331 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexMBrennan]

I have to agree with OP: You are given a button by Catalyst, and you lose if you do not press it. Why not press the button? How much worse could it get?

[Applepie_Svk]

enjoy reading

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 29 juin 2012 - 08:37 .

[DGMockingJay]

Agreed OP

Shepard did agree to take Cerberus help in the start of ME2 right?? He did not say, cram it TIM.. I will rather watch humans get abducted rather than take help from u..!!!!

[Jadebaby]

Afrolash wrote...

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.

beautiful

[Jadebaby]

DGMockingJay wrote...

Agreed OP

Shepard did agree to take Cerberus help in the start of ME2 right?? He did not say, cram it TIM.. I will rather watch humans get abducted rather than take help from u..!!!!

My Shepard told TIM to cram it, numerous times. However she always stuck around because they were working toward the same goal.

[SpamBot2000]

For me, it's not even about refusing to play nice with the Reaper kid who has committed his sick omnicide some 10 000 times. It's about refusing to accept this awful crushing view of the universe and everything in it shoved down my throat by precisely 2 individuals in their ego-mad quest to make waves. If ME 3 being art means this, we are not the audience, we are the RAW MATERIALS that they manipulate into their sensation, much like a dumb slab of rock for a sculptor. In that case, I choose the meta-refuse ending.

[Vox Draco]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I have to agree with OP: You are given a button by Catalyst, and you lose if you do not press it. Why not press the button? How much worse could it get?

The problem I see here: Shepard has NO knowledge about how things turn out, right? Trust the Reaper-AI and "press" a button? Maybe even kill yourself and just hoping everything turns out good?

Or do what Shepard has always done, tried to achieve things on her own terms, like with the Quarians or Krogans? Sadly, by doing so and staying true to Shepard's self, which seems logical from the whole series point of view, we actually doom this cycle so the next cycle can press the buttons...

Just great...so refusal-Shepards are the only real Shepards in a way, but ehy achieve nothing. Not even the next cycle is helped by their refusal...it is Liara's capsule I guess, yet not our Shepard...

And that's the whole problem of it all: Every choice actually doesn't need our Shepard or takes into account who she is...Our beloved spacehamster up there with the catalyst could have done the same if you ask me.

Modifié par Vox Draco, 29 juin 2012 - 08:45 .

[Alushadow]

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.

in a way since the "reaper's" are the catalyst solution to "chaos" he does not want them destroyed
they hold the collective potential and knowledge of countless cycles
the kid may be a **** but he does wanna preserve that and if you destroy them you kill that knowledge
more then that he also tells you
you will kill all others synthetics - Geth and EDI which are your allies presumably you did not let them be destroyed by the quarians

[ashwind]

Hehe based on some of the logic I am reading:

Basically the Reapers only need to create a hologram, stuck it in front of their kill switch; which they cant possibly defend at that point and have the hologram tell their would be destroyer:

"Welcome Sir, this is the kill switch, press this and you win"

Would be destroyer: "No.... this is a trick! No... I dont believe you... no...."

"Press this, you win, I promise."

"You lie!!! You lie!!! I wont do it!!! I wont!!!"

Harbinger: ~sincker~ humans, rudimentary creatures. Hwahahahaha!

[Jadebaby]

miracleofsound wrote...

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.'

First of all the Catalyst actually gets angry if you refuse, quite the opposite or "lol laterz"

Secondly, people strongly believe they could beat the Reapers on their own terms. By somehow, in someway find that something that will give them the edge and take them down without making deals with the enemy.

I honestly respect that so much.

[daecath]

"The created will always rebel against their creators."

This is the motivation for everything the reapers do, and it's complete BS. There isn't a single instance in the entire trilogy where a synthetic makes the willful, unprovoked decision to be hostile. Every single synthetic you meet is either hostile due to a malfunction or other external tampering, in self defense as a response to an oppressor, or they aren't hostile at all. So going along with anything the catalyst says is BS.

It would be like an officer arresting you because your gun was used in a crime, and then offering you the choice of paying a fine, going to prison, or becoming a fugitive. Only you don't even own a gun. However, instead of explaining to the officer that he made a mistake, and getting off free, you accept one of the options offered to you, even though there's no reason for them.

[M Hedonist]

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.

It's clear why you can't understand people rejecting all three options if you don't see Destroy as genocide.

[Jadebaby]

ashwind wrote...

Hehe based on some of the logic I am reading:

Basically the Reapers only need to create a hologram, stuck it in front of their kill switch; which they cant possibly defend at that point and have the hologram tell their would be destroyer:

"Welcome Sir, this is the kill switch, press this and you win"

Would be destroyer: "No.... this is a trick! No... I dont believe you... no...."

"Press this, you win, I promise."

"You lie!!! You lie!!! I wont do it!!! I wont!!!"

Harbinger: ~sincker~ humans, rudimentary creatures. Hwahahahaha!

To address this quickly, in destroy you know you are committing genocide against the Geth and EDI before you choose it. In rejection, you don't know everyone will lose until the screen just cuts to black.

[Jadebaby]

daecath wrote...

"The created will always rebel against their creators."

This is the motivation for everything the reapers do, and it's complete BS. There isn't a single instance in the entire trilogy where a synthetic makes the willful, unprovoked decision to be hostile. Every single synthetic you meet is either hostile due to a malfunction or other external tampering, in self defense as a response to an oppressor, or they aren't hostile at all. So going along with anything the catalyst says is BS.

It would be like an officer arresting you because your gun was used in a crime, and then offering you the choice of paying a fine, going to prison, or becoming a fugitive. Only you don't even own a gun. However, instead of explaining to the officer that he made a mistake, and getting off free, you accept one of the options offered to you, even though there's no reason for them.

A bit of a stretch on the analogy I think, but I agree, there was absolutely NO foreshadowing and Synthesis, in itself, is the anti-thesis to harmony between Organics and Synthetics.

[M Hedonist]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

ashwind wrote...

Hehe based on some of the logic I am reading:

Basically the Reapers only need to create a hologram, stuck it in front of their kill switch; which they cant possibly defend at that point and have the hologram tell their would be destroyer:

"Welcome Sir, this is the kill switch, press this and you win"

Would be destroyer: "No.... this is a trick! No... I dont believe you... no...."

"Press this, you win, I promise."

"You lie!!! You lie!!! I wont do it!!! I wont!!!"

Harbinger: ~sincker~ humans, rudimentary creatures. Hwahahahaha!

To address this quickly, in destroy you know you are committing genocide against the Geth and EDI before you choose it. In rejection, you don't know everyone will lose until the screen just cuts to black.

Yeah. People are just metagaming at this point. I cherish every single moment of the Reject ending.
It's like people comparing how much they can get out of each LI.

[F00lishG]

Sauruz wrote...

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.

It's clear why you can't understand people rejecting all three options if you don't see Destroy as genocide.

So...You point out why I created the topic. Because I wanted to understand...Why point this out?

Asking questions is a good thing.

[v TricKy v]

Afrolash wrote...

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.

*claps*
also
Shepard knows that it took centuries to wipe out the protheans and a few still survived. They even made the biggest trap of the reapers useless without any resources at all. Who says this cycle couldnt do something similar. We have Asari and Krogans who get thousand years old without needing Cyro technology. The end fight costs the reapers quite a few ships and they cant rebuild there losses easily, even one Capital ship less is a victory for us and future generations. We lose but our sacrifice made it possibly that others could win against them. No compromise, not trusting the words of the enemy leader but still a victory in the end. Good enough for me

[staindgrey]

"Control" embodies what TIM had wanted all along. Shepard and every single person in Alliance colors called the man crazy. Then, when confronting him, Shepard even says that it's a power that we shouldn't control. Who's to say that Shepard could control them? Just because this random AI says he can? Morinth said he could mate with her and be fine, you know. Picking Control is a huge gamble, one that a humbler or more realistic Shepard wouldn't consider. If he's the galaxy's last hope, he can't gamble it away and risk becoming the next AI kid.

Then Synthesis, likewise, embodies Saren, whom you also opposed and called crazy. He desired a mutual relationship between synthetics and organics so that organics wouldn't be wiped out. Shepard refused the notion, stating that we had to fight instead of becoming something inhuman. Even if the AI kid presents this as the ideal choice, who is it really ideal for? It's pretty easy to see why Shepard could see this as a very bad thing; it's essentially giving up who we are and what we're fighting for in order to end the pain.

Destroy, on the other hand, would be performing genocide, sacrificing synthetics to save organics, thus nullifying what Shepard had accomplished before now. It seems like the most moralistic option, but at the same time, if you had been given the decision to wipe out an entire civilization, could you pull the trigger? EDI was entirely essential in stopping the Collectors, and in infiltrating the Cerberus base. Now you're just going to sacrifice her? This, to me, is the best of the three, BUT...

Shepard could also decide that (s)he isn't going to be forced into a decision by some deity thing (s)he's never met before now. Who's to say it isn't a Reaper trying to manipulate Shepard's perception of right and wrong? Who's to say this AI kid has all the answers? Who's to say that Shepard needs to play god and doom various peoples in order to succumb to and follow this deity's rules? "Give me liberty or give me death" applies here.

Honestly, I can't stomach the thought of picking Control or Synthesis. They just seem... Wrong. Destroy doesn't seem all that different from Arrival's decision, and Refusal just kind of feels right.

[DGMockingJay]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

DGMockingJay wrote...

Agreed OP

Shepard did agree to take Cerberus help in the start of ME2 right?? He did not say, cram it TIM.. I will rather watch humans get abducted rather than take help from u..!!!!

My Shepard told TIM to cram it, numerous times. However she always stuck around because they were working toward the same goal.

Same goals u say?? That maybe exactly my point. In Control ending we get what we want really... I mean, I came here, not just to kill Reapers.. Neutralizing them would have been enough for me... Its not like only killing Reapers would only solve the problem, or help me revenge the people I lost!!!

And watching Harbinger working his ass off during building the Relays would have been an incentive in its own!!!

[M Hedonist]

F00lishG wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

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.

It's clear why you can't understand people rejecting all three options if you don't see Destroy as genocide.

So...You point out why I created the topic. Because I wanted to understand...Why point this out?

Asking questions is a good thing.

Actually, I pointed out that you will never understand if you don't see how each of the Crucible's solutions is morally (but also practically) flawed. In particular, if you don't see how Destroy is genocide.

[Xa1u5]

When will people stop starting proxy topics to justify their choice? Didn't refuse? FINE. There is no right or wrong here. If you are not metagaming, there is no way for a correct choice whatsoever. You choose what your Shepard character would choose based on his story. END OF DISCUSSION.

Blame the writing for not providing enough information for the character to make that choice without second thoughts without a priori, out of context knowledge that ist. The point is imho not to WIN the game, this is interactive fiction to a large part... for me, the story has to be cohesive. Would this be a novel, I would throw it out of an airlock if the protagonist does a 180 in the last five minutes...

Modifié par Xa1u5, 29 juin 2012 - 09:12 .

[ashwind]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

ashwind wrote...

Hehe based on some of the logic I am reading:

Basically the Reapers only need to create a hologram, stuck it in front of their kill switch; which they cant possibly defend at that point and have the hologram tell their would be destroyer:

"Welcome Sir, this is the kill switch, press this and you win"

Would be destroyer: "No.... this is a trick! No... I dont believe you... no...."

"Press this, you win, I promise."

"You lie!!! You lie!!! I wont do it!!! I wont!!!"

Harbinger: ~sincker~ humans, rudimentary creatures. Hwahahahaha!

To address this quickly, in destroy you know you are committing genocide against the Geth and EDI before you choose it. In rejection, you don't know everyone will lose until the screen just cuts to black.

I hold no illusion that I can win conventionally. Commander Shepard should know this as well. This is a galactic war. To win a galactic war, guns alone is not enough.

- I need information and intel on enemy location and strategy. I cannot spy on the Reapers. They can spy on me with sleeper agent who were indoctrinated. Indoctrinated agents can sabotage me, mislead me, sell me out. I cannot do that to the Reapers.

- I cannot intercept Reapers communication, even the Geth cannot fully comprehend them, they in turn can do that to me easily.

- They have no colonies, no bases for me to strike. They can turn my own population against me. With every world we lose, we get weaker and they get stronger.

Not being able to recognize these factors will result in what Sun-Tzu said: If you do not know yourself and do not know your enemy. You will lose the war - no ifs and buts, you lose.

Hence, unless it is your intention to die with honor and dignity like the 300 Spartans. Rejecting the options based on the illusion that you can win is simply bad judgement.

[F00lishG]

staindgrey wrote...

"Control" embodies what TIM had wanted all along. Shepard and every single person in Alliance colors called the man crazy. Then, when confronting him, Shepard even says that it's a power that we shouldn't control. Who's to say that Shepard could control them? Just because this random AI says he can? Morinth said he could mate with her and be fine, you know. Picking Control is a huge gamble, one that a humbler or more realistic Shepard wouldn't consider. If he's the galaxy's last hope, he can't gamble it away and risk becoming the next AI kid.

Then Synthesis, likewise, embodies Saren, whom you also opposed and called crazy. He desired a mutual relationship between synthetics and organics so that organics wouldn't be wiped out. Shepard refused the notion, stating that we had to fight instead of becoming something inhuman. Even if the AI kid presents this as the ideal choice, who is it really ideal for? It's pretty easy to see why Shepard could see this as a very bad thing; it's essentially giving up who we are and what we're fighting for in order to end the pain.

Destroy, on the other hand, would be performing genocide, sacrificing synthetics to save organics, thus nullifying what Shepard had accomplished before now. It seems like the most moralistic option, but at the same time, if you had been given the decision to wipe out an entire civilization, could you pull the trigger? EDI was entirely essential in stopping the Collectors, and in infiltrating the Cerberus base. Now you're just going to sacrifice her? This, to me, is the best of the three, BUT...

Shepard could also decide that (s)he isn't going to be forced into a decision by some deity thing (s)he's never met before now. Who's to say it isn't a Reaper trying to manipulate Shepard's perception of right and wrong? Who's to say this AI kid has all the answers? Who's to say that Shepard needs to play god and doom various peoples in order to succumb to and follow this deity's rules? "Give me liberty or give me death" applies here.

Honestly, I can't stomach the thought of picking Control or Synthesis. They just seem... Wrong. Destroy doesn't seem all that different from Arrival's decision, and Refusal just kind of feels right.

Now this, I can respect. The best post for Rejection ever. I will say this though: Shepard gets the right to play god because it's the end of the road, everyone is dying, and God is too busy trying to enter a state of nirvana to intervene.

[zombieord]

By choosing any of the Catalyst's options, Shepard becomes complicit with the Reapers. He is furthering their agenda. Yes, even Destroy. Why? Because he says so. He states synthesis is inevitable. Even if you Destroy all synthetics now, we will eventually recreate them and we're back to square one. Also, why would he tell you Destroy is even an option? Does shooting a tube even make sense?

The only reason anyone can claim Destroy (or any of the Catalyst's options) are the way to go is because you see the results of your choice.

You have to imagine you are making a decision without knowing the outcome. In real life, you can never fully know the consequences of your actions. What if Destroy killed Shepard? Would you still pick it? What if it destroyed EVERYTHING? You have no reason to trust the AI. The Reaper AI I might add. The entity who beamed you up the Crucible to do his bidding. You may have stormed the Citadel against Harbinger, but starchild invites you right in on his shiny elevator. You are literally bleeding out and the Reapers are moments away from defeating our cycle. Why do you think the collective intelligence of the Reapers invites you up? Because it needs your help. It needs YOU to create synthesis, it needs YOU to become its replacement.

I say, no thank you. We are the defiant cycle. The next cycle will know of our defiance, and with our sacrifice, the Reapers will be defeated emphatically. A true victory. Let the next cycle show the Reapers the full force of our 'chaos'.

See here for my full explanation of why Reject makes sense:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12845267/1

Modifié par zombieord, 29 juin 2012 - 09:21 .

[Baronesa]

OK... Discuss this without metagaming.

First of all why would you even trust the Reaper's headhoncho?

The catalyst offer 3 solutions to a problem that IS NOT REAL. Everything is based on a premise that cannot be proven. The Catalyst assume that synthetics will kill all organics. We have seen that is not true. Keyword here: ALL. The geth restored Rannoch and let plants and animals live in peace, they were even preparing for an eventual return of the creators (ME2 conversations, ME3 Rannoch missions).

Solutions:

Destroy: You eliminate all synthetics... this is accomplishing the goal... with no synthetics, there is no synthetics-organics conflict... so even by destroying the Reapers you accomplish the Catalyst objective, and commit genocide on an allied race and kill a close friend. Go you. Admittedly the best of the 3 RGB options... would be perfect if you could save EDI and the Geth with high EMS.

Control: You replace the Catalyst. You do exactly what you told TIM that was impossible, to try and control the reapers, and all your words towards TIM are now hollow... a wonderful hypocrite.There is no connection with your humanity, and you cease to be in hopes that the Catalyst is not lying to you. Nothing here assures you that you won't continue the cycle.

Synthesis: You complete the Catalyst work... this option is bowing down and do exactly what the Catalyst wants... your compromise is to achieve what the enemy wanted. You are also forcing everyone to become this new hybrid (What about the whole "it cannot be forced" lolwut?)

So presented with those 3 options, without knowing the outcomes of each, without any reason to trust the AI that controls the Reapers... what are you going to do? You reject the solutions that accomplish the Reaper's goals and stick to your guns... you fight till the end.

Basically, you paved the way for the next cycle to succeed, and not everything on this cycle is lost, if Asari Stargazer is an indication, other races may have survived to next cycle as well (hypothetical, but if Asari survived, nothing stops other races). Liara tell the next cycle that the Crucible does not work. By in game information you can clearly infer that the next cycle win without using the Crucible or choosing any of the 3 options.

Or you can go on twitter and read how they contradict the info Liara gives and state that next cycle will use the Crucible... making Reject pointless... This is the real insult here.

Just by in game information, reject gives a powerful message. You fought till the end, without compromising your core being, and maybe you lose everything, but you give hope and the means to succeed to the next cycle... without having to bow down to the options presented by the Reapers.