1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

 Because, like it or not, engaging Shepard alone is an act of good faith that presented worst-possible-outcome scenarios from the Catalyst's perspective that otherwise would not have been on the table.

An act of good faith while it's still blowing up your ships outside?

Riiiiiiight.

[Hudathan]

I can't believe we're having an argument over whether or not morality is important enough to let trillions of people die. If we don't agree on that much then there is no point in going round-and-round.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

Again, that's completely lunatic assumption. INdoctrination. Sleeper agents. Fighting Cerberus for half the game because they got tricked into fighting you. "Reapers not using deception" is clearly an argument used by people who didn't actually play the game.

Indoctrination is not deception. 

Cerberus wasn't "tricked" into fighting you, The Illusive Man actively engaged his forces against you. Udina was deceptive, but Udina wasn't an agent of Cerberus or the Reapers.

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

Can you cite a specific instance where a Reaper directly deceived someone?

I cited three examples and you pretended they didn't happen. What kind of liar are you?

Indoctrination is DIRECT deception. They force you to work against your own kind. Making Cerberus fight you was the result of deception.

Going "BOOHOO COMPUTER CAN'T LIE!" and covering your ears to examples already shown just demonstrate that you're a dishonest hack.

[Biotic Sage]

Hudathan wrote...

I can't believe we're having an argument over whether or not morality is important enough to let trillions of people die. If we don't agree on that much then there is no point in going round-and-round.

It's a paradox anyway.  Morality is based off of finding value and meaning in life, so if you separate it and try to talk about it as separate from preserving life it takes on an entirely different meaning.  Different people believe there are different ways to best value and give purpose to life, but no one would think that it's "moral" to choose "Let everyone die" over "Give everyone a chance to live" if those are the only two options.

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...
Indoctrination is not deception. 

And you are now a certifiable a liar. End of story.

Indoc is about making people into sleeper agents so they spread lies and discord among their own kind. This was the whole frigging point of shooting Saren in ME1. Why do you think the Indoc Theory got such a huge response?

Modifié par Zine2, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:17 .

[v TricKy v]

Hudathan wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Well I see a lot of the people saying Refuse=everyone drops dead immediately.
As a matter of fact no one knows what happened after your choice. You see Shepard standing and then is cuts to black. Everything you say is speculation from that point onward. The Stargazer says that we fought a terrible war so they didnt have to. That could mean anything really.
Shepard knows that they cannot win, but he knows that the war will take decades maybe even centuries. A lot of time to come up with something new.

At best, the fleets don't get wiped out at the battle for Earth, and they escape to fight a drawn out war that they MIGHT not lose. Many more lives are lost with no clear victory in sight. And for what, because Shepard didn't want to take an opportunity to end the war?

Even if the Crucible turned out to be a trap and either did nothing or something horrible to cripple our chances to win the war, have Liara send out more capsules warning the next cycle about the Crucible. She's got 900 more years to live doesn't she, and she could easily spend some of that time creeping around on her own and planting her time capsules.

There is literally no good reason to not use the Crucible the way the situation was presented, that's why it's a stupid decision despite the morality involved.

The point still stands that you already destroyed dozens of them and you will destroy more of them after. The Crucible is a unknown. What if the Catalyst takes advantage of the giant enery source you just brought to him?
Maybe it will power up the shields of the reapers to a level where even fire from 10 dreadnought does nothing to them. That way have you not only lost your fight because your ships cant harm them anymore, you also just doomed everyone after you.

[Lord Goose]

Indoctrination is DIRECT deception. They force you to work against your own kind. Making Cerberus fight you was the result of deception.

"The longer you stay aboard, the more Saren's will seems correct. You sit at his feet and smile as his words pour into you."

It doesn't sounds as deception. More like brainwashing.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

I cited three examples and you pretended they didn't happen. What kind of liar are you?

Indoctrination is DIRECT deception. They force you to work against your own kind. Making Cerberus fight you was the result of deception.

Going "BOOHOO COMPUTER CAN'T LIE!" and covering your ears to examples already shown just demonstrate that you're a dishonest hack.

All you can do is ad homimen me, right? You said "Indoctrination. Sleeper agents. Cerberus."

None of these are deception, really. The Reapers are pretty honest about their methods, and Cerberus was led by a deluded individual who actively attacked you. The Reapers didn't even indoctrinate The Illusive Man, he did it to himself!

[Zine2]

Lord Goose wrote...

Indoctrination is DIRECT deception. They force you to work against your own kind. Making Cerberus fight you was the result of deception.

"The longer you stay aboard, the more Saren's will seems correct. You sit at his feet and smile as his words pour into you."

It doesn't sounds as deception. More like brainwashing.

Semantic yoga. Making people into going against their core beliefs and then using the said "brainwashed" people to cause discord and chaos among their own kind is pretty much under "deception". The Manchurian Candidate is filed under spy flicks for a reason.

It is deception. Again: Why do you think the Indoc Theory was so credible?

Modifié par Zine2, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:20 .

[Hudathan]

v TricKy v wrote...

The point still stands that you already destroyed dozens of them and you will destroy more of them after. The Crucible is a unknown. What if the Catalyst takes advantage of the giant enery source you just brought to him?
Maybe it will power up the shields of the reapers to a level where even fire from 10 dreadnought does nothing to them. That way have you not only lost your fight because your ships cant harm them anymore, you also just doomed everyone after you.

Then you leave a simple message for the rest of the galaxy:

"Btw when you get to the Citadel, look out for the AI that controls all the Reapers. And while you're there, get rid of that big thing at the top because Reapers are coming to kill you and that thing helps them."

If the Crucible doesn't do something good, then the galaxy loses. If the Crucible turns out to be counter-productive, then the galaxy loses...harder? How do you lose harder than total annhilation? What's the risk of trying something when you're basically finished?

Modifié par Hudathan, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:20 .

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

All you can do is ad homimen me, right? You said "Indoctrination. Sleeper agents. Cerberus."

No, I've proven that you're a certifiable liar and there's no further need to repeat that you are a liar.

All of the above are overt acts of deception by the Reapers. Any attempt to deny this is a lie. It is that simple.

No further need to discuss anything with a liar.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

And you are now a certifiable a liar. End of story.

Indoc is about making people into sleeper agents so they spread lies and discord among their own kind. This was the whole frigging point of shooting Saren in ME1. Why do you think the Indoc Theory got such a huge response?

But the Reapers themselves have never denied that they Indoctrinate people.

For instance, Amanda Kenson in Arrival deceived you about her "project." But she was indoctrinated. Indoctrination is not a deliberate process, it just happens by being near Reaper technology. 

And Indoctrinated forces have never been considered part of the Reaper forces. The actual Reaper forces consist of beings that they husk-ify.

[krasnoarmeets]

Rejection guarantees the death of trillions whereas choosing one of the other's has the possibility of ending the reaper threat albeit with a leap of faith. Perhaps they will be stopped during the following cycle, but like EDI said one of her prime directives was self-preservation. Perhaps the catalyst's intent is to convince you to reject the options provided thereby allowing the cycle to continue and prolonging its own existence?

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

But the Reapers themselves have never denied that they Indoctrinate people.

And the US has never denied not having the CIA or spies. That doesn't change the fact that the US does in fact use deception extensively as part of its operations.

Really, I'm used to people lying on this board all the time. But these are stupid lies!

Modifié par Zine2, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:24 .

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

No, I've proven that you're a certifiable liar and there's no further need to repeat that you are a liar.

All of the above are overt acts of deception by the Reapers. Any attempt to deny this is a lie. It is that simple.

No further need to discuss anything with a liar.

You haven't proven anything other than the fact that you like to spice up your arguments with direct insults. Which add nothing of value to your statements.

MassEffectWikia wrote...

Indoctrination is the term used for the "brainwashing" effect the Reapers and their technology have on organic beings. A signal or energy field surrounds the Reaper, which subtly influences the minds of any organic individual in range.

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

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,

No, it's not.

The Angry One wrote...

One important point that I think is often missed though pointed out many times before by various people - how does Shepard know that?

Shepard isn't making the decision. We are. But I agree that if we're really hardcore role-playing this, Refuse actually becomes somewhat valid. But I'd also like to add that a lot of what, seemingly, contributes to your pro-Refuse attitude is that you headcanon a conventional victory being possible, when in the game, Shepard makes it very clear even s/he doesn't see it as an option. S/he, on multiple occasions, refers to the Crucible as our last hope. Therefore why do you believe, that from Shepard's perspective -- who is very much aware of the futility of a conventional victory attempt -- s/he'd even consider Refuse, even in light of the trust issues? From Shepard's perspective, his/her options are..

1. Refuse and face the 99% chance of everyone being slaughtered and harvested
2. Take a chance with this "Catalyst" and trust in the Crucible, which has been in the works for many cycles

To me, even if you take on Shepard's perspective, it's quite clear Refuse isn't an option.


These are relevant responses I agree with on the topic, too..

Phlander wrote...

My Shepard would agree, but it kind of
depends on whether or not you think conventional victory is possible.
If your Shepard is convinced it isn't, then rejection is a much larger
leap of faith for you than trusting starchild.

Biotic Sage wrote...

How is it any less a leap of faith to
expect to defeat the Reapers with military strength when thousands of
cycles before us failed to do so? I'm not saying choosing one of the
Destroy, Control, or Synthesis paths is undoubtedly the right decision,
but I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3
is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that
thousands of dead cycles before us attempted. Isn't doing something
DIFFERENT, trying a different approach the most logical choice here?
Again I'm not saying it doesn't come with risk, but there's no way you
can convince me that the inherent risk is greater than the refusal.

Also,
the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for
actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of
their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Angry One wrote...

David7204 wrote...

First of all, I think the Reapers taking control of the geth was part of the bargain they made. There was no deception. The geth knew what they were getting into.

I recall Legion implying otherwise. Do you think the Geth would've wanted that Reaper virus infecting their consensus, interfering with data streams? Everything the Reapers do is to corrupt and manipulate anything that is not a Reaper.

You need to give up on this. Legion could have implied whatever it wanted, but it straight-up states the heretics willingly left the main faction of geth and willingly joined Sovereign. It's canon.

krasnoarmeets wrote...

Rejection guarantees the death of trillions whereas choosing one of the other's has the possibility of ending the reaper threat albeit with a leap of faith.

Here. This is a simple but accurate response to the thread's question.

Modifié par JackumsD, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

You haven't proven anything other than the fact that you like to spice up your arguments with direct insults.

You can call my mother a hamster and that my father smelt of elderberries, but you lie every time that you make the claim that the Reapers don't use deception.

Again, the Indoc Theory had a huge deal of credibility for a reason. Someone in the last five minutes of the game forgot that the Reapers do, in fact, use deception on a massive scale.

Citing Indoc = Brainwashing makes you look like an even BIGGER idiot; because brainwashing by definition is deceiving someone into becoming something they aren't. If they weren't deceived and joined the Reapers willingly by the force of their awesome arguments, they wouldn't need to be brainwashed, would they?

Modifié par Zine2, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:27 .

[Jackums]

EDIT: Accidental re-post.

Modifié par JackumsD, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:28 .

[Hudathan]

krasnoarmeets wrote...

Rejection guarantees the death of trillions whereas choosing one of the other's has the possibility of ending the reaper threat albeit with a leap of faith. Perhaps they will be stopped during the following cycle, but like EDI said one of her prime directives was self-preservation. Perhaps the catalyst's intent is to convince you to reject the options provided thereby allowing the cycle to continue and prolonging its own existence?

"I have brought this device here in the hopes of stopping my enemy. My enemy has confirmed that the device would stop him indeed. I better go ahead and give up on what I came to do and just let my enemy win. I'm smart."

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

An act of good faith while it's still blowing up your ships outside?

Riiiiiiight.

It's cute you argue as if Shepard were in any position of dominance, authority, or power in the end of the game. Here, allow me to demonstrate something, which I'm sure others in this thread will appreciate as well.


The payoff matrix for the end game choices! Quick, slap-and-tickle version that accounts for no nuance, but there you have it.

The Catalyst can either entertain Shepard or ignore him. Likewise, assuming purely for the sake of argument Shepard has a choice either way (he doesn't) he can choose to destroy, control, merge, or refuse.

Looking at the payoff matrix, the only way the Catalyst can lose is to entertain Shepard. Even then, loss for the Catalyst only occurs if Shepard destroys the Reapers (and it, by extension) or chooses to control them (destroying the Catalyst and replacing it). Synthesis is the only equilibrium, and if Shepard refuses the Catalyst it still wins.

Meanwhile, Shepard can only win if the Catalyst entertains it. That's because Shepard having a choice in the first place is predicated upon that. Shepard, by no means, is playing from a position of authority or power. Which is why talking to Shepard at all in the first place is indeed a sign of good faith, regardless of outside circumstances.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'm going to bed. I didn't read 8 pages. So here goes, and my reasoning goes back pre ME3.

The Crucible is thought to be a WMD. For some reason it needs to connect to the Citadel to be used. Why? Oh, I remember Vigil (Ilos) saying something about something controlling the reapers. What could that be? A powerful AI perhaps?

So this makes the Crucible some sort of giant interface that uses the Citadel as a power source. It contains an item that locates every reaper in the galaxy. Okay, this is promising. This means that when you fire it, it will probably use the Mass Relays to relay the beam that kills them. Now it interfaces with the Citadel, and there's that damned AI. I think originally the user was supposed to be the Catalyst -- the one to facilitate the reaction -- and in this case it would be Shepard.

The Destroy option was the sole purpose of the Crucible.

The AI hacked it, and added two options that would preserve itself: Synthesis is its #1 choice because that way it gets to remain the overlord; and Control because it still exists even though it takes on the aspects of the new controller, and its safeguards are still available; and since it has been monitoring communications, it knows that the humans do not know what the Catalyst is, so it decides to call itself the Catalyst. It is not. Shepard is the Catalyst. The AI cannot remove destroy. Destroy does what it always was going to do, and sorry it also was going to destroy synthetics (thank you Mac & Casey).

So here's the deal. We know we cannot defeat the reapers conventionally. Refusal for the sake of being stubborn doesn't cut it. It's a loser. It's a guaranteed get squished; Shepard watches; everyone dies. Why? The fleet isn't prepared for it. There isn't enough time to build replacements, and we'd run out of people and stuff until at the end of the war when we'd be flying kamakaze fighters equipped with nukes (pilots with very little training - take off, arm the nuke and crash) into the reaper ships just out of desperation. But this wouldn't have much effect in space other than maybe radiation damage.

So what have you got to lose by shooting the red pipe? If it turns out to be the wrong choice, and everyone dies anyway, are you any worse off than if you refused? No. If it turns out to be the right choice, the war is over. But if you refuse, the fleet just gets decimated, and everyone dies with no chance. I'll take the chance. I'll shoot the red tube. This isn't really metagaming. It's actually more like gambling. It's a calculated risk. And I think the risk would be worth taking, and a better chance than the alternative.

And as far as morals go: I agree with Javik on this. Ask the the trillions of dead souls if honor matters. Their silence is your answer.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:40 .

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

Citing Indoc = Brainwashing makes you look like an even BIGGER idiot; because brainwashing by definition is deceiving someone into becoming something they aren't.

The point is that Indoctrination is not an "aimed" weapon. It just occurs. 

The Reapers create ground offensives by turning their enemies' soldiers against them. They are either Indoctrinated by being near Reapers or Reaper tech, or they are captured and turned into husks. But either way, The Reapers themselves have always truthfully exposited their motives. They were never directly deceptive. Indoctrinated people were deceptive by the very nature of their brainwashing, but they never acting directly on the behalf of the Reapers. 

Every indoctrinated person was doing what they thought was best, and it just happened to include The Reapers. 

Meanwhile, Cerberus, one of your supposed pieces of evidence, was never directly working for The Reapers. The Illusive Man implanted control devices in his "troops" long before he ever did the procedure on himself. He indoctrinated himself under the pretense that he was strong enough to resist the effects, like Saren.

All indoctrinated people had their own goals which somehow included the Reapers. I don't recall a single Indoctrinated individual whose goal it was to continue the cycle.

[M Hedonist]

Lord Goose wrote...

How does any of these choices compare to becoming the new Reaper god? You missed the whole moral (and to some level also practical) dilemma.

It would be moral dilemma, if Reapers were fully sentient and capable of making decisions. But, as Catalyst puts it, they're no different from fire, which burns because it is in his nature. That makes them even less sentient than the geth.

I'm not taking Leviathan into account, because we haven't seen his DLC. Judging from the leaked script, it is possible to assume that Leviathan is different.

Without taking into account Leviathan, what will happen if Shepard replace the Catalyst.
Synthetics would not be destroyed.
Organics would not be destroyed.
Reapers will have new ruler, instead of old one.

All of it could be realised even before choice, just by Catalyst words.

No one loses anything, besides Shepard.

And you're still missing the whole moral dilemma. I can't believe you aren't being oblivious on purpose. For crying out loud, I've already called it in a previous post; "dictator" is the keyword.

Modifié par Sauruz, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:36 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

It's cute

No, what's cute is that you consider "continuing to slaughter countless people" as a sign of good faith.

*points at humes spork and laughs*

Yeah, next time the police are getting shot at by an insane criminal, they should take it as a "sign of good faith"!

*points at humes spork and laughs*

Any sane writer who's seriously trying to portray the Star Child as being "reasonable" as this point would have made the Star Child call for something called a "cease fire". But no, instead he drags Shep up to his throne room, commends him for making it there, and then railroads him into picking Red, Green, or Blue. And then goes all pouty when you refuse.

But nah, we'll have you spout off some nonesense about how Reapers are beyond the concept of "cease fires" but we should wuv them anyway because they're just misunderstood cuttlefish. *laughs*