1027 réponses à ce sujet

[v TricKy v]

Im wondering how long this thread will go on until people realize that cant change the opinion of others in matters which are purely subjective.

[Femlob]

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.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

You believe Refuse has a 100% chance of defeat. Why would Shepard believe that, especially considering the fact that (s)he stood at the basis of the destruction of two of them in the events leading up to The GlowBoy Show?

Shepard has been profiled as the kind of character who defies odds in the face of constant mockery and criticism. So what if people around him or her say that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally? Who says they know any more than (s)he does?

The only reason Refuse has a 100% kill ratio, to go out-of-character for a moment, is because BioWare says so. That is the entire basis of your argument. Considering that BioWare has been lying through their teeth since before the damned game was released and that this sorry excuse for a script has more holes and flaws than a meth-addicted street hooker does not lend credibility to their word.

There. Two answers; one according to Shepard, and one according to me. Your turn.

[The Heretic of Time]

TaradosGon wrote...

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).

You make valid points about how horrible the whole plot and ending is and I couldn't agree more. The only part where I disagree with you is that you believe the Catalyst is capable of trickery and deciet, while I believe he's just a corrupted A.I. stuck in his narrow way of thinking. His solution is the only solution he could see, until the Crucibe was docked. Now he could see new solutions.

I don't think an A.I. can be evil, it can only be corrupt. Therefor, I don't think the Catalyst tried to trick us or lead us into a trap, he simply tried to find a solution to the organics v.s synthetics problem, because hey, that's what he was programmed to do!


But please answer me this:

You mistrust the Catalyst. That's fair. I didn't trust him either. But why then do you choose rejection, which will almost certainly end in defeat, rather than any of the other 3 options, which have unknown variables?

You know that rejection has a 99,9% chance of resulting in total defeat.

You don't know the odds about control, you don't know the odds about destroy and you don't know the odds about synthesis. But even with unknown odds, it's beats the 99,9% chance of total defeat.

So why then, do you choose not only to sacrifice yourself, but sacrifice your entire cycle, rather than trying your luck with any of the other 3 options?

[RiouHotaru]

Actually, there are stories of people falling ridiculous distances and getting up with little more than bumps, bruises, scratches, and several years taken off their life from fright.

But that's besides the point.

You also have no motivation to disbelieve the Catalyst either. And don't ask "why", because it's been established. The Catalyst gains NOTHING by helping Shepard out. Shepard even ASKS the question outright. "Why help me?"

[The Heretic of Time]

savionen wrote...

@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?

Perhaps, but why would you do that? Keep in mind that the next cycle knows absolutely nothing about the Starbrat. They only know that the Crucible somehow didn't work in the previous cycle. So they can't actively avoid th Starbrat, because yeah, they don't even know he exists. 

[elitehunter34]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

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.

You don't understand the burden of proof.  And I didn't even make an analogy, what is the purpose in making that statement?  I am not making a claim, he is claiming that victory is impossible, therefore he has the burden of proof.  I am asking him to prove that victory is impossible.  Improbable =/= impossible.  I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:38 .

[jumpingkaede]

Easily answered I think (but I'll let your addressee answer as well hopefully).

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
You make valid points about how horrible the whole plot and ending is and I couldn't agree more. The only part where I disagree with you is that you believe the Catalyst is capable of trickery and deciet, while I believe he's just a corrupted A.I. stuck in his narrow way of thinking. His solution is the only solution he could see, until the Crucibe was docked. Now he could see new solutions.

Corrupt or misguided, giving you wrong directions is leading you the wrong way regardless of intent.

You mistrust the Catalyst. That's fair. I didn't trust him either. But why then do you choose rejection, which will almost certainly end in defeat, rather than any of the other 3 options, which have unknown variables?

Because you don't know it will almost certainly end in defeat.

You know that rejection has a 99,9% chance of resulting in total defeat.

Nothing of the sort.  Yes, I'm aware Hackett (or someone else in ME3) said it was "impossible".  Shepard might even believe it's impossible... although that's not really Shepard's character.  But Shepard's not a machine so....

A man vs. a tank is probably "impossible" but it's certainly not impossible in the 0% sense.  And without arguing the semantics of impossibility... which is a poor discussion anyway:

You don't know the odds about control, you don't know the odds about destroy and you don't know the odds about synthesis. But even with unknown odds, it's beats the 99,9% chance of total defeat.

That's true but I know in my experience that the actions will lead to 100% death for myself.  And the outcomes sound ridiculous/illogical/impossible.  (Hence the "space magic" outrage).

"Shepard, I'm going to electrocute you... but then you'll be the new Reaper consciousness."

"Shepard, you're going to jump down this beam of light and..."

"Shepard, you're going to shoot this exploding tube and..."

It's the ridiculousness of the outcomes that make rejection a more appealing choice.

It's take your cahnces vs. the tank... or I shoot you in the head now and you become the tank.  Trust me.  You'll totally become the tank. 

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:38 .

[Aquilas]

v TricKy v wrote...

Im wondering how long this thread will go on until people realize that cant change the opinion of others in matters which are purely subjective.

This. 

We're talking about imaginative interpretations of game content--which is kinda what Casey-Mac thought we should do in the first place.  But we're too dumb.

Truly words of wisdom.  I'm over and out.

[Torrible]

v TricKy v wrote...

Im wondering how long this thread will go on until people realize that cant change the opinion of others in matters which are purely subjective.

A conventional victory by either side is not possible.

[ChampDude]

v TricKy v wrote...

Im wondering how long this thread will go on until people realize that cant change the opinion of others in matters which are purely subjective.

Forever

[RiouHotaru]

As I've said, the issue with the thread isn't that we're trying to convince anyone to change their mind.

TAO is using a fallacious argument intentionally to try and make a factual point. We're saying "You can't do that, here's why."

[memorysquid]

elitehunter34 wrote...

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.

Of course you can prove a negative.  It is not the case that I am eating cheese.  Easy to prove.  You are asking him to prove a universal claim, that refuse always equals defeat.  That is demanding impossible proof; because you can always invent one further situation he didn't just mention.  No burden of proof is sufficient to establish a universal empirical claim; that's a foundation of modern science. 

What he is saying is that all evidence points to the Reapers not being able to be conventionally defeated in this cycle in ME3 and none points the other way.  And he's right.

[Femlob]

memorysquid wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

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.

Of course you can prove a negative.  It is not the case that I am eating cheese.  Easy to prove.  You are asking him to prove a universal claim, that refuse always equals defeat.  That is demanding impossible proof; because you can always invent one further situation he didn't just mention.  No burden of proof is sufficient to establish a universal empirical claim; that's a foundation of modern science. 

What he is saying is that all evidence points to the Reapers not being able to be conventionally defeated in this cycle in ME3 and none points the other way.  And he's right.

Except that dead Reaper on Rannoch.

But hey.

[memorysquid]

v TricKy v wrote...

Im wondering how long this thread will go on until people realize that cant change the opinion of others in matters which are purely subjective.

See errors of logic actually aren't subjective.  You can get a person who will refuse to admit plainly valid logic, and someone stubborn enough to keep pointing out why they are wrong.  We'll see who gets bored first.

[Hudathan]

Baronesa wrote...

It is interesting how, per the OP and title... the topic should be about reasons WITHOUT metagamming... and most (not all, there are some interesting reasons without emtagaming) of those cited so far rely on "lol everyone dies" which is an unknown for Shepard at that moment.

And consider what Nyoka posted... THAT defiance is what made Shepard who she is... When Shepard refuses it is not to give up, it is to fight till the end HOPING to win.

Except at that very moment Shepard has every reason to believe that the galaxy is under threat of imminent defeat rather than the contrary. The fact that anyone can argue otherwise is because the Reapers have not yet killed every single sentient being, only on their way to. It's like having your entire family being held at gun point and believing they won't die simply because the mad man haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Shepard brought the combined fleets and armies of the galaxy to Earth. This is as much military power as all the galactic races could spare, some at the expense of defending their already doomed homeworlds. Half of that army never made it to the London battle, the other half experienced as high as "100% killed in action" in certain cases. The fleets orbiting Earth are fighting a desperate delaying battle. None of this is meta-gaming by the player, it's all experiences of the Shepard character in the game.

Therefore, being the only person in reach of what could be the final solution to the entire conflict and knowing that the galaxy would most likely never put together another attempt at a battle like this, what is Shepard supposed to assume about the future? There has always been one goal regarding the Reapers: to stop them from destroying our cycle. Making difficult, morally ambiguous decision has already been part of this thought process for two games in the making. But at the very end, with every military instinct telling him/her that defeat is much more likely than victory at that point, Shepard decides that taking a chance to save the galaxy is too unreasonable now?

[Torrible]

RiouHotaru wrote...

As I've said, the issue with the thread isn't that we're trying to convince anyone to change their mind.

TAO is using a fallacious argument intentionally to try and make a factual point. We're saying "You can't do that, here's why."

And they are not convinced, despite having the fallacy clearly pointed out to them.

Modifié par Torrible, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:52 .

[Baronesa]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

3 hours out and already 14 more pages???

Talk about FTL

[TaradosGon]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So why then, do you choose not only to sacrifice yourself, but sacrifice your entire cycle, rather than trying your luck with any of the other 3 options?

If I'm not meta-gaming, then I don't know how refusal will play out. I know people like to play the "but Hackett said..." card, but Hackett didn't know that the Reapers were being controlled by the Catalyst, and he thought the Catalyst was the Citadel. He didn't know that the Catalyst was an AI that dwelled within it the whole time. So as a non-meta-gaming observer, I can see potential for a new plan in trying to win by destroying the Citadel in the hopes that the Catalyst will be destroyed along with it, since the Catalyst states that the Citadel is a part of him (and his home). So I see the potential to win despite rejection. If the Reapers are centrally controlled or indoctrinated by the Catalyst, then taking the Catalyst out seems like a possible means of victory rather than fighting a conventional campaign against the Reapers.

I would think - hypothetically - that if Vendetta knew that the Catalyst controlled the Reapers and told Shepard this before the battle over Earth, that the plan would have indeed been to destroy the Citadel and destroy the Catalyst.

If I meta-game, then I know that I'm just dooming the galaxy by picking refuse, and that the Catalyst wasn't deceiving me in any way. But I'd like to think that Shepard didn't just sit there twiddling his thumbs while all his friends got wiped out. I'd hope that maybe he was trying to desperately transmit what he learned from the Catalyst back to the fleet so that they could hatch a new plan, like trying to take out the Citadel. And I'd like to think that they did a desperate final charge on the Citadel. But the game just skips past what happens and just shows me that I failed. Maybe Shepard did just sit there and twiddle his thumbs, and if he did, then I'd probably pick Destroy. At that point I have nothing to lose.

Modifié par TaradosGon, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:03 .

[Aaleel]

Wasn't meta gaming for me. I came to use to crucible because it had been decided by everyone on command for every race that conventional victory was not possible and that the crucible was the only way to win. I was willing to accept the consequences of using the crucible when I went into the last mission. Once again one that had been agreed upony everyone.

It was death by slow, methodical reaping or by a worse case scenario by the crucible. But only one had a chance to turn out in victory and that was using the crucible.

So I said kill those MFs. No meta-gaming involved.

[incinerator950]

/back

[The Heretic of Time]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Corrupt or misguided, giving you wrong directions is leading you the wrong way regardless of intent.

But how do you know the Catalyst gives you wrong directions or wrong information? He himself admitted that the Crucible opened new solutions. He could see them now, unlike before, where he believed the Reaper cycle is the only solution.
And why are you not willing to take the risk, knowning that the alternative is almost cretainly total defeat?

Because you don't know it will almost certainly end in defeat.

We do know it will almost certainly end in defeat. The most respected admirals and generals of your cycle all agree that such odds cannot be beaten. The Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. It has been said multiple times, by Hackett, by Anderson and by others too.

Nothing of the sort.  Yes, I'm aware Hackett (or someone else in ME3) said it was "impossible".  Shepard might even believe it's impossible... although that's not really Shepard's character.  But Shepard's not a machine so....

A man vs. a tank is probably "impossible" but it's certainly not impossible in the 0% sense.

I did not claim such a thing. I said it's near impossible as in defeat is almost 99,9% certain. The odds in this war are much worse than a man v.s a tank. I think saying a man v.s 100 tanks would be closer to the odds we're facing now.

That's true but I know in my experience that the actions will lead to 100% death for myself.  And the outcomes sound ridiculous/illogical/impossible.

Ah, so you value your own life more than the billions of lives fighting out there to keep this current cycle alive?

"Shepard, I'm going to electrocute you... but then you'll be the new Reaper consciousness."

"Shepard, you're going to jump down this beam of light and..."

"Shepard, you're going to shoot this exploding tube and..."

It's the ridiculousness of the outcomes that make rejection a more appealing choice.

Fair point about the control and synthesis options, but not about the destroy option. Yes, the explosion resulting from shooting the tube could possibly kill you, but it's not so far-fetched to believe this action will result in the destruction of all the reapers.

You're destroying stuff (the tube) to destroy the Reapers. That doesn't sound so illogical or ridiculous at all.

It's take your cahnces vs. the tank... or I shoot you in the head now and you become the tank.  Trust me.  You'll totally become the tank. 

That's not really fair. You can make everything or anything sound ridiculous like that. Keep in mind we're playing a sci-fi game here, where we can shoot purple lightning out our hands or create black-holes with a simple hand-gesture. Compared to that kind of space-magic, the Control and Destroy options don't seem so far-fetched at all.

[memorysquid]

Femlob wrote...

Except that dead Reaper on Rannoch.

But hey.

If you really think the handful of dead Reapers to Shep's credit, especially given the ridiculously unique circumstances of each one means conventional defeat of the Reapers is practically possible in this game, well, you're wrong.  Unless the Alliance does manage to make a gun which fires thresher maws.  Seriously though, he manages to concentrate fire on 2 destroyers [the littler ones], feed one to a unique thresher maw and Sovereign was a ****** and tied his personal shields to Saren for some reason.  There are hundreds of the grandaddy Reapers rolling over the fleet as you watch.  Where is the evidence the fleet can suddenly turn it all around?

[v TricKy v]

 

Torrible wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Im wondering how long this thread will go on until people realize that cant change the opinion of others in matters which are purely subjective.

A conventional victory by either side is not possible.

 
You deserve kudos for that answer

Baronesa wrote...

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

3 hours out and already 14 more pages???

Talk about FTL

Yeah you should have seen that. I was the most time lurking. 

[The Heretic of Time]

TaradosGon wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So why then, do you choose not only to sacrifice yourself, but sacrifice your entire cycle, rather than trying your luck with any of the other 3 options?

If I'm not meta-gaming, then I don't know how refusal will play out. I know people like to play the "but Hackett said..." card, but Hackett didn't know that the Reapers were being controlled by the Catalyst, and he thought the Catalyst was the Citadel. He didn't know that the Catalyst was an AI that dwelled within it the whole time. So as a non-meta-gaming observer, I can see potential for a new plan in trying to win by destroying the Citadel in the hopes that the Catalyst will be destroyed along with it. So I see the potential to win despite rejection.

And how the hell do you want to destroy the Citadel? Did you forget about ME2: Arrival? We had to slam an astroid the size of a small planet into the Mass Relay in order to be able to destroy it. The Citadel is way bigger and seems to be way better procted! How in the world are we going to destroy THAT? Keep in mind that realistically, Shepard doesn't have much time to think about this. Each minute Shepard spends on trying to find a way to blow up the Citadel, his slim chances of victory grow even smaller.

[humes spork]

elitehunter34 wrote...

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.

Did you really pick the problem of induction as the basis for this argument? Really? The problem with that, of course, is inductive arguments (in this case, that conventional victory is impossible) are subject to falsification opposed to verification. That is to say, the claim must be falsified with evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, the inductive argument -- which is in the end conjecture based upon established evidence -- holds true as there is no reasonable basis for rejecting it.

I would strongly suggest this article for reading on the problem of induction, given your gross misapplication of it.

In over the no less than a billion years the cycle has existed, not once have the Reapers been defeated conventionally (or unconventionally for that matter). If they had been defeated, they would not have continued to exist into "this" cycle. The destruction of one Reaper here and there is not equivalent to actual victory over the Reapers, as evidenced directly by the Leviathan of Dis (it was disabled somehow, yet the Reapers continued to exist and prevail), the derelict Reaper in ME2 (it was disabled by a massive mass driver, yet the Reapers continued to exist and prevail), Sovereign (it was destroyed and yet the Reapers continued to exist, managed to invade and up until the final choice were conclusively prevailing), the Battle of Palaven (in which numerous destroyers and capital ships were destroyed), and the destruction of the Reaper destroyers on Tuchanka, Rannoch, and Earth.

No evidence to the contrary exists that the Reapers can be defeated conventionally. All evidence put forth suggests the claim the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. For that, the argument the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally has yet to be falsified, and as such there is no reasonable basis on which to reject it.

There. Two answers; one according to Shepard, and one according to me. Your turn. 

On top of all the commentary above, you're aware that in the denouement of ME1, Shepard him/herself directly alludes to the Reapers being impossible to beat conventionally ("the Reapers are still out there, and I'm going to find some way to stop them" when the context of the scene is a unified Council willing to prepare and fight the Reapers conventionally), correct?

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:08 .