331 réponses à ce sujet

[Rhiens VI]

zombieord wrote...
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.

How is this better for Reaper's agenda than simply killing Shepard and finishing the cycle with all those Reapers intact?

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. Prove the Reapers wrong and coexist with synthetic life because its the right thing to do. Not because Shepard/Catalyst/Reapers force them to.

So basicly, you think that the possibility to defeat Reaper's agenda sometime in the future is more important than saving trillions of lives in your cycle?

That's cold.

Modifié par Rhiens VI, 29 juin 2012 - 10:52 .

[Baronesa]

Zemorion wrote...

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.

If there was a way to make them again...  but going by the codex info on AI... you can copy all the information to a new blue box, but the quantum variables would make the personalities to be unique to each blue box. You could create another AI with all the memories of EDI, or new Geth.. but they would not be the same.

[likta_]

zombieord wrote...

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?

Why would any real person do that? Shepard was send on his mission to stop the reapers not for the sake of stopping the reapers or sticking it to them, but to save this cycle. Letting everyone die just to stick it to the reapers is kinda dumb.

[Jamie9]

Zemorion wrote...

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.

The Geth and EDI can be rebuilt, but they'll hardly have the same personality. How AI works is described in the codex.

Destroy is the most direct. It definitely stops the Reapers. That is a renegade ideal.

The altruistic options are Control and Synthesis. Synthesis is the most altruistic option, despite it being written quite poorly.

[ahleung]

Jamie9 wrote...

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.

Catalyst has many reasons to lie, like tricking you into not doing something that can really destroy them.
Who knew what that 3 panels really do?
And the famous theory: IT. Indoctrinating someone like Shepard will be very useful, like TIM.


Prothean failed at the end.
TIM has detailed plan (theory, tested) to control Reapers. That sounds like a better best chance.

>>And when you actually get to the Crucible, we find out what it does.
What does this have anything to do with Shepard deciding whehter or not building Crucible in the first place?
Shepard decided to build Crucible just based on his own belief, moral, stubborness.

Modifié par ahleung, 29 juin 2012 - 10:56 .

[lasertank]

because the conflict between organics and synthetics was never a major problem in the ME world, only in the catalyst's head. I'm angry because Bioware gave us a story with a distracting ending. Even if catalyst has perfect logic, it does not change the fact that Bioware's "ARTISTIC INTEGRITY" is actually an excuse for the ****ty story-telling.

[FS3D]

shurikenmanta wrote...

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.

Most reasonable and intellectually honest people would not create such a blatant strawman.

[liggy002]

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.

If Liquid Ocelot had just stood there at the end of MGS4 and let me beat him to death without putting up a fight, I would have hated that game too.

[Subguy614]

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.Continue the cycle.'

fixed for ya

[Galbrant]

liggy002 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.

If Liquid Ocelot had just stood there at the end of MGS4 and let me beat him to death without putting up a fight, I would have hated that game too.

That epic final battle in MGS4 was glorious.

[Rhiens VI]

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.

Peace between Geth and Quarians doesn't disprove Catalyst's arguements. It can be temporary, for all you know. Geth may reach their point of no return later, especially now that they evolved so much with Reaper tech in them.

Catalyst has been monitoring countless cycles of conflict. You have seen just ONE peaceful resolution. What makes you think that from now on, everything is going to be flowers and candy between organics and synthetics?

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

Or Reapers could just kill Shepard and finish their reaping. Which one is better for Reapers?

and commit genocide on an allied race and kill a close friend.

Very sad, but I'd sacrifice the Geth to make sure 1. Reapers are gone and 2. Galaxy has time to prepare for possible future conflict between organics and synthetics.

[ahleung]

Subguy614 wrote...

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.Continue the cycle.'

fixed for ya

Actually the original dialogue is one of the reasons why Catalyst seems not trustable.

Catalyst said something like (not exact wording), "my solution no longer work. we need to find a new solution."

Then how is Destroy a new solution? Destroy simply means he gave up and let Chaos rise (in his logic. Because he assumed it's inevitable).

Why would Catalyst offer Destroy for you to choose?

Modifié par ahleung, 29 juin 2012 - 11:10 .

[Zemorion]

Baronesa wrote...

If there was a way to make them again...  but going by the codex info on AI... you can copy all the information to a new blue box, but the quantum variables would make the personalities to be unique to each blue box. You could create another AI with all the memories of EDI, or new Geth.. but they would not be the same.

Perhaps they would not be the same, but at least they would still come to exist again and have the purpose intended for them by their creators. Besides, we don't really know exactly what the Destroy beam does in order to destroy the synthetics, so perhaps enough can be salvaged from Geth/EDI/other synthetics, to pretty much re-create them again as they were - just like Shepard was re-created and still were himself/herself.

Jamie9 wrote...

The Geth and EDI can be rebuilt, but they'll hardly have the same personality. How AI works is described in the codex.

Destroy is the most direct. It definitely stops the Reapers. That is a renegade ideal.

The altruistic options are Control and Synthesis. Synthesis is the most altruistic option, despite it being written quite poorly.

Same reply as above, regarding the recreation of Geth/EDI. I like Destroy because it removes the enemy, and leaves the rest of the galaxy in the state it is - except no synthetics. So the war can now be accounted and written in history by everyone who experienced it, so the current and all future cycles can learn from it.

Destroy also have the only hint of Shepard being alive, so he have a chance to be rescued and reunited with his friends and LI, and settle down in a galaxy in peace.

[Errationatus]

IMO, having the power to divert, affect or otherwise stop a crime and not acting makes you complicit in that crime.

If you stand and watch as a person is murdered and you could stop the murder and don't, you are as guilty as the murderer.  Saying after that you didn't want to impose your morality and interfere with the free will of the murderer to murder or the victim to be murdered is criminal and ludicrous.

If you have the power, means and ability to stop a genocide and you refuse, you are not on a moral high ground, you're a coward in every sense of the word.  Or is there such a thing as a "good" genocide? You're qualified to judge, are you?

If your allies have willingly committed their lives and resources to your cause, they then obviously do it because they trust you will make the decision that benefits all.  This idea that "extinction is better than capitulation" fails on every level, and negates everything that has lead to the moment - especially when your enemy seeks only your extinction and nothing else.  To decide to do nothing simply because you "die free" betrays all those who put their faith in you. That is as much forcing a choice on people as is any of the other choices you are presented with - and it's only outcome is annihilation.  

This is an important point to distinguish: at the end, at that point in the narrative, this is not about you.  You are not there as Shepard.  You are a cipher for the races of the galaxy.  It's not about your personal morality.  It's about doing your job.  It's about extracting the greatest possible good from disaster.

The point is to avoid extinction. 

Refusal is the most hypocritical choice you can make in these endings.  You were sent to save those uncountable billions, not pontificate on the bullsh!t "rightness" of your wee-wee-waving rugged individualism.  Sometimes, all you can do is choose the least crappy of crappy choices and hope for the best, but there is no "best" in Refusal.  

You fail, unequivocally.  You fail those billions, you betray all the faith given you.  You allow trillions to die, but hey, you stuck to your principles.  Good for you, you must be proud.  The dead salute your willingness to see them die for your self-satisfaction.

Yes, congratulations.  You're a free corpse rotting in the rightness of your heroic stand of doing nothing.  You allowed a trillion other corpses to agree with you whether they wanted to or not, and the ashes of a dozen civilizations smoulder in the bright sunshine of your moral fundamentalism.  You passed the buck and allowed whomever comes after to learn from your example.  Perhaps they too can commit smugly self-righteous suicide.

It did, after all, turn out so well for this cycle.

[zombieord]

Rhiens VI wrote...

zombieord wrote...
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.

How is this better for Reaper's agenda than simply killing Shepard and finishing the cycle with all those Reapers intact?

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. Prove the Reapers wrong and coexist with synthetic life because its the right thing to do. Not because Shepard/Catalyst/Reapers force them to.

So basicly, you think that the possibility to defeat Reaper's agenda sometime in the future is more important than saving trillions of lives in your cycle?

That's cold.

It isn't "better" for the Reaper agenda. It is the Reaper agenda. Let's say you do chose Destroy. You have fulfilled Reaper agenda for this cycle albeit in a slightly different manner than they would have (preserve organic life in some capacity so synthetic life doesn't make us go extinct). This is not acceptable to me or my Shepard because I will not choose genocide on any scale (10 milion or 10 trillion). Also, no one has answered why you could/should trust the Catalyst. (Yes, the epilogue shows his words to be true, but again Shepard doesn't know that).

Regarding your second question. I don't believe the possibility to defeat the Reapers is more important than saving the current cycle. I believe self-determination for organics is the only thing that is important. I fundamentally am opposed to the Catalyst's goals (elimination of the 'chaos' of organics). The Catalyst/Reapers wish to deprive us of our free will. I say without our free will, there is nothing worth saving.

[Aiyie]

i reject the idea of having to choose from his options.

the catalyst is directly linked to the Reapers.

if he isn't the devil himself, he's the devil's right hand man.

i don't particularly relish the thought of signing any contract he puts in front of me, regardless of the supposed benefits ill reap.

[likta_]

JakeMacDon wrote...

IMO, having the power to divert, affect or otherwise stop a crime and not acting makes you complicit in that crime.

If you stand and watch as a person is murdered and you could stop the murder and don't, you are as guilty as the murderer.  Saying after that you didn't want to impose your morality and interfere with the free will of the murderer to murder or the victim to be murdered is criminal and ludicrous.

If you have the power, means and ability to stop a genocide and you refuse, you are not on a moral high ground, you're a coward in every sense of the word.  Or is there such a thing as a "good" genocide? You're qualified to judge, are you?

If your allies have willingly committed their lives and resources to your cause, they then obviously do it because they trust you will make the decision that benefits all.  This idea that "extinction is better than capitulation" fails on every level, and negates everything that has lead to the moment - especially when your enemy seeks only your extinction and nothing else.  To decide to do nothing simply because you "die free" betrays all those who put their faith in you. That is as much forcing a choice on people as is any of the other choices you are presented with - and it's only outcome is annihilation.  

This is an important point to distinguish: at the end, at that point in the narrative, this is not about you.  You are not there as Shepard.  You are a cipher for the races of the galaxy.  It's not about your personal morality.  It's about doing your job.  It's about extracting the greatest possible good from disaster.

The point is to avoid extinction. 

Refusal is the most hypocritical choice you can make in these endings.  You were sent to save those uncountable billions, not pontificate on the bullsh!t "rightness" of your wee-wee-waving rugged individualism.  Sometimes, all you can do is choose the least crappy of crappy choices and hope for the best, but there is no "best" in Refusal.  

You fail, unequivocally.  You fail those billions, you betray all the faith given you.  You allow trillions to die, but hey, you stuck to your principles.  Good for you, you must be proud.  The dead salute your willingness to see them die for your self-satisfaction.

Yes, congratulations.  You're a free corpse rotting in the rightness of your heroic stand of doing nothing.  You allowed a trillion other corpses to agree with you whether they wanted to or not, and the ashes of a dozen civilizations smoulder in the bright sunshine of your moral fundamentalism.  You passed the buck and allowed whomever comes after to learn from your example.  Perhaps they too can commit smugly self-righteous suicide.

It did, after all, turn out so well for this cycle.

I.. I think I love you!

[Aaleel]

The plan the entire game was to build and use the crucible. You've agreed that it's the only way you can win, and the final assault was all or nothing. So at the final moment Shepard decides to say screw the plan and causes everyone's death and the continuation of the cycle.

You've undone everything you've accomplished for the galaxy and its races and now they're all in reaper form waiting to be used to continue the cycle in another 50,000

Then you find out that the next cycle does what Shepard refused to do, use the crucible and end the cycle.

I don't see any logic in this choice at all.

[zombieord]

JakeMacDon wrote...

IMO, having the power to divert, affect or otherwise stop a crime and not acting makes you complicit in that crime.

If you stand and watch as a person is murdered and you could stop the murder and don't, you are as guilty as the murderer.  Saying after that you didn't want to impose your morality and interfere with the free will of the murderer to murder or the victim to be murdered is criminal and ludicrous.

If you have the power, means and ability to stop a genocide and you refuse, you are not on a moral high ground, you're a coward in every sense of the word.  Or is there such a thing as a "good" genocide? You're qualified to judge, are you?

If your allies have willingly committed their lives and resources to your cause, they then obviously do it because they trust you will make the decision that benefits all.  This idea that "extinction is better than capitulation" fails on every level, and negates everything that has lead to the moment - especially when your enemy seeks only your extinction and nothing else.  To decide to do nothing simply because you "die free" betrays all those who put their faith in you. That is as much forcing a choice on people as is any of the other choices you are presented with - and it's only outcome is annihilation.  

This is an important point to distinguish: at the end, at that point in the narrative, this is not about you.  You are not there as Shepard.  You are a cipher for the races of the galaxy.  It's not about your personal morality.  It's about doing your job.  It's about extracting the greatest possible good from disaster.

The point is to avoid extinction. 

Refusal is the most hypocritical choice you can make in these endings.  You were sent to save those uncountable billions, not pontificate on the bullsh!t "rightness" of your wee-wee-waving rugged individualism.  Sometimes, all you can do is choose the least crappy of crappy choices and hope for the best, but there is no "best" in Refusal.  

You fail, unequivocally.  You fail those billions, you betray all the faith given you.  You allow trillions to die, but hey, you stuck to your principles.  Good for you, you must be proud.  The dead salute your willingness to see them die for your self-satisfaction.

Yes, congratulations.  You're a free corpse rotting in the rightness of your heroic stand of doing nothing.  You allowed a trillion other corpses to agree with you whether they wanted to or not, and the ashes of a dozen civilizations smoulder in the bright sunshine of your moral fundamentalism.  You passed the buck and allowed whomever comes after to learn from your example.  Perhaps they too can commit smugly self-righteous suicide.

It did, after all, turn out so well for this cycle.

Except your option when faced with this genocide isn't "stop the genocide unequivocally". It's more like "stop the genocide by creating a "better" one. Or stop the genocide and become a space dictator with the aforementioned enablers of the genocide. Or forcibly change the entire galaxy into the ideal image of the genocide.

It's not as black and white as you paint it.

To quote our Commander, "I'll fight and win this war without compromising the soul of our species."

I stuck to that word. Our cycle was not in vain just as you would not call the Prothean cycle a failure. The Reapers and their leader are who you should direct your anger.

[zombieord]

Aaleel wrote...

The plan the entire game was to build and use the crucible. You've agreed that it's the only way you can win, and the final assault was all or nothing. So at the final moment Shepard decides to say screw the plan and causes everyone's death and the continuation of the cycle.

You've undone everything you've accomplished for the galaxy and its races and now they're all in reaper form waiting to be used to continue the cycle in another 50,000

Then you find out that the next cycle does what Shepard refused to do, use the crucible and end the cycle.

I don't see any logic in this choice at all.

No where in game does it say the Crucible is ever used. The stargazer scene says they never had conflict with the Reapers. You could just as easily assume the cycle that discovered the Crucible either scrapped it completely or created a weapon to destroy only the Reapers.

[likta_]

zombieord wrote...


No where in game does it say the Crucible is ever used. The stargazer scene says they never had conflict with the Reapers. You could just as easily assume the cycle that discovered the Crucible either scrapped it completely or created a weapon to destroy only the Reapers.

Word of God (Twitter) says that they indeed used the Crucible. Don't pretend you never used outside sources to come to the conclusion you arrived at.

Modifié par likta_, 29 juin 2012 - 12:17 .

[Rhiens VI]

zombieord wrote...

Rhiens VI wrote...

zombieord wrote...
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.

How is this better for Reaper's agenda than simply killing Shepard and finishing the cycle with all those Reapers intact?

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. Prove the Reapers wrong and coexist with synthetic life because its the right thing to do. Not because Shepard/Catalyst/Reapers force them to.

So basicly, you think that the possibility to defeat Reaper's agenda sometime in the future is more important than saving trillions of lives in your cycle?

That's cold.

It isn't "better" for the Reaper agenda. It is the Reaper agenda. Let's say you do chose Destroy. You have fulfilled Reaper agenda for this cycle albeit in a slightly different manner than they would have (preserve organic life in some capacity so synthetic life doesn't make us go extinct). This is not acceptable to me or my Shepard because I will not choose genocide on any scale (10 milion or 10 trillion). Also, no one has answered why you could/should trust the Catalyst. (Yes, the epilogue shows his words to be true, but again Shepard doesn't know that).

Regarding your second question. I don't believe the possibility to defeat the Reapers is more important than saving the current cycle. I believe self-determination for organics is the only thing that is important. I fundamentally am opposed to the Catalyst's goals (elimination of the 'chaos' of organics). The Catalyst/Reapers wish to deprive us of our free will. I say without our free will, there is nothing worth saving.

By not choosing genocide as presented by Catalyst, you (though indirectly) still commit far greater genocide by letting Reapers continue the cycle.

As for trusting the Catalyst. A leap of faith is required, indeed, but what are other options? You must do something  and do it fast, before the Crucible is destroyed. I'd rather pick one of the options presented, because the alternative is obvious - total annihilation.

As for self-determination, how the Destroy ending stops organics from self-determining? You can build all the goddamn synthetics again, if you want, and no Reaper will stop you.

[Rhiens VI]

zombieord wrote...
To quote our Commander, "I'll fight and win this war without compromising the soul of our species."

I stuck to that word.

No, you didn't. You lost the war.

[SirCroft]

"I want to be able to win the war conventionally, even if it means heavy losses"

"Destroy is bad because Geth die"

I can't really see the logic there. Would you really not sacrifice a race of machines for the good of all the other races?

[MattFini]

It's because of the way the finale is written.

Shepard choosing one of the StarChild's choices is a passive victory. An anticlimax.

Had that entire scene been re-written to make Shepard more active - like activating the Crucible to fire despite the StarChild's best efforts to stop/sway you from doing so - then it would've sat MUCH better with a lot of folks. Because it would be Shepard's victory on his/her terms.

It wouldn't be handed to him/her as it is now.