331 réponses à ce sujet

[snfonseka]

Refusal let the trillions die because of the "moral". Don't you think that makes the refusal immoral?

[Jamie9]

daecath wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
We can't defeat the Reapers conventionally. That's stated by several characters throughout ME3.

Right, because they're so uber-powerful. Well except for the one we took out with a Cain hand cannon. And the one that we destroyed with a couple missiles off a truck. And the one that got eaten by the giant worm. And the one that we used the laser pointer thing to target its weakness. Oh right, and they have this glaring (literally) weakness where you just hit them in their laster lens.

Wait, why is a conventional victory not possible?

They are Destroyers. They all have a similar weakness - the codex states this. Good luck taking down the hundreds of Sovereign-class Reapers. You need at least 4 dreadnoughts to take one down, and how many of those will be wiped out in the process?

We simply don't have enough ships to take the Reapers down.

[ahleung]

Jamie9 wrote...

ahleung wrote...

It's Shepard's moral.

Sovereign already said we can't win in ME1. Shepard should join Sovereign then.

It was stop Sovereign or everyone everywhere dies. I think I'll stop Sovereign.

It was stop the Collectors or the human race will be wiped out. I think I'll stop the Collectors.

It was stop the Reapers or everyone everywhere dies. I think I'll stop the Reapers. Not refuse based on some high-based moral judgement. I'm not willing to sacrifice everybody - trillions of people - based on some moral ideal.

None of the choices are truly moral. Not even Refuse.

By assuming "You can't win Reaper in conventional way", keep fighting is already stupid. (No one know there would be a Crucible schematics popped out of nowhere)
A more logical choice is find some other plans to survive.
Hide (like Prothean, or ME3 Sanctuary)?
Find a way to leave Miky Way?
Who knows?

Beside that, Saren aimed for co-existing with Reaper, that's also a bigger chance to save more lives. How about joining Saren?

In ME2, no signs that all human are in danger, just some human colonies being attacked. Risking the whole Normandy crew to enter Omega 4 Relay also seems not worth it.

In ME3, refusing TIM's detailed plan to control Reapers, instead betting the whole Galaxy's resource into making a device that no one
knows what it does, no one knows what and where the key component
"Catalyst" is, also seems pretty selfish for me.

Modifié par ahleung, 29 juin 2012 - 10:21 .

[Rhiens VI]

zombieord wrote...

He could leave you to die at the console, but instead, he beams you up to manipulate you into doing what he wants.

Indeed he could leave Shepard to die, and finish all this reaping. Which is reaper's agenda.

Your point being?

Yes, even Destroy advances the Reaper agenda.

How?

[Baronesa]

snfonseka wrote...

Refusal let the trillions die because of the "moral". Don't you think that makes the refusal immoral?

Do you make your moral stand knowing all the consequences of it, or simply you take your moral stand?

Think about this without metagaming. you have the decisions in front of you, and don't know any of the outcomes.

Modifié par Baronesa, 29 juin 2012 - 10:20 .

[flanny]

daecath wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
We can't defeat the Reapers conventionally. That's stated by several characters throughout ME3.

Right, because they're so uber-powerful. Well except for the one we took out with a Cain hand cannon. And the one that we destroyed with a couple missiles off a truck. And the one that got eaten by the giant worm. And the one that we used the laser pointer thing to target its weakness. Oh right, and they have this glaring (literally) weakness where you just hit them in their laster lens.

Wait, why is a conventional victory not possible?

artistic integrity +                      no otther reason

[Jamie9]

ahleung wrote...

By assuming "You can't win Reaper in conventional way", keep fighting is already stupid. (No one know there would be a Crucible schematics popped out of nowhere)
A more logical choice is find some other plans to survive.
Hide (like Prothean, or ME3 Sanctuary)?
Find a way to leave Miky Way?
Who knows?

Beside that, Saren aimed for co-existing with Reaper, that's also a bigger chance to save more lives. How about joining Saren?

In ME2, no signs that all human are in danger, just some human colonies being attacked. Risking the whole Normandy crew to enter Omega 4 Relay also seems not worth it.

In ME3, refusing TIM's detailed plan to control Reapers, betting the whole Galaxy's resource into making a device that no one
knows what it does, no one knows what and where the key component
"Catalyst" is, also seems pretty selfish for me.

No, we'd fight to the death if we had to. It would help the next Cycle after all. But there's 3 other choices! To ignore them is so immoral.

Saren did not want co-existence. He wanted to serve the Reapers. The difference? One promotes equality. One promotes slavery.

In ME2? Sacrifice 50 or so people for hundreds of thousands of humans? Yeah. They can't defend themselves, it's my duty to fight for them. Protect them.

Building the Crucible is selfish?? Wha-?? That's literally the only hope for our whole Cycle. The only hope for trillions of beings. And it's selfish to use it?

[SimplePlan2k8]

Because I wanted to shoot the Catalyst. That's it

[Cant Planet]

Rhiens VI wrote...

zombieord wrote...
Yes, even Destroy advances the Reaper agenda.

How?

I too would be interested to learn this.

[ahleung]

Jamie9 wrote...

ahleung wrote...

By assuming "You can't win Reaper in conventional way", keep fighting is already stupid. (No one know there would be a Crucible schematics popped out of nowhere)
A more logical choice is find some other plans to survive.
Hide (like Prothean, or ME3 Sanctuary)?
Find a way to leave Miky Way?
Who knows?

Beside that, Saren aimed for co-existing with Reaper, that's also a bigger chance to save more lives. How about joining Saren?

In ME2, no signs that all human are in danger, just some human colonies being attacked. Risking the whole Normandy crew to enter Omega 4 Relay also seems not worth it.

In ME3, refusing TIM's detailed plan to control Reapers, betting the whole Galaxy's resource into making a device that no one
knows what it does, no one knows what and where the key component
"Catalyst" is, also seems pretty selfish for me.

No, we'd fight to the death if we had to. It would help the next Cycle after all. But there's 3 other choices! To ignore them is so immoral.

Saren did not want co-existence. He wanted to serve the Reapers. The difference? One promotes equality. One promotes slavery.

In ME2? Sacrifice 50 or so people for hundreds of thousands of humans? Yeah. They can't defend themselves, it's my duty to fight for them. Protect them.

Building the Crucible is selfish?? Wha-?? That's literally the only hope for our whole Cycle. The only hope for trillions of beings. And it's selfish to use it?

Again and again, you are using metagaming knowledge, something you know as a player, something Shepard didn't know.

[flanny]

Jamie9 wrote...

ahleung wrote...

By assuming "You can't win Reaper in conventional way", keep fighting is already stupid. (No one know there would be a Crucible schematics popped out of nowhere)
A more logical choice is find some other plans to survive.
Hide (like Prothean, or ME3 Sanctuary)?
Find a way to leave Miky Way?
Who knows?

Beside that, Saren aimed for co-existing with Reaper, that's also a bigger chance to save more lives. How about joining Saren?

In ME2, no signs that all human are in danger, just some human colonies being attacked. Risking the whole Normandy crew to enter Omega 4 Relay also seems not worth it.

In ME3, refusing TIM's detailed plan to control Reapers, betting the whole Galaxy's resource into making a device that no one
knows what it does, no one knows what and where the key component
"Catalyst" is, also seems pretty selfish for me.

No, we'd fight to the death if we had to. It would help the next Cycle after all. But there's 3 other choices! To ignore them is so immoral.

Saren did not want co-existence. He wanted to serve the Reapers. The difference? One promotes equality. One promotes slavery.

In ME2? Sacrifice 50 or so people for hundreds of thousands of humans? Yeah. They can't defend themselves, it's my duty to fight for them. Protect them.

Building the Crucible is selfish?? Wha-?? That's literally the only hope for our whole Cycle. The only hope for trillions of beings. And it's selfish to use it?

building the cruible (a giant space battery that has the same circumference as the citadel but none of the best minds in the galaxy notice) is stupid.

No one knows what it does and if the reasources were used upgrading the fleet with reaper based tech e.g the thanix cannon, the reapers would have been defeated conventionally 

[Jamie9]

ahleung wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

No, we'd fight to the death if we had to. It would help the next Cycle after all. But there's 3 other choices! To ignore them is so immoral.

Saren did not want co-existence. He wanted to serve the Reapers. The difference? One promotes equality. One promotes slavery.

In ME2? Sacrifice 50 or so people for hundreds of thousands of humans? Yeah. They can't defend themselves, it's my duty to fight for them. Protect them.

Building the Crucible is selfish?? Wha-?? That's literally the only hope for our whole Cycle. The only hope for trillions of beings. And it's selfish to use it?

Again and again, you are using metagaming knowledge, something you know as a player, something Shepard didn't know.

I fail to see where I used metagaming.

[Baronesa]

Cant Planet wrote...

Rhiens VI wrote...

zombieord wrote...
Yes, even Destroy advances the Reaper agenda.

How?

I too would be interested to learn this.

Baronesa wrote...

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.

EDITED FOR CLARITY AND CONTEXT

Modifié par Baronesa, 29 juin 2012 - 10:47 .

[Rhiens VI]

flanny wrote...

Though I'd still choose it as it's the only ending that comes close to making sense, I mean after fighting the reapers for three games the idea of Shepard turning around and saying 'okay O'wise and powerful reaper overlord, i accept your choices at face value and will now choose the one the that sucks the least'

The Crucible isn't working. You don't know how to make it work. The time is running out - the Shield fleet, the major force of united galaxy, is about to get decimated, then the Crucible itself, and with it, your only hope to defeat the Reapers.

And your choice in this situation is what? "lalala, not listening"?

[Jamie9]

flanny wrote...

building the cruible (a giant space battery that has the same circumference as the citadel but none of the best minds in the galaxy notice) is stupid.

No one knows what it does and if the reasources were used upgrading the fleet with reaper based tech e.g the thanix cannon, the reapers would have been defeated conventionally 

It takes 4 dreadnoughts equipped with Thanix cannons to destroy a Sovereign-class Reaper. If even half of those get destroyed by other Reapers in the process, our forces halve each attack. We. Can't. Win. Conventionally.

That's the story. Sorry if that annoys you.

[zombieord]

Rhiens VI wrote...

zombieord wrote...

He could leave you to die at the console, but instead, he beams you up to manipulate you into doing what he wants.

Indeed he could leave Shepard to die, and finish all this reaping. Which is reaper's agenda.

Your point being?

Yes, even Destroy advances the Reaper agenda.

How?

My point is, the Catalyst has no use for Shepard if all he wants to do is finish this cycle. However, he states Shepard changes the variables. He now sees a way to further the Reaper agenda beyond simply harvesting every cycle. The Catalyst tells you that Synthesis is now possible and thus, inevitable. Synthesis was tried before, but they never had a willing subject (it couldn't be forced). Shepard, can now be that willing subject to achieve this stupid AI's idea of utopia.

How do control and destroy advance the Reaper agenda? If for no other reason than the options are offered to you by the bad guy. The Catalyst concedes you may take his place as overlord of the Reapers. He accepts this because he believes Synthesis will eventually happen anyway and it resolves the conflict for now. The same goes for destroy. You might wipe out synthetics for now, but he states your children will create them and you'll be back to square one. Hence, Synthesis will still eventually happen.

The only way to truly defeat the Reapers is to not play their game. Give the next cycle a chance to wipe out the Reapers conventionally. Liara's capsule gives them that chance and the stargazer scene implies that's what happens (ignore Bioware's trolling on twitter). Let the next cycle bring the full force of organic 'chaos' to their doorstep. Prove the Reapers wrong and coexist with synthetic life because its the right thing to do. Not because Shepard/Catalyst/Reapers force them to.

[ahleung]

Jamie9 wrote...

ahleung wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

No, we'd fight to the death if we had to. It would help the next Cycle after all. But there's 3 other choices! To ignore them is so immoral.

Saren did not want co-existence. He wanted to serve the Reapers. The difference? One promotes equality. One promotes slavery.

In ME2? Sacrifice 50 or so people for hundreds of thousands of humans? Yeah. They can't defend themselves, it's my duty to fight for them. Protect them.

Building the Crucible is selfish?? Wha-?? That's literally the only hope for our whole Cycle. The only hope for trillions of beings. And it's selfish to use it?

Again and again, you are using metagaming knowledge, something you know as a player, something Shepard didn't know.

I fail to see where I used metagaming.

Two quick points:

You assumed Catalyst is telling the truth, hence the 3 choices are valid.
But Shepard always don't trust Reapers.

For Curcible, no one knew what it does until Shepard meet Catalyst. Before then, it's just a stubborn belief, not a "only solution".

[Rhiens VI]

Baronesa wrote...

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.

Wait, so you admit that the goal itself is noble? And now we are arguing only about means to reach it?

[ahleung]

Jamie9 wrote...

flanny wrote...

building the cruible (a giant space battery that has the same circumference as the citadel but none of the best minds in the galaxy notice) is stupid.

No one knows what it does and if the reasources were used upgrading the fleet with reaper based tech e.g the thanix cannon, the reapers would have been defeated conventionally 

It takes 4 dreadnoughts equipped with Thanix cannons to destroy a Sovereign-class Reaper. If even half of those get destroyed by other Reapers in the process, our forces halve each attack. We. Can't. Win. Conventionally.

That's the story. Sorry if that annoys you.

Then TIM's Control plan should be the next choice, much better than building a no-one-know-what-it-does device.

[Jamie9]

ahleung wrote...

Two quick points:

You assumed Catalyst is telling the truth, hence the 3 choices are valid.
But Shepard always don't trust Reapers.

For Curcible, no one knew what it does until Shepard meet Catalyst. Before then, it's just a stubborn belief, not a "only solution".

The Catalyst has no reason to lie. We can assume everyone is lying. It's paranoid. The Catalyst has motivation to tell Shepard the truth.

You're correct. We don't know what the Crucible does. We do know that the Protheans tried to stop the Reapers with it. It's a long shot, but it's our best chance, as we can't defeat the Reapers conventionally.

And when you actually get to the Crucible, we find out what it does.

Neither of these is metagaming.

[Baronesa]

Rhiens VI wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

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.

Wait, so you admit that the goal itself is noble? And now we are arguing only about means to reach it?

Read my full post... I'm refering to the Catalyst goals... it is on page 3 at the bottom.

[zombieord]

Baronesa wrote...

Cant Planet wrote...

Rhiens VI wrote...

zombieord wrote...
Yes, even Destroy advances the Reaper agenda.

How?

I too would be interested to learn this.

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.

Summed up nicely. Not to mention, the Catalyst states Synthesis is now inevitable. "Your children will create Synthetics, etc..."

Basically, don'y play the Reapers game. Give a conventional victory a chance even if you might not succeed this cycle (you don't). But like Baronesa said, you have to make your decision with the information Shepard knows. Shepard does not know Destroy will even work. How does shooting a tube even make sense? How can you trust a simple AI that deemed the Reapers a suitable solution in the first place?

[Jamie9]

zombieord wrote...

Summed up nicely. Not to mention, the Catalyst states Synthesis is now inevitable. "Your children will create Synthetics, etc..."

Basically, don'y play the Reapers game. Give a conventional victory a chance even if you might not succeed this cycle (you don't). But like Baronesa said, you have to make your decision with the information Shepard knows. Shepard does not know Destroy will even work. How does shooting a tube even make sense? How can you trust a simple AI that deemed the Reapers a suitable solution in the first place?

Because it has every reason to tell you the truth. It's an AI. It's just relaying the information it has.

[Zemorion]

I don't see how people think the Destroy ending advances the Reapers agenda. Everything synthetic will be destroyed, but no more than it can be repaired - even the Mass Relays, as Hackett said during the last scenes.

The Geth will be destroyed, but the Quarians still exist - and now with the knowledge that peace can exist between them. The Geth can be rebuilt and can return to the state they were in pre-Destroy.

EDI (and all other similar AI's) will also be destroyed, but like the Geth, EDI also had creators - Cerberus, who will also be around after choosing Destroy. So EDI can also be recreated.

Reapers will be destroyed. Every advancement they have made through all the countless cycles will be lost and the Reapers will be rendered into empty shells. The galaxy can then either choose to dispose and destroy the remains completely, or salvage anything that can be used to prevent any future creation of Reaper-like machines.

So of the three RGB choices, I think Destroy is the most reasonable. It has been the goal throughout the series to destroy the Reapers, and Shepard have had to sacrifice life before (The Arrival) in order to achieve something greater.

[Baronesa]

Jamie9 wrote...

zombieord wrote...

Summed up nicely. Not to mention, the Catalyst states Synthesis is now inevitable. "Your children will create Synthetics, etc..."

Basically, don'y play the Reapers game. Give a conventional victory a chance even if you might not succeed this cycle (you don't). But like Baronesa said, you have to make your decision with the information Shepard knows. Shepard does not know Destroy will even work. How does shooting a tube even make sense? How can you trust a simple AI that deemed the Reapers a suitable solution in the first place?

Because it has every reason to tell you the truth. It's an AI. It's just relaying the information it has.

That suits a VI... nothing stops an AI from lying... remember those joke EDI pull on you? yup. Lying to achieve a reaction.