1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

The Reapers have not once been able to not use their massive backstab until Shep's cycle. The Reapers have not once faced a organic race fully aware of their threat as well as prepared to fight them. I'm really sick of the Shep's cycle can't defeat Reapers conventionally = Reapers can't be defeated conventionally. They are not the same thing people.

Ugh NVM I'm talking to the wall.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:07 .

[Merwanor]

Rejection is spitting in the face of everyone who worked to finish the crucible, all the cycles before us that did all they could just to get our chance to use it or improve it, wasted out of spite.

[DarthSliver]

Well you gotta look at this way doing nothing got you where your at here having to trust what the Starkid is telling you is the truth. I mean in ME1 and ME2 you warn the council of the Reaper threat but yet they did nothing leaving you at the position you are at in ME3 having to trust that the Cruicible/Superweapon you spent all game building will do what the Starkid told it will do, Control, Combine Organic and Synthetics, to Destroy all Reapers and Synthetic. So refusing to believe what the Starkid told you despite that it said in the first place the Cruicible altered it and allowed its program to see more options to this "Synthetic always rebelling against its creators" problem that lead to this Cycle. So basically your no better than the Citadel Council if you refuse the options the Starkid is giving you, better to try something than nothing at all. You are letting everyone down that believes your doing something to stop the Reapers.

[elitehunter34]

memorysquid wrote...

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.

No, you can't prove a negative.  You can prove that you are eating cheese, but you cannot prove that you are not eating cheese.  What if you are eating invisible cheese?  What if the cheese is there, but for some reason I and only I can not see it?  Can you prove that you are not a a robot?  Can you prove that I am not actually my computer that turned into an AI?  Can you prove that I am not typing with my feet?  You can not definitively prove a negative because we don't have infinite knowledge of the universe.  This is why we deal with proving positive claims.  Yes in a colloquial sense you can, but not in a philosophical or scientific sense. Anyways, lets not derail the thread anymore by debating this.

I am asking him to prove a universal claim because he is making a universal claim.  He is claiming that refusal leads to a 100% chance of defeat.  So yes, that is impossible to prove, and that is exactly my point.  He is making an undefensible claim, so I want him to admit that so we can stop this debate.  If he says that there is a 99% chance of defeat then I'll agree because that is essentially infinitely more provable than his claim of 100% chance of defeat.

[jumpingkaede]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
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?

I should've clarified.  I meant that IF the directions are wrong, it doesn't matter whether they're intentionally wrong or not.

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.

That's always bothered me.  Because the most respected admirals and generals of our cycle... had no plan at all save the Crucible?  I know Bioware went to great lengths to point out how the Crucible was the only chance but it never really fit together in a logical way.

A thing that was built by the Protheans which didn't work when the Protheans built it is the only chance?  Where's the eyerolling gif?

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

No.  Only in the context of deciding action-outcome.

"Shepard, fly this nuclear device into Harbinger and disrupt the Reaper communication system."

Done!

"Shepard, eletrocute yourself/suicide/shoot tube..."

Wait wut?

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 doesn't?  I've yet to see any real explanation of how Destroy works.  I've never even see a sci-fi-ish explanation for how it works.  I certainly can't envision a real life analogue to it working.  Was the tube powering all the Reapers?  Because it's not the tube blowing up that destroys the Reapers... it's the tube blowing up which causes a beam of light energy to shootout of the tube... which destroys the Reapers.

Was it a tube full of anti-Reaper energy?

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.

I guess we'll disagree.  That's how the whole "space magic" thing started, also.  Mini "black holes" or purple lightning, aside.  

It's still the action-outcome disconnect that bothers me.

"Shepard, hack into the Reaper mainframe and the Reaper code to take control of all the Reapers."

Okay!

"Shepard, destroy the Reaper power source to destroy all the Reapers."

Uhm... sure!

I realize I'm making it sound ridiculous (intentionally) but if you could describe the action-outcome of the endings in a way that doesn't sound ridiculous: please do. 

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:16 .

[spiriticon]

I like this ending more and more each time. I think it's better than Control or Synthesis.

[Hudathan]

Zjarcal wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Every one of the 3 options is a leap of faith based on the word...

And why is taking a "leap of faith" strictly meta-gaming? Do we need to know, or better said, does Shepard need to know the outcome of every decision she makes in order for them to not be meta-gaming?

Will you also say that people who took the Dark Ritual in DAO were meta-gaming (because that was also a "leap of faith" since you didn't even know if the damn thing would work)?

If you want to argue that it's stupid for Shepard to trust that any of the Catalyts' options would work, be my guest, but it is NOT strictly meta-gaming (though obviously, many people do meta-game that decision), because guess what, some Shepards would be more than willing to take that "leap of faith".

And don't forget, it has EVERYTHING to do with how much evidence there is to suggest whether the galaxy has anything to lose at that point. The tone of the game heavily suggests that taking a chance on the Crucible is the last hope for survival. The only way they could have emphasized that more is if the fleets around Earth literally represented the last remanants of all sentient life.

I made a poker analogy before and I'll do it again. The galaxy was dealt the Crucible as a hand, and the galaxy thinks the Crucible is worth going all in on. Any arguments over whether or not the Crucible is trustworthy goes out the window the moment we go all in on it. At that point, you can't take your chips back out, and you're playing for your life.

Now, for one reason or another, you are led to believe that your hand might not be as strong as you hoped, but you don't get to ask for new cards and you're already committed to the current cards. You have two choices by that point: flip and see what happens or fold. How many poker players fold in that situation?

"Oh, my opponent is talking at me, making me wonder if my hand is any good. I better consider not playing it then because my opponent might be talking me into...putting in the rest of my chips except I don't got any left since I already went all in..."

Modifié par Hudathan, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:16 .

[jumpingkaede]

Hudathan wrote...
I made a poker analogy before and I'll do it again. The galaxy was dealt the Crucible as a hand, and the galaxy thinks the Crucible is worth going all in on. Any arguments over whether or not the Crucible is trustworthy goes out the window the moment we go all in on it. At that point, you can't take your chips back out, and you're playing for your life.

If you're using this poker analogy, I'd liken it more to you sitting down and playing a poker game where you have no idea what the rules are.  It's Burmese Hold'em.

You are dealt the Crucible.  Or a King and a 3.  Your OPPONENT tells you that's a very strong hand and you should go all-in.  He says the K3 is known as the Rangoon Royale.  

If you don't you have to fold.

Do you go all-in?  

Maybe.

But it's a decision made with zero real information.

Now, for one reason or another, you are led to believe that your hand might not be as strong as you hoped, but you don't get to ask for new cards and you're already committed to the current cards. You have two choices by that point: flip and see what happens or fold. How many poker players fold in that situation?

"Oh, my opponent is talking at me, making me wonder if my hand is any good. I better consider not playing it then because my opponent might be talking me into...putting in the rest of my chips except I don't got any left since I already went all in..."

I'm not sure if you've played poker before, since if you've already gone all-in then you really don't have a choice.  No one folds once they've gone all-in because there is a 0% chance reason for doing so.  (Assuming that you haven't seen the other person's cards).

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:21 .

[TaradosGon]

Merwanor wrote...

Rejection is spitting in the face of everyone who worked to finish the crucible, all the cycles before us that did all they could just to get our chance to use it or improve it, wasted out of spite.

I have no idea what their feelings on the matter would be.

Everyone thinks that Citadel is the Catalyst and that once the Crucible docks with the Citadel, that the Crucible will fire and kill all of the Reapers. If they new that Crucible + Citadel = negotiating with the Reaper Controller, then they might have different feelings, especially when it starts talking about controlling the Reapers and Synthesis. Those concepts are strongly opposed.

@Mad Hanar, I've never played the ME2 DLC, so I was unaware that a giant asteroid is needed to destroy a Mass Relay. I would have thought that the Citadel would be susceptible to conventional weapons, given that it can close for defense.

However, if damaging the Citadel is such a hoplessly lost cause, then Synthesis would sound like the next best decision after Reject.

My thought process is:

-I still don't trust Destroy. The Reapers were fighting me every step along the way to prevent me from wiping them out. I would be highly suspicious when the Catalyst - who holds all the power - is now telling me that I can kill him. But not just kill him by any means, it HAS to be this one particular way, or the Cycle continues. That's just way to suspicious. He doesn't really seem too worried that he's going to die.

-Control. Same deal. Catalyst holds all the power, so why forfeit that power to me? I have no leverage over the Catalyst to get him to yield.

-Synthesis. I'm not going to say that I'm not suspicious of this, but in this case he isn't holding all the cards yet suspiciously giving me all the power. I would be worried about  indoctrination, but at the same time offering me synthesis doesn't conflict with the Catalyst's self preservation and is actually a solution to the Catalyst's problem whereas Control and Destroy are pretty much the Catalyst just giving up even though he's winning, which would raise an eyebrow for me. The other two strike me as obvious traps (and it's weird when they turn out not to be), this one seems like it could be peace terms that are favorable to the Catalyst and that the Galaxy will just have to deal with for losing.

Modifié par TaradosGon, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .

[memorysquid]

elitehunter34 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

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.

No, you can't prove a negative.  You can prove that you are eating cheese, but you cannot prove that you are not eating cheese.  What if you are eating invisible cheese?  What if the cheese is there, but for some reason I and only I can not see it?  Can you prove that you are not a a robot?  Can you prove that I am not actually my computer that turned into an AI?  Can you prove that I am not typing with my feet?  You can not definitively prove a negative because we don't have infinite knowledge of the universe.  This is why we deal with proving positive claims.  Yes in a colloquial sense you can, but not in a philosophical or scientific sense. Anyways, lets not derail the thread anymore by debating this.

My coursework in predicate logic says otherwise.  An existential claim, like 'there is a piece of cheese' has the same function and truth value as a negative universal claim, like 'it is not the case that there is no cheese in the world.'  I can easily prove I am not eating cheese, that I am not a robot, etc., in any snse you'd care to specify for a given meaning fo the terms.  Cheese isn't invisible, ad nauseam.  I know it is common belief that proving a negative is impossible, but it is simply a false belief.

I am asking him to prove a universal claim because he is making a universal claim.  He is claiming that refusal leads to a 100% chance of defeat.  So yes, that is impossible to prove, and that is exactly my point.  He is making an undefensible claim, so I want him to admit that so we can stop this debate.  If he says that there is a 99% chance of defeat then I'll agree because that is essentially infinitely more provable than his claim of 100% chance of defeat.

You're confusing logical [theoretical] possibility with actual [practical] possibility.  It is theoretically possible to destroy Reapers with conventional mass effect weapons if they target a weak spot and score multiple contemporaneous hits.  It is practically impossible to destroy all the Reapers with this method as they'll be blowing the crap out of your fleet while you try to coordinate your shots.  There is no in game evidence for a practical possibility of conventional victory, that I have seen.  There is plenty of evidence against it, both direct, testimonial from experts and circumstantial.

[memorysquid]

spiriticon wrote...

I like this ending more and more each time. I think it's better than Control or Synthesis.

For people who like the idea of dooming trillions to an unnecessary demise, it is definitely better.  It is also better for people who are afraid of decision making, so averse to dilemmas they prefer dooming trillions to making a decision from among difficult choices.  As an aesthetic choice, that is.

[elitehunter34]

humes spork wrote...

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.

Ok now, we are getting somewhere.  Yes there is no evidence for believing in defeat of the Reapers, I get that.  But the reason why I still have a problem is that  because you are making an inductive claim that defeating the Reapers is 100% impossible, when it is infact impossible to prove that because you can't definitively prove something in an inductive argument.  

Yes there is strong evidence for the Big Bang.  Does that make it true?  No, but until it is proven false then we're sticking with it.  So I agree with you, will the Reapers defeat Shepard?  Yes most likely.  But defeating the Reapers is not a logical impossibility.  So just stop saying conventional victory is impossible.  Just say that it is highly improbable and we can be done with this.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:40 .

[Ryzaki]

spiriticon wrote...

I like this ending more and more each time. I think it's better than Control or Synthesis.

Same. I'm just gonna headcanon away that next cycle used the Crucible twitter bleh and it'll be my favorite ending after Destroy.

Hits all my notes. (And I actually felt sad but happy with the Stargazer scene in comparison to the "why is this necessary?" I did with all the other endings).

[elitehunter34]

memorysquid wrote...

You're confusing logical [theoretical] possibility with actual [practical] possibility.  It is theoretically possible to destroy Reapers with conventional mass effect weapons if they target a weak spot and score multiple contemporaneous hits.  It is practically impossible to destroy all the Reapers with this method as they'll be blowing the crap out of your fleet while you try to coordinate your shots.  There is no in game evidence for a practical possibility of conventional victory, that I have seen.  There is plenty of evidence against it, both direct, testimonial from experts and circumstantial.

Yes, that is precisely my point.  I firmly believe that defeating the Reapers is a practical impossibility.  But I also firmly believe that defeating the reapers is not a logical impossiblilty because one cannot prove that defeating the Reapers is logically impossible.

My whole argument with humes is that by him saying that defeating the Reapers conventionally is 100% impossible, then he's saying that defeating the Reapers conventionally is a logical impossibility.  Which again, is not a proveable statement.  If he said that defeating the Reapers conventionally has a 99% chance of being impossible, then he's making an infinitely more provable claim.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:41 .

[Baronesa]

Ryzaki wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

I like this ending more and more each time. I think it's better than Control or Synthesis.

Same. I'm just gonna headcanon away that next cycle used the Crucible twitter bleh and it'll be my favorite ending after Destroy.

Hits all my notes. (And I actually felt sad but happy with the Stargazer scene in comparison to the "why is this necessary?" I did with all the other endings).

Asari stargazer is billions and billions of times better than the normal one.

[Ryzaki]

Baronesa wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

I like this ending more and more each time. I think it's better than Control or Synthesis.

Same. I'm just gonna headcanon away that next cycle used the Crucible twitter bleh and it'll be my favorite ending after Destroy.

Hits all my notes. (And I actually felt sad but happy with the Stargazer scene in comparison to the "why is this necessary?" I did with all the other endings).

Asari stargazer is billions and billions of times better than the normal one.

Yeah Buzz sounds like a creeper. I know it wasn't intentional but still. That might sweet bit made me...  

[v TricKy v]

memorysquid wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

I like this ending more and more each time. I think it's better than Control or Synthesis.

For people who like the idea of dooming trillions to an unnecessary demise, it is definitely better.  It is also better for people who are afraid of decision making, so averse to dilemmas they prefer dooming trillions to making a decision from among difficult choices.  As an aesthetic choice, that is.

You seem to have a problem with accepting other viewpoints. What do you get from talking down decisions other people made?

Modifié par v TricKy v, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:42 .

[Lord Goose]

Does anybody realise that Reject is not ''I do not believe Catalyst'', but ''I believe Catalyst, but I don't like the options''?

Because it is. Unless you shoot him in face, but that is rather illogical action.

[Ryzaki]

Lord Goose wrote...

Does anybody realise that Reject is not ''I do not believe Catalyst'', but ''I believe Catalyst, but I don't like the options''?

Because it is. Unless you shoot him in face, but that is rather illogical action.

I actually shot him on the face when I was like...3 feet away from the destroy tube. I was wondering why he was still standing all the way back there and if it would still trigger the reject ending despite being on the destroy platform.

Laughed hard when he went SO BE IT like a brat and took his ball and went home. My poor Shep was all O_o "Dude you were going to die in a second anyway?" (it also begs the question of why Shep didn't shoot him in the face and then the tube.)

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:45 .

[Gorkan86]

TaradosGon wrote...
-Control. Same deal. Catalyst holds all the power, so why forfeit that power to me? I have no leverage over the Catalyst to get him to yield.

You have altered the variables. Come on, you do not think that you can put a gun to his head and make the reapers "lay down their arms and come out with their hands up"?

[jumpingkaede]

humes spork wrote...

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.

I'd just note that not once in the billions of years of cycles have the Reapers been prevented from taking the Citadel and laying waste to the bulk of the Galaxy's fleet before the Galaxy knew of their existence.

Different variables create the possibility of different outcomes.

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.

No evidence exists that the Reapers can be defeated with the Crucible either.  Same problem as the above (that is, different variables in this cycle) but it can be framed the same way.

In billions of years of cycles the galaxy's races have had the opportunity, at various stages of development, to work on or build the Crucible and not once has it ever succeeded.  

So what makes the Crucible a more viable option than a "conventional" victory?

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?

What?  Did we play a different game?  

In the ending of Mass Effect 1 the Council says nothing about a unified Council fighting the Reapers.  No mention is made of the Reapers at all by the Council.

Shepard says: "Soverign was only a vanguard . . . I'm going to find some way to stop them."

The councilors look at each other.

Anderson makes a speech about the Reapers without the response of the Council being shown.  [In my game]

The end.

I suppose you can argue context but there's scant evidence for that context.  The Council NEVER acknowledges the existence of Reapers and the only thing they say they're united to do is rebuilding post-Saren/Sovereign.

Also: at the end of ME1 Shepard has no clue how many Reapers there are, other than Sovereign's speech at Vrmire.  To say that Shepard has already discounted the possibility, mere days/weeks after defeating Sovereign, of uniting all the Galaxy's races and fleets is a reach. 

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:48 .

[incinerator950]

v TricKy v wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

I like this ending more and more each time. I think it's better than Control or Synthesis.

For people who like the idea of dooming trillions to an unnecessary demise, it is definitely better.  It is also better for people who are afraid of decision making, so averse to dilemmas they prefer dooming trillions to making a decision from among difficult choices.  As an aesthetic choice, that is.

You seem to have a problem with accepting other viewpoints. What do you get from talking down decisions other people made?

I can't speak for him, but the reason I laugh at the fanpan ending is because the open speculation and usual Dev Twitter announcement that trims speculation when it says the next Cycle wins, with use of the Crucible.  

Regardless if thats true or not, Refusal is a glorified Game Over that is in place of an ending.  It offers less in the destruction of the Council races then the actual endings saving themselves. 

Also doesn't have the cool Omnisiah voice like you get in Control. 

[Lord Goose]

Ryzaki wrote...

Lord Goose wrote... Does anybody realise that Reject is not ''I do not believe
Catalyst'', but ''I believe Catalyst, but I don't like the options''? Because it is. Unless you shoot him in face, but that is rather
illogical action.

I actually shot him on the face when I was like...3 feet away
from the destroy tube. I was wondering why he was still
standing all the way back there and if it would still trigger
the reject ending despite being on the destroy platform. Laughed hard when he went SO BE IT like a brat and took his
ball and went home. My poor Shep was all O_o "Dude you
were going to die in a second anyway?" (it also begs the
question of why Shep didn't shoot him in the face and then
the tube.)

You shoot him out of curiosity?
Well, that's that I mean. Where is no good reason to do that.

[Antaresss]

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.

Well... I'm glad you found an ending that reflects your own choice. Means BioWare nailed it this time :happy:

[The Heretic of Time]

jumpingkaede wrote...

A thing [the Crucible ]that was built by the Protheans which didn't work when the Protheans built it is the only chance?  Where's the eyerolling gif?

That's not true. The protheans had no time finish the Crucible, as they didn't know what the Catalyst was. When they figured it out, it was already too late.

But we, we knew what the Catalyst is just in time.

But I agree, the whole plot of ME3 is silly. I've never denied it. But it's to no surprise. I knew ME3 was gonna suck when ME2 took the entire story sideways with the Collectors, Cerberus and the silly terminator at the end.

It's still the action-outcome disconnect that bothers me.

"Shepard, hack into the Reaper mainframe and the Reaper code to take control of all the Reapers."

Okay!

"Shepard, destroy the Reaper power source to destroy all the Reapers."

Uhm... sure!

I realize I'm making it sound ridiculous (intentionally) but if you could describe the action-outcome of the endings in a way that doesn't sound ridiculous: please do. 

Okay, you made a fair point here. I guess the whole ME3 ending is even more ridiculous than I initially realized.