331 réponses à ce sujet

[F00lishG]

Nragedreaper wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

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.

I reject the endings, because the kid's lying.  I know he's lying I know he's wrong.  However the problem is I can't  do anything about it but to reject the choices.  I reject the ending not because I'm thinking about genocide.  I prefer the reject ending because it reminds me that yeah Bioware may be listening, but it's their story and they don't know how to write mine.  I need to remember that when they ask me to sign on to buy the next game. The problem is that the ending choices don't sound like the character we all created,  They allowed everyone to create their own Hero, but then tried to lead him/her down only 3 paths, some of us were going to be left out.  Some of us wanted the experience we had before from other bioware games, where there was always a loop hole, not to get out of the final fight, but to make the deal that sacrificed something, but never too much.  I find the Control and Synthesis endings as morally repulsive so that only left destroy which I didn't care for because I liked legion.  So what's left. Reject.

So, what would be your ending then? The conventional war ending where 700+ Reapers are wiped out with the Crucible beam? Shepard comes back to Earth and high fives Joker and hugs his or her LI? Then Shepard says something witty about nothing is over and it's time to rebuild?

...Mass Effect was never to be a happy story.You weren't supposed to get lucky forever. Your Shepard wasn't to walk away scot free no trauma, no sadness, no regret. Your decision to Reject may be far different than others, but to be honest I'd rather wish someone pick Reject to say FU to the Boss A.I than pick Reject because the "everybody is okay at the end" ending is not here to be chosen. Mass Effect is not that kind of game.

Modifié par F00lishG, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:21 .

[Nragedreaper]

F00lishG wrote...

Nragedreaper wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

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.

I reject the endings, because the kid's lying.  I know he's lying I know he's wrong.  However the problem is I can't  do anything about it but to reject the choices.  I reject the ending not because I'm thinking about genocide.  I prefer the reject ending because it reminds me that yeah Bioware may be listening, but it's their story and they don't know how to write mine.  I need to remember that when they ask me to sign on to buy the next game. The problem is that the ending choices don't sound like the character we all created,  They allowed everyone to create their own Hero, but then tried to lead him/her down only 3 paths, some of us were going to be left out.  Some of us wanted the experience we had before from other bioware games, where there was always a loop hole, not to get out of the final fight, but to make the deal that sacrificed something, but never too much.  I find the Control and Synthesis endings as morally repulsive so that only left destroy which I didn't care for because I liked legion.  So what's left. Reject.

So, what would be your ending then? The conventional war ending where 700+ Reapers are wiped out with the Crucible beam? Shepard comes back to Earth and high fives Joker and hugs his or her LI? Then Shepard says something witty about nothing is over and it's time to rebuild?

...Mass Effect was never to be a happy story.You weren't supposed to get lucky forever. Your Shepard wasn't to walk away scot free no trauma, no sadness, no regret. Your decision to Reject may be far different than others, but to be honest I'd rather wish someone pick Reject to say FU to the Boss A.I than pick Reject because the "everybody is okay at the end" ending is not here to be chosen. Mass Effect is not that kind of game.

Actually no.  The day I played it my thought was that my Shepard was going to die on the citadel.  I figured there was going to be a boss battle I couldn't Win.  I figured I would either have a final battle with harbinger that killed both of them, or that the reapers would actually I don't know oppose me in some way.  I don't buy the we all walk away happy deal.  It's just how little you must think of those that play the game if the antagonist has to provide the protagonist with the gun, the bullet, point it at their forehead, and say pull the trigger.  If reject was to be done properly then we would have had an option to contact EDI, or one of the people that worked on the damn crucible and see if they happened to have solved the little problem of directing the energy.  I expected a good writer to figure out how to make it work.  I mean they figured out how to make the scenes work if people died in ME1 or ME2.  Most of the people that want rainbows and sunshine are allowed to want that.  What I think everyone forgets is that Shepard has already sacrificed and lost.  He lost friends, his own life, his reputation, and time.  You have a character that has given soo much, Tali & Liara point this out.  They want their shepard to have some happiness after everything he/she gave up.  I again am not one of those people.  I always saw shepard dying alone on the citadel knowing he'd saved the galaxy. 

[saracen16]

Nragedreaper wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

Nragedreaper wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

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.

I reject the endings, because the kid's lying.  I know he's lying I know he's wrong.  However the problem is I can't  do anything about it but to reject the choices.  I reject the ending not because I'm thinking about genocide.  I prefer the reject ending because it reminds me that yeah Bioware may be listening, but it's their story and they don't know how to write mine.  I need to remember that when they ask me to sign on to buy the next game. The problem is that the ending choices don't sound like the character we all created,  They allowed everyone to create their own Hero, but then tried to lead him/her down only 3 paths, some of us were going to be left out.  Some of us wanted the experience we had before from other bioware games, where there was always a loop hole, not to get out of the final fight, but to make the deal that sacrificed something, but never too much.  I find the Control and Synthesis endings as morally repulsive so that only left destroy which I didn't care for because I liked legion.  So what's left. Reject.

So, what would be your ending then? The conventional war ending where 700+ Reapers are wiped out with the Crucible beam? Shepard comes back to Earth and high fives Joker and hugs his or her LI? Then Shepard says something witty about nothing is over and it's time to rebuild?

...Mass Effect was never to be a happy story.You weren't supposed to get lucky forever. Your Shepard wasn't to walk away scot free no trauma, no sadness, no regret. Your decision to Reject may be far different than others, but to be honest I'd rather wish someone pick Reject to say FU to the Boss A.I than pick Reject because the "everybody is okay at the end" ending is not here to be chosen. Mass Effect is not that kind of game.

Actually no.  The day I played it my thought was that my Shepard was going to die on the citadel.  I figured there was going to be a boss battle I couldn't Win.  I figured I would either have a final battle with harbinger that killed both of them, or that the reapers would actually I don't know oppose me in some way.  I don't buy the we all walk away happy deal.  It's just how little you must think of those that play the game if the antagonist has to provide the protagonist with the gun, the bullet, point it at their forehead, and say pull the trigger.  If reject was to be done properly then we would have had an option to contact EDI, or one of the people that worked on the damn crucible and see if they happened to have solved the little problem of directing the energy.  I expected a good writer to figure out how to make it work.  I mean they figured out how to make the scenes work if people died in ME1 or ME2.  Most of the people that want rainbows and sunshine are allowed to want that.  What I think everyone forgets is that Shepard has already sacrificed and lost.  He lost friends, his own life, his reputation, and time.  You have a character that has given soo much, Tali & Liara point this out.  They want their shepard to have some happiness after everything he/she gave up.  I again am not one of those people.  I always saw shepard dying alone on the citadel knowing he'd saved the galaxy. 

Vendetta stated that the Citadel was incorporated into the Crucible's plan for a reason: it is the only thing that coordinates the mass relay network and can direct the Crucible's energy throughout the galaxy.

EDI is not the Citadel.

[F00lishG]

Nragedreaper wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

Nragedreaper wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

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.

I reject the endings, because the kid's lying.  I know he's lying I know he's wrong.  However the problem is I can't  do anything about it but to reject the choices.  I reject the ending not because I'm thinking about genocide.  I prefer the reject ending because it reminds me that yeah Bioware may be listening, but it's their story and they don't know how to write mine.  I need to remember that when they ask me to sign on to buy the next game. The problem is that the ending choices don't sound like the character we all created,  They allowed everyone to create their own Hero, but then tried to lead him/her down only 3 paths, some of us were going to be left out.  Some of us wanted the experience we had before from other bioware games, where there was always a loop hole, not to get out of the final fight, but to make the deal that sacrificed something, but never too much.  I find the Control and Synthesis endings as morally repulsive so that only left destroy which I didn't care for because I liked legion.  So what's left. Reject.

So, what would be your ending then? The conventional war ending where 700+ Reapers are wiped out with the Crucible beam? Shepard comes back to Earth and high fives Joker and hugs his or her LI? Then Shepard says something witty about nothing is over and it's time to rebuild?

...Mass Effect was never to be a happy story.You weren't supposed to get lucky forever. Your Shepard wasn't to walk away scot free no trauma, no sadness, no regret. Your decision to Reject may be far different than others, but to be honest I'd rather wish someone pick Reject to say FU to the Boss A.I than pick Reject because the "everybody is okay at the end" ending is not here to be chosen. Mass Effect is not that kind of game.

Actually no.  The day I played it my thought was that my Shepard was going to die on the citadel.  I figured there was going to be a boss battle I couldn't Win.  I figured I would either have a final battle with harbinger that killed both of them, or that the reapers would actually I don't know oppose me in some way.  I don't buy the we all walk away happy deal.  It's just how little you must think of those that play the game if the antagonist has to provide the protagonist with the gun, the bullet, point it at their forehead, and say pull the trigger.  If reject was to be done properly then we would have had an option to contact EDI, or one of the people that worked on the damn crucible and see if they happened to have solved the little problem of directing the energy.  I expected a good writer to figure out how to make it work.  I mean they figured out how to make the scenes work if people died in ME1 or ME2.  Most of the people that want rainbows and sunshine are allowed to want that.  What I think everyone forgets is that Shepard has already sacrificed and lost.  He lost friends, his own life, his reputation, and time.  You have a character that has given soo much, Tali & Liara point this out.  They want their shepard to have some happiness after everything he/she gave up.  I again am not one of those people.  I always saw shepard dying alone on the citadel knowing he'd saved the galaxy. 

my bad. I was wrong. And a defeated Shepard would have been a great ending.

[Errationatus]

I must admit that I find the ethical emptiness of the Refusal justifications interesting, and not a little telling.

It's quite clearly shown that the Catalyst is not lying as it states the outcomes of your choices - which you actually see to be the truth -  yet many continue to insist that it is and that their abetting its genocide is therefore justified.

Let's try another example:

Your entire neighbourhood is on fire.  You are the Deputy Fire Chief.  Volunteers have left the defence of their own homes as they burn or begin to smoulder to heed YOUR call to rally and go fight the blaze.  Roads are blocked.  Water supplies are low, but just enough if everyone can get together.

Upon accomplishing all that, you leap into action!  At the scene you meet the Neighbourhood Watch Captain, and he tells you that you have three choices to quell the raging inferno, but you don't like the guy; he's annoying, he's fibbed in the past,  he has bad posture and terrible acne, and he's fat, so obviously he's subhuman - buuuut you're here to put out the fire, so you assess your resources - yes, you can indeed save the town! Huzzah!

Everyone is already pitching in - some are getting scorched, some have valiantly perished to save the few they can, and all are counting on you to grab the hose and get that water blasting...

...you then simply shrug, say "Screw this" and in a fit of childish pique high moral standards, decide to let the area burn and the people trapped in those buildings die. All the volunteers can go to hell too.

No worries, though!  Nuh-uh! You're reasonably sure that anyone who comes along later can water down the embers and maybe learn all about fire safety from your sterling example of fire control, you fabulous hero you.  You have won. Fatty spotty bent boy has been slapped, fried and put in his place, and you is da man.

...We don't know, however, if any survivors lynched your unbelievably stupid, selfish carcass.

Life isn't fair.  There are those times when we are presented with a number of equally distasteful choices.  If we are in a position to choose, and others are counting on us, giving us their consent to choose for them, it is our duty to pick the least crappy of those crappy choices, for maximum benefit as possible.  To choose to do nothing is indeed a choice - it is the decision to commit treason against those lives hanging in the balance.  You have no principles then, just bullsh!t excuses for why you didn't have the balls to choose when chips were down.

I sincerely hope none of the so-called Refusers are ever placed in a real-life situation where they must decide a person's fate.  

From the nonsense I've seen to justify their ethical cowardice, they are not remotely qualified.

Just upping it to my six cents.

[Saint Op]

I really don't understand the "I won't make that decision for everyone" thing...
You were put there to use the weapon...a weapon they is a unknown..to save as many people that you can and stop the reapers...
You were put there by the highest ranking people in the universe...
If this don't give you the confidence to make a choice...any choice..you are just not cut out to lead anything...and yes doing nothing is also a choice...
I just don't like the whole I can't make that choice stance..

[RogueBot]

RogueMumei wrote...

Aw man, I thought you were the Riddler.

Yeah, and it wasn't even an actual riddle! Lame.

[en2ym3]

 Because the endings make no sense, the "solution" makes no sense, the reasoning behind making the choices (or the neccessity to make these choices) makes no sense, and it's forced in every way to make it "meaningful" when it is arguably one of the most meaningless and shallow moments in the series (if not the most).  Where there aren't logical fallacies or ethically questionable actions presented as acceptable or good, it is ignoring, rejecting, or ****ting on the rest of the series in some other fashion (e.g. themes).

The endings are Anti-Mass-Effect.  It is a fan fiction ending, a song fic made by a troll joking around to get amusement and rage out of fans.




The Reject ending may result in the cycle losing, with only the next one winning, but it felt like the most true, believable, and fitting in comparison to the mind**** that is the writers' failure to properly conclude their own series.  And at least this time I can laugh at the troll's work instead of searching desperately for brain bleach to wipe my memory of it. 


To be honest, however, my real choice is "none."  Reject's just the second option to that.

Modifié par en2ym3, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:31 .

[Sniktchtherat]

Saracen, Jake:

Can you answer me one single question? Just one?

Why do you trust the CaseMaclyst to be altruistic to you, given he's proven he's A: insane, B: capable of lying ("They're asking leaders to come into their superstructures to negotiate peace" - actual ingame line from Anderson - is clearly a lie; they're asking them to come into the superstructure to enter the indoc field to sow confusion and/or pacify resistance to the harvest, no more, no less), C: cued into Shepard's head somehow since he's using the dreamkid's face and clothing, and D: utterly ruthless in pursuing his goals?

If you can answer that without relying on data that Shepard DID NOT HAVE AT THAT POINT OF THE TALE - no epilogs, no YouTube, no wiki, no "the Crucible must hack the Catalyst" despite complete lack of knowledge for ALL of us on exactly what it does and how, nothing except what is stated in the game codexa and conversations to that point...then you have a valid debate position.

Given you both tend to toss the ad hominems around like confetti, however, I've no doubt you'll pass on the opportunity to logically explain your core thesis in the context of the data we all can confirm independently.

[SparkyRich]

If we're talking morals here, then Control (Paragon) is the best choice - you are sacrificing yourself, stopping the war and saving everyone in the galaxy without committing genocide. I'd need to see how the Renegade version plays out to tell if it is comparable. Destroy forces you to kill at least one other person (EDI) and possibly an entire race (the Geth, if you saved them) in exchange for (potentially) your own life and Synthesis requires you to make a choice as sweeping as the Refuse decision (but apparently is the best choice as presented in the epilog). Both Synthesis and Refuse are real ego pulls because you are deciding that "this is best for everyone regardless of what they may think." Destroy lets you play that ace up your sleeve to survive at the expense of others. Control may have pretty terrible repercussions down the road but seems a fair choice for the time being from the epilog's description - you die, everyone else is saved.

So, I feel that Control is both the best and the worst option. You save everyone but yourself (good, in case you're not on board). You create a new AI Construct with your personality to control the Reapers (possibly very bad - no way to predict).

[Nragedreaper]

JakeMacDon wrote...

I must admit that I find the ethical emptiness of the Refusal justifications interesting, and not a little telling.

It's quite clearly shown that the Catalyst is not lying as it states the outcomes of your choices - which you actually see to be the truth -  yet many continue to insist that it is and that their abetting its genocide is therefore justified.

Let's try another example:

Your entire neighbourhood is on fire.  You are the Deputy Fire Chief.  Volunteers have left the defence of their own homes as they burn or begin to smoulder to heed YOUR call to rally and go fight the blaze.  Roads are blocked.  Water supplies are low, but just enough if everyone can get together.

Upon accomplishing all that, you leap into action!  At the scene you meet the Neighbourhood Watch Captain, and he tells you that you have three choices to quell the raging inferno, but you don't like the guy; he's annoying, he's fibbed in the past,  he has bad posture and terrible acne, and he's fat, so obviously he's subhuman - buuuut you're here to put out the fire, so you assess your resources - yes, you can indeed save the town! Huzzah!

Everyone is already pitching in - some are getting scorched, some have valiantly perished to save the few they can, and all are counting on you to grab the hose and get that water blasting...

...you then simply shrug, say "Screw this" and in a fit of childish pique high moral standards, decide to let the area burn and the people trapped in those buildings die. All the volunteers can go to hell too.

No worries, though!  Nuh-uh! You're reasonably sure that anyone who comes along later can water down the embers and maybe learn all about fire safety from your sterling example of fire control, you fabulous hero you.  You have won. Fatty spotty bent boy has been slapped, fried and put in his place, and you is da man.

...We don't know, however, if any survivors lynched your unbelievably stupid, selfish carcass.

Life isn't fair.  There are those times when we are presented with a number of equally distasteful choices.  If we are in a position to choose, and others are counting on us, giving us their consent to choose for them, it is our duty to pick the least crappy of those crappy choices, for maximum benefit as possible.  To choose to do nothing is indeed a choice - it is the decision to commit treason against those lives hanging in the balance.  You have no principles then, just bullsh!t excuses for why you didn't have the balls to choose when chips were down.

I sincerely hope none of the so-called Refusers are ever placed in a real-life situation where they must decide a person's fate.  

From the nonsense I've seen to justify their ethical cowardice, they are not remotely qualified.

Just upping it to my six cents.

In a real life situation we would have more than just 3 options.  It's a video game.  I didn't like the 3 choices presented.  You give me a 4th and I opt for the fourth.  It doesn't mean that I have ethical cowardice.  Looking at real world situations, Control - Polpot  was able to kill how many people because he was in control of a nation?Synthesis - **** Germany eliminated those determined to be inferior.  Destroy - The Romans destroyed carthage and its inhabitants.  There is truth in these three endings.  However the reality is the world came together to determine these things were wrong.  I'm not opposed to the dropping of the atomic bomb at the end of WWII.  I believe that collateral damage happens, and is acceptable under the right circumstances.  However I am realistic about the three choices.  None of them are better than another, its just the illusion of choice.  If we are going to look at it from an in game perspective - Destroy would be the only moral choice.  The only ethical choice, because then the geth are collateral damage.  You aren't controling the fate of the universe, just the fate of the geth and reapers.  The few versus the many. It still doesn't make it right.

[saracen16]

Sniktchtherat wrote...

Saracen, Jake:

Can you answer me one single question? Just one?

Why do you trust the CaseMaclyst to be altruistic to you, given he's proven he's A: insane

Your ad-hominem aside, "insanity" is not a quality that you can ascribe to a synthetic intellect. Insanity requires that you do not keep your emotions and sensibilities in check. A Catalyst has none of those. It is a machine, a logic engine designed to solve one problem at ANY cost. It was not designed with a check or balance against a solution such as the Reapers, and its decision is a product of its design. It truly believes that it is doing the best for organics, yes, but it does not do so out of some deviation from a set norm in its programming, which is what insanity usually is.

, B: capable of lying ("They're asking leaders to come into their superstructures to negotiate peace" - actual ingame line from Anderson - is clearly a lie; they're asking them to come into the superstructure to enter the indoc field to sow confusion and/or pacify resistance to the harvest, no more, no less

This is manipulation to facilitate an easier control of the species and ensure maximum harvest, again a product of their programming. However, it has no reason to lie to you at the end, as it already offers the destroy option. Just because the geth and EDI are destroyed as a result doesn't mean that its lying. In fact, he was telling the truth all along: he has a bomb hovering over his head and he knows that it signals the end of the cycle.

As such, he has no reason to plea for his life with a fake bargain.

), C: cued into Shepard's head somehow since he's using the dreamkid's face and clothing,

Shepard is bleeding out, and was being indoctrinated in the process. Delirium and subliminal influence dictate that some part of him perceives the Catalyst to be the child he saw on Earth. Clearly, however, the Catalyst's true form is not the child at all, but rather this is how Shepard perceives him.

and D: utterly ruthless in pursuing his goals?

Because he has to. It's his programming. He believes he is doing the best for the universe, and is basing it on experiments into bringing peace between synthetics and organics.

To answer your question, it is clear why I believe he is genuine: we have altered the variables with the Crucible, and these new choices are impossible without it. It's the Crucible that created the new possibilities, not the Catalyst himself.

[Sniktchtherat]

*facepalm*

You missed the point.

Destroy INVALIDATES ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE. it is telling you "Go ahead and kill me. Synthetics will rise again and you'll get killed by them, but go ahead and kill me."

WHY IS IT OFFERING YOU THAT OPTION? That defies any and all logic, any and all sense, any and all rationality. NOTHING sacrifices itself on a whim unless it has a mental malfunction. Even modern suicides tend to be either statements of principle (self-immolation in Tunisia, the Greek and Italian "white widow" epidemic, etc.) or a despair that is pretty close to if not actually definable as mental illness.

Also, using facts not in evidence = failure; you're pulling the "takes the long view" idea out of metaknowledge, not knowledge Shep has in evidence at that point - the only one telling him that is CaseMaclyst. Who's been trying to kill him and everyone he knows for 3ish years. WHY BELIEVE HIM? Why simply decide that the facts in evidence - the simplest one being that every single Reaper "gift" has had a fishhook inside it - no longer matter and the kid's trustable?

All your responses rely on you already trusting the kid's honesty. All your responses are to "what do I do if I already trust him". Not "Why do I trust him to be telling the truth this time when he's always lied before".  Deciding that doing what the Reapers want can't make things worse has always made things worse.  What makes you discard that and trust the kid, aside already trusting the kid?

Modifié par Sniktchtherat, 01 juillet 2012 - 07:45 .

[wantedman dan]

F00lishG wrote...

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

Because I will not choose to commit the very atrocities which I have vowed to destroy since ME1.

[saracen16]

Sniktchtherat wrote...

*facepalm*

You missed the point.

Destroy INVALIDATES ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE. it is telling you "Go ahead and kill me. Synthetics will rise again and you'll get killed by them, but go ahead and kill me."

WHY IS IT OFFERING YOU THAT OPTION? That defies any and all logic, any and all sense, any and all rationality. NOTHING sacrifices itself on a whim unless it has a mental malfunction. Even modern suicides tend to be either statements of principle (self-immolation in Tunisia, the Greek and Italian "white widow" epidemic, etc.) or a despair that is pretty close to if not actually definable as mental illness.

Really? And what of the geth who said "we will surrender our hardware if it ends hostilities"? It was making what it thought was a logical choice. Yet again, you're making an illogical comparison between the Catalyst and humans. The Catalyst is a program whose variables work on logic and existing capabilities, not on emotions. It is not organic and is not human. It says that "it is now in your power to destroy us".

The Crucible gave us that option, not the Catalyst.

Also, using facts not in evidence = failure; you're pulling the "takes the long view" idea out of metaknowledge, not knowledge Shep has in evidence at that point - the only one telling him that is CaseMaclyst. Who's been trying to kill him and everyone he knows for 3ish years. WHY BELIEVE HIM? Why simply decide that the facts in evidence - the simplest one being that every single Reaper "gift" has had a fishhook inside it - no longer matter and the kid's trustable?

Because there is an even BIGGER fish hook to refusing him: the cycle continues and everyone dies. The question becomes whether you have the guts to make the tough choice of using the only way to stop the Reapers in whatever means possible. Even Shepard questions him during their dialogue, and he replies with the variables being altered. This alone nullifies every single transgression the Reapers made.

There is a fish hook in every ending, and he already states it. We know there is no other way out other than the Crucible. We know that the Crucible was made by organics, a statement he verifies himself.

All your responses rely on you already trusting the kid's honesty. All your responses are to "what do I do if I already trust him". Not "Why do I trust him to be telling the truth this time when he's always lied before".

No, I do trust him because I do not believe that he has any reason to lie with a bomb over his head. I never met him before, and yet he gave me the option of killing him. He's a machine. He's not guided by the same motivations or ambitions of organics regardless of whatever the Reapers said before.

[jojon2se]

JakeMacDon wrote...
<snipped burning neighbourhood analogy and general condemning>

How about this:

You have no water.
Suddenly a guy drives up with a petrol truck, introduces himself as the arsonist who set the fires in the first place and offers to spray every building, promising that the tank is actually full of water - all you need to do is shoot yourself and off he goes.

Actually, you made me think of the "Meet the Pyro" video, now.

[Errationatus]

Sniktchtherat wrote...

Saracen, Jake:

  

Yes?

  
Can you answer me one single question? Just one?

  

Sure, as long as they're not about how women think, what's actually in that sauce in a Big Mac, or how the caramel gets in that damn bar.  Otherwise I'm good to go.

  
Why do you trust the CaseMaclyst to be altruistic to you, given he's proven he's A: insane, B: capable of lying ("They're asking leaders to come into their superstructures to negotiate peace" - actual ingame line from Anderson - is clearly a lie; they're asking them to come into the superstructure to enter the indoc field to sow confusion and/or pacify resistance to the harvest, no more, no less), C: cued into Shepard's head somehow since he's using the dreamkid's face and clothing, and D: utterly ruthless in pursuing his goals?

 

Okay, no outside help.  Gotcha.  A few points of my own, first, if you don't mind:

A) The Catalyst is a machine, an AI.  It cannot go "insane" any more than you could spontaneously become a chipmunk in a tutu reciting a solioquy from Hamlet in 3rd Century Hebrew.

 How, pray tell, does the Catalyst lie?  Within a certain programming restraint, it can utilize strategic thinking, an omission of facts or it simply does that: offers peace on the Reapers' terms.  Since that peace in Reaper terms is "assimilation through destruction", it is not technically lying.

C)  Was not Shepard rebuilt via Cerberus?  It is not a safe assumption to make that he was implanted with Reaper tech as a failsafe - which TIM used in the Citadel to force him to shoot Anderson - and it should have been no problem for the AI to influence Shepard on a subconscious level - hence the dreams - and manifest the simulcrum upon being in close proximity with him. TIM simply used enough Reaper tech for his own purposes, not enough for Reapers to actually seize control of Shepard.  Plans within plans within plans, y'see.  

The child-image is obviously both an interface and something to make Shepard hesitate, or at least pause long enough to listen. The problem with a lot of this is that people make the erroneous assumption that the Catalyst is actively "evil" and overtly hostile.  It is quite clearly presented that it is not.  It is simply performing an ancient function its creators laid down for it.  It has no more "hatred" for organic life than a lawnmower does against the grass it cuts.  In fact, according to it and Harbinger, it seeks to actively preserve that life, as dictated by its programming.

This is the real problem with all of this:  People really, really have to stop anthropomorphizing machines, and then infusing them with all this metaphysical idiocy.  It may be a a science-fiction staple, but it's a stupid one.  Machines can be smart, but that's almost entirely subjective.  The Catalyst's first reap was its own creators.  That does not point to malevolence.  It points to sh!tty programming.

D)  I would expect a machine to be ruthless. It's a machine.

  
If you can answer that without relying on data that Shepard DID NOT HAVE AT THAT POINT OF THE TALE - no epilogs, no YouTube, no wiki, no "the Crucible must hack the Catalyst" despite complete lack of knowledge for ALL of us on exactly what it does and how, nothing except what is stated in the game codexa and conversations to that point...then you have a valid debate position.

  

Let's just surmise that, upon meeting the Catalyst, Shepard says something along the lines of:  "Hey!  You're an AI?!" and let's just surmise that he doesn't have any idiotic illusions that souls float down from heaven the moment a robot decides it thinks kittens are cute.  He might just go to himself - "Oh, it's a friggin' machine!  That means its been programmed to do this!  Well, hell, what a bunch of stupid IT people whoever created this thing had!  Damn.  Gotta rethink this."

Entirely possible. No wikis, not 'Tube, no foreknowledge.  Can happen entirely in the moment.  

Given you both tend to toss the ad hominems around like confetti, however, I've no doubt you'll pass on the opportunity to logically explain your core thesis in the context of the data we all can confirm independently.

See?  You were wrong.  Also, unless I attack someone specifically, I'm not using an ad hominem, since that means "to the man" and implies attacking a particular person rather than an specific argument.  I have attacked no one in particular or personally.  

If I wanted to press the point, accusing me of doing that is an ad hominem, by the way.  My assertion has been that "Refusal" is frankly stupid and unethical, as well as unconscionable by any thinking person.  I believe I have more than adequately explained my position from my very first post in this thread.

Baiting me will not change my position.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:07 .

[Errationatus]

Nragedreaper wrote...

In a real life situation we would have more than just 3 options.  It's a video game.  I didn't like the 3 choices presented.  You give me a 4th and I opt for the fourth. 

 

Well, I think its a given that I'm referencing the game.

 
It doesn't mean that I have ethical cowardice.  Looking at real world situations, Control - Polpot  was able to kill how many people because he was in control of a nation?Synthesis - **** Germany eliminated those determined to be inferior.  Destroy - The Romans destroyed carthage and its inhabitants.  There is truth in these three endings.

 

They're also irrelevant.  The Romans did not have to destroy Carthage, the Reich did nothing the Catholic Church hadn't been advocating for centuries, (and initially the policy was expulsion from Germany, not eradication) and Polpot controlled very little.  A more viable comparison would be North Korea, but it's a bankrupt state that shows the lie of "total control".  

You are given in the game four choices.  Period.  None are great.  Refusal is ethical cowardice and abetting genocide when set against the other choices. There is no reasonable justification for it.  (Aside from nerdrage at Bioware's story, from the many, many authors out there.)

 
However the reality is the world came together to determine these things were wrong.  I'm not opposed to the dropping of the atomic bomb at the end of WWII. 

 

Interesting.  Truman certainly was, as it turned out.  The Japanese to this day would rather wish different choices had been made.  It was not the only choice, it was the most expedient one.  It saved American lives and has killed around three million Japanese since it had been employed.

That's three times the average calculated in troop deaths to invade the islands.  So.... what?  It was the right choice as long as Americans didn't die?

 
I believe that collateral damage happens, and is acceptable under the right circumstances. 

 

Certainly it happens.  All the time.  It's called "war" and every leader and soldier accepts it.  Doesn't make it right or desirable.  "Collateral damage" also happens to be a "soft" term for civilian deaths. It's used to disguise the fact that non-combatants are being killed.  It's in league with "extraordinary rendition", which is just a weasely phrase for torture.  It's what the good guys call it to keep the stink off them.  It doesn't work.

Also, the Japanese vapourized by "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were not collateral damage, they were "viable targets", and it's exceedingly ignorantly offensive to label them as such. The cities were deliberately targeted, not randomly picked as the Enola Gay rolled over.

 
However I am realistic about the three choices.  None of them are better than another, its just the illusion of choice.  If we are going to look at it from an in game perspective - Destroy would be the only moral choice.  The only ethical choice, because then the geth are collateral damage.  You aren't controling the fate of the universe, just the fate of the geth and reapers.  The few versus the many. It still doesn't make it right.

Technically, the geth are machines, and not a consideration when balanced against actual living beings. Legion did not give them "souls", he merely allowed them to incorporate individual networks - using Reaper tech -  so they could do individually what they once did collectively.  Doesn't make them alive, merely more capable.  

So far, none of the justifications for Refusal have been shown to hold any water, IMO.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:09 .

[Grimwick]

He gave those options for a reason. He wants you to do them... why would I listen to that sick bastard?

(I still pick destroy but reject makes more sense here)

[Oldbones2]

F00lishG wrote...

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.

The choices it offers, all follow its logic.

By choosing any of the endings (other than refuse of course) you accept its logic as true. 

You accept that we MUST compromise with evil, instead of fighting it even if it means defeat.  You accept that fate is written and that nothing we can do can ever change that.  You accept that its better to win a partial victory that is in some way reprehensible, instead of trying for a triumph that is everthing we ever hoped for.


Choosing anything but destroy isn't Shepard winning.  It's just another Catalyst solution.

The only choice that Shepard comes up with, the only choice that truly represents what the galaxy has been fighting for is refuse.


It's all arbitrary though, I chose control.

[Errationatus]

jojon2se wrote...

How about this:

You have no water.
Suddenly a guy drives up with a petrol truck, introduces himself as the arsonist who set the fires in the first place and offers to spray every building, promising that the tank is actually full of water - all you need to do is shoot yourself and off he goes.

 

Interesting.  However, the Catalyst promises Shepard nothing.  It simply states the options.  It has no reason to lie, because of one simple fact:

It's already winning.  And its winning by a huge frellin' margin.  It gains nothing by offering him the choices - yet it does.

The question that needs to be asked is WHY does the Catalyst offer Shepard anything?  It can just as easily tell him some nonsense about how the Crucible is a lie and doesn't work and never has.  

But it doesn't.  Whether we know it in the moment or not it is actually telling him the truth and it doesn't have to - so why doesn't it lie from the very beginning?  It doesn't lie because it can't,  because it's a goddamn machine.

People need to remember this:  at no point do the Reapers lie.  They don't.  They don't have to.  They are doing everything they told you they would: assimilation through destruction.  Boom. That's it.  The truth. 

 
Actually, you made me think of the "Meet the Pyro" video, now.

Uh, you're ...welcome?

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:12 .

[NUM13ER]

David7204 wrote...
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.

Disagreeing with him due to what he is, rather than what he offers is not the same thing. And since when is refusing to do anything not indicator you are in fact asserting a measure of control?

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

See how ridiculous that logic looks when you look at why they reject its offers. In other words refusing to believe or do anything a mass-genocide instigating machine wants isn't really all that flawed logically.   

Modifié par NUM13ER, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:20 .

[v3paR]

SHARXTREME wrote...

[...] It has been stated that the next cycle does use the Crucible. [...]

Pictures or it didn't happen.

But seriously. If they confirmed that the Crucible was in fact used (no "probably" but like "100% confirmed") then the whole option is just pointless and indeed looks like FU from devs. The only point of this option is that there is a hope that some future civilisations don't need to choose but can end the war on their own terms (maybe even before it start).

If this turns out to be true then i will go 100% Destroy and in fact lower my respect to devs.

[Apocaleepse360]

Haha, I knew it wouldn't be long before the Reject haters started flowing in.