IanPolaris wrote...
No. He is clearly a servant/manifestation of the reapers. I have no reason to believe a word he says. The fact he goes "reaper" on us (in reject) shows it.
-Polaris
And maybe that's the sacrifice. Destroy our entire solar system to destroy the Reapers. "Arrival" the **** out of the Charon relay. It's been said the Reapers can outrun the blast. But i'm betting they don't have time to move the Citadel though.Lord Goose wrote...
My point is that, with a rejection option, Shepard
should have tried something... trying to destroy the catalys himself
(and i don't mean by shooting an hologram...),or calling a nuke toward
the citadel core!
Citadel is pretty much indestructible. They need to make sun to go supernova, to destroy it.
RiouHotaru wrote...
If by the Catalyst's "logic" you mean the three choices, those aren't twisted. His logic is that synthetics will eventually wind up surpassing and destroying organics. And it's impossible to say his logic is "twisted" when he states that conflict KEPT happening no matter how often they (his creators) tried. His logic is FLAWED in this cycle because you come up with a way to stop the "conflict" (Geth vs. Quarian).
But there's barely enough information to say whether his logic is "twisted" or "wrong".
grey_wind wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
TeffexPope wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
I'm reading this a lot here, that people feel insulted by the "Reject" choice. You shouldn't. An option to refuse the Catalyst was requested by many fans, and many of those explicitly said they'd refuse even if it meant a Reaper victory.
I was one of those who proposed almost the exact scenario we got, as a means to flesh out the "Critical mission failure" you get when you try to walk back to the elevator. And if you believe a conventional victory should've been possible, that's ruled out several times within the game, so I find it incomprehensible that people expected it.
If you want to blame anyone for this option, blame me and others who requested it. It's meant for those who wanted the "Critical mission failure" fleshed out, not as dangling a conventional victory in people's faces only to deny them.
Personally, I find Shepard's lines in Reject too much like sacrificing the future for the sake of a principle, but after all, principles is what this option is about. It is fitting. The result is fitting, and the scenario is still hopeful since it suggests the next cycle will win.
Exactly. Its sacrificing everyone in this cycle in hopes that the future will eventually win out. Even though the Catalyst now knows about the Crucible, Liara's doohickey will tell them abot it early enough that they are able to win, and to know the sacrifices made by those who came before them.
Except Bioware has already gone on record of rejecting this as well. The Future cycle uses the crucible anyway. I read that as a big "F.U." from Bioware.
-Polaris
WHAT. THE. F*CK?
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
That's like two FUs, not one.
Now I really regret my decision not to tell Casey Hudson to go f*ck himself when I ran into him on Friday. I can`t believe I was actually nice to him and acted civil.
GODDAMIT!!!
RiouHotaru wrote...
If by the Catalyst's "logic" you mean the three choices, those aren't twisted. His logic is that synthetics will eventually wind up surpassing and destroying organics. And it's impossible to say his logic is "twisted" when he states that conflict KEPT happening no matter how often they (his creators) tried. His logic is FLAWED in this cycle because you come up with a way to stop the "conflict" (Geth vs. Quarian).
But there's barely enough information to say whether his logic is "twisted" or "wrong".
mrcanada wrote...
Organics war with eachother constantly, why do they get a pass in this conversation? Why not wipe out everyone by its logic?
RiouHotaru wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
No. He is clearly a servant/manifestation of the reapers. I have no reason to believe a word he says. The fact he goes "reaper" on us (in reject) shows it.
-Polaris
He admits he's an AI construct that has the collective consciousness of the Reapers at his disposal. Hardly a "servant/manifestation".
IanPolaris wrote...
I think his creators that he FORCED into Reaper form with differ with you. Just saying.
-Polaris
IanPolaris wrote...
More than enough reason not to believe a thing it says.
-Polaris
grey_wind wrote...
Except Bioware has already gone on record of rejecting this as well. The Future cycle uses the crucible anyway. I read that as a big "F.U." from Bioware.
-Polaris
Shepard KNOWS they can't defeat them conventionally. They wasted all their resources on the Crucible. The fight and lose without the crucible. Said Reapers go on unapposed. Shep knows this is a last stand. He/she Stands there like a moron once the Catalyst does his so be it thing.
RiouHotaru wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
No. He is clearly a servant/manifestation of the reapers. I have no reason to believe a word he says. The fact he goes "reaper" on us (in reject) shows it.
-Polaris
He admits he's an AI construct that has the collective consciousness of the Reapers at his disposal. Hardly a "servant/manifestation".
RiouHotaru wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
More than enough reason not to believe a thing it says.
-Polaris
So you believe his entire infodump was a lie?
You are right about that one.IanPolaris wrote...
Bathaius wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Many posters have patiently explained why, "how it was done", was insulting at best. In short, even if this cycle most lose if we reject the solutions of the enemy (and if you talk to the Calalyst you find he is most DEFINATELY the enemy), then how we lose should be expanded on, because how we lose could have a huge impact on how )(or if) the next cycle can win. In short, refer to your EMS.
Not only that, but the tweets by highly placed Bioware people saying, "Oh well the next cycle played ball" seems further evidence that this was in fact a "F.U." to the fans.
-Polaris
The fact that the next cycle just 'played ball' makes the reject option nearly pointless as an option. You can reject the starchild, but the end result is the next cycle will accept his 'options'.
I know that wasn't their intention to say 'screw you' to fans, it was put in by massive fan request, and was a reasonable and feasible option to put in game, but given how the player is forced into accepting the starchild regardless, there really isn't a point in that option.
Intentional or not, how is this anything other than a big FU if you or the next cycle is forced to accept the Starbrat's twisted logic anyway?
-Polaris
Alexraptor1 wrote...
Actually the Catalyst clearly states that he is the "embodiment" of the reapers collective intelligence.
The Catalyst is to the Reapers what the Borg Queen of Star Trek is to the Borg.
Lord Goose wrote...
That's even more anti-IT, if you ask me. That shows that Shepard is so convinced to deny "Starbrat", that he doesn't even think that they have no chance of winning.
Well, as I said, I'm not IT supporter, so I may be missing something.
Blacklash93 wrote...
grey_wind wrote...
Except Bioware has already gone on record of rejecting this as well. The Future cycle uses the crucible anyway. I read that as a big "F.U." from Bioware.
-Polaris
Didn't you just say a little back the staff who said that were Gamble and Merizan and shouldn't be taken as WoG?
They are not experts on the story by any means and most likely do not realize the contradiction that causes. Maybe even the writers, if they also believed it, don't.
Anuvis13 wrote...
You know what was requested by fans even more than Reject or in conjunction with it? A happy ending. Most, myself included, would pay for it. We still didn't get it. And look at what BW gives you if you choose to reject their "artistic vision". It's a glorified Game Over screen. It's a clear FU but you know what? It's still better than their ending.
IanPolaris wrote...
No. Worse than that. I think the whole Info dump was unreliable. The worst part about a liar is that you can't always tell what's a lie and what's not.
-Polaris
RiouHotaru wrote...
mrcanada wrote...
Organics war with eachother constantly, why do they get a pass in this conversation? Why not wipe out everyone by its logic?
Because organics aren't synthetics.
Modifié par Baronesa, 27 juin 2012 - 08:05 .
RiouHotaru wrote...
Alexraptor1 wrote...
Actually the Catalyst clearly states that he is the "embodiment" of the reapers collective intelligence.
The Catalyst is to the Reapers what the Borg Queen of Star Trek is to the Borg.
Well then we've got a conflict. His answer regarding himself states he's an AI construct. Perhaps as more and more Reapers were created he became more intelligent and knowledgeable, but he can't SOLELY be the embodiment, otherwise what was before there were Reapers?
Retour en haut