331 réponses à ce sujet

[F00lishG]

Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. There. War over. No one else needs to die.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

Or are you all just so cynical that you see yourself  rejecting Bioware itself because you cannot accept what was handed to you?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

Modifié par F00lishG, 28 juin 2012 - 11:49 .

[David7204]

If you disagree with the Catalyst simply because he's the Catalyst, then he has just as much control over you as if you agreed to whatever he said.

[LieutenantSarcasm]

Because his logic is a load of lies, and he is explicitly the reapers combined AI. It's simply bowing to the reapers. To quote shepard: "I wont let fear compromise who I am."

[chuckles471]

Principle.

I won't let a bully dictate the fate of the galaxy. We lose, so be it.

[RogueMumei]

Aw man, I thought you were the Riddler.

[Alex Kershaw]

Agreed with the OP.

Also, people seem to think that just because the catalyst's logic is flawed, that means the entire ending is flawed. The catalyst's logic is SUPPOSED to be flawed! It's not like Bioware are trying to make you choose the non-existant "you're right - continue the cycle!" option! The catalyst is simply there to give you the lore fans wanted (where the reapers came from), then after the conversation, you can go ahead and kill all the reapers like you wanted to anyway, OR you can now choose 3 different options instead. What is there to hate?

[Funkdrspot]

chuckles471 wrote...

Principle.

I won't let a bully dictate the fate of the galaxy. We lose, so be it.

thats just illogical. 1, he already dictates the fate of the galaxy and has for +1 billion years, you have the chance to end that. 2, Youre self-righteous and selfish if you make the decision for +9 races, +100 BILLION lives to die out due to your crappy morals. Simply put, what morality places your conscience over the lives of 100 BILLIONpeople!?! Youre Shepard-Hitler

[F00lishG]

 

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

Because his logic is a load of lies, and he is explicitly the reapers combined AI. It's simply bowing to the reapers. To quote shepard: "I wont let fear compromise who I am."

By killing them with the red option, you are bowing to them or letting them win? What kind of logic is that?

chuckles471 wrote...

Principle.

I won't let a bully dictate the fate of the galaxy. We lose, so be it.

 

So you are in Column A then. You intended to destroy the Reapers in ME1, ME2, and 99% of ME3, yes? 

[jstme]

Because the options suggested by Catalyst are tainted with Catalyst previous solution's consequences.
That thing is an atrocity. Accepting anything what it says and not using "throw it out of an airlock" interrupt is ...brrrrr.
But no, not only that there is a civil chit chat, Shepard HAS to accept new solutions of glowing monstrocity. Do not want, in my real headcanon never will.
Reject would be cool ,however Bioware ruined it by forcing the next cycle to choose catalyst options.

[Afrolash]

Because I'm not going to defeat them in a way he dictates. In destroy you are required to kill Edi and the Geth. Guess what, i'm not going to intentionally sentence anyone to die, not knowingly at least. By refusing him, I know we will most likely lose, but we will lose in a way where our humanity remains intact. I will work like hell to do as much damage as I can to the reapers and give future cycles as much information as I can so they can defeat the reapers without bowing to their will.

[miracleofsound]

Catalyst: 'The cycle will not work anymore. I have failed. You can destroy me if you want'

Shep: 'NO **** you you're a murdering ****. Instead I will let you kill everyone in the galaxy to show you how much I think you suck'

Catalyst: 'LMFAO Ok then. snigger.'

Modifié par miracleofsound, 29 juin 2012 - 12:08 .

[wh00ley 06]

You're killing the Geth and EDI which is genocide too. A 'greater good' person would let a terrorist kill a person two others can live, but a moral person would tell the terrorist to eat **** and die.

[LieutenantSarcasm]

F00lishG wrote...


By killing them with the red option, you are bowing to them or letting them win? What kind of logic is that?

Because it still involves at least partially bowing to the reapers. From shep's point of view, there is no reason he has to listen, with most of the fleet still functional and fighting. (Also, I feel I should mention that I picked destroy, I simply see where the logic is in reject, but cannot stand the consequinces.)

[PsyrenY]

chuckles471 wrote...

Principle.

I won't let a bully dictate the fate of the galaxy. We lose, so be it.

Did you ask the Galaxy if they agreed with that notion?

No?

Then you're every bit as much a bully. Congrats.

[Apathy1989]

I don't really get it.

There is a giant button over there that says "Kill all reapers and AI".

Only reason to refuse is because you are a **** and don't want Geth or EDI to die.

[Jamie9]

wh00ley 06 wrote...

You're killing the Geth and EDI which is genocide too. A 'greater good' person would let a terrorist kill a person two others can live, but a moral person would tell the terrorist to eat **** and die.

A neutral good character would choose synthesis as it provides good to all - organics, synthetics and even the Reapers. A neutral good character tries to find solutions other than murdering your enemies.

[Rex Fallout]

"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

[wh00ley 06]

Jamie9 wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

You're killing the Geth and EDI which is genocide too. A 'greater good' person would let a terrorist kill a person two others can live, but a moral person would tell the terrorist to eat **** and die.

A neutral good character would choose synthesis as it provides good to all - organics, synthetics and even the Reapers. A neutral good character tries to find solutions other than murdering your enemies.

If you were a husk, or part of a Reaper for that matter, would you want to die in Synthesis? 

[AtlasMickey]

Catalyst: "It is possible to spread peace and prosperity across the galaxy at this very moment."

Shep: "That doesn't sound like it's worth risking my increasingly short life for. I'm just gonna bleed out on the Citadel right here."

Catalyst: "Keepers, cleanup aisle one."

[jstme]

Jamie9 wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

You're killing the Geth and EDI which is genocide too. A 'greater good' person would let a terrorist kill a person two others can live, but a moral person would tell the terrorist to eat **** and die.

A neutral good character would choose synthesis as it provides good to all - organics, synthetics and even the Reapers. A neutral good character tries to find solutions other than murdering your enemies.

A neutral good character will destroy entire form of existance because he is neutral and good. Hooray. Digital plants forever.Assended Reapers,reaped and almost-reaped can organise sing along using digital voices. While synthetic-organic butterflies gather data from synthetic-organic plants.

[wh00ley 06]

Apathy1989 wrote...

I don't really get it.

There is a giant button over there that says "Kill all reapers and AI".

Only reason to refuse is because you are a **** and don't want Geth or EDI to die.

Not killing your friends is being a ****? I'll keep that in mind for when school starts.

[v3paR]

The problem is that those choises are given to you by your very enemy you intended to destroy in ME1, ME2 and ME3. Hes not some old wise man who is there to help you to chose right. He is in fact the reason why all those people are dying right outside that room.

This is the most obvious problem. Before EC i selected destroy. That was the only posible option for me. But after EC i just hope the next cycle won without the crucible. And im holding to that.

[Jamie9]

wh00ley 06 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

You're killing the Geth and EDI which is genocide too. A 'greater good' person would let a terrorist kill a person two others can live, but a moral person would tell the terrorist to eat **** and die.

A neutral good character would choose synthesis as it provides good to all - organics, synthetics and even the Reapers. A neutral good character tries to find solutions other than murdering your enemies.

If you were a husk, or part of a Reaper for that matter, would you want to die in Synthesis? 

No, I'd upload myself into a synthetic body, so I could live again. Meet new people. Explore. Be happy.

[shurikenmanta]

Somehow along the way people thought that Bioware owed them some kind of 'golden ending' where you can dive out the airlock and beat billion-year-old machines off the technological scale with flashy martial arts moves.

Most reasonable people can see how unlikely that is.

[matchboxmatt]

wh00ley 06 wrote...

You're killing the Geth and EDI which is genocide too. A 'greater good' person would let a terrorist kill a person two others can live, but a moral person would tell the terrorist to eat **** and die.

That depends on your morals.

If you're a utilitarian, then that means the choice that results in the least amount lost is the moral one. In the case between Reject and Destroy, it'd easily be destroy.

If you're an intentionalist, then that means the choice which preserves your integrity the most is the most moral one - Reject.

For me, I don't think the end justifies the means, so I could never choose Synthesis or Control. However, if the end is the destruction of the reapers, then I would choose Destroy, as it results in the least amount of suffering.

Modifié par matchboxmatt, 29 juin 2012 - 12:24 .