390 réponses à ce sujet

[Razerath]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Shepard is not weak minded!
That's why Shepard surrendered to the leader of the Reapers without argument!

Wait..

He did, when?

The bit where the Catalyst said "do this" and Shepard did it.

More semantics. You've got to be kidding, right?

What else was Shepard going to do? Leave? Where to? And without doing anything to help the galaxy? Surrender would have been him suiciding and letting the Reapers continue. He did the exact opposite by making a choice. Just because the Starchild spelled it all out at the end doesn't mean he did what he was told to do. Hell, Starchild didn't even tell him to make a choice but said it was his choice to make.

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

More semantics. You've got to be kidding, right?

What else was Shepard going to do? Leave? Where to? And without doing anything to help the galaxy? Surrender would have been him suiciding and letting the Reapers continue. He did the exact opposite by making a choice. Just because the Starchild spelled it all out at the end doesn't mean he did what he was told to do. Hell, Starchild didn't even tell him to make a choice but said it was his choice to make.

No, surrender is what Shepard did. Took the word of the leader of the Reapers at face value and following it's instructions instead of resisting it.
Every choice made is a choice presented and approved by THE LEADER OF THE REAPERS.

Shepard does not even argue with THE LEADER OF THE REAPERS.

[Razerath]

DoktorAffentanz wrote...

Razerath wrote...

DoktorAffentanz wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Shepard is not weak minded!
That's why Shepard surrendered to the leader of the Reapers without argument!

Wait..

He did, when?

At the end of ME3. You know the BioWare game that was released a couple of month ago. Heard it's pretty good but the end is kind of awkward.

How in the name of anything can you think Shepard surrendered?

Well, s/he didn't question the options, presented by star-brat and just gave up.

You're finally given not just one way to stop the Reapers but three after years of trying to figure out what the hell to do against them. You're half blown up and losing blood fast enough to almost pass out and you think because he didn't ask, "When I shoot this thing to blow you up, it will blow you up?" he submitted?

Lol...

[Razerath]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

More semantics. You've got to be kidding, right?

What else was Shepard going to do? Leave? Where to? And without doing anything to help the galaxy? Surrender would have been him suiciding and letting the Reapers continue. He did the exact opposite by making a choice. Just because the Starchild spelled it all out at the end doesn't mean he did what he was told to do. Hell, Starchild didn't even tell him to make a choice but said it was his choice to make.

No, surrender is what Shepard did. Took the word of the leader of the Reapers at face value and following it's instructions instead of resisting it.
Every choice made is a choice presented and approved by THE LEADER OF THE REAPERS.

Shepard does not even argue with THE LEADER OF THE REAPERS.

Argue about what? Seriously. I would've walked past the Starchild and just blown the thing up given the once chance to do so. He had to "trust" that it would work because what else was he going to do other than bleed out and die? He did what he should have, he did what he could no matter what ending the player chose.

[Mr.House]

The OP should watch Babylon 5.

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

Argue about what? Seriously. I would've walked past the Starchild and just blown the thing up given the once chance to do so. He had to "trust" that it would work because what else was he going to do other than bleed out and die? He did what he should have, he did what he could no matter what ending the player chose.

Argued that the Catalyst is wrong.
Just like Shepard argued with Saren, Sovereign, Harbinger and everyone else who declared their vision to be the one truth above all others.

Shepard gave up.

[OblivionDawn]

The Starchild was made solely to explain what the Crucible does. From the player's perspective, the Starkid isn't lying, we see for ourselves that he isn't lying.

The problem is that Shepard (the character) seemed to be imparted with that same perspective as the player. He treated the Starkid as some kind of omniscient being, and went along with his options because he had no reason to believe he was lying. Logically, however, Shepard has no reason to believe that the Starkid is an omniscient being instead of some shiny VI.

Ideally, Shepard should have initially stated his distrust for the Starkid (any other person in his position would have), and then resolved to trust him through some conversation or whatever.

Hopefully the EC does something like this.

Modifié par OblivionDawn, 24 juin 2012 - 09:23 .

[atalair]

my shepard is not weak minded,a little dumb for walking in a exploding pipe while shooting at it.but not weak minded.

[The Angry One]

OblivionDawn wrote...

The Starchild was made solely to explain what the Crucible does. From the player's perspective, the Starkid isn't lying, we see for ourselves that he isn't lying.

After the fact, only vaguely, and only in that his agenda has been satisfied

[Razerath]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Argue about what? Seriously. I would've walked past the Starchild and just blown the thing up given the once chance to do so. He had to "trust" that it would work because what else was he going to do other than bleed out and die? He did what he should have, he did what he could no matter what ending the player chose.

Argued that the Catalyst is wrong.
Just like Shepard argued with Saren, Sovereign, Harbinger and everyone else who declared their vision to be the one truth above all others.

Shepard gave up.

What would arguing with the Catalyst do? Can you think of what the difference would have been other than a little more explaination of why each choice would be a choice?

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

[jpraelster93]

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Argue about what? Seriously. I would've walked past the Starchild and just blown the thing up given the once chance to do so. He had to "trust" that it would work because what else was he going to do other than bleed out and die? He did what he should have, he did what he could no matter what ending the player chose.

Argued that the Catalyst is wrong.
Just like Shepard argued with Saren, Sovereign, Harbinger and everyone else who declared their vision to be the one truth above all others.

Shepard gave up.

What would arguing with the Catalyst do? Can you think of what the difference would have been other than a little more explaination of why each choice would be a choice?

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

Shepard always asks questions he never just does stuff which is why people hate it he would of at least question why each option did what it did and had questions

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

What would arguing with the Catalyst do? Can you think of what the difference would have been other than a little more explaination of why each choice would be a choice?

What would arguing with Saren do?
What difference would it have made. He said Sovereign had a place for Shepard in it's new order. Who was Shepard to reject that?

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

Destroy stops the Reapers with a heavy price to pay, defined by the leader of the Reapers.
Control stops the Reapers temporarily, if that.
Synthesis means the Reapers win.

Shepard would find another way.

[The Night Mammoth]

Razerath wrote...

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

Arguing in hindsight is an invalid stance to take.

When standing there Shepard is unusually cooperative and mute at the very moment you'd expect her not to be. 

As in; standing in front of the Reaper overlord (the one responsible for so much destruction and death) and being told things that make absolutely no sense at all. 

[Mr.House]

My Shepard would have clearly refused and would have ended the war on her terms, let the fleet fight. If they all die, then at least everyone died fighting their hardest and giving the Reapers pause about the next cycles. Bioware should have gave us the reject option.

[Proxy]

Razerath wrote...

What would arguing with the Catalyst do? Can you think of what the difference would have been other than a little more explaination of why each choice would be a choice?

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

How about: Hey Admiral Hackett, I have the Creator and Leader of the Reapers here! Blow the catalyst to hell.

Shepard clearly has a working comlink right?

Modifié par RealDestroyerXD, 24 juin 2012 - 09:35 .

[Razerath]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

What would arguing with the Catalyst do? Can you think of what the difference would have been other than a little more explaination of why each choice would be a choice?

What would arguing with Saren do?
What difference would it have made. He said Sovereign had a place for Shepard in it's new order. Who was Shepard to reject that?

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

Destroy stops the Reapers with a heavy price to pay, defined by the leader of the Reapers.
Control stops the Reapers temporarily, if that.
Synthesis means the Reapers win.

Shepard would find another way.

Arguing with Saren... meaning to talk him out of fighting on the Reapers side? That's simple. He's an organic being and would have been a great inside source on how to defeat a Reaper at the time. Not to mention that he was also a fellow Spectre and one hell of a soldier. Also the fate of the galaxy was not at stake, right at that moment.

As for what Saren said to Shepard, that's pointless to bring up and only would mean something if the IT was true. In the way it's all really happening Shepard could care less and probably was angry about it.

Heavy prices to pay are the name of this game series. Control leaves the future up to everyone left with a warning of how the Reapers even got started. Which I would agree that somewhere on a long enough timeline would be lost and it all might repeat before the galaxy itself dies because of physics. Synthesis does not mean the Reapers win. It means everyone wins.

[Razerath]

RealDestroyerXD wrote...

Razerath wrote...

What would arguing with the Catalyst do? Can you think of what the difference would have been other than a little more explaination of why each choice would be a choice?

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

How about: Hey Admiral Hackett, I have the Creator and Leader of the Reapers here! Blow the catalyst to hell.

Shepard clearly has a working comlink right?

Yeah, use a cannon to do what a pistol could ensuring that Shepard would die instead of giving him a chance to live. That's exactly what Hackett would do to him...

[Razerath]

Mr.House wrote...

My Shepard would have clearly refused and would have ended the war on her terms, let the fleet fight. If they all die, then at least everyone died fighting their hardest and giving the Reapers pause about the next cycles. Bioware should have gave us the reject option.

It's pretty obvious that destroying the Reapers via conventional means would not work. His/her terms are not suicide. Conventional battle is a last option and was even said by Shepard before he knew about going to Mars.

[The Night Mammoth]

Razerath wrote...

RealDestroyerXD wrote...

Razerath wrote...

What would arguing with the Catalyst do? Can you think of what the difference would have been other than a little more explaination of why each choice would be a choice?

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

How about: Hey Admiral Hackett, I have the Creator and Leader of the Reapers here! Blow the catalyst to hell.

Shepard clearly has a working comlink right?

Yeah, use a cannon to do what a pistol could ensuring that Shepard would die instead of giving him a chance to live. That's exactly what Hackett would do to him...

Eh............ what? 

That's not quite what he was saying. 

Instead of going along with what the Catalyst says like a simpleton you could find another solution.

Shepard doesn't know what happens if she shoots the tube, she isn't ever even told to shoot it. You're once again arguing in hindsight. 

[General User]

One of the few truly consistent things in Mass Effect is that Shepard always gets a chance to grandstand.

For Shep to just accept what the Catalyst's shoveling without so much as shrug?  That just ain't right.

Modifié par General User, 24 juin 2012 - 09:44 .

[jpraelster93]

Shepard still would have asked more questions

[Razerath]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The outcome would be the same and someone like Shepard, even near death would know that time is important and arguing would be fruitless. I reject your idea that he gave up and submitted to anythings choices but his own.

Shepard: "Must stop Reapers"

Starchild: "Here is how in three different ways"

Shepard: "Stops Reapers"

Fin.

Arguing in hindsight is an invalid stance to take.

When standing there Shepard is unusually cooperative and mute at the very moment you'd expect her not to be. 

As in; standing in front of the Reaper overlord (the one responsible for so much destruction and death) and being told things that make absolutely no sense at all. 

The idea behind the Catalyst is that the Reaper Overlord wants the battle to stop too. Without one of the ways he figures it can happen, the cycles will continue. For once Shepard is given a way ( a few ) to stop the death of more children to preserve the future and you think he might argue?

As it turns out the Catalyst is our friend. The "murder" of organic species is actually a way to save them completely. That's the logic of the Catalyst and he is not wrong given the facts. I'm surprised that Shepard didn't turn around and say, "Thanks for saving our butts for countless cycles so that someone like me could eventually secure a future for organic life".

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

Arguing with Saren... meaning to talk him out of fighting on the Reapers side? That's simple. He's an organic being and would have been a great inside source on how to defeat a Reaper at the time. Not to mention that he was also a fellow Spectre and one hell of a soldier. Also the fate of the galaxy was not at stake, right at that moment.

Saren was speaking on behalf of Sovereign. There is no hope. The Reapers are supreme.
Saren has a way to survive under Reaper rule. Who is Shepard to question him?

As for what Saren said to Shepard, that's pointless to bring up and only would mean something if the IT was true. In the way it's all really happening Shepard could care less and probably was angry about it.

If you say arguing with the Catalyst is pointless, then I say arguing with Saren was pointless.
There was no other way. Sovereign would open the relay no matter what. Submission is preferable to extinction.

Heavy prices to pay are the name of this game series. Control leaves the future up to everyone left with a warning of how the Reapers even got started. Which I would agree that somewhere on a long enough timeline would be lost and it all might repeat before the galaxy itself dies because of physics. Synthesis does not mean the Reapers win. It means everyone wins.

Hell the **** no. Finding another way is the name of the game in this series.
Submission and compromise are the two things Shepard fought against for 3 entire games.

[jpraelster93]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Arguing with Saren... meaning to talk him out of fighting on the Reapers side? That's simple. He's an organic being and would have been a great inside source on how to defeat a Reaper at the time. Not to mention that he was also a fellow Spectre and one hell of a soldier. Also the fate of the galaxy was not at stake, right at that moment.

Saren was speaking on behalf of Sovereign. There is no hope. The Reapers are supreme.
Saren has a way to survive under Reaper rule. Who is Shepard to question him?

As for what Saren said to Shepard, that's pointless to bring up and only would mean something if the IT was true. In the way it's all really happening Shepard could care less and probably was angry about it.

If you say arguing with the Catalyst is pointless, then I say arguing with Saren was pointless.
There was no other way. Sovereign would open the relay no matter what. Submission is preferable to extinction.

Heavy prices to pay are the name of this game series. Control leaves the future up to everyone left with a warning of how the Reapers even got started. Which I would agree that somewhere on a long enough timeline would be lost and it all might repeat before the galaxy itself dies because of physics. Synthesis does not mean the Reapers win. It means everyone wins.

Hell the **** no. Finding another way is the name of the game in this series.
Submission and compromise are the two things Shepard fought against for 3 entire games.

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

The idea behind the Catalyst is that the Reaper Overlord wants the battle to stop too. Without one of the ways he figures it can happen, the cycles will continue. For once Shepard is given a way ( a few ) to stop the death of more children to preserve the future and you think he might argue?

What it wants is for it's agenda to succeed despite the fact that it's illogical.
You are assuming the Catalyst is right and telling the truth, when it has directly been the cause of everything it claims to prvent.

As it turns out the Catalyst is our friend. The "murder" of organic species is actually a way to save them completely. That's the logic of the Catalyst and he is not wrong given the facts. I'm surprised that Shepard didn't turn around and say, "Thanks for saving our butts for countless cycles so that someone like me could eventually secure a future for organic life".

The Catalyst is our friend... What? What? WHAT? YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS? YOU BUY INTO THAT PROPAGANDA?
I am DONE here. Unbelievable.