1027 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

So Shepard spends an entire war on collecting resources to build this giant magical MacGuffin to stop the Reapers, only to in the end not use it? The whole damn galaxy puts everything they got into building this Crucible. They trust in the Crucible and they trust in Shepard to use it to stop the flippin' Reapers and end this cycle NOW!

Rejection is the most insane, most arrogant and most f***ed up choice ever- unless you meta-game.

I did not spend a whole f***ing game on building some giant magical MacGuffin only to not use it.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .

[WYLDMAXX]

Catalyst lies the moment he approaches Shepard by taking a form that has haunted my character through out ME3. Only reason to do so is to manipulate the moment thus giving Shepard no reason not to trust it.

Writing defeated my Shepard in the refuse ending, not my War Assets.

"Pen is mightier than the sword."

Modifié par WYLDMAXX, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .

[M Hedonist]

memorysquid wrote...

What was it the Reapers were doing that our galaxy failed to stop?  Oh yeah, Reaperizing everyone and everything as in previous cycles.  Seriously?

She said "failed to stop them". That could simply mean "failed to stop the Reapers" as in failed to kill them. If she wanted to say "stop them from reaperizing everyone and everything" she would have said that.
Also, they never reaperized Javik. With all the things the Protheans left back for the currect cycle it's very apparent that thoroughness isn't one of the Reapers' strengths.

[savionen]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So Shepard spends an entire war on collecting resources to build this giant magical MacGuffin to stop the Reapers, only to in the end not use it? The whole damn galaxy puts everything they got into building this Crucible. They trust in the Crucible and they trust in Shepard to use it to stop the flippin' Reapers and end this cycle NOW!

Rejection is the most insane, most arrogant and most f***ed up choice ever- unless you meta-game.

I did not spend a whole f***ing game on building some giant magical MacGuffin only to not use it.

You could also say that you spend the entire game collecting war assets and building an army that is never used. The Crucible goes off in every ending except Reject. The Reapers lose in every ending, including Reject, regardless of EMS.

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:31 .

[LiarasShield]

IscrewTali wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

savionen wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Again with the IF's and MAY's. There is no room for that in war, saying otherwise is just hippie crap. No matter how you put it, you fail to make the hard decision, pushing it for someone else to make. A coward's way out. Standing together is just an excuse for you failing to make the decision. If the countless cycles before you believed conventional victory was possible, they'd never have bothered with Crucible. You're not only doing the current and next cycle a favor by destroying them, but to all cycles that came before you, laying the groundwork so that you could finally end it.

Hmm... we have these plans for this ancient thing that is somehow related to the Reapers. It might do something with them.... maybe. Let's build that instead of building ships, thinking up new tactics against the Reapers, or salvaging Reaper tech to make new weapons, armor and shields!

If that was a valid option and a possibility for winning the war, the Crucible plans wouldve been ditched countless cycles ago. Do you really think the previous cycles havent reached the same conclusions? Even by Javik's standards, this cycle is still primitive. if so, i would like to see the most advanced cycles and how they failed to defeat the Reapers. And no matter what you do, Reapers have agents watchers like Sovereign in every cycle, making sure their technology stays within their ideal boundaries. It's simply not possible to advance technology enough to surpass the Reapers before they arrive.

Ahh but the next generation would have thousand of years to prepare and be ready for the reapers that was way more of a warning and preperation that we got espically since the council denied the reapers exsistence for two of the games

Knowing about it doesnt help if you lack the technology to deal with it. And the Reapers wont allow you to reach such peak in technology.

Won't let me that is funny since liara has her information of our technology and the reapers spread throughtout the galaxy and different planets with her time capsules under each planet I don't think I neeed to let the reapers do anything for the next cycle to be more then ready for the reapers

[humes spork]

RiouHotaru wrote...

This.  The options are "pick a choice and possibly fail" or "do nothing and fail for certain."

It's not meta-gaming to conclude:  "I'll pick the choice I think will work the best.  I don't have anything to lose otherwise."

They're headcanoning there is something greater to lose by not refusing despite all arguments and evidence to the contrary, and passing off headcanon as fact. Hell, a few pages ago I posted not one but two payoff matrices for the final choice to make the point refusal is irrational and actually got flamed for it. Even more tellingly is they're using the Catalyst's perceived irrationality as justification for their own irrational behavior.

I have to wonder what there is to gain here, by engaging people like this.

[savionen]

My headcanon could beat up your headcanon.

[Rhayak]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Thats after seeing all the endings, that is metagaming my friend.

Wasn't. I chose Synthesis on my very first ME3 playthrough, way before extended cut came out. It was a choice of heart.
The different endings i saw belong to different characters on subsequent playthroughs.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

That's the decision you've got to make, based on what little information you've got. It's marginally more information than you had before the Catalyst showed up and you were ready to try to activate the Crucible with everyone fully admitting that they didn't know what it would do.

Trusting your enemy and doing what he tells you its not a good idea in war, unless you metagame, thats how it seems.

You need to look beyond just what it's saying and ask how likely it is to make things even worse. Even if you don't believe a word of it activating the thing anyway is a much lesser gamble than fighting on for almost certain Reaper victory. Also, consider what it says. It seems to be trying to steer you away from Destroy. Why does it speak at all? It doesn't appear to be able to actually intervene to stop Shepard from doing something, all it can do is talk him around to its preferred choice.

That is wrong, if you tell him you won't choose destroy he gets mad, you want a link?

That goes back to your "you don't know at the time." And you can't deny that the Catalyst tries to paint both Destroy and Control in a negative light, Destroy more than Control, only being completely positive about Synthesis. This is possibly straying too far into the realms of speculation but if the Catalyst is a machine following pure logic (admittedly based on faulty assumptions that lead to the creation of the Reapers in the first place) then its whole purpose in bothering to talk to Shepard is because of how things have turned out differently this time, even if it's not enough to defeat the Reapers. Shepard is the new uncertainty, not the Crucible and therefore letting Shepard make the choice fits in with its logic. Shepard doing nothing does not. Anyway, that's unfounded speculation so probably irrelevent.

[memorysquid]

Sauruz wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

In my opinion they are not equally valid. Synthesis and Control have some serious ethical issues that do not exist in Destroy. These have been discussed to death in other threads and do not need to be discussed here.

Control poses no ethical issues. Perhaps the Renegade Control outcome, but that's non-existent in the Paragon version. And Destroy is just as questionable in that it's effectively committing genocide.

Paragon Control and Renegade Control are the same thing. The Renegade Control monologue is just more realistic.
Eventually someone will create weapons that can destroy Reapers. Or someone will construct another Crucible. To keep the peace you will eventually have to get your hands tentacles dirty by forcefully stopping such development.

True.  Tyranny is never very stable either.  I pick synthesis, but perhaps by the time someone CAN hand the Reapers their ass, he wouldn't be necessary any longer.  Well assuming the Catalyst isn't literally correct about the inevitable outcome.

[Jackums]

Sauruz wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

In my opinion they are not equally valid. Synthesis and Control have some serious ethical issues that do not exist in Destroy. These have been discussed to death in other threads and do not need to be discussed here.

Control poses no ethical issues. Perhaps the Renegade Control outcome, but that's non-existent in the Paragon version. And Destroy is just as questionable in that it's effectively committing genocide.

Paragon Control and Renegade Control are the same thing. The Renegade Control monologue is just more realistic.
Eventually someone will create weapons that can destroy Reapers. Or someone will construct another Crucible. To keep the peace you will eventually have to get your hands tentacles dirty by forcefully stopping such development.

They're not the same at all.

The Renegade outcome speaks of imperialistic rule through fear and dominance. The Paragon equivalent speaks of preserving and protecting. Paragon and Renegade choices have always had similar or the same outcomes in the games, but the methods were always quite different. It's exactly the same with Control. Paragon God Shep is a protector and guardian, achieving peace in a more, well, peaceful way. Renegade God Shep clearly acts quite differently. And yes, Shepard will eventually have to kill to maintain peace. How would that be unethical when anyone trying to destroy him and/or the Reapers would be the bad guys in such a scenario? If you're trying to overthrow the guy (or more appropriately, AI) protecting galactic civilisation, it wouldn't be considered unethical to kill you. That's like saying it's unethical to kill a terrorist.

Modifié par JackumsD, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:35 .

[v TricKy v]

humes spork wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

This.  The options are "pick a choice and possibly fail" or "do nothing and fail for certain."

It's not meta-gaming to conclude:  "I'll pick the choice I think will work the best.  I don't have anything to lose otherwise."

They're headcanoning there is something greater to lose by not refusing despite all arguments and evidence to the contrary, and passing off headcanon as fact. Hell, a few pages ago I posted not one but two payoff matrices for the final choice to make the point refusal is irrational and actually got flamed for it. Even more tellingly is they're using the Catalyst's perceived irrationality as justification for their own irrational behavior.

I have to wonder what there is to gain here, by engaging people like this.

That is good question. What do want to gain by proving us "wrong"?

[memorysquid]

Reorte wrote...


That goes back to your "you don't know at the time." And you can't deny that the Catalyst tries to paint both Destroy and Control in a negative light, Destroy more than Control, only being completely positive about Synthesis.

Perhaps because it is literally the best choice?

[N-Seven]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Trusting your enemy and doing what he tells you its not a good idea in war, unless you metagame, thats how it seems.

"Sir, our forces are getting utterly destroyed.   We're up against a vastly superior force and the casualties, both military and civilian, are huge.   But an envoy from the enemy has appeared, and he wishes to parley a solution."

"He can't be trusted!  He must have some plan to defeat us, even though...umm...he is already doing that.  Anyways...I kinda hate kids, so whatever.  HONOR!!!  EVERYONE, TO THE DEATH!!"

I admit I pictured it in my head and I laughed. But in all seriousness, Its better than
"OKSZ I AMZ THE CATALYST, AND I WILL GIVESS YOU THREE CHOICES AND BARELY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DO, MASS GENOCIDE, MASS SLAVERY AND MASS MOLESTATION, CHOOSE BECAUSE IM YOUR ENEMY AND I WANT TO HELPZ YOU.

But still, it's not a stretch to think, 'Ok you're a freak, but you know what?  We're getting our asses totally kicked here, and Liara would absolutely kill me if she found out I let her become reaper sludge and didn't use the Crucible thing, so why the hell not.'

I really dislike the Reject ending, but if you like it well to each his own.  I'm more arguing against the OP's insistance that non-rejection options can't be seen as a rational choice without metagaming.

The only reason it can be seen rational is because the Reapers seem to be winning, other than that, i don't think you have much to go on.

Well also because the Catalyst could have just left you on the floor downstairs with Anderson.  Also add, because this was your mission, your direct orders, to activate this thing.

[The Heretic of Time]

savionen wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So Shepard spends an entire war on collecting resources to build this giant magical MacGuffin to stop the Reapers, only to in the end not use it? The whole damn galaxy puts everything they got into building this Crucible. They trust in the Crucible and they trust in Shepard to use it to stop the flippin' Reapers and end this cycle NOW!

Rejection is the most insane, most arrogant and most f***ed up choice ever- unless you meta-game.

I did not spend a whole f***ing game on building some giant magical MacGuffin only to not use it.

You could also say that you spend the entire game collecting war assets and building an army that is never used. The Crucible goes off in every ending except Reject. The Reapers lose in every ending, including Reject, regardless of EMS.

You're meta-gaming now. You base your argument on a game-mechanic, not on the in-game lore. The fact that EMS becomes reduntant in the end is just a result of bad game-design. The Crucible is a result of bad writing. Take your pick.

And it's not like EMS is completely obsolete. Your EMS determines in what condition the Crucible is delivered to the Citadel. if your EMS is low, the Crucible is heavily damaged, leaving you with fewer and worse options (for example the low-EMS version of the Destroy ending being your only option when you have a super low EMS).

[memorysquid]

v TricKy v wrote...

humes spork wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

This.  The options are "pick a choice and possibly fail" or "do nothing and fail for certain."

It's not meta-gaming to conclude:  "I'll pick the choice I think will work the best.  I don't have anything to lose otherwise."

They're headcanoning there is something greater to lose by not refusing despite all arguments and evidence to the contrary, and passing off headcanon as fact. Hell, a few pages ago I posted not one but two payoff matrices for the final choice to make the point refusal is irrational and actually got flamed for it. Even more tellingly is they're using the Catalyst's perceived irrationality as justification for their own irrational behavior.

I have to wonder what there is to gain here, by engaging people like this.

That is good question. What do want to gain by proving us "wrong"?

I want to figure out how to convince someone who is obviously making irrational statements abandon them.

[Reorte]

memorysquid wrote...

Reorte wrote...


That goes back to your "you don't know at the time." And you can't deny that the Catalyst tries to paint both Destroy and Control in a negative light, Destroy more than Control, only being completely positive about Synthesis.

Perhaps because it is literally the best choice?

Best take that to the Synthesis threads before having that flare up here too.

[LiarasShield]

Once again turning people into half machines messing with their dna and killing the geth or the quarians to destroy the reapers or playing with power that may end up causing more damage then good I like refuse you like the other options that just won't change *shrugs*

[Dysjong]

To OP.

I have a question for you regarding the catalyst and the final choice, from a different post

http://social.biowar...0762/4#12923841

Okay, who would you trust to make such a choice?
ME? No one.

Have you tried and consider how the catalyst and the rest of the reapers look on the things?
The catalyst is very old, it has seen things we can't comprehend, it has heard every argument, and many other things. It started as a program to be a link between the organics and synthetic but in the end, it only saw the only solution it meant was right. Who would argue aganist it? Power makes right sometimes, look at the catalyst. Because it believe in this solution and it knows that no organic forces can stop it's solution and the reapers, they see themself as above mere organics and synthetics. Remeber the conversation with Sovereign?



It doesnt care about organics, doesnt care what i or you and any other has to say. It just follows the solution it knows, call it conviction, code or programing, whatever makes you happy. The reapers see themself far more suprem, thus it know better according to itself.

Why then would the catalyst allow shepard to see it? Why not just any other organic or synthetic?
When we took down Saren and sovereign, we got there attention. It was we/Shepard who took down Sovereign. Harbinger used the collectors to go after the human race and if they could get hold on Shepard, even better for the reapers.

Consider all the things Shepard has done in the trilogy, it wouldnt just trust anybody, it had to be someone beyond the mere self. The fact that a puny orangic (puny god :-P) could get so far, that it could reach the catalyst itself? Then you give them an explanation, sharing the big, ugly and irritating truth regarding what is going on.

To give you an idea on this forbidden truth, just look on the forums right here and now. Look at how much arguing, flaming, trolling, bashing and other negative things is going on. Imagine that the whole univers in the trilogy knew this truth. There be a huge fight about what is right and wrong, how the crucible should be used, it would lead to chaos in the end.

The fact that it even allowed Shepard to see the place and actually have a conversation, thumbs up for that. It asked for your opinion and asked for you to take action.

I took synthesis and i don't regret it.

What really bothered me, was the fact the Catalyst is not saying Shepard, not once. When i talked with it, it felt more personale, it didnt just asked Shepard, it asked the player, atleast thats how i felt it.

The way i see it, is that the games theme was choice and sacrifice. We can argue over and over about the endings or why we did this or that in the trilogy, in the end what mattered was the journey and all the choices that lead to the final choice and asked for the player to take a choice.

If you don't believe in the catalyst explanation, then it fine. If you belive in it, fine. What matters is your own opinion.

[IscrewTali]

LiarasShield wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

savionen wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Again with the IF's and MAY's. There is no room for that in war, saying otherwise is just hippie crap. No matter how you put it, you fail to make the hard decision, pushing it for someone else to make. A coward's way out. Standing together is just an excuse for you failing to make the decision. If the countless cycles before you believed conventional victory was possible, they'd never have bothered with Crucible. You're not only doing the current and next cycle a favor by destroying them, but to all cycles that came before you, laying the groundwork so that you could finally end it.

Hmm... we have these plans for this ancient thing that is somehow related to the Reapers. It might do something with them.... maybe. Let's build that instead of building ships, thinking up new tactics against the Reapers, or salvaging Reaper tech to make new weapons, armor and shields!

If that was a valid option and a possibility for winning the war, the Crucible plans wouldve been ditched countless cycles ago. Do you really think the previous cycles havent reached the same conclusions? Even by Javik's standards, this cycle is still primitive. if so, i would like to see the most advanced cycles and how they failed to defeat the Reapers. And no matter what you do, Reapers have agents watchers like Sovereign in every cycle, making sure their technology stays within their ideal boundaries. It's simply not possible to advance technology enough to surpass the Reapers before they arrive.

Ahh but the next generation would have thousand of years to prepare and be ready for the reapers that was way more of a warning and preperation that we got espically since the council denied the reapers exsistence for two of the games

Knowing about it doesnt help if you lack the technology to deal with it. And the Reapers wont allow you to reach such peak in technology.

Won't let me that is funny since liara has her information of our technology and the reapers spread throughtout the galaxy and different planets with her time capsules under each planet I don't think I neeed to let the reapers do anything for the next cycle to be more then ready for the reapers

The tech liara vi offers is not sufficient to defeat them, evidenced by the utter destruction of the galactic fleet above Earth. Also, the "every 50k years" is merely an indication of how fast a civilication can evolve to the point where Reapers return. if the next cycle reaches similar tech within 10k years, thats when the Reapers return. The galaxy is under constant surveillance. Dont let overconfidance and arrogance fool you into thinking otherwise. The only unknown variable was the Crucible, and now that it's been docked once, the Reapers will make sure that never happens again.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

That's the decision you've got to make, based on what little information you've got. It's marginally more information than you had before the Catalyst showed up and you were ready to try to activate the Crucible with everyone fully admitting that they didn't know what it would do.

Trusting your enemy and doing what he tells you its not a good idea in war, unless you metagame, thats how it seems.

You need to look beyond just what it's saying and ask how likely it is to make things even worse. Even if you don't believe a word of it activating the thing anyway is a much lesser gamble than fighting on for almost certain Reaper victory. Also, consider what it says. It seems to be trying to steer you away from Destroy. Why does it speak at all? It doesn't appear to be able to actually intervene to stop Shepard from doing something, all it can do is talk him around to its preferred choice.

That is wrong, if you tell him you won't choose destroy he gets mad, you want a link?

That goes back to your "you don't know at the time." And you can't deny that the Catalyst tries to paint both Destroy and Control in a negative light, Destroy more than Control, only being completely positive about Synthesis. This is possibly straying too far into the realms of speculation but if the Catalyst is a machine following pure logic (admittedly based on faulty assumptions that lead to the creation of the Reapers in the first place) then its whole purpose in bothering to talk to Shepard is because of how things have turned out differently this time, even if it's not enough to defeat the Reapers. Shepard is the new uncertainty, not the Crucible and therefore letting Shepard make the choice fits in with its logic. Shepard doing nothing does not. Anyway, that's unfounded speculation so probably irrelevent.

I did know at the time, he seems to want everything but conventional fighting.

[Torrible]

I reject this false dichotomy.

[savionen]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

savionen wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So Shepard spends an entire war on collecting resources to build this giant magical MacGuffin to stop the Reapers, only to in the end not use it? The whole damn galaxy puts everything they got into building this Crucible. They trust in the Crucible and they trust in Shepard to use it to stop the flippin' Reapers and end this cycle NOW!

Rejection is the most insane, most arrogant and most f***ed up choice ever- unless you meta-game.

I did not spend a whole f***ing game on building some giant magical MacGuffin only to not use it.

You could also say that you spend the entire game collecting war assets and building an army that is never used. The Crucible goes off in every ending except Reject. The Reapers lose in every ending, including Reject, regardless of EMS.

You're meta-gaming now. You base your argument on a game-mechanic, not on the in-game lore. The fact that EMS becomes reduntant in the end is just a result of bad game-design. The Crucible is a result of bad writing. Take your pick.

And it's not like EMS is completely obsolete. Your EMS determines in what condition the Crucible is delivered to the Citadel. if your EMS is low, the Crucible is heavily damaged, leaving you with fewer and worse options (for example the low-EMS version of the Destroy ending being your only option when you have a super low EMS).

I didn't build an army and unite the galaxy to defend the Crucible. I did it to fight the Reapers. They don't even really say EMS is related to the Crucible ever, do they? Not til the very end at least.

[Jamesui]

It could be argued that the refusal ending is not an attempt to win conventionally. It is an attempt to retain our ability to self-determine and make the Reapers' victory as pyrrhic as possible. Codex entries already confirmed that the allied forces had destroyed dozens of reaper ships of all sizes, even if at a heavy cost. Who's to say we can't manage thinning them out a little more for the next cycle? Refusal is going out with a bang and passing on - nay, rekindling - the torch.

Again, without metagaming the choice, we have no guarantee that playing into the starbrat's proffered choices will not be detrimental. If we trust him so far as to how h described the crucible, we've only provided the battery. He gets to decide its utility. Firing it off may very well instantly incapacitate organic forces for easy Reaperification, for example.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

IscrewTali wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

savionen wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Again with the IF's and MAY's. There is no room for that in war, saying otherwise is just hippie crap. No matter how you put it, you fail to make the hard decision, pushing it for someone else to make. A coward's way out. Standing together is just an excuse for you failing to make the decision. If the countless cycles before you believed conventional victory was possible, they'd never have bothered with Crucible. You're not only doing the current and next cycle a favor by destroying them, but to all cycles that came before you, laying the groundwork so that you could finally end it.

Hmm... we have these plans for this ancient thing that is somehow related to the Reapers. It might do something with them.... maybe. Let's build that instead of building ships, thinking up new tactics against the Reapers, or salvaging Reaper tech to make new weapons, armor and shields!

If that was a valid option and a possibility for winning the war, the Crucible plans wouldve been ditched countless cycles ago. Do you really think the previous cycles havent reached the same conclusions? Even by Javik's standards, this cycle is still primitive. if so, i would like to see the most advanced cycles and how they failed to defeat the Reapers. And no matter what you do, Reapers have agents watchers like Sovereign in every cycle, making sure their technology stays within their ideal boundaries. It's simply not possible to advance technology enough to surpass the Reapers before they arrive.

Ahh but the next generation would have thousand of years to prepare and be ready for the reapers that was way more of a warning and preperation that we got espically since the council denied the reapers exsistence for two of the games

Knowing about it doesnt help if you lack the technology to deal with it. And the Reapers wont allow you to reach such peak in technology.

Won't let me that is funny since liara has her information of our technology and the reapers spread throughtout the galaxy and different planets with her time capsules under each planet I don't think I neeed to let the reapers do anything for the next cycle to be more then ready for the reapers

The tech liara vi offers is not sufficient to defeat them, evidenced by the utter destruction of the galactic fleet above Earth. Also, the "every 50k years" is merely an indication of how fast a civilication can evolve to the point where Reapers return. if the next cycle reaches similar tech within 10k years, thats when the Reapers return. The galaxy is under constant surveillance. Dont let overconfidance and arrogance fool you into thinking otherwise. The only unknown variable was the Crucible, and now that it's been docked once, the Reapers will make sure that never happens again.

Your wrong, according to BW the next cycle defeats the Reapers by using the Crucible.