1027 réponses à ce sujet

[77boy84]

Biotic Sage wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

How is it any less a leap of faith to expect to defeat the Reapers with military strength when thousands of cycles before us failed to do so? I'm not saying choosing one of the Destroy, Control, or Synthesis paths is undoubtedly the right decision, but I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3 is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that thousands of dead cycles before us attempted. Isn't doing something DIFFERENT, trying a different approach the most logical choice here? Again I'm not saying it doesn't come with risk, but there's no way you can convince me that the inherent risk is greater than the refusal.

Also, the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.

The current cycle is different from all other previous cycles in a huge way, and that's the fact that the Reaper sneak attack through the citadel failed, and that gave us a chance to prepare. No other cycle got that chance because the reapers always systematically wiped them out after disabling the relay network. This is the first cycle to actually fight the reapers head on with a united fleet.

Let's say that conservatively speaking it takes 20 of our ships to bring down one Reaper.  I know from the lore that for every one of our ships, the Reapers have at least 40.  The Citadel backdoor certainly makes them more efficient, but you do the math on the above and tell me it's a good idea to try to fight them with our fleets.

Well, I think that's part of the problem behind the Reapers as they're showin in ME3. In ME1 and 2, it wasn't explicitly stated as to just how large their numbers were (and imo, the fact that they used sneak attacks and had to reproduce in the way that they do hinted at them being much smaller), but in 3, they're just way too big to take on at all, and Bioware had to write themselves out of that corner with the crucible.

But that's getting off topic, I think.

The Angry One wrote...

I've never played Deus Ex or Human
Revolution. Was it like this there too? Were all the options just shoved
in your face at the end of the game with no details beforehand?

In Human Revolution, all of the options get foreshadowed. You see the point of view and beliefs of the proponents of all three options, and the idea of the media spinning the story to promote an idea was introduced about halfway in or so. It was definetly represented throughout the game, even if the ending itself was not so good.

Modifié par 77boy84, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:01 .

[Biotic Sage]

RainbowDazed wrote...

For me rejection is the best possible choice and the choice my main Shepard chooses. None of the options the Catalyst offers are good enough - they are all based on their (=reapers) terms. This cycle was not ready to finish the job. Nothing left to do than to die with honor and do what ever is possible to ensure that the next cycle triumphs.

You don't think that activating the Crucible, something we and countless other cycles worked on, is doing something on "our terms?"  How is that less "on our terms" than fighting an overwhelming force that requires orbital bombardment from a fleet just to take down one of them?  If anything, I'd say engaging them in combat is on "their terms."

[De1ta G]

I agree completely. It shows how much of a mess the ending is. They wanted you to be able to choose the outcome of the game. They needed someone or something to tell you your choices and explain what they do. And they made that someone the enemy. You have to ignore that it's the enemy and assume it's telling the truth. You might as well ignore the fact that you just got done convincing TIM that he was wrong about controlling the reapers too. Forget about what Shepard would do bc Shepard wouldn't trust the little brat. For all he knows, all of the options would just make the reapers job easier. On the other hand, you has a player figures that the Catalyst is just that someone who tells you your options and you don't think twice about not trusting it. So, you choose one of them based on what you would pick in that situation. To me, Mass Effect was Shepard's story. Not mine.

[The Angry One]

Hudathan wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Explain the logic of turning a device on by breaking a component. This should be good.

I don't need to, the device was already there and the fleets are committed. Whether you use it in one manner or another is already irrelevant. You're the one that brought up meta-gaming but you never explained how using the Crucible any way we know how could possibly hurt us more than the Reapers were already doing.

Because. The Reapers. Are promoting it.
This does not send up any red flags for you?

Given the history of the relays and the Citadel... it doesn't cross Shepard's mind that the Crucible could be yet another Reaper trap?

[QuanManChu]

Refuse would fit my Sheppard if it weren't for meta-knowledge... I believe all life...synthetic or organic deserves a fair chance. Not a forced one.

[Sajuro]

If you choose destroy and shoot the pipe, if it works then victory! if it doesn't then you destroyed a pipe and the races are just as hosed as they previously were.

[Biotic Sage]

77boy84 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

How is it any less a leap of faith to expect to defeat the Reapers with military strength when thousands of cycles before us failed to do so? I'm not saying choosing one of the Destroy, Control, or Synthesis paths is undoubtedly the right decision, but I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3 is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that thousands of dead cycles before us attempted. Isn't doing something DIFFERENT, trying a different approach the most logical choice here? Again I'm not saying it doesn't come with risk, but there's no way you can convince me that the inherent risk is greater than the refusal.

Also, the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.

The current cycle is different from all other previous cycles in a huge way, and that's the fact that the Reaper sneak attack through the citadel failed, and that gave us a chance to prepare. No other cycle got that chance because the reapers always systematically wiped them out after disabling the relay network. This is the first cycle to actually fight the reapers head on with a united fleet.

Let's say that conservatively speaking it takes 20 of our ships to bring down one Reaper.  I know from the lore that for every one of our ships, the Reapers have at least 40.  The Citadel backdoor certainly makes them more efficient, but you do the math on the above and tell me it's a good idea to try to fight them with our fleets.

Well, I think that's part of the problem behind the Reapers as they're showin in ME3. In ME1 and 2, it wasn't explicitly stated as to just how large their numbers were (and imo, the fact that they used sneak attacks and had to reproduce in the way that they do hinted at them being much smaller), but in 3, they're just way too big to take on at all, and Bioware had to write themselves out of that corner with the crucible.

But that's getting off topic, I think.

Not off topic, because it ties in directly to the counterargument for the OP's assertion.  Ever since we knew, way back in ME1, that the cycle was roughly every 50,000 years and we've had evidence for cycles up to 100s of millions of years old, and we know there's at least one Reaper created per cycle, probably more, then we know they have a butt-load of sovereign class Reapers.  That's an overwhelming force.  Sometimes, no matter how hard you fight, even if your tactics are perfect, if you don't have the right pieces or enough pieces, you can't win the game.

[The Angry One]

Sajuro wrote...

If you choose destroy and shoot the pipe, if it works then victory! if it doesn't then you destroyed a pipe and the races are just as hosed as they previously were.

And you might have broken the Crucible, or made it do something that will help the Reapers.
You don't know, and you don't have the information necesarry to make an informed decision, unless you already know what will happen or work with the logic of "these are my only choices and it's a game".

[MegaSovereign]

MegaSovereign wrote...

There are two different ways to interpret why the Catalyst can be trusted (without meta-gaming)

1) 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.

2) The Crucible introduces new shackles to the Catalyst's core programming. The Crucible messes with the Catalyst's core programming so that it has to not only guide free-willed organic to where the Crucible can be activated but also explain the Crucible's capabilities in a truthful manner. This explains why the Catalyst elevated Shepard up to the Crucible and also explains why the Catalyst would truthfully tell shepard how to destroy him and his solution. If the Crucible is badly damaged and or poorly constructed (AKA low EMS), the Catalyst is more reluctant to open up all the pathways to the different endings. This doesn't mean that the Catalyst will do anything Shepard says. He is still bound by his original programming to stop tech singularity. So if you refuse to use the Crucible, the Catalyst continues the cycle regardless.

MegaSovereign, you handsome genius you!

Great post 10/10

Would read again.

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

Because. The Reapers. Are promoting it.
This does not send up any red flags for you?

Given the history of the relays and the Citadel... it doesn't cross Shepard's mind that the Crucible could be yet another Reaper trap?

The Catalyst is explaining it, which is uneasy but what else were you going to do at that point. You don't turn on the Crucible, everybody flies around confused until they get overwhelmed. You turn it on and find out it's a trap, everybody eventually dies because we lose the war like we originally would. You turn on the Crucible and it actually stops the Reapers, then good on you. How is not using the Crucible when it's already in position better than doing nothing?

[Biotic Sage]

MegaSovereign wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

There are two different ways to interpret why the Catalyst can be trusted (without meta-gaming)

1) 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.

2) The Crucible introduces new shackles to the Catalyst's core programming. The Crucible messes with the Catalyst's core programming so that it has to not only guide free-willed organic to where the Crucible can be activated but also explain the Crucible's capabilities in a truthful manner. This explains why the Catalyst elevated Shepard up to the Crucible and also explains why the Catalyst would truthfully tell shepard how to destroy him and his solution. If the Crucible is badly damaged and or poorly constructed (AKA low EMS), the Catalyst is more reluctant to open up all the pathways to the different endings. This doesn't mean that the Catalyst will do anything Shepard says. He is still bound by his original programming to stop tech singularity. So if you refuse to use the Crucible, the Catalyst continues the cycle regardless.

MegaSovereign, you handsome genius you!

Great post 10/10

Would read again.

Haha, I actually did read your post, and it really was a good read/well thought out.  I was too busy arguing with others to stop and respond/agree.

[daaaav]

I could excuse Shepherd for taking one of the RGB options before the EC when the Catalyst was a little more godlike and omnipetent in it's demeanor. I mean what is the point of arguing with something that either has no interest or is incapable of arguing back?

In the EC, the Catalyst is just a mad, buggy AI and as such loses the remainder of it's credability.

It makes Shepherds percieved labotomy unjustifiable.

Modifié par daaaav, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:04 .

[The Angry One]

Hudathan wrote...

The Catalyst is explaining it, which is uneasy but what else were you going to do at that point. You don't turn on the Crucible, everybody flies around confused until they get overwhelmed. You turn it on and find out it's a trap, everybody eventually dies because we lose the war like we originally would. You turn on the Crucible and it actually stops the Reapers, then good on you. How is not using the Crucible when it's already in position better than doing nothing?

Because the Reapers want you to, and because you close out all other possibilities if you do this.
For all Shepard knows, there's another way to use the Crucible which the Catalyst is obfuscating. It just cannot be trusted.

[Garrus is my Shepard]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I've always been a shameless meta-gamer, and that's never going to change.

lol I have been as well. I always shoot Elnora in ME2 cause I know she's guilty, even though Shepard doesn't.

[Biotic Sage]

Garrus is my Shepard wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I've always been a shameless meta-gamer, and that's never going to change.

lol I have been as well. I always shoot Elnora in ME2 cause I know she's guilty, even though Shepard doesn't.

Shame on both of you!

[Afalstein]

RainbowDazed wrote...

For me rejection is the best possible choice and the choice my main Shepard chooses. None of the options the Catalyst offers are good enough - they are all based on their (=reapers) terms. This cycle was not ready to finish the job. Nothing left to do than to die with honor and do what ever is possible to ensure that the next cycle triumphs.

*shrugs* If you're not going to take any of the options the Catalyst offers you, why did you bother building the Crucible in the first place?  Even if the Reapers are offering the terms, that doesn't necessarily make the terms bad.  Heck, at that point in the game, ANY terms are preferable to the near future--total annihilation.

And that's a key thing to remember about Shepherd's motivation here.  No, he doesn't know that the Crucible will do what the Catalyst says it does.  He has only the word of a profoundly arrogant and misguided AI to go on as the user's manual to the gigantic weapon the Alliance has constructed.  So he has no way of knowing for sure what will happen if he chooses any of the paths.

On the other hand, though, Shepherd knows EXACTLY what will happen if he chooses none of them.  Everyone dies.  The end.  The Reapers retreat into space, the cycle begins again, and Shepard has to trust that Liara's time capsules succeed where all the Prothean archives and artifacts failed.  That's the one thing Shepard knows for certain--that Rejection leads to Extinction.

Against that, almot ANY choice is preferable (with the possible exception of a Collector-like fate)  If his choice blows up the entire Alliance fleet and kills all non-Reapers in the galaxy... well, heck, that was going to happen anyway.  At worst, he's deprived the Reapers of five or six new Capital Ships.  Liara's messages will still survive.  Doing something is still better than doing nothing.  Isn't that the logic behind building the Crucible in the first place?  It might be pointless, but we have to try. 

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

Because the Reapers want you to, and because you close out all other possibilities if you do this.
For all Shepard knows, there's another way to use the Crucible which the Catalyst is obfuscating. It just cannot be trusted.

Well then we're F'd in the A because we don't know what it does neither, which was absolutely on my mind when I played it. I had four pieces of evidence in front of me, Destroy/Control/Synthesis and possibly nothing. I didn't take Destroy because I already knew it was going to work, I took it because it was a ****ty situation and Destroy was my best bet at stopping the Reapers for good and preserving my current cycle.

Despite having the time capsules out there, I would rather take the chance to save the people I personally know rather than leaving it all to the next cycle. Using the Crucible and taking a chance was the only option I had which was the point of the whole game.

Modifié par Hudathan, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:10 .

[MegaSovereign]

Biotic Sage wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

There are two different ways to interpret why the Catalyst can be trusted (without meta-gaming)

1) 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.

2) The Crucible introduces new shackles to the Catalyst's core programming. The Crucible messes with the Catalyst's core programming so that it has to not only guide free-willed organic to where the Crucible can be activated but also explain the Crucible's capabilities in a truthful manner. This explains why the Catalyst elevated Shepard up to the Crucible and also explains why the Catalyst would truthfully tell shepard how to destroy him and his solution. If the Crucible is badly damaged and or poorly constructed (AKA low EMS), the Catalyst is more reluctant to open up all the pathways to the different endings. This doesn't mean that the Catalyst will do anything Shepard says. He is still bound by his original programming to stop tech singularity. So if you refuse to use the Crucible, the Catalyst continues the cycle regardless.

MegaSovereign, you handsome genius you!

Great post 10/10

Would read again.

Haha, I actually did read your post, and it really was a good read/well thought out.  I was too busy arguing with others to stop and respond/agree.

No harm done.

Getting no replies usually means I'm right.

Or crazy.

[The Angry One]

Hudathan wrote...

Well then we're F'd in the A because we don't know what it does neither, which was absolutely on my mind when I played it. I had four pieces of evidence in front of me, Destroy/Control/Synthesis and possibly nothing. I didn't take Destroy because I already knew it was going to work, I took it because it was a ****ty situation and Destroy was my best bet at stopping the Reapers for good and preserving my current cycle.

Why was it your best bet?
Because the Catalyst said so? 
Why do you believe it?

Despite having the time capsules out there, I would rather take the chance to save as many people I personally know rather than leaving it all to the next cycle. Using the Crucible and taking a chance was the only option I had which was the point of the whole game.

Using the Crucible according to the Reaper's terms. Again, how do you know you're saving anyone? You can't know. You can't even guess, because you have NO information.

[Facemelter91]

The Angry One wrote...

As an aside I'd like to ask. Is there any reason why these effects must only be revealed right at the end?

You could remove the meta-gaming problem out of the equation entirely by properly foreshadowing these effects during the game. Control is talked about but always as an indoctrination deception, while the mechanics of destroy are never detailed.

I've never played Deus Ex or Human Revolution. Was it like this there too? Were all the options just shoved in your face at the end of the game with no details beforehand?

I played Deus Ex HR. Though unexpected, it wasent farfetched. It honestely could be just beacuse I was playing the game and not paying so much attention to the story, it's been awhile however and it actually might make perfect sense. Either way, i didnt go "wtf is this s**t?!" at the end, I looked at it, weighed the odds and choose what I thought was best. Where in ME3 I did go "wtf is this s**t?!" ,nearly yelling it mind you.

Whats even funnier about this is that I believe, almost positive actually, that Casey Hudson posted that he was playing Deus Ex: HR at the time of development for ME3. I wanted to cry when I found out.

Modifié par Facemelter91, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:13 .

[David7204]

If the alternative was extinction, yes, I think the geth would have accepted Reaper control.

The issue of whether synthesis is 'forced' or not is irrelevant. No matter what, Shepard's decision is going to affect the rest of the galaxy, with their consent or without it. For all of the choices.

[xsdob]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Garrus is my Shepard wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I've always been a shameless meta-gamer, and that's never going to change.

lol I have been as well. I always shoot Elnora in ME2 cause I know she's guilty, even though Shepard doesn't.

Shame on both of you!

I metagame as well, since I can never get invested into rpg's as much. I think it's because I'm given an infinate amount of time to think on my response, it sucks the immersion if the actions are not split second outcomes.

For some reason I find myself able to be emmersed in non-choice games than in the ones that give you a list of choice to choose from.

Still, the games are fun to play, so there.

[StevenG_CT]

Garrus is my Shepard wrote...

lol I have been as well. I always shoot Elnora in ME2 cause I know she's guilty, even though Shepard doesn't.

Technically you are told beforehand that "every Eclipse member commits a murder to earn their armor" and since she is clearly wearing Eclipse armor you do in fact know she is a murderer.

[Biotic Sage]

RainbowDazed wrote...

On the other hand, though, Shepherd knows EXACTLY what will happen if he chooses none of them.  Everyone dies.  The end.  The Reapers retreat into space, the cycle begins again, and Shepard has to trust that Liara's time capsules succeed where all the Prothean archives and artifacts failed.  That's the one thing Shepard knows for certain--that Rejection leads to Extinction.

See that's where the disagreement is coming from.  Whereas you and I both see things like that, based on the countless pieces of evidence placed before you across all 3 games that the Reapers are an overwhelming force that cannot be conquered by military might, others still try to convince themselves that we could defeat the Reapers by military strength if EVERYONE united and fought as one.  Yes, winning by military might would be ideal if it was feasible.  But I just don't understand how people think that it IS feasible given the evidence.  I think they WANT it to be feasible because that's the kind of story they are interested in, but within the actual story that is being told it is not feasible.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:13 .

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

Why was it your best bet?
Because the Catalyst said so? 
Why do you believe it?

Using the Crucible according to the Reaper's terms. Again, how do you know you're saving anyone? You can't know. You can't even guess, because you have NO information.

It was my best bet because it was what I believed as a player and as a character, otherwise I would have objected to the game long before the Crucible at the end, which I didn't.

And you're right, I can't know whether or not the Crucible would be helpful, the game knew this too and it's how the Crucible was presented. I guess my engineers could have been better at their jobs and figured out what the Crucible did before the final battle, but they didn't. My Shepard had nothing to go on but hope. The Crucible was already deep in enemy hands, I have limited time to do something, anything with it, and I did. It happened to work out which is great, if it didn't then we all die anyway.