1027 réponses à ce sujet

[TaradosGon]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I wonder why these rejectists (that's what I'll call hardcore reject choosers from now on) have such a hate for the Crucible anyway. Is it because the Starbrat tells you what options the Crucible has opened up? Is it because you're so hell bend on an unrealistic happy ending where everyone lives and no sacrifices have been made? Is it because the Crucible is a horrible plot-device?

I can understand that people think the Crucible is the worst plot-device ever (I think so too), but any other reason these rejectists have given for hating the Crucible is just silly.

It's not the Crucible itself that I hate. It's the fact that:

Shepard pretty much looks like he has suffered a fatal wound, he could simply be left for dead. But instead the Catalyst decides to have Shepard ride his magic elevator. OK, so now I'm faced with the Catalyst who reveals that he is controlling the Reapers that are slaughtering my friends, have tried to kill me, and are going to drive many species to extinction.

He tells me that I can kill him.... I'm bleeding out and helpless, he's my enemy, and he just wants to tell me that I can kill him now? ...Well, that's kind of weird. But he tells me that I have to sacrifice EDI and the Geth to kill him. He's entirely cool with being destroyed. Kind of strange since by his own admission this will not end the Cycle, which has been his purpose for over a billion years. So... if it's all the same to him, and self preservation means nothing... can't I just have him stand down and let me destroy the reapers and not sacrifice my allies? Apparently not. Apparently the Catalyst is only suicidal if the Crucible kills him, and he'll even walk me through how to do it. But if I want to kill him without the Crucible, then the Cycle (which allegedly won't work anymore) continues and the Catalyst tells me to go F- myself.

My enemy wakes me up to tell me how to kill him. I'm suspicious. He just tried to annihilate my entire fleet to STOP me from getting the Crucible to the Citadel to kill the Reapers, but not that it's there, he's more than happy to meet his end and walk me through it. That doesn't seem right. How do I know that shooting pipe won't just destroy the Crucible and destroy my chances of someone else following me up and finishing the job? He then tells me how to take control. Also suspicious. He tells me that I can be enhanced by merging with synthetics. Highly suspicious. Last two people that I knew to do that (Saren and TIM) were indoctrinated.

However, I've learned that the Catalyst is controlling the Reapers, and that the Citadel is his "house," and he's responsible for the Cycle. It seems like I could use this knowledge for one last plan that may or may not work.

Or I could pick synthesis - sounds like a trap.
Or I could pick control - sounds like a trap
Or I could pick destroy - doesn't even mesh with the Catalyst's logic; Catalyst seems insistent that I must kill him via this method; sounds like a trap.

Blowing up the Citadel? Sounds like it could work.

I'll pick refuse (without meta-gaming).

Modifié par TaradosGon, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:07 .

[Ryzaki]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Like I said just because you can't hide **** doesn't mean other can't.

Well tell me then mister genius: How would you hide the MASSIVE development of a MASSIVE fleet that rivals the Reapers both in size and firepower for more than a couple of decades/centuries?

By all means, enlighten me. I can't wait to hear your genius plan. 

The same way they hide deployment of the Crucible. The same way they hide weapon development in modern times. The same way the Batarians hid their weapon bases (yes if you read the descriptions of the planets this becomes obvious) You don't loudly scream what you're doing. You do it in bits and pieces. You limit information spread or spread contradicting information. You don't plant a giant target that says HI THERE I'M A WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PLANT! You hide anti-reaper weapons under the guise of anti X weapons. You act like you're having a cold war with another species (to justify the ships). The Reapers are also not all knowing (if they were they would've been aware of Prothean involvement with humanity/asari/whatever) so clearly they don't watch what they believe are "primitives" (And even ignore the Yahg and Raloi (the latter of which was in the space exploration stage until the Reaper attack). For...some reason.) You pretend your tech is less advanced than it is. You hide it under something else. There are multiple ways to do this especially with a foe that is a great distance away/stuck in one area (the Citadel).

Just because you have about as much subtly and imagination as a rock doesn't mean everyone else does.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:11 .

[savionen]

TaradosGon wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I wonder why these rejectists (that's what I'll call hardcore reject choosers from now on) have such a hate for the Crucible anyway. Is it because the Starbrat tells you what options the Crucible has opened up? Is it because you're so hell bend on an unrealistic happy ending where everyone lives and no sacrifices have been made? Is it because the Crucible is a horrible plot-device?

I can understand that people think the Crucible is the worst plot-device ever (I think so too), but any other reason these rejectists have given for hating the Crucible is just silly.

It's not the Crucible itself that I hate. It's the fact that:

Shepard pretty much looks like he has suffered a fatal wound, he could simply be left for dead. But instead the Catalyst decides to have Shepard ride his magic elevator. OK, so now I'm faced with the Catalyst who reveals that he is controlling the Reapers that are slaughtering my friends, have tried to kill me, and are going to drive many species to extinction.

He tells me that I can kill him.... I'm bleeding out and helpless, he's my enemy, and he just wants to tell me that I can kill him now? ...Well, that's kind of weird. But he tells me that I have to sacrifice EDI and the Geth to kill him. He's entirely cool with being destroyed. Kind of strange since by his own admission this will not end the Cycle, which has been his purpose for over a billion years. So... if it's all the same to him, and self preservation means nothing... can't I just have him stand down and let me destroy the reapers and not sacrifice my allies? Apparently not. Apparently the Catalyst is only suicidal if the Crucible kills him, and he'll even walk me through how to do it. But if I want to kill him without the Crucible, then the Cycle (which allegedly won't work anymore) continues and the Catalyst tells me to go F- myself.

My enemy wakes me up to tell me how to kill him. I'm suspicious. He tells me how to take control. Also suspicious. He tells me that I can be enhanced by merging with synthetics. Highly suspicious. Last two people that I knew to do that (Saren and TIM) were indoctrinated.

However, I've learned that the Catalyst is controlling the Reapers, and that the Citadel is his "house," and he's responsible for the Cycle. It seems like I could use this knowledge for one last plan that may or may not work.

Or I could pick synthesis - sounds like a trap.
Or I could pick control - sounds like a trap
Or I could pick destroy - doesn't even mesh with the Catalyst's logic; Catalyst seems insistent that I must kill him via this method; sounds like a trap.

Blowing up the Citadel? Sounds like it could work.

I'll pick refuse (without meta-gaming).

This is a pretty good explanation IMO. This is why I would have picked Reject/Refuse without meta on the first try. Shepard would just bleed out if the Catalyst didn't step in. If the Catalyst let Shepard bleed to death, and then had the Reapers hunt down and destroy all plans of the Crucible it seems like they could just continue cycles again, or hey.... do 45k cycles instead of 50k.

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:08 .

[LaZy i IS]

Torrible wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

Best reply in the thread.

Going in circles over this topic is rather pointless, because as you said, the OP's statement is simply flawed.

+1. It reaffirms the aphorism that as long as one spoke with sufficient conviction, one would be believed regardless of the logic used. 

This, although I'm still gonna share my thoughts on the OP.

Why is meta-gaming required to use the Crucible? Yes, I could outright refuse to use the Crucible but even without meta-gaming the choices are basically this:
Destroy:
1) Catalyst is right, all Reapers destroyed along with all other synthetics.
2) Catalyst lied, breaking power conduit disables the Crucible. Same result as rejection.
3) Catalyst lied, destroy option destroys allied fleets/organics
Control:
1) Catalyst is right, you gain control of the Reapers.
2) Catalyst lied, control fails. Same as rejection.
Synthesis:
1) Catalyst is right, all organics get synthetic traits & vice-versa.
2) Catalyst lied, throwing yourself into the beam does nothing. Same as rejection.
Refuse:
1) Fight the Reapers conventionally, the result of which will very likely be defeat, as stated by some of the most experienced soldiers out there.
2) Although almost impossible, you somehow conventionally win.

So, whether or not I believe the Catalyst, by weighing these options, what's to be lost from using the crucible and why do I need to meta-game?
(I chose destroy for my main Shep, before EC and after, without seeing the consequences beforehand.)
Edit: fixed formatting fail...

Modifié par LaZy i IS, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:11 .

[Ryzaki]

TaradosGon wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I wonder why these rejectists (that's what I'll call hardcore reject choosers from now on) have such a hate for the Crucible anyway. Is it because the Starbrat tells you what options the Crucible has opened up? Is it because you're so hell bend on an unrealistic happy ending where everyone lives and no sacrifices have been made? Is it because the Crucible is a horrible plot-device?

I can understand that people think the Crucible is the worst plot-device ever (I think so too), but any other reason these rejectists have given for hating the Crucible is just silly.

It's not the Crucible itself that I hate. It's the fact that:

Shepard pretty much looks like he has suffered a fatal wound, he could simply be left for dead. But instead the Catalyst decides to have Shepard ride his magic elevator. OK, so now I'm faced with the Catalyst who reveals that he is controlling the Reapers that are slaughtering my friends, have tried to kill me, and are going to drive many species to extinction.

He tells me that I can kill him.... I'm bleeding out and helpless, he's my enemy, and he just wants to tell me that I can kill him now? ...Well, that's kind of weird. But he tells me that I have to sacrifice EDI and the Geth to kill him. He's entirely cool with being destroyed. Kind of strange since by his own admission this will not end the Cycle, which has been his purpose for over a billion years. So... if it's all the same to him, and self preservation means nothing... can't I just have him stand down and let me destroy the reapers and not sacrifice my allies? Apparently not. Apparently the Catalyst is only suicidal if the Crucible kills him, and he'll even walk me through how to do it. But if I want to kill him without the Crucible, then the Cycle (which allegedly won't work anymore) continues and the Catalyst tells me to go F- myself.

My enemy wakes me up to tell me how to kill him. I'm suspicious. He just tried to annihilate my entire fleet to STOP me from getting the Crucible to the Citadel to kill the Reapers, but not that it's there, he's more than happy to meet his end and walk me through it. That doesn't seem right. How do I know that shooting pipe won't just destroy the Crucible and destroy my chances of someone else following me up and finishing the job? He then tells me how to take control. Also suspicious. He tells me that I can be enhanced by merging with synthetics. Highly suspicious. Last two people that I knew to do that (Saren and TIM) were indoctrinated.

However, I've learned that the Catalyst is controlling the Reapers, and that the Citadel is his "house," and he's responsible for the Cycle. It seems like I could use this knowledge for one last plan that may or may not work.

Or I could pick synthesis - sounds like a trap.
Or I could pick control - sounds like a trap
Or I could pick destroy - doesn't even mesh with the Catalyst's logic; Catalyst seems insistent that I must kill him via this method; sounds like a trap.

Blowing up the Citadel? Sounds like it could work.

I'll pick refuse (without meta-gaming).

Yeah the whole thing just makes the mind boggle. (Along with Shep not trying to have them attempt (even if the damn thing doesn't work try damnit!) to blow up the Citadel. Shep already knows what happens when you destroy the source of Reaper brains from ME1).

[inversevideo]

I'm with Angry One.
None of the choices make sense.

Die and contribute my consciousness to the Catalyst to control the reapers? Caty already told me that if I choose this option I lose everything. Or I could walk towards the light, because you know, assimilation with machines is invetable and resistance is futile. Or, if I put a few rounds into some unknown machinery in the corner that will switch on the crucible. Because the untold number of races that designed the crucible, and at some point decided to incorporate the citadel in the design, knew that the best way to activate a dark energy weapon capable of unquantifiable levels of destruction, was to make it so that the activation for your weapon is to destroy a machine you could not know about, in a room you never knew existed.

The whole sequence with Caty, does not fit.
Since ME1 we have seen a fractious universe slowly come together to face a common foe.
That is the story! How unification came about and who made it happen. That is the story!
The Reapers are not the story, any more than DA:O was an 'Archdemon's Tale'.

The trilogy should have ended with the 'best seat in the house' scene.
What fallout occurs after that would depend on your EMS.

There is no way for Bioware to go forward with this universe now.
A prequel is possible, though I am not big on prequels.

[Alraiis]

The Angry One wrote...

Disclaimer: If my opinions on the ending bother you, the back button should be to the top left of your browser.

When talking about rejection compared to the other endings, people often bring up how the Reaper threat is still ended one way or another and how selfish people are for rejecting and so on. That's debatable, but not the point here.
One important point that I think is often missed though pointed out many times before by various people - how does Shepard know that?

Every one of the 3 options is a leap of faith based on the word - and that alone - of the creator and controller of the Reapers. Shepard will not even survive to see these options pan out. Definitely so in control and synthesis, and at least a likely possibility in destroy (especially since Shepard tries to commit suicide by explosion).
From Shepard's perspective, all she sees is the head Reaper giving her an ultimatum, the logic of which is flawed. Why would the Reapers hand you the keys to their own destruction? The Catalyst does not adequately explain the reasons for this, other than the current solution no longer being viable for arbitrary reasons.

How is the Catalyst trustworthy? The Reaper's main tactic throughout all 3 games is corruption and deception.
Yes, Sovereign and Harbinger were honest. But they didn't WANT anything from Shepard, they were simply making proclamations as to their intent.
With others they have manipulated, lied and used up through indoctrination and such. Look at the Geth. The Geth were attacked by the Quarians, so the Reapers promised to upgrade and help them. Which they did... they also took total control and made them puppets, illustrating perfectly how the Reapers cannot be trusted.

This represents a fundamental flaw in the ending. Within the narrative Shepard basically can't take any of these options, they require a leap of faith far worse than the one needed to give TIM the Collector Base, for example.
The only way you know the endings are viable is because you already know what they'll do! This is in the EC of course - a first time player with the OE must simply blindly fumble into an ending because you have no other choice.
Now that you HAVE the choice to reject, no other ending makes sense internally. You can philosophise about sacrifice and brave new eras all you want. I'm sure some will immediately react and yell "DON'T SPEAK FOR MY SHEPARD". But I'm sorry, you see the appeal of destroy/control/synthesis because you are meta-gaming. Shepard doesn't see it because Shepard CANNOT see it.

Disagree.

I'll admit that, yes, in the worst case scenario, Shepard is playing right into the Catalyst's evil hands and everyone is doomed—but that's what would happen if Shepard does nothing, too. A leap of faith is not metagaming, especially when the alternative is "stand there and die." I'll jump, thanks.

[Legbiter]

Hah, paranoids doom this cycle. It's like indoctrination in reverse.

[Reorte]

TaradosGon wrote...

Or I could pick synthesis - sounds like a trap.
Or I could pick control - sounds like a trap
Or I could pick destroy - doesn't even mesh with the Catalyst's logic; Catalyst seems insistent that I must kill him via this method; sounds like a trap.

Blowing up the Citadel? Sounds like it could work.

I'll pick refuse (without meta-gaming).

Well that's one reason the whole thing is very badly written but whatever the trap is we're almost certainly stuffed anyway so there doesn't really seem to be anything to lose on gambling that it's not a trap.

Modifié par Reorte, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:13 .

[jumpingkaede]

Rejection is the only NON-RIDICULOUS and REALISTIC ending.

But it makes for an awful, awful game.

Even though prior to ME3 Bioware never said defeating the Reapers conventionally was "impossible", if we accept that as correct then... wth Bioware? Thanks for creating a game where the protagonist (i.e. me) gets to spend 100s of hours facing impossible odds then losing.

That's not my idea of fun.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:14 .

[Ryzaki]

Legbiter wrote...

Hah, paranoids doom this cycle. It's like indoctrination in reverse.

It is!

Honestly I was almost certain Crucible would turn out to be the big Reaper trap when I read the leaked script. I thought that would be the huge plot twist we were told was coming. But nope. It's legit.

I was immensely disappointed. It seems like just the sort of thing the Reapers would do.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

elitehunter34 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Right now. Prove it. I want evidence. Opinions are not evidence. People saying that the FSM doesn't exist are not evidence. Stop treating this as an absolute!

That's about the validity of the argument. Hackett committed the entire fleet to the battle. What are the losses? We don't know at the time. We can look and see they were getting their asses handed to them by the reapers. Hackett's battle plan was a delaying action to get the Crucible in place. He gambled everything on that. It was a full frontal assault. Bad. Industrial bases are kind of in **** right now so where are your replacements going to come from?

Sorry, but there is a 100% chance of defeat. You need to fire the Crucible. The fleet cannot win the war. Liara calculated that the war would end in defeat and would last at most 100 years.

It would take a fraking miracle to win the war without the Crucible. We just don't have the tech or the resources. But for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory I present you with the Avatar for Refusal:

You're analogy is completely meaningless.  You cannot prove a negative.  I am not asking anyone to prove a negative.  I'm asking him to prove his claim that there is a 100% chance of defeat if you choose refuse.  I do not hold the burden of proof; he does.  If you don't understand this concept go throw your stupid pictures somewhere else.  It's not needed.

Prove that he has the resources left after the battle, and has the capacity for replacements. Your analogy is completely meaningless as well. The analysis has already been done. They cannot be defeated conventionally. Period. All that can happen is that it can drag out for 100 years and that's it. Your military grows smaller while theirs grows larger. It's a numbers game.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:17 .

[jumpingkaede]

Alraiis wrote...

Disagree.

I'll admit that, yes, in the worst case scenario, Shepard is playing right into the Catalyst's evil hands and everyone is doomed—but that's what would happen if Shepard does nothing, too. A leap of faith is not metagaming, especially when the alternative is "stand there and die." I'll jump, thanks.

As between "stand there and fight/die" vs. "jump into a chasm and die" I'll take the former.

Which Shepard should as well, based on his life experience to date.  And which gamers should also, based on both their real life experience (getting into meta territory) as well as their gaming experience.

Experience says jumping into a chasm = 100% certain death.  While standing there and fighting = 100% certain victory.  That's experience to date, mind you, given Shepard's history of success when standing and fighting.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:17 .

[Legbiter]

Ryzaki wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Hah, paranoids doom this cycle. It's like indoctrination in reverse.

It is!

Honestly I was almost certain Crucible would turn out to be the big Reaper trap when I read the leaked script. I thought that would be the huge plot twist we were told was coming. But nope. It's legit.

I was immensely disappointed. It seems like just the sort of thing the Reapers would do.

Well, we can't all be smart like me!

[Reorte]

inversevideo wrote...

The trilogy should have ended with the 'best seat in the house' scene.
What fallout occurs after that would depend on your EMS.

There is no way for Bioware to go forward with this universe now.
A prequel is possible, though I am not big on prequels.

Even then it would rule out sequels if the results could run from total Reaper victory to Reapers dead at no additional cost. I completely agree that it totally falls apart after the "best seat in the house" scene. If there was no last minute choice and it all came down to EMS would anyone complain? I rather doubt it (depending upon what we were shown, of course). Makes you wonder what they were thinking.

[TookYoCookies]

I cant get past the post where some ass-whole said "I know from Lore hat the reapers outnumber our ships at least 40 to 1" ( I imagine that he has a zoidberg voice). Where the f*ck was that brought up? Every source ive seen indicates the exact f*cking opposite.


and

"Conservatively lets say it takes 20 of our ships to take down 1 reaper.".. It says in the F*cking codex it takes 3 dreadnoughts to take down 1 reaper capital ship. f*ckin idiot. I shouldve quoted via link but too lazy to deal with fanboy-douchery atm..

-Back on topic: Good point in the OP angry.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Like I said just because you can't hide **** doesn't mean other can't.

Well tell me then mister genius: How would you hide the MASSIVE development of a MASSIVE fleet that rivals the Reapers both in size and firepower for more than a couple of decades/centuries?

By all means, enlighten me. I can't wait to hear your genius plan. 

The same way they hide deployment of the Crucible.

*sigh* Again, hind one single object is not the same as hiding galactic-wide weapon development and a galactic-wide construction of an army with the size and firepower that could rival the reapers (let alone defeat them). There is a HUGE difference.

So, HOW are you going to hide a galactic-wide army with the massive size capable of rivaling the Reapers? Please just answer my questions or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't loudly scream what you're doing. You do it in bits and pieces. You limit information spread or spread contradicting information. You don't plant a giant target that says HI THERE I'M A WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PLANT! You hide anti-reaper weapons under the guise of anti X weapons. You act like you're having a cold war with another species (to justify the ships).

If reapers have more than 2 braincells they'll figure out what is going on. Besides, it doesn't matter WHY you have superior fire-power, the fact THAT you have superior fire-power is enough for the Reapers to be concerned and decide to act now before it's too late.

The Reapers are also not all knowing (if they were they would've been aware of Prothean involvement with humanity/asari/whatever) so clearly they don't watch what they believe are "primitives".

They're indeed not all-knowing, which is why hiding a Crucible is not so far-fetched. Hiding an entire army that rivals their own however? I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Also, how will you account for the fact that the Reapers can strengthen their army by simply adding yours to theirs? Indoctrination, huskification. For every soldier you lose, they gain one. How are you going to beat those odds conventionally? By building even more guns? 


 

Just because you have about as much subtly and imagination as a rock doesn't mean everyone else does.

There is such a thing as suspense of disbelief. And you don't have to worry about my imagination, I have more than enouhg of that, which is why I'm a GM (game master for Pens 'n Paper RPG).

[Ryzaki]

Legbiter wrote...
Well, we can't all be smart like me!

But...seriously what is the big plot twist we were told was coming? I didn't see anything.

I hope they don't mean the Catalyst looking like that brat. That was plot dumb not plot twist.

@HH: At this point I'm done arguing over and over with you. If you don't get it you don't get it. Also FYI: The Protheans managed to build goddamn freezing centers on different planets that were completely unseen/ignored by the Reapers (as well as a damn relay that led to the Citadel!) that only died because they lacked enough power to keep them all running.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:26 .

[RiouHotaru]

jumpingkaede wrote...

As between "stand there and fight/die" vs. "jump into a chasm and maybe die"

Fixed.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:21 .

[savionen]

@Heretic Hanar

It doesn't have to be 100000 ships in hiding.

The Citadel/Crucible is basically a massive weapon.

Can't make and hide 10 mini-versions of this that don't involve the God-Kid?

[Ryzaki]

RiouHotaru wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

As between "stand there and fight/die" vs. "jump into a chasm and die but maybe have everyone else live"

Fixed.

Fix'd.

[RiouHotaru]

Actually Ryz, your correction doesn't change anything. It's "certain defeat and no victory" against "uncertain defeat or victory"

[elitehunter34]

humes spork wrote...

So in other words, yes you are willing to deny canon to push your personal narrative.

I'm not denying canon to push my personal narrative, where are you even getting this idea?  Do you even know what we've been arguing about all of this time?  I'm going to explain this yet again because you seem to be misunderstanding it.  

This whole argument stemmed from the fact that you said (the second matrix you posted on page 10) that Shepard should pick one of the Catalyst's choices because refusing will always lead to defeat, and since using the Crucible does have a chance of victory you should use it.  You said there was absolutely no logic in picking refusal.

I contest this because one cannot say that not using it has a 100% chance of defeat.  There is an extremely high chance of defeat, but a high chance of defeat is not the same thing as a 100% of defeat.  So, knowing that the Catalyst could be lying (again this not something you contest, as you have mentioned previously), choosing refusal is a valid option.

You cannot prove that there is a 100% chance that a given event will happen.  Do you see what I am saying here.  For example you can't say that there is a 100% chance that pressing the on button on your remote will turn on you TV?  Wh?  Because it is possible that it won't.   Maybe your TV broke, maybe your remote broke, maybe your TV's not plugged in.  The exact same can be said of defeating the Reapers conventionally.  Maybe Admiral Hacket was wrong, maybe the Reapers run out of ammo for some reason, maybe the Reapers decide to just stop.  Just because something has happened a million times, does not mean it will happen again.

Were not talking about a logical or mathematical statement.  We're talking about a complex event with an innumerable amount of variables, so you cannot say that there is a 100% chance of something happening.  That is my entire argument.  You cannot prove that there is a 100% chance of the Reapers winning.  Saying "Yes it is because that is what happens," would be missing the entire point of my argument.  All I want is for you to say is that refusal is a valid option because your argument is based on flawed premises.

[jumpingkaede]

Ryzaki wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

As between "stand there and fight/die" vs. "jump into a chasm and die but maybe have everyone else live"

Fixed.

Fix'd.

Well, that's correct.  Incorporating your "helpful" suggestions, it should be:

As between "stand there and die and maybe have everyone else die" vs. "jump into a chasm and die but maybe have everyone else live"

As to RiouHotaru's edit: have you ever jumped into a seemingly bottomless chasm without benefit of helmet or parachute and lived?  That does not jive with my personal experience.

RiouHotaru wrote...

Actually Ryz, your correction doesn't change anything. It's "certain defeat and no victory" against "uncertain defeat or victory"

That's as TOLD to Shepard.  Not as EXPERIENCED by Shepard.  Shepard has no reason to believe the Catalyst, and you, as a gamer, have no reason to believe the Catalyst.  

That's why rejection is the only really reasonable choice.  Per Bioware, it turns out to be the one losing choice but you have no reason to know that beforehand.  In the simplest possible terms, your choices boil down to four options presented to you by a total stranger.  Say... me.  You're Shepard, and I show up and I direct you to four options.  

Each option corresponds to an action.  Not an ending, an ACTION.  The actions are:

- Grab electrical wires.
- Jump into chasm.
- Shoot exploding tube.
- Do nothing and let your fleet fight it out. 

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:31 .

[Ryzaki]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Actually Ryz, your correction doesn't change anything. It's "certain defeat and no victory" against "uncertain defeat or victory"

I know. I'm just pointing out that Shep dies regardless. Unless you shoot the tube.

Honestly I love being called a Rejecter when my preferences for the endings is thus: 

Destroy > Paragon Control > Reject > Renegade Control > Bad Destroy > Bad Control > Mission Failure (by this I mean death before getting to the Crucible like ME2 SM death or Reaper on Rannoch death or death by Marauder Shields)  > Synthesis

jumpingkaede wrote...

Well, that's correct.  Incorporating your "helpful" suggestions, it should be:

As between "stand there and die and maybe have everyone else die" vs. "jump into a chasm and die but maybe have everyone else live"

As
to RiouHotaru's edit: have you ever jumped into a seemingly bottomless
chasm without benefit of helmet or parachute and lived?  That does not
jive with my personal experience.

Touche!

Either point Shep still dies.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:31 .