505 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Which is weird considering the ending is clearly nothing of the sort.

Brilliant defense you have, there.

But you're not violating it.  Shepard didn't, couldn't have, gotten to the point of activating the Crucible alone.  He did so with the support of everyone else.  Everyone agreed that the use of the Crucible was necesarry, and they trusted Shepard to get it done.  Shepard does the only thing he can do in the end, to save everyone, ever the hero, and yes, by defeating the Reapers he does give control of the future back to the organics.  This is further proven in the EC ending cinematics.  Doesn't fall flat, doesn't contradict anything.

And how does that give him permission to rewrite the future--rewrite or destroy the lives of living, sentient organisms? You're selectively arguing, here, and it's quite petty. Everybody agreed the Crucible was necessary when they didn't even know what the fuck it did.

The ends do not justify the means in this instance. You cannot willfully violate the choice of every sapient creature in the galaxy--the universe--on the whim that it might be better. Hitler would approve of your argument.

The fleets we amassed were to get the Crucible into place.  The Crucible symbolizes the unity of the entire galaxy, and the sacrifices of the civilizations from countless cycles before, all coming together to defeat the Reapers.  And they were not the Catalyst's choices.  It wasn't his weapon, he didn't design it, didn't build it, didn't plug it in, couldn't use it.  All he could do was tell you how to use it.

And there could be no rallying cry, galvanizing the troops for an honorable death, instead of the shroud of failure demoralizing everybody?

That's absurd.

 So we're just gonna ignore the fact that a fraction of the Reaper fleet completely steamrolled the Turian military, the strongest military in the galaxy at the time, through brute force alone?  Or the fact that Thessia had time to prepare and still got completely decimated?  The Reapers are a galactic force of nature, a conventional victory may have been possible if years were spent preparing for them, but everyone chose to ignore Shepard's warnings, and in doing so got caught with their pants down.

The Reapers pretty much went "SURPRISE LAWL" and fired their molten metal lazers until everything exploded. Of course they would decimate if they had that element of war to their advantage.

Just like the Asari did with their negligent Ship-borne force until the Reapers changed their strategy.

[Jadebaby]

katamuro wrote...

Ah but you see this is their way to show us that us demanding something from them will not work. Is basically pushing us back into those 3 choices whatever the cost. Genocide or possibility of reapers breaking out of control. Or making everyone partially like everybody else. And yeah I do take offence to the reject ending.....

+1

[Geneaux486]

Brilliant defense you have, there.

There's nothing brilliant about basic observation.

And how does that give him permission to rewrite the future--rewrite or destroy the lives of living, sentient organisms?

He doesn't rewrite anything.  He uses the weapon that the galaxy put together to end the Reaper threat, one way or another.  I don't like the idea of synthesizing DNA any more than you do (the misconceptions of which were clarified in the EC anyway, it's basically strengthening of all DNA and an enlightnment to the hearts and minds of everyone else), nor do I like the idea of killing the Geth, so pick control and let everyone get back to their normal lives.

You're selectively arguing, here, and it's quite petty.

 
You don't know what you're talking about. 

Everybody agreed the Crucible was necessary when they didn't even know what the **** it did.

They knew that it would generate a lot of destructive energy, and that it would use the relays to hit everything.  It was a calculated risk taken by people who recognized that they had no options left.  Hackett's comparison to the atomic bomb was accurate in terms of pre-use, but unlike the atomic bomb, the Crucible has to potential to protect and preserve everyone.  Shepard's just gotta sack up and make a tough choice because the alternative is letting everyone die and worse.

The ends do not justify the means in this instance. You cannot willfully violate the choice of every sapient creature in the galaxy--the universe--on the whim that it might be better.

 
You're not.  The Crucible represents a unanimous decision on the part of everyone, and would not have been possible without the support of nearly every species in the galaxy.

Hitler would approve of your argument.

So now we're trying to gauge morality based on a video game discussion?  You seem to take this game and its implications way too seriously.  It's a work of fiction, and in my opinion a damn good one.  Clearly you think the opposite, and that's just fine.  Hitler shouldn't be a talking point for an expansion of that sentiment.  Just my opinion.

And there could be no rallying cry, galvanizing the troops for an honorable death, instead of the shroud of failure demoralizing everybody?

Everyone was counting on Shepard to use the Crucible.  He was refusing to use it for no reason.  How exactly would such a speech have been recieved? 
"Hey guys, I'm gonna go ahead and throw away all the hard work and sacrifice everyone put into this thing.  The Catalyst surrendered, and that creeps me out, so I'm just gonna let the Reapers harvest us.  But you guys should totally go down fighting, otherwise I'll look like a total ***hole, so give 'em hell etcetera etcetera bye."

The Reapers pretty much went "SURPRISE LAWL" and fired their molten metal lazers until everything exploded. Of course they would decimate if they had that element of war to their advantage.

So we actually are gonna ignore the fact that Thessia had time to prepare and it didn't do them any good.  This is a weird discussion.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 02:09 .

[Gweedotk]

The reapers are the ones with the power, not Shepard.

I'm not sure what the time-frame of all this is, but around the time Thessia is invaded over half the inhabited galaxy is occupied by the reapers [according to the news at the citadel]. That's pretty fast.

It's also clear that the reapers are literally winning on every single front except Palaven. It is impossible to beat them conventionally without the crucible and the crucible was such a huge unknown that they didn't even know how to fire it once it was connected to the citadel.

So yeah, it makes perfect sense that saying 'to hell with this' would result in reaper victory.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 29 juin 2012 - 02:07 .

[wantedman dan]

Geneaux486 wrote...

There's nothing brilliant about basic observation.

And there's certainly nothing brilliant about reinforcing said basic observation with evidence.

He doesn't rewrite anything.  He uses the weapon that the galaxy put together to end the Reaper threat, one way or another.  I don't like the idea of synthesizing DNA any more than you do (the misconceptions of which were clarified in the EC anyway, it's basically strengthening of all DNA and an enlightnment to the hearts and minds of everyone else), nor do I like the idea of killing the Geth, so pick control and let everyone get back to their normal lives.

Umm, yes, he does. He violates the right of choice that every sapient creature enjoys with synthesis and destroy. As for Control, Jesus... They had to retcon that one so damn hard to make it positive, it's shameful.

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

Aren't you just a ray of f*cking sunshine, sweetheart. 

I stopped reading after this. The very fact that you a) condescend without a corresponding argument (as I do) and expect me to buy it is laughable. Try again when you can muster up enough gumption to keep up.

[Ryzaki]

Geneaux486 wrote...
What I meant was that from the perspective of the in-game character, they were objectively bad decisions.  Choosing Morinth over Samara means saving a serial killer/mass murderer who has no intention of changing while killing someone who devotes their lives to fighting those who needlesely kill others.  Siding with Anoleis means helping a known criminal kill an honest law enforcement official who had already promised to aid you.  Refusal means needlessly getting everyone killed.  Killing Shiala means killing someone who was simply a good person taken hostage by Sovereign's indoctrinations, after she was no longer a threat.  All of those choices have negative consequences in the context of the fictional world, just not to the player directly (unless they still try to get with Morinth after the suicide mission).

No they are not. They are different decisions. Choosing Morinth over Samara has you STILL complete your goal (not to mention Samara blatantly threatens renegade Shepard. Morinth is fully capable of being used in the SM successfully just like Samara) Siding with Anolesis STILL gets you to the Area...whatever it was to go after Saren. Shiala is eliminating a possible threat you have no idea what the Thorian did to her or if she'd have side effects that would make her dangerous to others. You still are fully capable of completeing your goal. The negative consequences are constantly balanced. There's no positive to refusual. If the next cycle had defeated the Reapers without RGB there would be a clear positive. Then it would be to me at least an acceptable choice. As it is? Nope. Just a slap in the face.

ME has only one objectively bad decision. Sleeping with Morinth.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 02:33 .

[Geneaux486]

And there's certainly nothing brilliant about reinforcing said basic observation with evidence.

Just because you're ignoring it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Umm, yes, he does. He violates the right of choice that every sapient creature enjoys with synthesis and destroy.

With Destroy he does. With Synthesis, he does not.  Did you not see what Synthesis actually was? 

As for Control, Jesus... They had to retcon that one so damn hard to make it positive, it's shameful.

What exactly did they retcon?  The only thing the possibility of control contradicts is Shepard's previous belief that such a thing was impossible.  He also thought the Protheans built the Citadel and Mass Relays once upon a time.  Was it a retcon when that was revelead to be untrue?  

I stopped reading after this.

 
Certainly makes things easier for you.

The very fact that you a) condescend without a corresponding argument

I didn't condescend, I responded to your accusation that I was petty with the truthful statement that you have no idea whether or not I'm petty.  And as for not having a corresponding argument, again, just because you ignore it doesn't mean it isn't here.

and expect me to buy it

 
How do you know what I expect?  Could you be more presumptuous?  Do you do anything other than ignore posts, confuse fantasy and reality, and pretend to be psychic?

Try again when you can muster up enough gumption to keep up.

...are you real? 

No they are not. They are different decisions. Choosing Morinth over Samara has you STILL complete your goal (not to mention Samara blatantly threatens renegade Shepard. Morinth is fully capable of being used in the SM successfully just like Samara) Siding with Anolesis STILL gets you to the Area...whatever it was to go after Saren. Shiala is eliminating a possible threat you have no idea what the Thorian did to her or if she'd have side effects that would make her dangerous to others. You still are fully capable of completeing your goal. The negative consequences are constantly balanced.

Refusal is the exact same.  Shepard makes a bad decision, but still accomplishes the goal of stopping the Reapers, it just needlesely takes another cycle, the same way you needlessly side with Morinth or Anoleis and needlessly kill Shiala.  That's what I'm saying.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 02:40 .

[wantedman dan]

Geneaux486 wrote...
snipped because of irrelevance

Again, wonderful job providing corresponding evidence to reinforce your already brittle arguments.

[Geneaux486]

wantedman dan wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...
snipped because of irrelevance

Again, wonderful job providing corresponding evidence to reinforce your already brittle arguments.

So you're just kinda saying whatever now, aren't you.  Is this the part where you try to convince me you've been trolling this whole time?  'Cause that'd certainly be the logical progression here.

EDIT:  Also you need to brush up on the definition of "irrelevance".

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 02:46 .

[Ryzaki]

@Geneaux486: Shep's goal in refusal is to have the Reapers defeated without using the Crucible. For organics to fight freely without being beholden to Reaper whims.

If the other cycle HADN'T used the Crucible then yeah his goal would've been achieved. Sadly it wasn't. Thus the ending is a giant slap in the face. So please stop comparing it to other perfectly viable decisions that remain canon throughout the game and aren't ignored. (Yes even killing the Rachni Queen is viable the new queen has a different personality and a clear different outcome with Shep's decision to let her live/die). Shep's refusal choice is merely a "wow what an idiot. Well the other smart cycle despite having all the advantges Shep could only dream of decided to build something they were told didn't work and pick one of RGB). If with low EMS the other cycle had to resort to the crucible because there wasn't enough data on the Reapers for them to fight them conventionally meanwhile with High EMS they didn't use the Crucible because it wasn't needed then fine. That would be taking choices into account. As it is nope. Just Shep loses (regardless of EMS) and the next cycle (regardless of EMS) uses the Crucible that they're told doesn't work to win against the Reapers and end up picking of RGB.

Yay.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 02:49 .

[wantedman dan]

Geneaux486 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...
snipped because of irrelevance

Again, wonderful job providing corresponding evidence to reinforce your already brittle arguments.

So you're just kinda saying whatever now, aren't you.  Is this the part where you try to convince me you've been trolling this whole time?  'Cause that'd certainly be the logical progression here.

I'd ask the same of you, considering you've yet to point to any corresponding evidence to reinforce your argument. You've simply resorted to a weaker version of my own brand of condescention, only I resort to it after the argument's been successfully made.

[Dragoonlordz]

wantedman dan wrote...

THAT is why the ending fails. NONE of our choices matter.

YOUR Shepard may be broken, but don't you dare impress upon mine the beliefs of yours. I didn't spend over 100 hours of gameplay, gathering allies and resources, only to end as a broken shell.

If you can't handle that, kindly ****** off.

And how does that give him permission to rewrite the future--rewrite or destroy the lives of living, sentient organisms?

Make up your mind, it is one or the other. Either your choice does matter or it does not, you cannot have it both ways.

[Geneaux486]

Shep's goal in refusal is to have the Reapers defeated without using the Crucible.

If the other cycle HADN'T used the Crucible then yeah his goal would've been achieved. Sadly it wasn't. Thus the ending is a giant slap in the face.

Shepard's goal is to see the Reapers defeated. Refusal carries the obvious consequence based on everything we've seen up to that point. It isn't a slap in the face, it's just what happens if you make Shepard do something dumb.

I'd ask the same of you, considering you've yet to point to any corresponding evidence to reinforce your argument.

Still struggling with the difference between ignoring it and it actually not being there, I see.

You've simply resorted to a weaker version of my own brand of condescention,

I didn't.  I've based my arguments on observable in-game events and proven that conventional victory against the Reapers was not possible.  Well actually I didn't prove it because it didn't need to be proven, it's shown to us in all three games.  You're all alone in the condescension department, and unlike some people I've met here, you can't pull it off.

only I resort to it after the argument's been successfully made.

You didn't even succesfully use the word "irrelevant" in the correct context. Why are you even still here?

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[wantedman dan]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

THAT is why the ending fails. NONE of our choices matter.

YOUR Shepard may be broken, but don't you dare impress upon mine the beliefs of yours. I didn't spend over 100 hours of gameplay, gathering allies and resources, only to end as a broken shell.

If you can't handle that, kindly ****** off.

And how does that give him permission to rewrite the future--rewrite or destroy the lives of living, sentient organisms?

Make up your mind, it is one or the other. Either your choice does matter or it does not, you cannot have it both ways.

Leading up to the final choice of the ending.

Jesus.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 29 juin 2012 - 02:50 .

[wantedman dan]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Still struggling with the difference between ignoring it and it actually not being there, I see.

Nonexistence is a difficult thing to examine.

I didn't.

Again, brilliant defense.

You didn't even succesfully use the word "irrelevant" in the correct context. Why are you even still here?

Your response was completely useless to me and was therefore deemed irrelevant, thus its snippage. Seriously, stop before you completely fall behind.

[D24O]

I don't think refuse is a slap in the face, even with the Crucible being necessary caveat. I just think it transforms the story into something very nihilistic, which in my interpretation causes a big thematic dissonance with the rest of the series. And the metatextual implications I draw from it, that the authors were really not telling the story I thought they were, I find disturbing. But then again, I can dismiss the tweet and find some element of satisfaction in knowing at least my final choice doesn't doom a large portion of the galaxy.

[Geneaux486]

Nonexistence is a difficult thing to examine.

Reading comprehension, not so much.

Again, brilliant defense.

Nothing brilliant about a simple statement of fact.  I didn't do the thing you said I did, that's all there is to it.  I even expanded on that further down and you ignored it, like you've done roughly five other times in this discussion.

Your response was completely useless to me and was therefore deemed irrelevant,

 
More than a little self-centered.  Also that still isn't what "irrelevant" means.

Seriously, stop before you completely fall behind.

Not sure why but I can imagine you looking into an imaginary camera and grinning as you say this.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 02:57 .

[Ryzaki]

Geneaux486 wrote...


Shepard's goal is to see the Reapers defeated. Refusal carries the obvious consequence based on everything we've seen up to that point. It isn't a slap in the face, it's just what happens if you make Shepard do something dumb.

Right clearly my point is going to be ignored so I'll just stop discussing this with you. Have a nice day.

[wantedman dan]

Ryzaki wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...


Shepard's goal is to see the Reapers defeated. Refusal carries the obvious consequence based on everything we've seen up to that point. It isn't a slap in the face, it's just what happens if you make Shepard do something dumb.

Right clearly my point is going to be ignored so I'll just stop discussing this with you. Have a nice day.

It's clearly much more fun to continue baiting him well after this revelation.

[wantedman dan]

Geneaux486 wrote...

More than a little self-centered.  Also that still isn't what "irrelevant" means.

I've had my fun, so I'm only going to respond to this since you obviously have no knowledge as to what comprises logic.

This, therefore that.

Read that statement again and then shake your head at how incomprehensibly dumb your response was.

Have a wonderful evening.

[ThinkIntegral]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

"In general, pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes." -- John Ruskin

Shepard knows that Hackett is not prepared to fight this conventionally. If you choose this you are condemning the entire galaxy to death. You are condemning your species to becoming a reaper. You had the opportunity to succeed at your mission and destroy the reapers, and you let your pride get in the way and you failed. You failed everyone, including the next cycle.

If you chose this ending and are angry about the outcome, don't blame BioWare. Don't blame the catalyst. Blame yourself. I call this ending the "Full retard" ending.

There is no guarantee that the next cycle will act any differently.

[Costin_Razvan]

Is it a bad choice? Certainly but I don't see anything wrong with choices having very bad consequences.

[Cant Planet]

Good lord, this thread is forcing me into being on Geneaux's side about something.

Clearly I need a new gorram hobby.

[Geneaux486]

Right clearly my point is going to be ignored so I'll just stop discussing this with you. Have a nice day.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion, as you seem to be missing my point as well, but if that's how you feel it's your business. I wasn't actively trying to ignore your point, for whatever that's worth.

Good lord, this thread is forcing me into being on Geneaux's side about something.

I'm having a hard time recalling when we had a major disagreement about something, though I do remember you. Little help?
And you don't have to take sides in this, I gave the dude way more attention than he deserved for far longer than I should've, so that's my bad.  Helped derail this thread a little bit in the process to. 

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 03:34 .

[Ryzaki]

You don't seem to understand that my point has no problem with Shepard losing. It was expected. My problem is with the lack of depth in that ending and the trivilzation of Shep's sacrifice (especially with the addition FU via Twitter. Hurr durr the other cycle used the Crucible anyways!) Your attempt to equalize other choices Shep makes (other choices that have positive outcomes that have Shep's goals become achieveable) is inaccurate. It's not like choosing Morinth over Samara. It's not like helping Aneolis over Parsini (which I do plenty of times) those choices are seperate but lead to Shep's goal.

Ugh nevermind. If you don't get it you don't get it.

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Is it a bad choice? Certainly but I don't see anything wrong with choices having very bad consequences.

There isn't.

Just seems like a FU when every other ending has massive bright spots though. (In particular Synthesis). Reject didn't need much to have bright spots. All it needed was slides for deaths, and the confirmation that the next cycle defeated the Reapers without the need for RGB. (Preferably by blowing them all to kingdom come before they even saw it coming). That's it. I would've been happy with that. I was expecting that.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 04:08 .