with both other options. Weighing them up, Control has no more potential for disaster than the others.

[Jackums]

Naamah_bb wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

The arguments I keep seeing against Control are:
1. "The Catalyst is lying": That's a nice theory, but the endgame message that states Shepard became a legend after ending the Reaper threat strongly disagrees with your claim.
2. "The Reapers are evil, letting them live is immoral": The Catalyst states it controls the Reapers, therefore the blame rightfully belongs on the Catalyst itself. The Reapers were nothing more than puppets.
3. "TIM wanted it, therefore it's evil": That's quite the simple-minded conclusion you've come to there. There was nothing wrong with TIM's notion of control, simply his execution. TIM was indocrinated and a human elitist, which would have resulted negatively. Shepard is neither of those, and as the Catalyst confirms, the Reapers will obey Shepard. Control is not inherently evil, it's the person doing the controlling that determines the results of said choice. The Reapers can quite easily be used as a force of good.

nicksmi56 wrote...

Control, to me, is the only one that refutes Catalyst's problem. It only affects the Reapers and diversity is still out there. The relays aren't destroyed and I can repair them, I can send a Reaper to save my friends, and the Citadel is intact. For everyone that says to destroy all Reaper tech, we pretty much know their whole plan is: use Citadel to bring Reapers and shut off relays, then kill everyone. If Reapers are GOOD now, why would they do any of those things or indoctrinate anyone? They're mine. The mass relays aren't evil anymore. Neither is the Citadel. Heck, we could even use the Reapers to help out the next time a galaxy wide threat comes along. Control saves the galaxy without screwing everyone else over.

Very well said. These are my thoughts, too.

You assume that Catalyst is speaking the truth.
And also, my 2 cents: there are numerous exmples (be it fictional or real) of people trying to control and manipulate things that are way too powerful to them. You play with fire and you will burn...eventually. Over and out.

Read point 1.

There are also numerous examples of synthetic-organic hybrids going horribly wrong and technological singularities occuring. Theoretically, Destroy and Synthesis pose as much risk as Control, if not more.

[xbb1024]

For me, I'm drawn to control because I'm greedy and think the Reapers would be a great resource if they could be 'reprogrammed' (just like the Illusive man said), or just made dormant. I don't like to destroy things if I can avoid it. Destroying diversity is like eliminating options, that could be useful in future unknown situations.

I don't think the Reapers are sentient. The Geth were, they could think for themselves and make considered choices, whereas the Reapers (assumption) just respond to commands from the Catalyst.

As to the Catalyst speaking the truth, we get to see the outcome, and there was no evidence of it lying.

Modifié par xbb1024, 28 mai 2012 - 01:52 .

[Seival]

Naamah_bb wrote...

You assume that Catalyst is speaking the truth.

Catalist has no reason to lie. It could just leave Shepard to die, but chosen to help her instead. Shepard's victory was about forcing the Catalist to doubt that its "solution" was the best choice.

[Archontor]

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

According to the Wiki the majoraty of the citadel defence fleet was guarding other relays because they beleived Saren would never attack the citadel. They weren't just unprepared they were confused and that is what Sovreign drew on. Also no, the only models we see in the initial engagement are turian ships the artbook and wiki both refer to as frigates, which makes sense it's only a token force at the moment of the attack.

And when you say they only managed to defeat that one capital ship in the battle of earth you miss several key facts. As I've said off screen and according to codez and ANN information the turians took back much of palaven and killed a few capital ships on their own. Also we aren't seeing much of the battle, it was only a few minutes. Also that attck severely damaged it, possibly fataly and it was only being fired on by a few ships.

You can't call it shepard died because you don't want to. Shepard died=shepard is no longer alive is not an opinion it means the same thing.

Forget about the wiki. I remember What I've seen and heard in the game itself.

Turinas + Krogan on Palavan were "successfull" only against the enemy's ground forces. So they just managed to kill a lot of their "fallen comrads". This is not a victory or success. This is just a small delay.

A couple of Reaper dreadnoughts were most likely killed (if they were really killed) on Palavan by using some smart traps that will work only on the ground, and will not work in space combat... Something similar to "Tuchanka's trick", but in larger scale. And this didn't stop the Reapers on Palavan. It's just stopped their progress a little. Turian fleets had to retreat with heavy casualties in the end.

I can't tell that Shepard died, because the Reapers are under her control. She has to be alive to control them. Dead people are unable to do anything, because they not exist anymore. This is just simple logic

Let's not forget about it, because I remember exactly that being said in my last playthtrough a week ago and I have checked on youtube.

Actualy the turians were so successful in space to have killed a few sovereign class warships with daring tactics and actually forced the reapers to ignore them and move to the planet surface--in essence using palaven as a hostage. This suggests that they thought continuing the space battle would either fail or be a phyric victory. Unfortunately turians and krogan anren't the hostage type so they nuked the processing camps, if there were sovereign types on the ground those were probably hit, regardless they retook much of the planet. That is much more than a delay.

Your right it is simple logic. It proves then that shep isn't in control because he died. You have the burden of proof against you because we know that people die, espescially when they get their skin ripped off and then vaporised by lightning. We do not know that people can control reapers in a meaningful sense. And you have done little to convince me or anyone, that's why half of this thread is people tearing holes in your theory and the other half is you justifying it with nonsencical headcannon, logical fallicies and outright ignorance.

[Archontor]

JackumsD wrote...

Archontor wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

The arguments I keep seeing against Control are:
1. "The Catalyst is lying": That's a nice theory, but the endgame message that states Shepard became a legend after ending the Reaper threat strongly disagrees with your claim.
2. "The Reapers are evil, letting them live is immoral": The Catalyst states it controls the Reapers, therefore the blame rightfully belongs on the Catalyst itself. The Reapers were nothing more than puppets.
3. "TIM wanted it, therefore it's evil": That's quite the simple-minded conclusion you've come to there. There was nothing wrong with TIM's notion of control, simply his execution. TIM was indocrinated and a human elitist, which would have resulted negatively. Shepard is neither of those, and as the Catalyst confirms, the Reapers will obey Shepard. Control is not inherently evil, it's the person doing the controlling that determines the results of said choice. The Reapers can quite easily be used as a force of good.

nicksmi56 wrote...

Control, to me, is the only one that refutes Catalyst's problem. It only affects the Reapers and diversity is still out there. The relays aren't destroyed and I can repair them, I can send a Reaper to save my friends, and the Citadel is intact. For everyone that says to destroy all Reaper tech, we pretty much know their whole plan is: use Citadel to bring Reapers and shut off relays, then kill everyone. If Reapers are GOOD now, why would they do any of those things or indoctrinate anyone? They're mine. The mass relays aren't evil anymore. Neither is the Citadel. Heck, we could even use the Reapers to help out the next time a galaxy wide threat comes along. Control saves the galaxy without screwing everyone else over.

Very well said. These are my thoughts, too.

I refute you on claim one , that message comes out of literally a black screen after the credits and tells me to buy DLC, pressumably that wasn't discovered in universe or they're going to realise that they're in a game and the drell have only existed for two years as all of 3 people.

I refute you on claim two, If the reapers are being controlled then what you do is even more immoral than killing them, it forces them to be re-enslaved, no matter what you do with slavery it is still wrong.

I refute you on claim 3, Contoll isn't inherrantly evil but the temptation is always there and has infinty to happen as shep slowly loses humanity.  

Irrelevant. It says the Reaper threat was ended.

The Reapers were created to prevent technological singularity. It's their purpose. If they're being used as a safeguard against this, and to protect organics (which was the Catalyst's ultimate goal), then it's not slavery so much as it's just using them as they were intended. It's like using a fork to eat your food. You're simply utilising the Reapers for their intended purpose. It's not like Shepard went out and enslaved some race of uninvolved aliens and forced them to do his bidding.

This is not guarnateed. The Catalyst was level-headed. It handed its power over the moment it realised its solution was no longer going to work. Shepard won't be subject to the psychological torments of being organic once he becomes the new Catalyst. Either way, there are just as potentially severe consequences involved with both other options. Weighing them up, Control has no more potential for disaster than the others.

It isn't irrelevant, because it was out of universe it dosen't need to follow the logical chain of what actually happened, espescially since it was revvealed to all be just a story. For all we know shep picked destroy and this is just space-gramps making **** up.

The repers have demonstrated complexity enough to be regarded as people, evil people if they're free and and tragic people if they aren't. If you claim they aren't free than enslaving a sentient being is wrong no matter how you try and justify it. And the technalogical singularity? You honestly beleive that will both occur and be detrimental to us, do you?

There is a much greater potential for disaster than the other two options, it's entirely possible shep will just loose all semblance of empathy and go on for another cycle, or just wipe out all non-reaper life or that the catalyst/ reapers/harbinger will simply wrench control from him with their superior minds. In contrast the consequences of synthesis is...well the major criticisms aren't the risks of synthesising people but the apparent imorality of it and the criticisms of destroy's consequences are that the relays are destroyed and the citadel may fall to earth even though the former is true in all cases and the latter is true also in synthesis. Oh and the geth and EDI might die. Maybe. Unless they just shut down for a couple minutes and then reboot. Or the geth have a space station far from any relays and their effects, kind of like that one they definitely have and we've seen.

[Seival]

Archontor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

According to the Wiki the majoraty of the citadel defence fleet was guarding other relays because they beleived Saren would never attack the citadel. They weren't just unprepared they were confused and that is what Sovreign drew on. Also no, the only models we see in the initial engagement are turian ships the artbook and wiki both refer to as frigates, which makes sense it's only a token force at the moment of the attack.

And when you say they only managed to defeat that one capital ship in the battle of earth you miss several key facts. As I've said off screen and according to codez and ANN information the turians took back much of palaven and killed a few capital ships on their own. Also we aren't seeing much of the battle, it was only a few minutes. Also that attck severely damaged it, possibly fataly and it was only being fired on by a few ships.

You can't call it shepard died because you don't want to. Shepard died=shepard is no longer alive is not an opinion it means the same thing.

Forget about the wiki. I remember What I've seen and heard in the game itself.

Turinas + Krogan on Palavan were "successfull" only against the enemy's ground forces. So they just managed to kill a lot of their "fallen comrads". This is not a victory or success. This is just a small delay.

A couple of Reaper dreadnoughts were most likely killed (if they were really killed) on Palavan by using some smart traps that will work only on the ground, and will not work in space combat... Something similar to "Tuchanka's trick", but in larger scale. And this didn't stop the Reapers on Palavan. It's just stopped their progress a little. Turian fleets had to retreat with heavy casualties in the end.

I can't tell that Shepard died, because the Reapers are under her control. She has to be alive to control them. Dead people are unable to do anything, because they not exist anymore. This is just simple logic

Let's not forget about it, because I remember exactly that being said in my last playthtrough a week ago and I have checked on youtube.

Actualy the turians were so successful in space to have killed a few sovereign class warships with daring tactics and actually forced the reapers to ignore them and move to the planet surface--in essence using palaven as a hostage. This suggests that they thought continuing the space battle would either fail or be a phyric victory. Unfortunately turians and krogan anren't the hostage type so they nuked the processing camps, if there were sovereign types on the ground those were probably hit, regardless they retook much of the planet. That is much more than a delay.

Your right it is simple logic. It proves then that shep isn't in control because he died. You have the burden of proof against you because we know that people die, espescially when they get their skin ripped off and then vaporised by lightning. We do not know that people can control reapers in a meaningful sense. And you have done little to convince me or anyone, that's why half of this thread is people tearing holes in your theory and the other half is you justifying it with nonsencical headcannon, logical fallicies and outright ignorance.

No cutscene shows turian fleets destroying several Reaper dreadnoughts in space. Everything that might be "said in news" can't be trusted literally. It way be just an attempt to rise people morale. But even if they did - this changes nothing.
 
The entire Trilogy says clearly: Reapers can't be defeated by Fleets or Armies. BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept, and it was already set in stone. Nothing will change that, you have to deal with it.

Did you watch Control ending at all? Even in the current Control ending it's clear that Shepard controls the Reapers. And her first order was to stop the slaughter and fall back.

Modifié par Seival, 28 mai 2012 - 02:56 .

[Archontor]

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

According to the Wiki the majoraty of the citadel defence fleet was guarding other relays because they beleived Saren would never attack the citadel. They weren't just unprepared they were confused and that is what Sovreign drew on. Also no, the only models we see in the initial engagement are turian ships the artbook and wiki both refer to as frigates, which makes sense it's only a token force at the moment of the attack.

And when you say they only managed to defeat that one capital ship in the battle of earth you miss several key facts. As I've said off screen and according to codez and ANN information the turians took back much of palaven and killed a few capital ships on their own. Also we aren't seeing much of the battle, it was only a few minutes. Also that attck severely damaged it, possibly fataly and it was only being fired on by a few ships.

You can't call it shepard died because you don't want to. Shepard died=shepard is no longer alive is not an opinion it means the same thing.

Forget about the wiki. I remember What I've seen and heard in the game itself.

Turinas + Krogan on Palavan were "successfull" only against the enemy's ground forces. So they just managed to kill a lot of their "fallen comrads". This is not a victory or success. This is just a small delay.

A couple of Reaper dreadnoughts were most likely killed (if they were really killed) on Palavan by using some smart traps that will work only on the ground, and will not work in space combat... Something similar to "Tuchanka's trick", but in larger scale. And this didn't stop the Reapers on Palavan. It's just stopped their progress a little. Turian fleets had to retreat with heavy casualties in the end.

I can't tell that Shepard died, because the Reapers are under her control. She has to be alive to control them. Dead people are unable to do anything, because they not exist anymore. This is just simple logic

Let's not forget about it, because I remember exactly that being said in my last playthtrough a week ago and I have checked on youtube.

Actualy the turians were so successful in space to have killed a few sovereign class warships with daring tactics and actually forced the reapers to ignore them and move to the planet surface--in essence using palaven as a hostage. This suggests that they thought continuing the space battle would either fail or be a phyric victory. Unfortunately turians and krogan anren't the hostage type so they nuked the processing camps, if there were sovereign types on the ground those were probably hit, regardless they retook much of the planet. That is much more than a delay.

Your right it is simple logic. It proves then that shep isn't in control because he died. You have the burden of proof against you because we know that people die, espescially when they get their skin ripped off and then vaporised by lightning. We do not know that people can control reapers in a meaningful sense. And you have done little to convince me or anyone, that's why half of this thread is people tearing holes in your theory and the other half is you justifying it with nonsencical headcannon, logical fallicies and outright ignorance.

No cutscene shows turian fleets destroying several Reaper dreadnoughts in space. Everything that might be "said in news" can't be trusted literally. It way be just an attempt to rise people morale. But even if they did - this changes nothing.
 
The entire Trilogy says clearly: Reapers can't be defeated by Fleets or Armies. BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept, and it was already set in stone. Nothing will change that, you have to deal with it.

Did you watch Control ending at all? Even in the current Control ending it's clear that Shepard controls the Reapers. And her first order was to stop the slaughter and fall back.

A cutscene dosen't show the turian fleets, the codex does and I refuse to ignore that whilst you push headcannon.
In response to your claim to Reaper invulnrability I submit this "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken" "We'll fight and win without [the reaper tech in the Collector Base}" Shep sure thought they could be killed. The time Sovreign died and the dead reapers on Jartar and the one shot in orbit of a brow dwarf all show they can be beaten, as does the many destroyers (the bulk of their fleet) that we destroy.
 
Oh and stop writing random sentences entirely in bold like you're saying it loud and slow.

Yes I watch the control endeing they fell back. Like they do in Synthesis, for all we know that's just what happens when the catalyst dies in any case or whatever guides the reapers now--like Harbinger or just a VI emulation of Shepard or some sort of rapid consensus or.... I think I've made it sufficiently clear that a change in behavior is not the same as Sheppard being in complete control.

[Seival]

Archontor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

According to the Wiki the majoraty of the citadel defence fleet was guarding other relays because they beleived Saren would never attack the citadel. They weren't just unprepared they were confused and that is what Sovreign drew on. Also no, the only models we see in the initial engagement are turian ships the artbook and wiki both refer to as frigates, which makes sense it's only a token force at the moment of the attack.

And when you say they only managed to defeat that one capital ship in the battle of earth you miss several key facts. As I've said off screen and according to codez and ANN information the turians took back much of palaven and killed a few capital ships on their own. Also we aren't seeing much of the battle, it was only a few minutes. Also that attck severely damaged it, possibly fataly and it was only being fired on by a few ships.

You can't call it shepard died because you don't want to. Shepard died=shepard is no longer alive is not an opinion it means the same thing.

Forget about the wiki. I remember What I've seen and heard in the game itself.

Turinas + Krogan on Palavan were "successfull" only against the enemy's ground forces. So they just managed to kill a lot of their "fallen comrads". This is not a victory or success. This is just a small delay.

A couple of Reaper dreadnoughts were most likely killed (if they were really killed) on Palavan by using some smart traps that will work only on the ground, and will not work in space combat... Something similar to "Tuchanka's trick", but in larger scale. And this didn't stop the Reapers on Palavan. It's just stopped their progress a little. Turian fleets had to retreat with heavy casualties in the end.

I can't tell that Shepard died, because the Reapers are under her control. She has to be alive to control them. Dead people are unable to do anything, because they not exist anymore. This is just simple logic

Let's not forget about it, because I remember exactly that being said in my last playthtrough a week ago and I have checked on youtube.

Actualy the turians were so successful in space to have killed a few sovereign class warships with daring tactics and actually forced the reapers to ignore them and move to the planet surface--in essence using palaven as a hostage. This suggests that they thought continuing the space battle would either fail or be a phyric victory. Unfortunately turians and krogan anren't the hostage type so they nuked the processing camps, if there were sovereign types on the ground those were probably hit, regardless they retook much of the planet. That is much more than a delay.

Your right it is simple logic. It proves then that shep isn't in control because he died. You have the burden of proof against you because we know that people die, espescially when they get their skin ripped off and then vaporised by lightning. We do not know that people can control reapers in a meaningful sense. And you have done little to convince me or anyone, that's why half of this thread is people tearing holes in your theory and the other half is you justifying it with nonsencical headcannon, logical fallicies and outright ignorance.

No cutscene shows turian fleets destroying several Reaper dreadnoughts in space. Everything that might be "said in news" can't be trusted literally. It way be just an attempt to rise people morale. But even if they did - this changes nothing.
 
The entire Trilogy says clearly: Reapers can't be defeated by Fleets or Armies. BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept, and it was already set in stone. Nothing will change that, you have to deal with it.

Did you watch Control ending at all? Even in the current Control ending it's clear that Shepard controls the Reapers. And her first order was to stop the slaughter and fall back.

A cutscene dosen't show the turian fleets, the codex does and I refuse to ignore that whilst you push headcannon.
In response to your claim to Reaper invulnrability I submit this "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken" "We'll fight and win without [the reaper tech in the Collector Base}" Shep sure thought they could be killed. The time Sovreign died and the dead reapers on Jartar and the one shot in orbit of a brow dwarf all show they can be beaten, as does the many destroyers (the bulk of their fleet) that we destroy.
 
Oh and stop writing random sentences entirely in bold like you're saying it loud and slow.

Yes I watch the control endeing they fell back. Like they do in Synthesis, for all we know that's just what happens when the catalyst dies in any case or whatever guides the reapers now--like Harbinger or just a VI emulation of Shepard or some sort of rapid consensus or.... I think I've made it sufficiently clear that a change in behavior is not the same as Sheppard being in complete control.

All your clues are easily counter-argumented with each space combat scene that involves Reapers' dreadnought(s). More importantly, if the Reapers could be defeated without Deus Ex Machina, then it could be an option in the original ME3 ending. But it's not an option. And it will not be an option in the Extended Cut. BioWare already said that.

Catalist tells you about Control option, and it has no reason to lie. Control is Control... Not a "bored reapers", Not a "final order"... It is Control as any control must be: monitoring the situation and giving orders when needed.

You just can't understand Control ending... You remind me myself after I've just completed ME3 first time. You should stop hate the endings and try to analize them with clear mind. Hopefully, the Extended Cut will help you with that

Modifié par Seival, 28 mai 2012 - 03:37 .

[Archontor]

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

According to the Wiki the majoraty of the citadel defence fleet was guarding other relays because they beleived Saren would never attack the citadel. They weren't just unprepared they were confused and that is what Sovreign drew on. Also no, the only models we see in the initial engagement are turian ships the artbook and wiki both refer to as frigates, which makes sense it's only a token force at the moment of the attack.

And when you say they only managed to defeat that one capital ship in the battle of earth you miss several key facts. As I've said off screen and according to codez and ANN information the turians took back much of palaven and killed a few capital ships on their own. Also we aren't seeing much of the battle, it was only a few minutes. Also that attck severely damaged it, possibly fataly and it was only being fired on by a few ships.

You can't call it shepard died because you don't want to. Shepard died=shepard is no longer alive is not an opinion it means the same thing.

Forget about the wiki. I remember What I've seen and heard in the game itself.

Turinas + Krogan on Palavan were "successfull" only against the enemy's ground forces. So they just managed to kill a lot of their "fallen comrads". This is not a victory or success. This is just a small delay.

A couple of Reaper dreadnoughts were most likely killed (if they were really killed) on Palavan by using some smart traps that will work only on the ground, and will not work in space combat... Something similar to "Tuchanka's trick", but in larger scale. And this didn't stop the Reapers on Palavan. It's just stopped their progress a little. Turian fleets had to retreat with heavy casualties in the end.

I can't tell that Shepard died, because the Reapers are under her control. She has to be alive to control them. Dead people are unable to do anything, because they not exist anymore. This is just simple logic

Let's not forget about it, because I remember exactly that being said in my last playthtrough a week ago and I have checked on youtube.

Actualy the turians were so successful in space to have killed a few sovereign class warships with daring tactics and actually forced the reapers to ignore them and move to the planet surface--in essence using palaven as a hostage. This suggests that they thought continuing the space battle would either fail or be a phyric victory. Unfortunately turians and krogan anren't the hostage type so they nuked the processing camps, if there were sovereign types on the ground those were probably hit, regardless they retook much of the planet. That is much more than a delay.

Your right it is simple logic. It proves then that shep isn't in control because he died. You have the burden of proof against you because we know that people die, espescially when they get their skin ripped off and then vaporised by lightning. We do not know that people can control reapers in a meaningful sense. And you have done little to convince me or anyone, that's why half of this thread is people tearing holes in your theory and the other half is you justifying it with nonsencical headcannon, logical fallicies and outright ignorance.

No cutscene shows turian fleets destroying several Reaper dreadnoughts in space. Everything that might be "said in news" can't be trusted literally. It way be just an attempt to rise people morale. But even if they did - this changes nothing.
 
The entire Trilogy says clearly: Reapers can't be defeated by Fleets or Armies. BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept, and it was already set in stone. Nothing will change that, you have to deal with it.

Did you watch Control ending at all? Even in the current Control ending it's clear that Shepard controls the Reapers. And her first order was to stop the slaughter and fall back.

A cutscene dosen't show the turian fleets, the codex does and I refuse to ignore that whilst you push headcannon.
In response to your claim to Reaper invulnrability I submit this "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken" "We'll fight and win without [the reaper tech in the Collector Base}" Shep sure thought they could be killed. The time Sovreign died and the dead reapers on Jartar and the one shot in orbit of a brow dwarf all show they can be beaten, as does the many destroyers (the bulk of their fleet) that we destroy.
 
Oh and stop writing random sentences entirely in bold like you're saying it loud and slow.

Yes I watch the control endeing they fell back. Like they do in Synthesis, for all we know that's just what happens when the catalyst dies in any case or whatever guides the reapers now--like Harbinger or just a VI emulation of Shepard or some sort of rapid consensus or.... I think I've made it sufficiently clear that a change in behavior is not the same as Sheppard being in complete control.

All your clues are easily counter-argumented with each space combat scene that involves Reapers' dreadnought(s). More importantly, if the Reapers could be defeated without Deus Ex Machina, then it could be an option in the original ME3 ending. But it's not an option. And it will not be an option in the Extended Cut. BioWare already said that.

Catalist tells you about Control option, and it has no reason to lie. Control is Control... Not a "bored reapers", Not a "final order"... It is Control as any control must be: monitoring the situation and giving orders when needed.

You just can't understand Control ending... You remind me myself after I've just completed ME3 first time. You should stop hate the endings and try to analize them with clear mind. Hopefully, the Extended Cut will help you with that

It's not an option in the game because the writers dun goofed as the massive retake movement will attest. More importantly the cinematics are cancelled by the codex, considering we already have evidence  of a miscommunication between the storyboardists (responsible for the codex and the plot) and the cinematic guys (who get paid to make awesome things to look at) If nothing else it proves reaper strength is inconsitant and you still have no answer to my point about the next cycle improving with the various data-troves liara provides.

"The catalyst has no reason to lie" Really he'd kill off sentient life a thousand times over but he's not going to lie to save his ass when the other two endings destroy him. Did the voices tell you that? Or was it the asinine headcannon you expect me to treat as actual evidence?

And for the last ****ing time stop being so condescending, I understand the the endings and I understand why you want the endings to actually feel like a victory, and unlike you I haven't had multiple people call me dlusional. I hope the Extended Cut will make things clearer too but at the moment all evidence suggests that no, most people dislike controll and for good reason.  >:C

[nicethugbert]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Lets totally forget that after choosing the Control ending the starbrat is shown with a semblance of a smile on his space face..

Because he's finally found some sucker to take his lousy job.  At last, he's going on vacation.  Something tells me it's not going to be a short one.

[xPandaHunterx]

*Shakes Head*

You are all Indoctrinated! Don't you realize that the star-brat switched the Paragon/Renegade paths at the last minute in order to guilt you into not destroying him and his reapers?

*Takes cover from incoming flame*

[Ageless Face]

xPandaHunterx wrote...

*Shakes Head*

You are all Indoctrinated! Don't you realize that the star-brat switched the Paragon/Renegade paths at the last minute in order to guilt you into not destroying him and his reapers?

*Takes cover from incoming flame*

So the catalyst is switching colors? Didn't know it meant so much to him. Does he also dance under the moonlight and singing love songs?