406 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

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.

Knowing full well it could go sour at any moment.

[Fawx9]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

You know why it was the popular theory? Because it was the most logical outcome in the original ending.

You have a single world that has been raped by the war. You have a fleet of ships thaty have been decimated by the reapers. You have no relays to get supplies in to help things.

You're right Palaven may be close, but it would also require the knoweldge of unexplored sections of the galaxy to get there. Most of the galaxy hasn't been explored so no one knows where the hell they are going with long term FTL. They would need to plan it out extensively and bring refineriess with them in order to refull along the way(hoping they ran into the right amount of planets). Also this journey isn't days. It's months if not years, and thats just Palaven . What abou the other races? Some would have taken decades to get back to their homes.


Of course I haven't even gotten into the mess the fringe worlds would be in. Almost any colonist was as good as dead if their world relied on galactic trade to supply them.

Modifié par Fawx9, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:47 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

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

So Shepard is secrettly sniffing Spice? He knows what will happen when he chooses?

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

Oh my god. How about the Normandy's engines then? You going to claim that's not a retcon too?
The relays were clearly smashed beyond repair in the original ending. That is what they changed.

www.youtube.com/watch

That's the low EMS destroy EC ending. The relays blow up there. Guess what? No rebuilding montage. Hackett talks about survival in a Fallout-esque scenario. Are you still going to dispute this?

[The Angry One]

saracen16 wrote...

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

As far as it knows. Vendetta's information is limited.

"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.

Once again. The Protheans were building about it. Indoctrinated agents knew about it. Which means the Catalyst knew about it. ONE. CYCLE. AGO.

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.

Destroy is a desperation move. It destroys all synthetics, and still promotes it's agenda. It clearly wants you to pick synthesis, and tries to manipulate you into it.

[Creighton72]

Your not actually given a real choice in any of the endings. The Catalyst is just giving you options, he has already made his choice, and his choice was to give up on his self imposed cycle of death. Your never once given enough information to decide what choice you should actually make and not given any intellegent options where Shepard does not come out looking like an idiot.

The author had an ending in mind and did not really think it through. He just wanted that the to be the ending no matter what the story or direction the game took. In stead of completing the story the ending just gives you a lot more questions about character that is introdiced in the last 5 min of the game and leaves a lot of players wondering what is up with these options "my Shepard would never pick this."

Refuse is more a threat than an option, hence the sudden change in the Catalysts voive. Symbolic of what is about to go down.

Control, while some like the new ending, does anyone really trust the Catalyst? And can you trust that the Reapers don't rebel, or that Shepard a being who was never meant to be immortal trying to control them for? Well Forever, who is to say 10,000 years from now Shepard does not go crazy.

Synergy, basically no real difference than control in that you don't really know what your getting into. While the cuts seens become all rainbow and sunshine, making the choice for everyone to become synthetic is not your call. It's also the forced ending which is why I think people really don't like it. The Geth and Edi are held as hostage in destroy. Control is the Illusive mans plan and you can't really trust it. Refuse is everyone dies. Synergy is forced and I don't think people like being forced into that option. I also don't like the overly happy ending where everything becomes perfect. I was like "god Hudson can you lay it on any thicker."

I always pick destroy myself because it is the one option that everyone in the Galaxy agreed to. Edi and the Geth both state that they don't want to be part of the reapers and are both willing to sacrifice themselves to stop them. I never thought the whole they will die because of Reaper tech made any sense because all technology in the Galaxy is based on Reaper tech and all of it should stop working. I just felt like Hudson wanted to try and blackmail me into synergy because he wanted that to be the ending.

As for Chocies, what choice do you really have. It's a choice at gun point. None of it makes any sense because the Catalyst controls the Reapers, if he wants to actually stop them, then just stop them. For some odd reason it comes to Shepard to fix his mistake that he is unwilling to fix himself. Which also made me feel like his death is forced because by author, none of the ways he dies makes any sense. His body will be destroyed and his mind will become a program to control the reapers? How does that work? The Reapers minds are way more powerful than Sheps, and as an entire group are you kidding? Synergy his body must be destroyed to get his DNA? You know call me crazy but there are easier ways to get DNA. The author basically tries to force Synergy and Shepards death. That's it, but these are not real choices they are only options that you pick at gun point, there is never any free will to make them.

By the way the reason Refusal is called refusal is because you refuse to take one of the catalysts forced options. Hence the name refusal. I refuse your options. It's actually the only free will move you can make and you pay for it. Hudson seems to have issues about people making there own choices. The Galaxy agreed to fight the Reapers, and either die trying or destroy them. What it never agreed too was becoming synergy or trying to control them. Given the information Shepard has, his options without stripping away everyones rights are to either destroy the Reapers or fight them to the death, because that is what was agreed upon.

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

You're really grasping at straws. Reapers are a goo of DNA and nanites. Synthesis involves changing the fundamental DNA building blocks into something else to the extent that it can transcend mortality. That makes it final.

Why. because you say so?

No, because I can think of many realms of thought or existence far beyond my comprehension that I can not even imagine, not just the Reapers or Synthesis... like God Himself.

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.

Cyborgs contain both macroscopic machine AND organic components. Reapers are an amalgamation of dead genetic goo and nanite tubes. Synthites are different: they contain fundamental building blocks that give them the advantages of synthetics while at the same time maintaining their organic identity and their individuality. Don't try to even compare them.

[ThatDancingTurian]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

He's the Reaper god and he came to Shepard in the image of a child that haunts him/her. It's not a ridiculous assumption at all.

He doesn't 'openly' state anything as far as Shepard is concerned. Either he's telling the truth or he's lying, there's no way for Shepard to know. Of course it turned out he was telling the truth, but there's no way for Shepard to know that.

Modifié par Aris Ravenstar, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:48 .

[wantedman dan]

Enjou wrote...

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 join in any battle without knowing that there is a possibility to completely lose, you are naïve and deserve nothing but. It's simple as that.

Your non-sequitur is adorable, though. "LAWL go die" =/= The crucible's options offer horrific implications and I will not choose them for you.

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.

LOL

So basically, if we defeat them it's perfectly acceptable to enslave them. I see.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

No, Bioware stated "That wasn't the message we intended to send."  Did you listen to the podcast?  Or do you ignore that too?

Face it TAO, you're renaming "Clarification" to "Retcon" because Bioware didn't change what happened to fit your personal interpretation of the ending (Galactic dark age, people starve and die) and said "No, people live, because that's what it was supposed to be."  That they showed it happening the way they intended for it to be, and that this doesn't match up with your interpretation based on no evidence.

Admittedly, there wasn't any evidence for the "Everything turns out better" either, but that was the point, Bioware left everything vague.  Now that it's clarified and doesn't match what you said it was, you call "Retcon."

[Muhkida]

Killing someone =/= watching someone kill

I don't care how you try to twist this, it's not the same.  I can see where the OP can say refusal is just "as bad" as synthesis, but it's not a violating someone's free will.

Also I doubt Shepard's intention for refusing was to doom all advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  He/she probably still believed there was a chance to defeat the Reapers conventionally.....but people's hindsight will just throw that thought away.

[AlduinTheWorldNommer]

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

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

As far as it knows. Vendetta's information is limited.

Like RiouHotaru said: knowing about who made them is irrelevant.

Once again. The Protheans were building about it. Indoctrinated agents knew about it. Which means the Catalyst knew about it. ONE. CYCLE. AGO.

They didn't build it. They were sabotaged from within by these indoctrinated agents, who clearly have not informed their Reaper masters, but sabotaged them nonetheless.

Destroy is a desperation move. It destroys all synthetics, and still promotes it's agenda. It clearly wants you to pick synthesis, and tries to manipulate you into it.

Only that the synthetics being destroyed is a result of the Crucible's design because it will NOT discriminate between any synthetic. It is NOT in the Catalyst's control to destroy only the Reapers.

[The Angry One]

saracen16 wrote...

You're really grasping at straws. Reapers are a goo of DNA and nanites. Synthesis involves changing the fundamental DNA building blocks into something else to the extent that it can transcend mortality. That makes it final.

That's not final! If we take it literally, they'll just stop. Stagnate. Be in stasis.
Just like the Reapers.

No, because I can think of many realms of thought or existence far beyond my comprehension that I can not even imagine, not just the Reapers or Synthesis... like God Himself.

Let's not get into supernatural talk and stick with the facts of the games.
EDI is repeating Sovereign almost word for word. There is significance in that.

TCyborgs contain both macroscopic machine AND organic components. Reapers are an amalgamation of dead genetic goo and nanite tubes. Synthites are different: they contain fundamental building blocks that give them the advantages of synthetics while at the same time maintaining their organic identity and their individuality. Don't try to even compare them.

Again, method different, result same. I WILL compare them, because they ARE hybrids and they are made in the image of the Reapers, with their approval. 

[saracen16]

Muhkida wrote...

Killing someone =/= watching someone kill

I don't care how you try to twist this, it's not the same.  I can see where the OP can say refusal is just "as bad" as synthesis, but it's not a violating someone's free will.

Also I doubt Shepard's intention for refusing was to doom all advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  He/she probably still believed there was a chance to defeat the Reapers conventionally.....but people's hindsight will just throw that thought away.

What throws that away is Liara's speech at the end of the time capsule ending, which is part of the story.

Are you going to refuse the story?

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Muhkida wrote...

Killing someone =/= watching someone kill

I don't care how you try to twist this, it's not the same.  I can see where the OP can say refusal is just "as bad" as synthesis, but it's not a violating someone's free will.

Nice that lot of people understand.

I would say more.

Killing someone because of villain's threats != Dying fighting the villain to the last breath trying to save everybody

[Jamie9]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

I thought they changed the explosion because of the complication with lore established in Arrival. I thought that was a valid point. If the Relays completely explode, we were explicitly shown what happens.

I will drop it however, as there's no further evidence I can offer up.

The Angry One wrote...
And just like the Reapers.

Just like the Reapers under the Catalyst's restrictions and control, yes. Not afterwards.

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

Well, that's an assumption.

The Angry One wrote...
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.

There's been no conflicts as of EDI's monologue, which is when? A year after the ending? A month after the ending? There's still going to be conflicts of opinion, so there will still be conflict. I do hope it's just verbal sparring and not bloody massacres.

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

Well obviously it's not. It goes down to the genetic level. What I'm saying is I can't see why all the "extra" traits wouldn't be optional. All the ones I can think of have to be "activated". If you don't want to use them, just don't activate them.

The Angry One wrote...
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.

That's racism. I'll apply to fantasy, as I hesitate to use a real life analogy at risk of sounding offensive.

If an elf that is part of a terrorist group kills your family, it is still wrong to hate all elves, and want to do them all harm. The same can be applied to the Reapers.

[Fawx9]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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.

No, Bioware stated "That wasn't the message we intended to send."  Did you listen to the podcast?  Or do you ignore that too?

Face it TAO, you're renaming "Clarification" to "Retcon" because Bioware didn't change what happened to fit your personal interpretation of the ending (Galactic dark age, people starve and die) and said "No, people live, because that's what it was supposed to be."  That they showed it happening the way they intended for it to be, and that this doesn't match up with your interpretation based on no evidence.

Admittedly, there wasn't any evidence for the "Everything turns out better" either, but that was the point, Bioware left everything vague.  Now that it's clarified and doesn't match what you said it was, you call "Retcon."

If you're going to be this stubborn about it...

Explain coloney worlds surviving in the original ending.

Oh, wait you can't, because they depend on galactic trade and that only works if the relays aren't destroyed.

The fact that the relays are damaged instead of destoyed changes everything.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

No, Bioware stated "That wasn't the message we intended to send."  Did you listen to the podcast?  Or do you ignore that too?

That is the message they sent whether they intended it or not.

Face it TAO, you're renaming "Clarification" to "Retcon" because Bioware didn't change what happened to fit your personal interpretation of the ending (Galactic dark age, people starve and die) and said "No, people live, because that's what it was supposed to be."  That they showed it happening the way they intended for it to be, and that this doesn't match up with your interpretation based on no evidence.

My evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Admittedly, there wasn't any evidence for the "Everything turns out better" either, but that was the point, Bioware left everything vague.  Now that it's clarified and doesn't match what you said it was, you call "Retcon."

The relays exploding are not vague. Did you even watch the ending I linked?
It's so blatant that BIOWARE KEPT IT FOR THEIR BAD ENDING.

I will not sit here and let you claim that something has been clarified when it's been clearly retconned. The relays were destroyed. The Normandy's engines were sheared off. Fact. Even BioWare internally recognises this.

[RiouHotaru]

Fawx9 wrote...

You know why it was the popular theory? Because it was the most logical outcome in the original ending.

You have a single world that has been raped by the war. You have a fleet of ships thaty have been decimated by the reapers. You have no relays to get supplies in to help things.

You're right Palaven may be close, but it would also require the knoweldge of unexplored sections of the galaxy to get there. Most of the galaxy hasn't been explored so no one knows where the hell they are going with long term FTL. They would need to plan it out extensively and bring refineriess with them in order to refull along the way(hoping they ran into the right amount of planets). Also this journey isn't days. It's months if not years, and thats just Palaven . What abou the other races? Some would have taken decades to get back to their homes.


Of course I haven't even gotten into the mess the fringe worlds would be in. Almost any colonist was as good as dead if their world relied on galactic trade to supply them.

It's still pessimism mode because there were other, EQUALLY LOGICAL outcomes people came up with as well, but people like TAO chose to simply zero in on the most negative one.  Why?

Because it validated their hatred of Bioware over the endings.  If people had been more accepting of the alternatives, you wouldn't have people spewing all the vitrol they did.  But saying that things turned out badly made it easy to claim Bioware was being bad people.

Or at least that's my take on it.  Because personally I don't see how anyone could take the EC and say "Oh this makes things WORSE".

[ThatDancingTurian]

Jamie9 wrote...

That's racism. I'll apply to fantasy, as I hesitate to use a real life analogy at risk of sounding offensive.

If an elf that is part of a terrorist group kills your family, it is still wrong to hate all elves, and want to do them all harm. The same can be applied to the Reapers.

Uh, those same Reapers ARE the ones that just massacred a lot of the galaxy. Your analogy is flawed. The correct one is that the elf terrorist moves next door and says, "I'm good now, so I'm absolved of all crime!"

Modifié par Aris Ravenstar, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:58 .

[Muhkida]

By OP's logic....

I watched Benard Pollard tear Tom Brady's knee back in 2008. By his logic, I tore Tom Brady's knee.

[Jamie9]

Fawx9 wrote...

If you're going to be this stubborn about it...

Explain coloney worlds surviving in the original ending.

Oh, wait you can't, because they depend on galactic trade and that only works if the relays aren't destroyed.

The fact that the relays are damaged instead of destoyed changes everything.

Most colony worlds would be self-sufficient, at least where food is concerned.

[wantedman dan]

Jamie9 wrote...

Most colony worlds would be self-sufficient, at least where food is concerned.

Your headcanon is lovely.

[The Angry One]

Jamie9 wrote...

I thought they changed the explosion because of the complication with lore established in Arrival. I thought that was a valid point. If the Relays completely explode, we were explicitly shown what happens.

I will drop it however, as there's no further evidence I can offer up.

That they explode is not the important part, it's that they were WRECKED.
The EC specifically retcons them into being moderately damaged. That is a huge difference.

Just like the Reapers under the Catalyst's restrictions and control, yes. Not afterwards.

Says who? All we really have is their "knowledge". Nothing about the Reapers themselves. Even if they are "free" it means little, they're not Prothean, Inusannon or whatever else. They are Reapers.

Well, that's an assumption.

When they flat out say they're all connected?

There's been no conflicts as of EDI's monologue, which is when? A year after the ending? A month after the ending? There's still going to be conflicts of opinion, so there will still be conflict. I do hope it's just verbal sparring and not bloody massacres.

Synthesis is entirely based on the idea that it eliminates conflict.

Well obviously it's not. It goes down to the genetic level. What I'm saying is I can't see why all the "extra" traits wouldn't be optional. All the ones I can think of have to be "activated". If you don't want to use them, just don't activate them.

Even if true, you're still being forced to become this form of life without knowledge or consent.

That's racism. I'll apply to fantasy, as I hesitate to use a real life analogy at risk of sounding offensive.

If an elf that is part of a terrorist group kills your family, it is still wrong to hate all elves, and want to do them all harm. The same can be applied to the Reapers.

That's not racism. These things have been stomping over people's lives for months.
Killing, mutilating, indoctrinating. People won't just forgive and forget. We just aren't built that way.