1027 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

You don't need to meta-game to realize that the galaxy can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah, I expected as much though. I made this topic partly because I grew tired of every response to reject boiling down to "You're knowingly condemning everyone to death!".
No, Shepard is NOT. That's the whole damn point.

I don't think that makes any difference unless you can argue that before you made the choice, with no idea about the outcome, you thought that the odds were that you'd get less killed by refusing than with Destroy.

The whole point of the thread, its unless you meta-game, did you read the title.

Yes, and no-one has actually provided a convincing reason as to why they thought that they stood a good chance of winning with fewer losses than are suggested by Destroy.

[LiarasShield]

IscrewTali wrote...

If you dont use the Crucible in this cycle, you force the next cycle to use it, condemning either the synthetic life in the cycle, or all life. Lifting the burden of genocide from yourself, forcing another to commit it? Once again, Reapers CANNOT be defeated with conventional armies.

Actually with our information on the reapers and time and preperation they could find another solution coventional or not and their is a chance they may not use the crucible again I believe in freedom not genocide not forcing everybody to be the same or play god that isn't for me

[The Angry One]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Great, let Shepard sacrifice his humanity then to save everyone else.

Except the Geth, and is everyones humanity, 
"Our cycle destroyed the Reapers, but we commited genocide in order to do it!" Yup

We destroyed the Reapers and suffered bad losses in doing so but now the galaxy is free from their threat forever.

You aren't saving the geth either. I can at least see where people who choose Synthesis are coming from, even though arguably it's a worse choice than Refuse.

Metagaming, and BTW hackett saying that is just a nice way of him saying we commited Genocide.

Metagaming matters if you're going to say that you'd make the same decision again, this time knowing full well the consequences of it.

Again, nothing is wrong with meta-gaming.
The problem is that the narrative requires meta-gaming from Shepard's perspective to make any choice other than reject viable.

[memorysquid]

humes spork wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Did you just go "lol headcanon" and then proceed to headcanon?

There's a thread full of people WHARGARBL'ing about the Catalyst's irrationality and using it as a justification for irrational behavior on their part. This surprises you?

It seems a spork can be as sharp as a razor.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Great, let Shepard sacrifice his humanity then to save everyone else.

Except the Geth, and is everyones humanity, 
"Our cycle destroyed the Reapers, but we commited genocide in order to do it!" Yup

We destroyed the Reapers and suffered bad losses in doing so but now the galaxy is free from their threat forever.

You aren't saving the geth either. I can at least see where people who choose Synthesis are coming from, even though arguably it's a worse choice than Refuse.

Metagaming, and BTW hackett saying that is just a nice way of him saying we commited Genocide.

Metagaming matters if you're going to say that you'd make the same decision again, this time knowing full well the consequences of it.

Like I said before, I would have never known everyone was going to die its not Genocide, And read the title of the thread.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah, I expected as much though. I made this topic partly because I grew tired of every response to reject boiling down to "You're knowingly condemning everyone to death!".
No, Shepard is NOT. That's the whole damn point.

I don't think that makes any difference unless you can argue that before you made the choice, with no idea about the outcome, you thought that the odds were that you'd get less killed by refusing than with Destroy.

The whole point of the thread, its unless you meta-game, did you read the title.

Yes, and no-one has actually provided a convincing reason as to why they thought that they stood a good chance of winning with fewer losses than are suggested by Destroy.

For one you don't know if Destroy kills people with synthetic implants, quarians suits, etc. Also how many times has Shepard done the impossible....Just saying.

[memorysquid]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You don't need to meta-game to realize that the galaxy can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

You have to ... reject ... the urge to ignore all the in game evidence of that in favor of your dislike of the endings, though.  Doesn't look like this thread favors that reject choice.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Like I said before, I would have never known everyone was going to die its not Genocide, And read the title of the thread.

You don't know for certain but you're not paying attention if you think that there's any chance of getting fewer killed by fighting on. It sounds pretty desperate just getting the Crucible in place and that's just occupying the Reapers for long enough to do so rather than causing significant damage to them.

[memorysquid]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah, I expected as much though. I made this topic partly because I grew tired of every response to reject boiling down to "You're knowingly condemning everyone to death!".
No, Shepard is NOT. That's the whole damn point.

I don't think that makes any difference unless you can argue that before you made the choice, with no idea about the outcome, you thought that the odds were that you'd get less killed by refusing than with Destroy.

The whole point of the thread, its unless you meta-game, did you read the title.

Yes, and no-one has actually provided a convincing reason as to why they thought that they stood a good chance of winning with fewer losses than are suggested by Destroy.

For one you don't know if Destroy kills people with synthetic implants, quarians suits, etc. Also how many times has Shepard done the impossible....Just saying.

He's never done the impossible; i've yet to see him square a circle.  He just does what people think can't be done by trying his hardest.  Oh wait, unlike the reject ending.

[M Hedonist]

ghost9191 wrote...

which is the same as destroying the geth is what i am saying. it is war, they are a casaulty of war. just as the geth are. if you want to call killing the geth genocide then you ordering your troops to attack is a act of genocide. you sent them in knowing damn well that most were going to die

you just said it yourself, "how do war losses have anything to do with genocide?" that is what the geth are, war losses

I'm starting to think you have no idea what genocide is. Either that or you're subtly trying a Reductio ad Hitlerum.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
For one you don't know if Destroy kills people with synthetic implants, quarians suits, etc. Also how many times has Shepard done the impossible....Just saying.

That's why you have to ask which do you think is most likely to get more people killed and base your decision solely on that (unless you want to take one of the other even more dubious choices).

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Great, let Shepard sacrifice his humanity then to save everyone else.

Except the Geth, and is everyones humanity, 
"Our cycle destroyed the Reapers, but we commited genocide in order to do it!" Yup

We destroyed the Reapers and suffered bad losses in doing so but now the galaxy is free from their threat forever.

You aren't saving the geth either. I can at least see where people who choose Synthesis are coming from, even though arguably it's a worse choice than Refuse.

Metagaming, and BTW hackett saying that is just a nice way of him saying we commited Genocide.

Metagaming matters if you're going to say that you'd make the same decision again, this time knowing full well the consequences of it.

Again, nothing is wrong with meta-gaming.
The problem is that the narrative requires meta-gaming from Shepard's perspective to make any choice other than reject viable.

False.

It doesn't require it.

The Catalyst underestimated the organics, realizing that his solution
might not be as flawless as he thinks it is. Even if he does trick
Shepard and wins this cycle, organics are very savvy at containing and
storing information for future cycles. Eventually a cycle will build a
new and improved Crucible, one that might not even need the Catalyst's
help to be deployed. With that said, the Catalyst, knowing that the
cycle will inevitably end, takes his chances and gives the ball to
Shepard. If he helps Shepard, there is a better chance that he could use
the Crucible to replace his solution with synthesis. "If there is a new
solution, you must act." Why doesn't he force synthesis? Same reason
Legion asked Shepard to decide the fate of the geth heretics. He needed a
new perspective, an organic---one that wasn't indoctrinated to the
Reaper's cause (sorry TIM). This is one way to look it at.

^ This isn't meta-gaming or headcanoning. Everything the Catalyst says in the investigate options implies this much.

[LiarasShield]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Like I said before, I would have never known everyone was going to die its not Genocide, And read the title of the thread.

You don't know for certain but you're not paying attention if you think that there's any chance of getting fewer killed by fighting on. It sounds pretty desperate just getting the Crucible in place and that's just occupying the Reapers for long enough to do so rather than causing significant damage to them.

Truely none of your options provided really do anything better yes we die for freedom and leave it up for the next cycle to come up with a better solution but you you commit genocide you force rape everyones dna to be the same to have peace you play with power that is more then you could possibly understand what your doing is really not that much better then those of us who want to go down swinging

[M Hedonist]

Reorte wrote...

You aren't saving the geth either.

Alright. I got a challenge for you:
Prove that. Using only content found inside the game, prove that all Geth stop to exist in the Reject ending.

[elitehunter34]

Wow this thread is moving really fast, so I'm going to post this again because it explains why the OP is right.

Ok guys, I think everyone's missing the point of me and The Angry One here.  

Here are the facts.

1) The Crucible is a device that is designed to stop the Reapers

2) The Catalyst created the Reapers

3) The Catalyst needs Shepard to activate the Crucible


There is absolutely no evidence that the Crucible will do what the Catalyst tells you it will do.  You are only taking his word for it and it is the word of the creator of your enemy.

Look, I know, people are saying,  "the Catalyst has no reason to help you, but he is anyways so that must mean he's telling the truth."  Guys, do you not see the irony in that statement?  Someone who is trying to helping you would make you put your guard down.  It's called deception.  Would you go into the house of someone that threatens to kill you or the person who offers you free cookies?  

Now you could then say, "But why didn't the Catalyst just leave you on the floor bleeding then." It's because the Catalyst needs you to activate the Crucible.  He says that so himself.  So he feeds you a bunch of lies of what does what, and then you activate the Crucible and then it makes everyone indoctrinated so that they all stop fighting, and now the Reapers are free to turn the races of the galaxy into even more Reapers.  Or maybe it freezes all the organic races in place while the Reapers harvest them.  What it does is not the point.

"But wait,"  you say, "That never happens."  You're right, it doesn't happen.  But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen, and that is exactly the point.  Everything I just said is something that Shepard could infer by himself.  It's something that requires no meta-gaming at all.  

The only reason everyone here is defending the Catalyst and how he must be telling the truth is because they know what happened.  They know that the Crucible does exactly what the Catalyst says it did.  But Shepard didn't, all he knows is those three facts I laid out.  Shepard doesn't know if the Catalyst has to tell the truth.  Shepard doesn't know if the Catalyst can alter what the Crucible does.  So yes Shepard could take the leap of faith and use the Crucible, and it saves the galaxy.  Or he could use the Crucible and it leads to a fate worse than destruction, such as the organic races becoming a Reaper.  These are conclusions that Shepard could come to, so what would Shepard do, trust his enemy and hope it works, or die fighting?

[memorysquid]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Hitler would have said the same thing, we commited war crimes but we won. I rather face extinction than to submit.

Let's hope the rest of the galaxy feels the same.  Blowing up the Reapers doesn't feel much like submitting to them though; more like dropping an A bomb and suffering collateral damage.

[LiarasShield]

And Destroy doesn't really stop the reapers the catalyst said that the reapers would come back again in the future that isn't truely stoping them

[IscrewTali]

There is a point when standing up to something turns from heroism to utter and complete stupidity. Waging a galactic war, knowing casualties will be astronomical, then refusing to end it just because of pride and honor, and the ability to refuse.

If humanity had to choose between kill every single romanian(no offense) to ensure the survival of the rest of the planet, there would be no hesitation. Sure it would be a terrible genocide, and the one pushing the button must feel awful, but the rest of the planet would be forever grateful to be allowed to continue living. If this is not a worthy comparison, then damn all you trolls.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

memorysquid wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah, I expected as much though. I made this topic partly because I grew tired of every response to reject boiling down to "You're knowingly condemning everyone to death!".
No, Shepard is NOT. That's the whole damn point.

I don't think that makes any difference unless you can argue that before you made the choice, with no idea about the outcome, you thought that the odds were that you'd get less killed by refusing than with Destroy.

The whole point of the thread, its unless you meta-game, did you read the title.

Yes, and no-one has actually provided a convincing reason as to why they thought that they stood a good chance of winning with fewer losses than are suggested by Destroy.

For one you don't know if Destroy kills people with synthetic implants, quarians suits, etc. Also how many times has Shepard done the impossible....Just saying.

He's never done the impossible; i've yet to see him square a circle.  He just does what people think can't be done by trying his hardest.  Oh wait, unlike the reject ending.

He killed Saren, destroyed sovereign, destroyed the collectors base, survived 2 suicide missions, came back from the death (he did get help), cured the genophage, stopped the Quarian and geth war etc, and you mean to tell me hes never done the impossible. And saying " He just does what people think can't be done" means doing the impossible, and the refusal ending is about doing the impossible trying to beat the Reapers conventionally you contradicted yourselve at least 2 times.

[savionen]

MegaSovereign wrote...
You don't need to meta-game to realize that the galaxy can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

The next cycle in Reject doesn't necessarily use the Crucible to win. There was a message on Twitter about it, saying that they do indeed use the Crucible, but that seems pointless from a narrative standpoint, and they say LOTS of things on Twitter that conflict with eachother or with the story, or are just flat out not true.

Many feel that there was enough evidence to show the Reapers couldn't be beaten without the Crucible. After rejecting so many ideas and enemies, doing everything on my own terms for 3 games and having flawless victories I didn't feel that way. Had 9k EMS that ultimately meant nothing.

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:59 .

[jsadalia]

The Angry One wrote...


Again, nothing is wrong with meta-gaming.
The problem is that the narrative requires meta-gaming from Shepard's perspective to make any choice other than reject viable.

The narrative does not do so at all. Shepard's persepective is that the only chance for galactic survival is activating the Crucible.  Taking a risk on the Catalyst's intentions is preferable to what Shepard certainly perceives as inevitable failure in a conventional war.

[memorysquid]

Sauruz wrote...

Reorte wrote...

You aren't saving the geth either.

Alright. I got a challenge for you:
Prove that. Using only content found inside the game, prove that all Geth stop to exist in the Reject ending.

Geth have good memories and the lady with the kid says they only have archives to go off.  Plus Liara says our galaxy lost and all died.  Plus the Catalyst says synthetics get Reaperized too. 

[ghost9191]

Sauruz wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

which is the same as destroying the geth is what i am saying. it is war, they are a casaulty of war. just as the geth are. if you want to call killing the geth genocide then you ordering your troops to attack is a act of genocide. you sent them in knowing damn well that most were going to die

you just said it yourself, "how do war losses have anything to do with genocide?" that is what the geth are, war losses

I'm starting to think you have no idea what genocide is. Either that or you're subtly trying a Reductio ad Hitlerum.

just proving a point with you,   you say that it is not genocide to choose refusal because they woulld be war losses and you are not sure if you will win or not. Whereas with destroy the geth being destroyed is a war loss not genocide, i sacrifice them in order to save the rest of the galaxy. whereas with refuse you sacrifice the galaxy to save your ideals. if you can delude yourself in believing that you do not commit genocide then so can i, but the only difference is that i accept i sacrifice the geth , you however believe you had no part in the galaxy getting destroyed because you refused to use the cruicible which you had the races pour their resources into.

in short i was using your responses to prove a pointB)

[Gorkan86]

The Angry One wrote...
Yeah, I expected as much though. I made this topic partly because I grew tired of every response to reject boiling down to "You're knowingly condemning everyone to death!".
No, Shepard is NOT. That's the whole damn point.

Shepard knows that we can't win conventionally. He knows that the previous cycle had fought with  reapers
 conventionally  and lost.

In war there is one rule. We will destroy them, or they destroy us.

This is not a meta-gaming.

Modifié par Gorkan86, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:05 .