1027 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

We didn't have to worry about mecha cthulu eating us if we tried a plane and it didn't work.

The point, you missed it.

By starting over and over again you'll never get anywhere. There is no progression in starting over again from scratch. Staring over again from scratch should be your very last resort.

Working with the blueprints of the Crucible, a device designed specifically to deal with the reapers and trying to fix that thing is the best chance you'll ever have.

[stevesyanks17hotmail.com]

People are only so attached to IT because they came up with it themselves. The only real problem with the ending was a few things easily explained but strangely cut, such as how your squadmembers got off Earth, why Joker left w/ Normandy, etc. Also, making EMS matter more, maybe even having that vice an actual choice be the sole determinant of the ending.

I was fine with how they left it, with SG saying that one day they would explore the stars. It left the ending ambiguous and let you create your only story as to how they got there. I personally didn't need them to explain anything - they filled in the holes with logic, which most apparently couldn't do, and let everyone see Krogan babies, which they didn't need to do.

[N-Seven]

Er, thread isn't really about IT....it's about the 'refusal' ending.

[Abraham_uk]

First of all, I haven't seen extended cut, but I've heard about what happens in all four endings.


I'm excited that one of them involves the Reapers winning.

Further 4 different endings. I have four different Shepards so I'm down with this.


Racheal Shepard: Destroy
John Shepard: Reject
Sarah Gail Shepard: Control
Mutale Shepard: Synthesis

(Yes I have three females and one male. Yes that one male is a default characters when the others were custom Shepards).

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:54 .

[Zjarcal]

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

People are only so attached to IT because they came up with it themselves. The only real problem with the ending was a few things easily explained but strangely cut, such as how your squadmembers got off Earth, why Joker left w/ Normandy, etc. Also, making EMS matter more, maybe even having that vice an actual choice be the sole determinant of the ending.

I was fine with how they left it, with SG saying that one day they would explore the stars. It left the ending ambiguous and let you create your only story as to how they got there. I personally didn't need them to explain anything - they filled in the holes with logic, which most apparently couldn't do, and let everyone see Krogan babies, which they didn't need to do.

But it was AWESOME that they did! 

Also agreed with most of your post.

[Ryzaki]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

We didn't have to worry about mecha cthulu eating us if we tried a plane and it didn't work.

The point, you missed it.

By starting over and over again you'll never get anywhere. There is no progression in starting over again from scratch. Staring over again from scratch should be your very last resort.

Working with the blueprints of the Crucible, a device designed specifically to deal with the reapers and trying to fix that thing is the best chance you'll ever have.

So did you. The second they use that Crucible (the one they have no guarantees will work in constrast to ships and weapons which have been proven to work in other cycles and they can see the results for themselves (since the Reapers don't bother to move corpses).) they have declared war with the Reapers. If the Crucible doesn't work (which it's said not to) they have just pretty much throw themselves in front of the bus. They're dead.

It's like the analogy I used before. There's materials to make a gun on the floor but someone told you when built it doesn't fire you could use the material to make a knife instead. So you can make a gun that you're not sure will fire (and have been told it won't) or make a knife that's guaranteed to work. Both items will kill the enemy behind the door. You don't have enough resources to make both. Which are you honestly going to make? 

Wrong. The only reason said device was even necessary for the other cycles was because they were under attack and didn't have the time or resources to be able to build ships and weapons to take the Reapers on without it. They also managed to take out (small amounts mind) of Reapers using the weapons and ships they had. They passed down knowledge of Reaper weaknesses and tactics to you. Your best chance is using that knowledge and using it to create ships and guns superior to those of previous cycles because you know that'll work. All you need to do is make sure you have a superior force.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:00 .

[Sniktchtherat]

RiouHotaru wrote...

WYLDMAXX wrote...

Run through the ending again. Catalyst states that he created the Reapers.

No he didn't.  The dialog goes as follows:

"My creators gave them form, I give them function, they give me purpose."

"My creators gave them form."

And later he says that he murdred them and turned them into the first Reaper - the creators gave them form, all right.  Coupla tons of DNA paste slapped on a metal framework is a form.

[jsadalia]

Femlob wrote...

Fine, I'll just repeat myself again.

Why would Shepard bother to consider anything the damn thing has to say? Based on what Shepard could have learned over the past 2.9 games, it makes far more sense to consider GlowBoy to be yet another Reaper ploy intended to indoctrinate or at least convolute than it does for Shepard to sit back and think: "y'know, this shit sounds legit".

Whether or not GlowBoy speaks the truth or not shouldn't even factor into it. Considering options offered by a thing that shows up out of the blue for more than a few seconds would go against everything Shepard stands for.

The choices are activating the Crucible or not activating the Crucible.  Shepard knows the consequences of the latter. There is nothing worse.

Knowing this, for Shepard to not consider what "GlowBoy" says would be psychotic.  Whether Shepard thinks the Catalyst is legitimate is irrelevant.  Choosing inaction is to condemn the galaxy to horror and death. It's insane.

[RiouHotaru]

Femlob wrote...

Fine, I'll just repeat myself again.

Why would Shepard bother to consider anything the damn thing has to say? Based on what Shepard could have learned over the past 2.9 games, it makes far more sense to consider GlowBoy to be yet another Reaper ploy intended to indoctrinate or at least convolute than it does for Shepard to sit back and think: "y'know, this shit sounds legit".

Whether or not GlowBoy speaks the truth or not shouldn't even factor into it. Considering options offered by a thing that shows up out of the blue for more than a few seconds would go against everything Shepard stands for.

Because Shepard isn't in a position to sit down and take five?

Again, it comes down to: "If I do nothing, we die.  If I do something we -might- die."

[humes spork]

Femlob wrote...

Fine, I'll just repeat myself again.

And, I'll repeat myself again: why did the Catalyst speak to Shepard in the first place? Because, that's the question at the heart of this you've dodged for three pages, now. "Because Mac Walters" is not a valid answer, given it is a metagame argument and therefore outside the framework of this entire discussion.

And, that the truth-value of starbrat's statements is irrelevant is my point. A conclusion about what is to be done in the ending can be derived completely independent from the truth-value of starbrat's claims, for the fact Shepard has nothing to lose by indulging it.

 It assumes that choosing refuse will have a 100% chance of defeat.  

Choosing refuse has a 100% chance of defeat. What part of "the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally" do you not understand?

If the only means left to fighting the Reapers is conventional, and the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, the Reapers cannot be defeated. Therefore, any choice to be made that leaves only conventional fighting, such as refuse, by default ends in defeat. Period, end of goddamn line. It absolutely amazes me this singular point manages to elude people.

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:02 .

[RiouHotaru]

Sniktchtherat wrote...

And later he says that he murdred them and turned them into the first Reaper - the creators gave them form, all right.  Coupla tons of DNA paste slapped on a metal framework is a form.

That depends on wether you believe he turned them into the Reaper willingly or not.

And yes, it IS a possibility they went willingly.  "Approval" and "consent" aren't mutually exclusive.

[elitehunter34]

jsadalia wrote...

The choices are activating the Crucible or not activating the Crucible.  Shepard knows the consequences of the latter. There is nothing worse.

Knowing this, for Shepard to not consider what "GlowBoy" says would be psychotic.  Whether Shepard thinks the Catalyst is legitimate is irrelevant.  Choosing inaction is to condemn the galaxy to horror and death. It's insane.

Yes what Shepard thinks is revelant because the Catalyst can be lying.  Why do so many people think this is an impossiblilty?  Shepard could be choosing not to use the Crucible because he does not know that the Crucible will work the way it is intended because of the Catalyst.  I've already covered this several pages ago, and you seem to just gloss it over.  He does not know that activating the Crucible is a good idea because of the Catalyst.  His existance changes everything.  If the Catalyst was just an AI, then you're damn right I'd probably trust him, but he's THE CREATOR OF THE REAPERS.  You can't assume that he's telling the truth.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

It's like the analogy I used before. There's a gun on the floor but someone told you it doesn't fire. There's also material to make a knife in the corner. You can use to make a gun that you're not sure will fire or make a knife that's guaranteed to work. Both items will kill the enemy behind the door. You don't have enough resources to make both. Which are you honestly going to make? 

What a terrible terrible TERRIBLE analogy. 

Here is a better one:


You are a ship engineer. You have a job: Create a ship that cannot sink. You have 1 year to design and build it. If you fail to build a ship that cannot sink in 1 year, you'll be killed by your boss. You have 2 options:

1) You have the blueprints of the Titanic, a ship that was designed to be unsinkable, but it sinked anyway. You can use the blueprints of the Titanic to figure out why it sank. When you figured that out, you can improve the design of the Titanic and use the improved Titanic blueprints to build your unsinkable ship.

2) You decide that because the Titanic sank, it's a worthless piece of crap. You don't even bother looking at it's blueprints, because the Titanic clearly wasn't unsinkable, even though the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. Instead, you try to make a completely new design from scratch. You know you only have 1 year and you know working with the Titanic's blueprints as a basis would be faster, after all the Titanic was designed by the greatest engineers of that time, but you don't seem to care about that.


What would be the most logical thing to do? Option 1 or option 2? I think we both know the answer here.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:07 .

[Sniktchtherat]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Sniktchtherat wrote...

And later he says that he murdred them and turned them into the first Reaper - the creators gave them form, all right.  Coupla tons of DNA paste slapped on a metal framework is a form.

That depends on wether you believe he turned them into the Reaper willingly or not.

And yes, it IS a possibility they went willingly.  "Approval" and "consent" aren't mutually exclusive.

He also uses the exact phrase "it was not their will".

[savionen]

humes spork wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Fine, I'll just repeat myself again.

And, I'll repeat myself again: why did the Catalyst speak to Shepard in the first place? Because, that's the question at the heart of this you've dodged for three pages, now. "Because Mac Walters" is not a valid answer, given it is a metagame argument and therefore outside the framework of this entire discussion.

And, that the truth-value of starbrat's statements is irrelevant is my point. A conclusion about what is to be done in the ending can be derived completely independent from the truth-value of starbrat's claims, for the fact Shepard has nothing to lose by indulging it.

 It assumes that choosing refuse will have a 100% chance of defeat.  

Choosing refuse has a 100% chance of defeat. What part of "the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally" do you not understand?

If the only means left to fighting the Reapers is conventional, and the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, the Reapers cannot be defeated. Therefore, any choice to be made that leaves only conventional fighting, such as refuse, by default ends in defeat. Period, end of goddamn line. It absolutely amazes me this singular point manages to elude people.

Why is conventional victory impossible in the next cycle? We built the Crucible without the Reapers seeing it, why can't the next cycle create ultra-mega-thanix cannons?

[jsadalia]

elitehunter34 wrote...

jsadalia wrote...

The choices are activating the Crucible or not activating the Crucible.  Shepard knows the consequences of the latter. There is nothing worse.

Knowing this, for Shepard to not consider what "GlowBoy" says would be psychotic.  Whether Shepard thinks the Catalyst is legitimate is irrelevant.  Choosing inaction is to condemn the galaxy to horror and death. It's insane.

Yes what Shepard thinks is revelant because the Catalyst can be lying.  Why do so many people think this is an impossiblilty?  Shepard could be choosing not to use the Crucible because he does not know that the Crucible will work the way it is intended because of the Catalyst.  I've already covered this several pages ago, and you seem to just gloss it over.  He does not know that activating the Crucible is a good idea because of the Catalyst.  His existance changes everything.  If the Catalyst was just an AI, then you're damn right I'd probably trust him, but he's THE CREATOR OF THE REAPERS.  You can't assume that he's telling the truth.

I don't assume he's telling the truth: like I said, it's irrelevant.  Shepard does nothing, reapers win, everyone dies or is ingested into a reaper as goo.

What could the Catalyst's offered choices do that is worse?  Really, what?

[RiouHotaru]

This thread is going in circles. The underlying issue is, at it's core:

"Can you believe the Catalyst?"

If YES: Then the given three options are valid choices.

If NO: Then Refusal is the more valid option.

And whether you believe the Catalyst or not is a matter of personal preference.

But for TAO to make the argument that disbelieving him is the ONLY valid conclusion, and thus Refusal the only valid option, is fallacious (a false dichotomy, to be specific)

Those of us here who aren't Pro-Refusal don't care that you prefer it, that's fine. What we care about is that you present a illogical statement as FACT.

[TaradosGon]

Shepard learns quite a bit through his talk with the Catalyst. Of big importance is the realization that the Catalyst controls the Reapers. He is the first organic to learn this seemingly, since he is the first organic to stand before the Catalyst (at least since the Cycle-solution began). How would that not affect strategy? Hackett has a means of communicating with Shepard, since he was contacting Shepard to investigate whether the issue with the Crucible not firing was due to an problem on Shepard's end of things.

Citadel = Catalyst's home. Catalyst is controlling the Reapers. Citadel seems like it should be a big target if Shepard chooses to reject the Catalyst's solutions. Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. But it's a piece of information that should definitely be worth a shot.

The united fleet was not going to be able to stand up to the Reapers in a straight fight, but gunning for the Catalyst via focus attacks on the Citadel would not be a straight fight.

But we never get to see how the battle plays out following Shepard's rejection. Instead the screen just fades and it skips ahead to showing us the battle failed. Did Shepard ever tell Hackett to aim for the Citadel? Did the Reapers successfully defend it? Was it destroyed but just didn't make a difference? Did Shepard just no contact Hackett at all and just sat there and did nothing? We don't know.

Modifié par TaradosGon, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:15 .

[RiouHotaru]

Sniktchtherat wrote...

He also uses the exact phrase "it was not their will".

No, the phrase is "They did not approve, but it was the best solution."  Or something close to it.

[humes spork]

savionen wrote...

Why is conventional victory impossible in the next cycle? We built the Crucible without the Reapers seeing it, why can't the next cycle create ultra-mega-thanix cannons?

I should clarify: my commentary is framed around the immediate consideration, and consequences, for the "current" cycle. There was a discussion about ten pages ago on this very thread in which the ramifications of refusal for the "next" cycle are detailed.

[Ryzaki]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
What a terrible terrible TERRIBLE analogy. 

Here is a better one:


You are a ship architect. You have a job: Create a ship that cannot sink. You have 1 year to design and build it. If you fail to build a ship that cannot sink in 1 year, you'll be killed by your boss. You have 2 options:

1) You have the blueprints of the Titanic, a ship that was designed to be unsinkable, but it sinked anyway. You can use the blueprints of the Titanic to figure out why it sank. When you figured that out, you can improve the design of the Titanic and use the improved Titanic blueprints to build your unsinkable ship.

2) You decide that because the Titanic sank, it's a worthless piece of crap. You don't even bother looking at it's blueprints, because the Titanic clearly wasn't unsinkable, even though the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. Instead, you try to make a completely new design from scratch. You know you only have 1 year and you know working with the Titanic's blueprints as a basis would be faster, but you don't care.


What would be the most logical thing to do? Option 1 or option 2? I think we both know the answer here.

Wrong. The Titanic sank for a clear reason. You'll see it if you actually looked at the blueprints for the ship. (Not to mention it sank due to external reasons. The ship sank because it was hit by an iceberg and the designers didn't accomdate for that. It's kind of going to be assumed the Reapers can blow up the Crucible rather easily. It's not made to withstand direct fire. Not ot mention "The crucible was destroyed." is a far cry from "the crucible didn't work"). There are also several ships that worked successfully that WEREN'T the titanic. So you also have a clear base otherwise to work on. You can also test ships without causing the Sea to drown everything down. Your analogy fails on several accounts. You fail to take into account the real and present danger of the Reapers (you can't afford to fail. If you do you're dead. Everyone you love is dead. Everything you care about and built is destroyed. ) the knowledge that it's something that's never been created before and is based off things for the most part you barely comprehened. (Most of the building of the Crucible is spent slavishly following the schematic with little to no deviation in fear that that'd make it fail. You can't test the thing more than once! And if it doesn't work. Game over! )

So no. not a wise idea to hedge all your bets (When you don't have to.) on something without a guarantee to work. The reasons it was even necessary for the previous cycles was because it was their last resort. They had no time, resources or ability to do anything else. The next cycle however does. Using the same last resort plan in such a case is sheer idiocy. Especially when the last ones who did it tell you the damn thing doesn't work!

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:14 .

[Sniktchtherat]

humes spork wrote...
the Reapers cannot be defeated.

That is the essence of the endings.  They won the first time we usded a relay.  They won the first time we used biotics.  They won when we shaped FTL by their rules.  They won before Shepard was born.  The only option we have in the end is do we die in body, or die in soul?

Either way....they win, we lose.

Modifié par Sniktchtherat, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:11 .

[elitehunter34]

humes spork wrote...

Choosing refuse has a 100% chance of defeat. What part of "the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally" do you not understand?

If the only means left to fighting the Reapers is conventional, and the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, the Reapers cannot be defeated. Therefore, any choice to be made that leaves only conventional fighting, such as refuse, by default ends in defeat. Period, end of goddamn line. It absolutely amazes me this singular point manages to elude people.

Prove that refuse has a 100% chance of defeat  Right now, prove to me that it is impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally.  Opinions are not evidence.  Characters saying that we cannot defeat the Reapers conventionally are opinions, not evidence.  Stop treating it as an absolute when you have no reason to do so.  

Look, this is your argument that you made several pages back.  You said that Shepard should always use the Crucible because either it will work or it won't.  You said that Shepard should not refuse because it will only result in defeat.

Let me say it again.  You have no concrete evidence that refuse will only lead to defeat.  An extremely high chance of defeat is not a 100% chance of defeat.  Therefore your argument is invalid because Shepard now has good reason to refuse.

For someone that has criticized people in this thread for being irrational, you're being the same goddamn thing that you have criticized us for.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:18 .

[Jeb231]

savionen wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Fine, I'll just repeat myself again.

And, I'll repeat myself again: why did the Catalyst speak to Shepard in the first place? Because, that's the question at the heart of this you've dodged for three pages, now. "Because Mac Walters" is not a valid answer, given it is a metagame argument and therefore outside the framework of this entire discussion.

And, that the truth-value of starbrat's statements is irrelevant is my point. A conclusion about what is to be done in the ending can be derived completely independent from the truth-value of starbrat's claims, for the fact Shepard has nothing to lose by indulging it.

 It assumes that choosing refuse will have a 100% chance of defeat.  

Choosing refuse has a 100% chance of defeat. What part of "the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally" do you not understand?

If the only means left to fighting the Reapers is conventional, and the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, the Reapers cannot be defeated. Therefore, any choice to be made that leaves only conventional fighting, such as refuse, by default ends in defeat. Period, end of goddamn line. It absolutely amazes me this singular point manages to elude people.

Why is conventional victory impossible in the next cycle? We built the Crucible without the Reapers seeing it, why can't the next cycle create ultra-mega-thanix cannons?

That's not the issue with the refusal option. They may or may not but this involves letting all the advanced species in this cycle be killed thinking the next cycle may destroy the reapers.It's as heavy as it gets.However this has little to do with the original point made by the topic.

[Torrible]

Ryzaki wrote...

Torrible wrote...

humes spork wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

It's still not an argument. The ending clearly indicates the Catalyst is trustworthy. My Shepard picks Destroy, does what is indicated, and the result the Catalyst claims will occur does happen. Therefore the Catalyst wasn't lying.

But that's a metagame argument, Shepard can't know that at the time s/he makes the decision! Confirming the truth-value of the Catalyst's statements is metagaming, and has no place in this discussion!

Because the Catalyst must be malevolent because Reapers, and we can only facially assume what it says is false without considering or confirming the truth-value of its claims or considering the entire breadth of potential outcomes based upon an unknown variable!

And making a cost-benefit analysis of the potential outcomes of the truth-value of the Catalyst's claims is a logical fallacy and irrational!

Good point, but deciding between a near zero chance of winning conventionally and the slightly higher chance of the Catalyst actually telling the truth (while assuming one is in a state of mental and near-death physical exhaustion) and choosing the latter, does not require metagaming.

It really doesn't. Shep deciding to take a risk doesn't require metagaming anymore than Shep deciding that minisule chance is worth it means he knows everyone is automatically going to die.

And I'm really sick of the Reapers can't be defeated conventionally arguement. That was never stated in ME. Only that Shep's cycle (and previous cycles) were unable to do it because they couldn't match reaper tech and/or they got blindsided. Shep's cycle couldn't defeat the Reapers conventionally. That's a far cry from the Reapers being unable to be defeated conventionally full stop. I can't defeat a heavy weight boxer in a fist fight. That doesn't mean said heavy weight boxer can't be defeated in a fist fight.

Hackett decided that the war cannot be won conventionally. One, he isn't a coward. Second, if anyone had the best idea about the Galactic Alliance forces' strength in relation to the Reaper forces, it would be him. My Shepard simply opted to trust in his widsom and military expertise. Shepard was mentally exhausted and seeing how his forces are being decimated by the Reapers made him desperate.