406 réponses à ce sujet

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nice fallacy OP.

LOL

Nope.

As stated earlier, every ending choice is Shepard choosing for everyone else, to some extent or another.

However, in the Destroy/Control/Synthesis, the races of the current cycle fighting the Reapers are around to appreciate the choice (with the exception of the Geth/EDI in Destroy).

In Refusal, they aren't.  Choosing to do nothing is still making a choice.

You miss the point. Shepard is choosing to fight the Catalyst. To fight the Reapers.
This is something everyone ALREADY CHOSE. The Crucible was part of it because they thought it was a weapon to be used against the Reapers, not a Reaper tool to further their agenda.

You didn't even pay attention to the Catalyst conversation about the Crucible. The Crucible is NOT a Reaper tool. It is a bomb developed by one of the previous cycles and continued on in the next cycles that came after. To say that the Crucible is a Reaper tool is blatantly lying against what is stated in the game.

[The Angry One]

saracen16 wrote...

Not only are you too literal, you are also intellectually dishonest. At the time of ME1, Reapers considered themselves a pinnacle of evolution, but synthesis is the true final evolution.

There is no such thing as final evolution.
It is Reaper propaganda due to belief in the superiority of their form, which is what synthesis is.

The second one is something I'm not even going to delve into: it's an empty statement that clearly has different meanings for the different parties involved.

Why. because you say so?

As for the last one, it has been argued before and you STILL refuse to listen: the organic and synthetic components are separate from each other, but on a macroscopic scale, they work together; while synthesis involves changing the matrix of life - the microscopic and molecular dimensions, the basic building blocks - at its very foundation. Reaper husks are just machine on organisms, parasitic relationship, but not symbiotic.

The method is different. The result is exactly the same. Hybrids, compatible with and built after the Reapers.
The very template it's based on is that of a cyborg, stop pretending it's something else because you don't want to face facts and then speak to me of dishonesty.

[Baronesa]

True final evolution?

*sighs*

[The Angry One]

saracen16 wrote...

You didn't even pay attention to the Catalyst conversation about the Crucible. The Crucible is NOT a Reaper tool. It is a bomb developed by one of the previous cycles and continued on in the next cycles that came after. To say that the Crucible is a Reaper tool is blatantly lying against what is stated in the game.

Assuming the Catalyst is trustworthy when it's not.
Forgetting how evasive the Catalyst becomes about the Crucible's actual origins.
Neglecting that, whatever it's origins, the Catalyst has turned it into a tool to promote it's agenda.

[clennon8]

Baronesa wrote...

Refusal makes sense if:

a: You don't trust the Catalyst.
b: You don't meta-game by knowing the outcomes of each decision
c: Stick with what has worked for Shepard in every single other occasion... be defiant and look for a different solution.

Bingo.

[saracen16]

wantedman dan wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

You're dooming trillions of people to death when there is another option. Right. There.

So allowing everyone to die free--a death of self-determinance--is immoral. They--those fighting--chose to fight. The options provided by the Crucible eliminate the concept of self-determinance, which is antithetical to the theme of Mass Effect and the purpose of sapient life.

I see. So you're saying you are completely willing to compromise your principles if the situation is difficult enough, right? Why draw the line at intragalactic war?

When the option to save them is in front of you but you refuse it, you are signing their death warrants for them.

[Bourne Endeavor]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

All species of the galaxy agreed to fight the Reapers, to the end if need be.
Not become the Reapers. Making a deal with the Catalyst to alter their being to please it is a violation and a betrayal.

Refusal is an affirmation of the galaxy's will to defy the Reapers, to reject their deals and not bow down to their evil.
If we die, we die free.

There will be no synthesis ending in the future, because the future cycle aren't stupid.

They agreed to fight, yes.  Did they agree to die if Shepard decided that the options allowed via the Crucible's creation and use weren't what Shepard wanted?

Refusal is Shepard holding to a moral principle and deciding that not making the decision not to choose is better than choosing.  At no point does anyone else get to chime in and go "But uhh...Shepard you could just pick this option."

As for the last sentence, well, the Crucible gets used anyway.  How it gets used is entirely up to headcanon.

No, Refusal is Shepard believing we can defeat the Reapers conventionally and is adamant in his/her belief the Catalyst is lying. We have no evident to refute the notion it is not. Consider the alternatives:

Control: Turn him/herself into the new Catalyst and control them with no knowledge how long that will last. TIM's logic, because that worked well for him.

Synthesis: Allow the Reaper AI to send a magic beam that will reconstruct all sentient life's DNA, ie. Saren's plan. Nothing could possibly be bad here...

Destroy: The only assurance the Reapers are dead but requires genocide.

Yeah, hardly difficult to see why Shepard might think, "Hmm, these options sort of suck."

[Fawx9]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

They're not being brainwashed. Never is that hinted or alluded to in the ending at all. That's "be as pessimistic as humanly possible" mode. Just like "the victory fleets will starve to death".

TAO has been this way since ME3 came out.  Then the EC came out and now she's all "The EC is bad because it says this isn't a problem when it SHOULD BE ONE! :crying:"  ("This isn't a problem" refering to the large number of issues that the EC resolved)

See:

The Angry One wrote...

I am sick and tired of this. Do you know why the fleets won't starve to death?
Because. They. Retconned it. 

No they didn't TAO.  They didn't retcon it because there wasn't anything to retcon.  It.  Didn't.  Happen.  At all.  Just because you don't like that it didn't happen doesn't change that.

OK then explain how one burning planet can sustain a galactic fleet long enough for them to not only repair but get themselves home with no relays.

That was the original ending, that's why it was highly probably many died do to lack of resources. Not to mention the fact 2 of the races can't eat our food.

[RiouHotaru]

wantedman dan wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

You're dooming trillions of people to death when there is another option. Right. There.

So allowing everyone to die free--a death of self-determinance--is immoral. 

Yes.  It is.  Because sometimes the right choice isn't always one that agrees with moralistic principles.

[wantedman dan]

saracen16 wrote...

When the option to save them is in front of you but you refuse it, you are signing their death warrants for them.

They willingly signed their own by joining the battle.

RiouHotaru wrote...

Yes.  It is.  Because sometimes the right choice isn't always one that agrees with moralistic principles.

Every militaristic dictator that has committed atrocities of war in our brief existence upon this rock would appreciate your sentiment.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:35 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Yes.  It is.  Because sometimes the right choice isn't always one that agrees with moralistic principles.

This kind of slippery slope Illusive Man and Saren went.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:37 .

[Baronesa]

RiouHotaru wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

You're dooming trillions of people to death when there is another option. Right. There.

So allowing everyone to die free--a death of self-determinance--is immoral. 

Yes.  It is.  Because sometimes the right choice isn't always one that agrees with moralistic principles.

Depends on your morals... there is NO objective morality.

That is why for some Control or Synthesis are perfectly MORAL choices, and for some of us they are complete MORAL ABOMINATIONS.

Modifié par Baronesa, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:36 .

[Jamie9]

The Angry One wrote...

I am sick and tired of this. Do you know why the fleets won't starve to death?
Because. They. Retconned it.

They retconned the amount of destruction the Mass Relays went through, yes, but even if that wasn't.

The liveships (assuming you have the Quarians) make dextro food, to feed Quarians and Turians. Earth can make food for the other races (Can they artificially make food in Mass Effect? I don't remember).

The Angry One wrote...

Ugh. Even if true. Ugh! Javik wouldn't be reuniting with his race!
He'd be uniting with a mockery. An abomination. A record of their suffering. He would despise this. Remember what he said about the Collectors? Wiping them out was a mercy killing.

At the time of ME2 though, the Collectors were unsalvagable. They were dead. As Mordin states, they have no culture, no art, which makes them dead, just tools for the Reapers.

We can presume the Reapers are not dead in synthesis. They help rebuild. This shows they have a desire to help, so likely have culture. Each Reaper may even hold the culture of it's Cycle's race. Can we doom that to the grave forever?

The Angry One wrote...
And the collective will. And the DNA alteration. And co-existance with Reapers. And being happy about it. Who knows what else. It's forced, it's a violation, and it's evil.

We don't know they have a collective will? When is that stated? They co-operate because they want to, not because they are forced.

The DNA is altered to give organics synthetic traits and vice versa. As far as I can tell, all of this would be optional though, as organics would still have all the previous organic traits.

Why is co-existance with the Reapers a bad thing? They didn't want to harvest races, they were controlled by the Catalyst! It's the same thing as when Shepard was controlled by TIM to kill Anderson.

Modifié par Jamie9, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:37 .

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

No they didn't TAO.  They didn't retcon it because there wasn't anything to retcon.  It.  Didn't.  Happen.  At all.  Just because you don't like that it didn't happen doesn't change that.

I'm sorry. I cannot take you seriously anymore.




Retconned. Fact. Not up for debate.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...
Assuming the Catalyst is trustworthy when it's not.
Forgetting how evasive the Catalyst becomes about the Crucible's actual origins.
Neglecting that, whatever it's origins, the Catalyst has turned it into a tool to promote it's agenda.

He's not evasive, the information simply isn't relevant.  Knowing WHO made the Crucible doesn't matter.  And he's right, you wouldn't know who they were, and at the moment, there really ISN'T any time to explain.

You're grasping now to try and paint the Catalyst as some kind of Ultimate Evil antagonist.

Fawx9 wrote...

OK then explain how one burning planet can sustain a galactic fleet long enough for them to not only repair but get themselves home with no relays. 

That was the original ending, that's why it was highly probably many died do to lack of resources. Not to mention the fact 2 of the races can't eat our food. 

 

Quarian Liveships for the Turians.  (And the fact Palaven isn't that far away via conventional FTL either).

Also, the original ending didn't even state in any regard that people starved to death.  Headcanoning it in because supposedly "it makes sense" isn't a valid line of reasoning.

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

You didn't even pay attention to the Catalyst conversation about the Crucible. The Crucible is NOT a Reaper tool. It is a bomb developed by one of the previous cycles and continued on in the next cycles that came after. To say that the Crucible is a Reaper tool is blatantly lying against what is stated in the game.

Assuming the Catalyst is trustworthy when it's not.

Vendetta states that the Crucible is the work of previous cycles.

Forgetting how evasive the Catalyst becomes about the Crucible's actual origins.

"We've first noticed the design of the Crucible SEVERAL CYCLES AGO. With each passing cycle, the design has no doubt evolved." It also states that it thought the Crucible was eradicated, but "clearly, organics are more resourceful than we thought", a statement of disbelief and admiration.

Neglecting that, whatever it's origins, the Catalyst has turned it into a tool to promote it's agenda.

Yes, an agenda that includes destroying it and all Reapers. The Crucible changed the Catalyst, and we are holding that program hostage. We have a ****ing bomb hovering over its head, and its giving us options because it is the component that guides the Crucible.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

No they didn't TAO.  They didn't retcon it because there wasn't anything to retcon.  It.  Didn't.  Happen.  At all.  Just because you don't like that it didn't happen doesn't change that.

I'm sorry. I cannot take you seriously anymore.




Retconned. Fact. Not up for debate.

You know why that was changed.  Because everyone took the original to say:

"Relays blew up like in Arrival and DESTROYED THE ENTIRE SYSTEM!"

If I had a screenshot of Control, I'd show the Reapers putting together pieces of the front part of the Relay that weren't shown coming off of it in the first place.

Clarification of an event =/= retcon.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:41 .

[ThatDancingTurian]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

No, Refusal is Shepard believing we can defeat the Reapers conventionally and is adamant in his/her belief the Catalyst is lying. We have no evident to refute the notion it is not. Consider the alternatives:

Control: Turn him/herself into the new Catalyst and control them with no knowledge how long that will last. TIM's logic, because that worked well for him.

Synthesis: Allow the Reaper AI to send a magic beam that will reconstruct all sentient life's DNA, ie. Saren's plan. Nothing could possibly be bad here...

Destroy: The only assurance the Reapers are dead but requires genocide.

Yeah, hardly difficult to see why Shepard might think, "Hmm, these options sort of suck."

Those options are terrible even if you assume complete honesty from the Catalyst. When you imagine it's manipulating you and lying to you, it just gets comical.

Catalyst: Break it here and it will do Magic Thing 1! Interfere with its energy conduit here and it will do Magic Thing 2! Insert a human-sized blockage into its power source here and it will do Magic Thing 3! None of these are ways to sabotage the Reaper-killing weapon you just made, honest! Did I mention I created all the Reapers?

[saracen16]

wantedman dan wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

When the option to save them is in front of you but you refuse it, you are signing their death warrants for them.

They willingly signed their own by joining the battle.

No, they joined the battle to sacrifice themselves and save their civilizations, not sacrifice their people.

[Bill Casey]

RiouHotaru wrote...

...I think you must've blantantly missed the Catalyst's explanation, ignored it and substituted your own explanation, or completely and utterly ignored EDI's epilogue.

They aren't like the Reapers.  Heck the Reapers aren't like the Reapers anymore.

Yes they are...

[The Angry One]

[quote]Jamie9 wrote...

They retconned the amount of destruction the Mass Relays went through, yes, but even if that wasn't.

The liveships (assuming you have the Quarians) make dextro food, to feed Quarians and Turians. Earth can make food for the other races (Can they artificially make food in Mass Effect? I don't remember).[/quote]

Assuming the liveships survived. Earth would not be recoverable without galactic aid, meaning no food.
I'm sorry, but give this up. Even BioWare saw this, hence why they retconned the relays.

[quote]At the time of ME2 though, the Collectors were unsalvagable. They were dead. As Mordin states, they have no culture, no art, which makes them dead, just tools for the Reapers.[/quote]

And just like the Reapers.

[quote]We can presume the Reapers are not dead in synthesis. They help rebuild. This shows they have a desire to help, so likely have culture. Each Reaper may even hold the culture of it's Cycle's race. Can we doom that to the grave forever?[/quote]

Assumption. They are part of the collective will, and help their new hybrid minions.

[quote]We don't know they have a collective will? When is that stated? They co-operate because they want to, not because they are forced.[/quote]

Listen to EDI's dialogue. Listen to how there's now no conflict and everybody's "happy". This can only happen with an enforcement of collective will.

[quote[The DNA is altered to give organics synthetic traits and vice versa. As far as I can tell, all of this would be optional though, as organics would still have all the previous organic traits.[/quote]

You're just headcanoning options where none exist, this is not merely cosmetic and you know it.

[quote]Why is co-existance with the Reapers a bad thing? They didn't want to harvest races, they were controlled by the Catalyst! It's the same thing as when Shepard was controlled by TIM to kill Anderson.
[/quote]

You really, really, REALLY think the average citizen would care about that? They would not see a victim. They would see the giant monster that brutally murdered their loved ones.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

saracen16 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

When the option to save them is in front of you but you refuse it, you are signing their death warrants for them.

They willingly signed their own by joining the battle.

No, they joined the battle to sacrifice themselves and save their civilizations, not sacrifice their people.

Actually, you know, it would be much easier, if we can, you know, just ask them?
Tell starkid, "Ok, we don't reject your new solutions right away, but could we actually ask people involved, what they'd prefer? could we declare a ceasefire - and you can always go back to reaping if it fails, if, as you claim, we have no hope of winning anyway? Oh, you don't want to, you want to force me to choose for them right here right now? Hmm, I don't know about that...".

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:44 .

[Enjou]

wantedman dan wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

You're dooming trillions of people to death when there is another option. Right. There.

So allowing everyone to die free--a death of self-determinance--is immoral. They--those fighting--chose to fight. The options provided by the Crucible eliminate the concept of self-determinance, which is antithetical to the theme of Mass Effect and the purpose of sapient life.

I see. So you're saying you are completely willing to compromise your principles if the situation is difficult enough, right? Why draw the line at intragalactic war?

I'm pretty sure they choose to fight because they don't want to die. They choose to fight because the Reapers killing them is a violation of their right to self-determinate. Refusal is like telling them to go die even if they don't want to, because that's what is going to happen - defeat is inevitable if the Crucible isn't used.

If you use self-determination as the value which trumps all others in making your decision, then among the endings Paragon Control is probably the one that does that most, because the only ones whose self-determination you are violating is the Reapers and the Star Child by effectively killing them through replacement, and considering that they are already violating the self-determination of others you've got to do something about them.

[Welsh Inferno]

Bill Casey wrote...

Yes they are...

Nope.

[RiouHotaru]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...
Those options are terrible even if you assume complete honesty from the Catalyst. When you imagine it's manipulating you and lying to you, it just gets comical.

Catalyst: Break it here and it will do Magic Thing 1! Interfere with its energy conduit here and it will do Magic Thing 2! Insert a human-sized blockage into its power source here and it will do Magic Thing 3! None of these are ways to sabotage the Reaper-killing weapon you just made, honest! Did I mention I created all the Reapers?

But to assume it's manipulating or lying to you is ridiculous.  If you argue about Control, he openly states "I don't like the idea of you replacing me either, but if you pick that I can't stop you."

Also, we know it doesn't sabotage the Crucible because of the endings.