362 réponses à ce sujet

[Lalalandia]

Moofy76 wrote...


I did not read any other one that you posted but, you do have reason to believe the catalyst, you can even question him why you should believe it etc, and you don't want to chose any of the options.

Again if you don't trust a person who is the admitted antagonist of the last three games why would you trust their answers? Hell they clearly don't understand you and why you don't want to become human slurpy so Star Child could quite legitimately lie to you and still be true to it's mission. It doesn't debate with you it tells you do A, B or C, what EC added was at least a bit more context for why it thinks these are the only acceptable outcomes.There is still no reason to believe it'scentralpremise that synthetic/organic conflict is inevitablein all scenarios

[Byriok]

It is an option, not the definitive end.

Refusal/shooting starchild is one choice, that you can choose to make.

It merely makes it a reality by giving it a body now, no more or less dumb than the ones thinking it's dumb.

[thefallen2far]

Moofy76 wrote...
I
It tells you that it (catalyst) has been changed/altered when the Crucible was created etc, that the variables have been changed, that a new "solution" needs to be chosen as the current solution with the reapers will not work anymore. This is possibly why you've been able to teleport onto it from the base where Harbinger was. Maybe the Catalyst "let" you. After all it controls the reapers, somewhat.

Tis is the point of the frustration.  WHY?  What's different?  You made a crucible thay could apparently destroy at any time?  So, what's different?  The solution is ridiculous, the problem is a messed up computer error.  Why would they "let you" destroy them? 

[JaKaSa]

nitefyre410 wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

This ending would've been fine if it wasn't implied that the next cycle used the Crucible, and if we got to see the Normandy crash into Harbinger.

 

Thats what makes the whole refusal ending a bit of a slap in the face becaue it does imply in  more less terms that the  Crucible is going to be used anyway. 

Which undermines the whole purpose  Refusing. 

It depends on how you assume it. You may think that because Liara showed Crucible in her message next cycle used it or then you may think that since Liara said that it did NOT work they did not try to do something that failed once.

Now I may start overanalysing, but Hackett knew that Shepard was on citadel and with that we can do brave assumption that  atleast Normandy might have known that Shepard was on citadel. They saw  Crucible getting docked to Citadel. So all they know is that Crucible  does not work and Shepard was there to do what he could, but still it did not work. They don't know about three choices Shepard was given. So if Normandy retreated from battle and Liara made that part of her message we heard after that she surely warned next cycle that Crucible does not work. It's up to next cycle to think if it is worth of trying something that failed once already again.

Modifié par JaKaSa, 27 juin 2012 - 04:48 .

[Moofy76]

nitefyre410 wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...
This ending would've been fine if it wasn't implied that the next cycle used the Crucible, and if we got to see the Normandy crash into Harbinger.

 

Thats what makes the whole refusal ending a bit of a slap in the face becaue it does imply in  more less terms that the Crucible is going to be used anyway. 

Which undermines the whole purpose  Refusing. 

Nah, to me refusing is Shapard not making an educated guess or chickening out on one of the three options presented to him. Taking the selfish otion and risking the galaxy on the slim chance they can beat the Reapers.. they lose - surprise surprise.

The next cycle life forms find the time capsule left by Liara and they are ready for the reapers in getting the crucible ready etc - wouldn't you??

Shepard doesn't has his all mighty crystal ball with him to see the future on the crucible so he doesn't know they will use it.

[Novate]

Moofy76 wrote...

Did you read my comment? There's no point in arguing the trust issue, you have no reason to trust it, and several reasons not to. You don't know have any real information on the outcomes except for destroy, but that of course, is provided the catalyst isn't lying. You also don't know that your side will lose to the reapers. 

If someone has been trying to kill you for a few years, then tells you to jump into a laser or electricute yourself because it will save the world, would you believe them? Reapers are known to be masters of manipulation. Unless you're role-playing your shep as an idiot, you shouldn't be so trusting.

I did not read any other one that you posted but, you do have reason to believe the catalyst, you can even question him why you should believe it etc, and you don't want to chose any of the options.

It tells you that it (catalyst) has been changed/altered when the Crucible was created etc, that the variables have been changed, that a new "solution" needs to be chosen as the current solution with the reapers will not work anymore. This is possibly why you've been able to teleport onto it from the base where Harbinger was. Maybe the Catalyst "let" you. After all it controls the reapers, somewhat.

That is why you decide to trust it, it's an AI, it wants to preserve life in the galaxy by restoring the balance from chaos (synthetics taking over).

Now, you don't HAVE to trust it if you don't want to, being the player - but shepard probably would. You can be all stuborn if you want. Or you can believe it and take a chance, that's what leaders do. What are your options, listen to it's decent resoning and make an educated guess or do nothing and go sit in the corner while the reapers complete their harvesting of civilisations? So that IS WHY you DO want to be chosing one of the 3 options!

You believe the catalyst is telling the truth (mostly) for the above reasons, you said you don't know your side will ose to the Reapers? Are you kidding?? It's been drilled into you throughout the whole entire game that the Crucible is the only way.

It's the 4th quarter and you're down by two points, Shepard is at the three point line.. the "do nothing" option is basically turning the ball over and the clock runs out.

The only role playing I do as my Commander Shepard is to win, sitting back on the sideline and watching your team go down cos you are hoping they can beat an opponent many times stronger than your's is a wussy Shepard.

First off, Catalyst didn't let you in, first you got marauder shields, then you got Illusive Man. all occuring before crucible attached to the Citadel.

Then the AI tells you that it betrayed the very creators that made it. And turned them into the first Reapers.
So what you are really telling me is to trust an AI that destroyed its own creators, liquify all previous organic civilizations for eons.
An AI that controls the very thing that is killing everyone, yet he has no stop button, he controls the reapers yet he can't control the reapers. While Shepard and Catalyst is talking, Catalyst could have just told everyone reaper to stop and all husks to stop, yet he won't, so while he is talking to you, it is killing everything everywhere.

And you are suppose to trust IT.

[F00lishG]

Novate wrote...


First off, Catalyst didn't let you in, first you got marauder shields, then you got Illusive Man. all occuring before crucible attached to the Citadel.

Then the AI tells you that it betrayed the very creators that made it. And turned them into the first Reapers.
So what you are really telling me is to trust an AI that destroyed its own creators, liquify all previous organic civilizations for eons.
An AI that controls the very thing that is killing everyone, yet he has no stop button, he controls the reapers yet he can't control the reapers. While Shepard and Catalyst is talking, Catalyst could have just told everyone reaper to stop and all husks to stop, yet he won't, so while he is talking to you, it is killing everything everywhere.

And you are suppose to trust IT.

You don't have to trust it. you can refuse. Do it.

[Lalalandia]

Novate wrote...

Then the AI tells you that it betrayed the very creators that made it. And turned them into the first Reapers.
So what you are really telling me is to trust an AI that destroyed its own creators, liquify all previous organic civilizations for eons.
An AI that controls the very thing that is killing everyone, yet he has no stop button, he controls the reapers yet he can't control the reapers. While Shepard and Catalyst is talking, Catalyst could have just told everyone reaper to stop and all husks to stop, yet he won't, so while he is talking to you, it is killing everything everywhere.

And you are suppose to trust IT.

This oh so very much this. There's no reason to trust the Star Child, if the game had added a few missions that discovered artifacts that pointed to the existence of some aeons old AI that could control the Reapers andlaid the foundations then maybe. But with Star Child showing up in the last ten minutes there is just no reason to trust it's anything more than a Reaper in sheeps clothing (something the 'so be it' line seems to confirm)

[CaliGuy033]

Refusal is the only objectively bad ending of the three. People saying its their "favorite" ending are just stubbornly trying to prove something to Bioware.

The quick-and-dirty import of the ending is:

1) You allowed every advance life form in your cycle to die--when you could have saved many or all of them--because you were too arrogant and stubborn to accept what you were told. (Liara)

2) Some future cycle was able to survive because they learned from your arrogant mistake. (female Stargazer)

If that's your favorite ending, you've just become a caricature of Bioware hate.  

Modifié par CaliGuy033, 27 juin 2012 - 04:51 .

[Moofy76]

Lalalandia wrote...
Again if you don't trust a person who is the admitted antagonist of the last three games why would you trust their answers? Hell they clearly don't understand you and why you don't want to become human slurpy so Star Child could quite legitimately lie to you and still be true to it's mission. It doesn't debate with you it tells you do A, B or C, what EC added was at least a bit more context for why it thinks these are the only acceptable outcomes.There is still no reason to believe it'scentralpremise that synthetic/organic conflict is inevitablein all scenarios

The catalyst is not a person for a start, it's an AI, it's programmed with it's goal to keep the balance of life in the galaxy, the whole point of the reapers is to stop the chaos of synthetics being dominant and wiping out organics right??

So I don't really agree with what you are saying about 3 games etc, cos really it's about the reapers goal, not that catalysts. The reapers are just robots pretty much that do what they're told to.

I don't think it's in the catalysts interests to LIE, I don't think AI can lie.. well I guess it can. It also doesn't suggest you an option - it doesn't really care! It's completely objective, it just states that the current solution doesn't work.

So that is WHY I think you should believe it, Shepard is a gambler, he takes chances, he's died once and he's prepared to again - he's willing to die for the galaxy.

[Aurvant]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Refusal is the only objectively bad ending of the three. People saying its their "favorite" ending are just stubbornly trying to prove something to Bioware.

The quick-and-dirty import of the ending is:

1) You allowed every advance life form in your cycle to die--when you could have saved many or all of them--because you were too arrogant and stubborn to accept what you were told. (Liara)

2) Some future cycle was able to survive because they learned from your arrogant mistake. (female Stargazer)

If that's your favorite ending, you've just become a caricature of Bioware hate.  

Wrooong.

Not every advanced civilization perished in the Reaper invasion because the new Stargazer scene clearly shows an Asari woman as the new Stargazer. It's entirely possible that remnants of the current cycle survived and made a come-back after the Reapers fled back to Dark Space.

In fact, it's entirely plausible that Liara took precautions similar to the Protheans on Ilos and led a small number of groups to a remote planet and went dark while setting up the Archives. Asari can procreate with ANY species and live a thousand years or more. So, it's not at all far-fetched to believe that the Asari race survived, used Liara's archives, and created a much more powerful force for the Reapers to deal with if they returned.

[Taco Del Marr]

I loved Shepard's freedom speech during the refusal ending, I only wish was there was way with a massive ems that you could defeat the Reapers conventionally, regardless I'm glad they added the choice.

[CaliGuy033]

Aurvant wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Refusal is the only objectively bad ending of the three. People saying its their "favorite" ending are just stubbornly trying to prove something to Bioware.

The quick-and-dirty import of the ending is:

1) You allowed every advance life form in your cycle to die--when you could have saved many or all of them--because you were too arrogant and stubborn to accept what you were told. (Liara)

2) Some future cycle was able to survive because they learned from your arrogant mistake. (female Stargazer)

If that's your favorite ending, you've just become a caricature of Bioware hate.  

Wrooong.

Not every advanced civilization perished in the Reaper invasion because the new Stargazer scene clearly shows an Asari woman as the new Stargazer. It's entirely possible that remnants of the current cycle survived and made a come-back after the Reapers fled back to Dark Space.

In fact, it's entirely plausible that Liara took precautions similar to the Protheans on Ilos and led a small number of groups to a remote planet and went dark while setting up the Archives. Asari can procreate with ANY species and live a thousand years or more. So, it's not at all far-fetched to believe that the Asari race survived, used Liara's archives, and created a much more powerful force for the Reapers to deal with if they returned.

No. It does not "show an Asari woman."  She has a voice that kind of sounds like an Asari.  And a child who kind of sounds like a human.  Go read Mike Gamble's twitter:  the reject ending is one in which the current cycle is completely wiped out, but some future cycle (meaning life forms that were too primitive) eventually evolved and defeated the Reapers thanks to learning from Shepard's arrogant mistake (via Liara's capsule, presumably).  

You are being hilarious.  You picked the arrogant and stubborn option out of disdain for Bioware, and you're trying to justify it.

And regardless, the fact is that you could have saved many or all of those lives, but you voluntarily chose not to.  Then a later cycle just used the Crucible anyway (also from Gamble's twitter).  So, congratulations on unnecessarily sacrificing tons of lives, just to have a later cycle do the exact thing you stubbornly avoided.

Modifié par CaliGuy033, 27 juin 2012 - 05:04 .

[Aurvant]

Moofy76 wrote...

Lalalandia wrote...
Again if you don't trust a person who is the admitted antagonist of the last three games why would you trust their answers? Hell they clearly don't understand you and why you don't want to become human slurpy so Star Child could quite legitimately lie to you and still be true to it's mission. It doesn't debate with you it tells you do A, B or C, what EC added was at least a bit more context for why it thinks these are the only acceptable outcomes.There is still no reason to believe it'scentralpremise that synthetic/organic conflict is inevitablein all scenarios

The catalyst is not a person for a start, it's an AI, it's programmed with it's goal to keep the balance of life in the galaxy, the whole point of the reapers is to stop the chaos of synthetics being dominant and wiping out organics right??

So I don't really agree with what you are saying about 3 games etc, cos really it's about the reapers goal, not that catalysts. The reapers are just robots pretty much that do what they're told to.

I don't think it's in the catalysts interests to LIE, I don't think AI can lie.. well I guess it can. It also doesn't suggest you an option - it doesn't really care! It's completely objective, it just states that the current solution doesn't work.

So that is WHY I think you should believe it, Shepard is a gambler, he takes chances, he's died once and he's prepared to again - he's willing to die for the galaxy.

You don't think that an AI can lie?

Ok, well, if that's how it is then I suppose Sovereign was absolutely correct when he stated that they had no beginning, no end, that they were the apex of evolution, that they were invincible, that they were each a nation unto themselves, that they were all-powerful, that they literally unable to be comprehended, and that they dwelled within a realm of existence that could not be fathomed.

Oh, wait, The Catalyst negated everything Sovereign said through your conversation with the stupid starkid. So, who is lying? The Catalyst or Sovereign (and to a different degree, Harbinger)?

[Lalalandia]

Moofy76 wrote...

The catalyst is not a person for a start, it's an AI, it's programmed with it's goal to keep the balance of life in the galaxy, the whole point of the reapers is to stop the chaos of synthetics being dominant and wiping out organics right??

So I don't really agree with what you are saying about 3 games etc, cos really it's about the reapers goal, not that catalysts. The reapers are just robots pretty much that do what they're told to.

I don't think it's in the catalysts interests to LIE, I don't think AI can lie.. well I guess it can. It also doesn't suggest you an option - it doesn't really care! It's completely objective, it just states that the current solution doesn't work.

So that is WHY I think you should believe it, Shepard is a gambler, he takes chances, he's died once and he's prepared to again - he's willing to die for the galaxy.

I don't agree with the idea that AI are inherently trustworthy, after all if the goal of AI is a truly 'thinking' machine then the ability to lie is almost a given (it's identified as a developmental stage in children where the child has come to understand consequences and desires to escape them).

It never engages with the 'why' it thinks that organic/sentient conflict is a given and if it has been doing this for countless cycles it's never given any civilisation the chance to try. The Reapers were the Catalyst's solution to this 'issue' so if it won't even begin to engage in a debate on whether that is a valid base assumption then the odds of it accepting there are other ways seem remote to me.

Really it comes down to my dislike of Deus Ex Machina and the 'three choices, pick one' ending that seems to disregard so much of what made me fall in love with ME1. ME1 seemed to pushing a 'diversity is hard but the bestest' message and ME2 seemed to built around your team (the main plot hurt my head but that crew were awesome). Out of nowhere ME3 becomes 'synthetics vs organics deathmatch' right at the end asking me to run counter to the philosophy that had me waste three hours of my time redoing Rannoch. These endings make sense if you accept that ME was about synthetics vs organics but I don't.

[Moofy76]

Novate wrote...
First off, Catalyst didn't let you in, first you got marauder shields, then you got Illusive Man. all occuring before crucible attached to the Citadel.

Then the AI tells you that it betrayed the very creators that made it. And turned them into the first Reapers.
So what you are really telling me is to trust an AI that destroyed its own creators, liquify all previous organic civilizations for eons.
An AI that controls the very thing that is killing everyone, yet he has no stop button, he controls the reapers yet he can't control the reapers. While Shepard and Catalyst is talking, Catalyst could have just told everyone reaper to stop and all husks to stop, yet he won't, so while he is talking to you, it is killing everything everywhere.
And you are suppose to trust IT.

No the catalyst did not open the door, it probably can't control the maurader shields etc lol. My point was maybe that's why Harbinger took off (dunno).

Anyway.. the AI does not tell you that it betrayed it's creators at all, I am rewatching it right now.
It says that it was created to oversee the communication or link between organics (creators and synthetics), but it always ended in conflict, it basically said it got to a point that there was no working option other than to find a new solution, which was to create the Reapers. This required the creaters to be the first reapers, they did not approve the catalyst says, but that does not mean they did not accept it!! It makes me think basically synthetics were taking over and there was NO other option. That does not give me reason to not trust it, sounds quite plausable to me.

Al lthe catalyst is doing is keep the cycle going, it doesn't kow any better and it's doing the job it was created for. Life still evolves but when organics start making AI that starts taking over (Geth) it goes an hammers them all lol, to save the galaxy from synthetics and restore balance!

The reason the catalyst doesn't tell them to stop is probably because it can't? It thinks that's the best way and it's been doing that forever, however when the crucible plugs into it it changes the catalyst and its variables and it's presented with new options and it realises that the current one won't work anymore- cos Shepard is there!

It probably has some idea that if it doesn't let you chose then the next cycle will cos they will find something - ala time capsule etc.

[Uncle Jo]

My new canon ending. Don't buy the logic of the brat. Shooting him was really... satisfying.

[Aurvant]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Aurvant wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Refusal is the only objectively bad ending of the three. People saying its their "favorite" ending are just stubbornly trying to prove something to Bioware.

The quick-and-dirty import of the ending is:

1) You allowed every advance life form in your cycle to die--when you could have saved many or all of them--because you were too arrogant and stubborn to accept what you were told. (Liara)

2) Some future cycle was able to survive because they learned from your arrogant mistake. (female Stargazer)

If that's your favorite ending, you've just become a caricature of Bioware hate.  

Wrooong.

Not every advanced civilization perished in the Reaper invasion because the new Stargazer scene clearly shows an Asari woman as the new Stargazer. It's entirely possible that remnants of the current cycle survived and made a come-back after the Reapers fled back to Dark Space.

In fact, it's entirely plausible that Liara took precautions similar to the Protheans on Ilos and led a small number of groups to a remote planet and went dark while setting up the Archives. Asari can procreate with ANY species and live a thousand years or more. So, it's not at all far-fetched to believe that the Asari race survived, used Liara's archives, and created a much more powerful force for the Reapers to deal with if they returned.

No. It does not "show an Asari woman."  She has a voice that kind of sounds like an Asari.  And a child who kind of sounds like a human.  Go read Mike Gamble's twitter:  the reject ending is one in which the current cycle is completely wiped out, but some future cycle (meaning life forms that were too primitive) eventually evolved and defeated the Reapers thanks to learning from Shepard's arrogant mistake (via Liara's capsule, presumably).  

You are being hilarious.  You picked the arrogant and stubborn option out of disdain for Bioware, and you're trying to justify it.

I'm not going by the voice. I'm going by the shape of the silouette and the obvious Asari HEAD that she has. In truth, Bioware probably just re-used an Asari model to create the new Stargazer. Lazy lazy, if so.

Also, I don't have to try and justify disdain for Bioware or try and listen to their twitter ramblings. These are the same people that essentially wanted us to just rely on HEADCANON to work this out. So, I'm doing just that and making a better explanation in my head because they clearly couldn't do so for real.

[nitefyre410]

JaKaSa wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

This ending would've been fine if it wasn't implied that the next cycle used the Crucible, and if we got to see the Normandy crash into Harbinger.

 

Thats what makes the whole refusal ending a bit of a slap in the face becaue it does imply in  more less terms that the  Crucible is going to be used anyway. 

Which undermines the whole purpose  Refusing. 

It depends on how you assume it. You may think that because Liara showed Crucible in her message next cycle used it or then you may think that since Liara said that it did NOT work they did not try to do something that failed once.

Now I may start overanalysing, but Hackett knew that Shepard was on citadel and with that we can do brave assumption that  atleast Normandy might have known that Shepard was on citadel. They saw  Crucible getting docked to Citadel. So all they know is that Crucible  does not work and Shepard was there to do what he could, but still it did not work. They don't know about three choices Shepard was given. So if Normandy retreated from battle and Liara made that part of her message we heard after that she surely warned next cycle that Crucible does not work. It's up to next cycle to think if it is worth of trying something that failed once already again.

 


A vaild point, still the way they treated  the refuse options comes off as "How dare you refuse the options we give you." That just how the whole thing came across to me.   That speech to me feel flat, and now showing any of the fleets or people making a last standed. Garrus and Liaira setting down the last of the black boxes sadly  as the watched everything burn.   It was just  to abrupt and came off as if they did not really put an effort into  it, It almosy comes off to me as a joke ending  in some ways.  


Still make a valid point about  assuming  who knows what when and how. 

[Moofy76]

Aurvant wrote...
You don't think that an AI can lie?

Ok, well, if that's how it is then I suppose Sovereign was absolutely correct when he stated that they had no beginning, no end, that they were the apex of evolution, that they were invincible, that they were each a nation unto themselves, that they were all-powerful, that they literally unable to be comprehended, and that they dwelled within a realm of existence that could not be fathomed.

Oh, wait, The Catalyst negated everything Sovereign said through your conversation with the stupid starkid. So, who is lying? The Catalyst or Sovereign (and to a different degree, Harbinger)?

Well I said some probably can lie, but I don't think it is. Sure you're questioning it and trying to catch it out but it seems pretty objective to me. It's not really suggesting to you what to do, you even ask it what it thinks and it says to you just to "choose yourself".
Soverign is probably a bit different than the catalyst - but who knows.. maybe he was more "corrupted" in some way. If I could see some kind of deceipt in the catalyst I wouldn't trust it and I was really trying to find something but couldn't. I can't really get into an argument about who's lying out of catalyst, soverign and harbinger etc, in the end it's just a computer game.. I'm basing this mostly of the theory for catalyst restoring balance via the reapers.

[CaliGuy033]

Aurvant wrote...

I'm not going by the voice. I'm going by the shape of the silouette and the obvious Asari HEAD that she has. In truth, Bioware probably just re-used an Asari model to create the new Stargazer. Lazy lazy, if so.

Also, I don't have to try and justify disdain for Bioware or try and listen to their twitter ramblings. These are the same people that essentially wanted us to just rely on HEADCANON to work this out. So, I'm doing just that and making a better explanation in my head because they clearly couldn't do so for real.

All I can say, again, is congrats on choosing and liking the ending in which your arrogance costs many of the lives you spent three games trying to save.  And for no reason, since a later cycle just uses the Crucible anyway.

Kudos.

[Heiwa no Senso]

Aurvant wrote...

Moofy76 wrote...

Lalalandia wrote...
Again if you don't trust a person who is the admitted antagonist of the last three games why would you trust their answers? Hell they clearly don't understand you and why you don't want to become human slurpy so Star Child could quite legitimately lie to you and still be true to it's mission. It doesn't debate with you it tells you do A, B or C, what EC added was at least a bit more context for why it thinks these are the only acceptable outcomes.There is still no reason to believe it'scentralpremise that synthetic/organic conflict is inevitablein all scenarios

The catalyst is not a person for a start, it's an AI, it's programmed with it's goal to keep the balance of life in the galaxy, the whole point of the reapers is to stop the chaos of synthetics being dominant and wiping out organics right??

So I don't really agree with what you are saying about 3 games etc, cos really it's about the reapers goal, not that catalysts. The reapers are just robots pretty much that do what they're told to.

I don't think it's in the catalysts interests to LIE, I don't think AI can lie.. well I guess it can. It also doesn't suggest you an option - it doesn't really care! It's completely objective, it just states that the current solution doesn't work.

So that is WHY I think you should believe it, Shepard is a gambler, he takes chances, he's died once and he's prepared to again - he's willing to die for the galaxy.

You don't think that an AI can lie?

Ok, well, if that's how it is then I suppose Sovereign was absolutely correct when he stated that they had no beginning, no end, that they were the apex of evolution, that they were invincible, that they were each a nation unto themselves, that they were all-powerful, that they literally unable to be comprehended, and that they dwelled within a realm of existence that could not be fathomed.

Oh, wait, The Catalyst negated everything Sovereign said through your conversation with the stupid starkid. So, who is lying? The Catalyst or Sovereign (and to a different degree, Harbinger)?

remember what EDI said? prior to the collecter attack on the normandy, she had shackles in place that required her to give accurate data. when the normandy was impounded, joker had her pose as a VI to protect herself.
so yes, AIs can lie.

Modifié par Heiwa no Senso, 27 juin 2012 - 05:13 .

[Aurvant]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Aurvant wrote...

I'm not going by the voice. I'm going by the shape of the silouette and the obvious Asari HEAD that she has. In truth, Bioware probably just re-used an Asari model to create the new Stargazer. Lazy lazy, if so.

Also, I don't have to try and justify disdain for Bioware or try and listen to their twitter ramblings. These are the same people that essentially wanted us to just rely on HEADCANON to work this out. So, I'm doing just that and making a better explanation in my head because they clearly couldn't do so for real.

All I can say, again, is congrats on choosing and liking the ending in which your arrogance costs many of the lives you spent three games trying to save.  And for no reason, since a later cycle just uses the Crucible anyway.

Kudos.

Didn't use the Crucible. Liara specifically states that it did not work. There is no reason to believe that the future generations would build it. Especially considering that we must assume that Shepard never left The Citadel and the only person who would have known about the choices given by the Catalyst was Shepard.

I repeat again: LIARA STATES THAT THE CRUCIBLE DID NOT WORK (you clearly didn't listen to her archive message).

The future cycles must have found a different way to defeat The Reapers.

[F00lishG]

Uncle Jo wrote...

My new canon ending. Don't buy the logic of the brat. Shooting him was really... satisfying.

How sad. It's almost worth feeling sorry for.

[FernandoCruz]

I congratulate the posters from BW taking the time to respond to those people who will complain no matter what, but there really isn't any need to waste your time responding to them. I thought that, before ME3 came out, that this would be the true ending, that after all your efforts you would still lose. What makes this cycle so special compared with the thousands before it, after all?

And if you are foolish enough to shoot the child in the face, the refusal ending is what you deserve. Simple result. Don't want this choice? Don't pick it, even simpler!

Modifié par FernandoCruz, 27 juin 2012 - 05:24 .