247 réponses à ce sujet

[inversevideo]

 Starkid is playing you. If you only have 3 options, then ',dead reapers is how you win'.
Given a fourth option, to refuse, then refusal is the correct choice. Mistrust of all suggestions, provided by the 'mad' reaper in your head, in hopes that the Crucible, inwhich you poured the remaining resources of the galaxy, will fully actuate, and take the Reapers down. That the solution, to the Reaper issue, is not dependent on walking into the light, becoming a Reaper, or busting a cap in unknown machinery, in order to manifest.

[Geneaux486]

saracen16 wrote...
So, let me get this straight: whoever disagrees with you and supports BioWare's stance regarding Mass Effect 3's storyline (THEIR storyline) is suddenly a PR agent for the company? Blueprotoss is right: this is immaturity at its worst.

Relax, I've been f*cking with him, because he was repeatedly misrepresenting the things I said. I actually like the ending and support Bioware's decision not to change it, but Blueprotoss had spent what time I was attemtping a serious discussion with him lying about the things I've said in a manner that's so blatant it comes off as deliberate. Was he doing it on purpose? Not for me to say, but there it is.  I was simply responding in kind.

 Starkid is playing you. If you only have 3 options, then ',dead reapers is how you win'.
Given a fourth option, to refuse, then refusal is the correct choice. Mistrust of all suggestions, provided by the 'mad' reaper in your head, in hopes that the Crucible, inwhich you poured the remaining resources of the galaxy, will fully actuate, and take the Reapers down. That the solution, to the Reaper issue, is not dependent on walking into the light, becoming a Reaper, or busting a cap in unknown machinery, in order to manifest.

 
Youtube the non-Refusal endings.  The Crucible is revealed to function exactly as the Catalyst said it would, proving that he was not playing you.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 05 août 2012 - 04:07 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Did you heard Stargazer ? Some of the details were lost with time, and you know from Cronos station you starting with new save - THE LEGEND save.... so how do you know that exactly happened when game itself mark events since Cronos station as Legend ?

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 05 août 2012 - 04:41 .

[3DandBeyond]

The problem is the whole thing is smoke and mirrors and confused dialogue. The appearance (kid visage) of the catalyst is meant to throw you off. I hated him instantly so anything he said I see as deceptive because the visage is itself meant to deceive. Indoctrination is meant to deceive. Every race or person the reapers have come in contact with that have been tasked with helping them have been deceived. How then can anyone come upon the kid and think he is not deceptive? He is telling Shepard that the reapers are not killing people while he lives within a place lined with dead decaying bodies. If you believe that people are not at least defined partly by the face they show to the world and are merely the energy (not emotions) that reside within that structure, then maybe you could believe the kid on some level-though he is still killing others that are not ascended. If however you believe that our physical presence (as well as how we utilize it and the emotions we feel and express through it) is part of what makes us alive, then you must reject what he is saying as deceptive. Bottom line: if he is killing people, he is lying. You can parse it however you like-if you see him as a mere machine, then his truth programming is out of whack, if only because he tells you he is not merely an AI even.

And if he is lying on any point, he could be and most likely is lying about everything else. He has reason to lie and even without reason to lie, he still has deceived. Was there any real reason for any of those indoctrinated to be indoctrinated if the reapers are supremely powerful? Some of then didn't need to be indoctrinated surely.

But why indoctrinate at all if the reapers will win no matter what? Why lie and make Saren think he has a chance with Sovereign? Why tell TIM he does? Both of those lies only serve to refute any good idea of synthesis and control. Those ideas are promoted to the indoctrinated. And people must be indoctrinated to believe they are viable choices or else why not appeal to their logic rather than indoctrinate them? If TIM believed in control and it was a viable honest choice, then why indoctrinate him? Appeal to his logic. If Saren believed that synthesis was a good thing or if he could believe that then why force him to believe it instead of showing him how wise it is?

If those are honest real choices then why must people be indoctrinated or crazy to believe in them?

People say the choices must be real and not be the creation of the kid because why would the kid offer control or destroy as options. But in order to pose this as a valid question you have to believe the choices are what the kid says they are-you have to believe he is truthful. He had Sovereign lie about synthesis to Saren and he lied to TIM about control. Why be so sure he is telling Shepard the truth now? Because of the crucible? Well that's a lot to stake everything on. It's of unknown origin and the only one who knows what it is and does and that knows about the choices is that same being that could be lying. Destroy may be the deceptive choice, inserted to give it authenticity-a way to make Shepard believe there is a choice. If the choices were only synthesis and control would Shepard believe the kid is a mere pawn being used by whoever created the crucible and the choices? Destroy is there to both give validity to the choices and to make Shepard make a different choice that stops that war that has killed reapers. The cost of destroy is unappealing to many and is put there by the kid and is so ambiguous as to almost force Shepard to choose from one of the 2 others that leave reapers alive. There's really no clear idea of what destroy will mean to the people of the galaxy, other than synthetic life forms. And since Shepard is predisposed to sacrifice all so that everyone else can live, the other 2 choices would seem way more valid than they might otherwise.

It's a decision you must make to trust or not trust the one with every reason and apparent ability to deceive. And any solution that includes options where reapers live afterward is a very questionable solution. You are asked to make a choice based on what your enemy says. Doing so is high risk with dubious reward.

[3DandBeyond]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Youtube the non-Refusal endings.  The Crucible is revealed to function exactly as the Catalyst said it would, proving that he was not playing you.

That's metagaming and really contrary to a game that is more about using your gut reaction to things to make decisions.  Role playing.  It doesn't matter what it actually does.  It matters what you think it will do as far as role playing goes.  You do make decisions all along and weigh the good and the bad and go with your best guess based on what you know.  All you know here is that you don't know enough to risk the lives of everyone on the word of a being that has been systematically killing people for a very long time without regret.  His very existence is proof of his intent and the view of space shows quite literally his deceit and the reasons for it. 

[Geneaux486]

Did you heard Stargazer ? Some of the details were lost with time

And some character thousands of years in the future not having all the details regarding an event you experienced first hand is not relevant to whether or not it happened.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Youtube the non-Refusal endings.  The Crucible is revealed to function exactly as the Catalyst said it would, proving that he was not playing you.

That's metagaming and really contrary to a game that is more about using your gut reaction to things to make decisions.  Role playing.  It doesn't matter what it actually does.  It matters what you think it will do as far as role playing goes.  You do make decisions all along and weigh the good and the bad and go with your best guess based on what you know.  All you know here is that you don't know enough to risk the lives of everyone on the word of a being that has been systematically killing people for a very long time without regret.  His very existence is proof of his intent and the view of space shows quite literally his deceit and the reasons for it. 

My position is just as strong from a non-metagaming standpoint as it is from a metagaming one.  Why?  Simply because at the point where Shepard is, the Crucible offers a chance at victory while not using it guarantees death and Reaperfication for all.  Nothing to lose, everything to gain, and that is why it is acceptable for Shepard's gut reaction to be the use of the Crucible, even with the Catalyst there. 

Modifié par Geneaux486, 05 août 2012 - 05:52 .

[3DandBeyond]

Geneaux486 wrote...


My position is just as strong from a non-metagaming standpoint as it is from a metagaming one.  Why?  Simply because at the point where Shepard is, the Crucible offers a chance at victory while not using it guarantees death and Reaperfication for all.  Nothing to lose, everything to gain, and that is why it is acceptable for Shepard's gut reaction to be the use of the Crucible, even with the Catalyst there. 

Not so, because in making a choice you must be sure he's being honest about them when he's already been deceptive.

The risk is too great because he has already shown a desire to make harvesting easier and faster by moveing the citadel to Earth.  The logical conclusion is that all choices may make harvesting faster as well. 

You have everything to lose by capitulating because in refusal you know that people will at least live for a certain amount of time beyond today-use the crucible/citadel and you don't know that.

The gut reaction-the natural reaction is the same that most tried to do even when they first played the ending-shoot the kid.  From the moment he stupidly says, "wake up" he is the idiot glow boy.  If you last past that point and get to where he says he controls the reapers-then again shooting him is the logical answer to that.  Why?  Because Shepard has no idea that doing so renders the crucible useless.  Shepard would shoot him just to get him out of the way. 

It's because we can't help metagame the ending that we refuse to see it from Shepard's point of view.  I know when I first played ME3, I repeatedly shot at him, but it didn't do anything then.  When he starts to make excuses and talks up all that BS I would shoot him again.  And why wouldn't Shepard even ask or wonder if the kid was being truthful-not that I'd believe the kid's answer, but why not ask him, "how can I trust you", especially when he describes what destroy does.  You tell me what exactly will happen with destroy.  It is contradictory and ambiguous. 

Shepard wouldn't know if in picking it it would kill anyone with synthetic implants because the kid says it targets all synthetics and "even you are part synthetic".  What does that mean?  The kid says, "there will be losses but no more than you have already lost"-what does that mean?  Destroy won't discriminate and all tech will be affected but will easily be repaired-wow, isn't that convenient?  People that had no idea how to work on or make mass relays will easily repair them-but a ruptured relay is supposed to ruin terrestrial worlds in a star system.  So are these relays just damaged cosmetically or are they ruptured when the rings fly out of the accretion disk of the relay?

I'm merely saying that people are not wired to pick something offered by their enemy that could very likely kill them over something they fully understand even if the one they understand is likely to kill them.  People choose that which they think they can control over that which they can't almost every time.  Give me a gun with 2 bullets in it and I am more likely to conclude that I can find a way to beat 5 bad guys with it than if the bad guy says he has something under a blanket that will kill them all instead.

[Geneaux486]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...


My position is just as strong from a non-metagaming standpoint as it is from a metagaming one.  Why?  Simply because at the point where Shepard is, the Crucible offers a chance at victory while not using it guarantees death and Reaperfication for all.  Nothing to lose, everything to gain, and that is why it is acceptable for Shepard's gut reaction to be the use of the Crucible, even with the Catalyst there. 

Not so, because in making a choice you must be sure he's being honest about them when he's already been deceptive.

The risk is too great because he has already shown a desire to make harvesting easier and faster by moveing the citadel to Earth.  The logical conclusion is that all choices may make harvesting faster as well. 

And if that's how the individual player feels, they pick Refuse.  As I said, the Crucible represents nothing to lose, everything to gain.  Without it, the Reapers win.  With it, there's at least a chance.  Refusing the Crucible is not the objectively logical thing to do.  Like the rest of the story, it boils down to individual player choice, bottom line.  To be clear, I'm not arguing that using the Crucible is the objectively logical thing to do from Shepard's perspective, merely that it is as logical as refusing the Crucible, given the circumstances.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 05 août 2012 - 07:18 .

[3DandBeyond]

Geneaux486 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...


My position is just as strong from a non-metagaming standpoint as it is from a metagaming one.  Why?  Simply because at the point where Shepard is, the Crucible offers a chance at victory while not using it guarantees death and Reaperfication for all.  Nothing to lose, everything to gain, and that is why it is acceptable for Shepard's gut reaction to be the use of the Crucible, even with the Catalyst there. 

Not so, because in making a choice you must be sure he's being honest about them when he's already been deceptive.

The risk is too great because he has already shown a desire to make harvesting easier and faster by moveing the citadel to Earth.  The logical conclusion is that all choices may make harvesting faster as well. 

And if that's how the individual player feels, they pick Refuse.  As I said, the Crucible represents nothing to lose, everything to gain.  Without it, the Reapers win.  With it, there's at least a chance.  Refusing the Crucible is not the objectively logical thing to do.  Like the rest of the story, it boils down to individual player choice, bottom line.  To be clear, I'm not arguing that using the Crucible is the objectively logical thing to do from Shepard's perspective, merely that it is as logical as refusing the Crucible, given the circumstances.

The crucible represents a big unknown-it is the risk of making things worse.  If Shepard shoots the kid, s/he has no idea that that has any bearing on the crucible at all, because at no point would Shepard know that doing so would mean the crucible would no longer work.  Even telling the kid you don't like the choices would make sense because how would Shepard know that would shut off the crucible?  Especially if the kid was not in control of the choices-why would refusing them turn it off and how would Shepard know that would happen?

What I'm saying is that Shepard is refusing the kid, not the crucible but in refusing or shooting him only then is the relationship established.  The kid and the choices are interrelated, but Shepard can't and wouldn't know that.  Shepard doesn't ask "what if I shoot you?"  And there's no idea what would happen if Shepard says "I don't like those choices" and gives the speech until the kid thing says, "so be it".  Until the crucible shuts down we have no idea it will.  We then see the crucible shuts down and it's game over.  But nowhere does the kid say that will happen.

I can say honestly I had no idea that is what would happen and I've seen numerous youtube videos where people didn't see it coming either.  So, no there's no clear idea that refusing or shooting the kid would be "game over" the crucible shuts down.

You can say they'd know that fighting was impossible (ugh), but at the point Shepard shoots the kid or refuses to do what the kid says, Shepard wouldn't know that would be the only choice.  It tends to prove the choices are offered by the kid (as does his "so be it") and still not to be trusted.

Even if a protracted fight came afterward (it can take a century) it still might be better than what could be the crucible instant kill switch.  The crucible could just instantly harvest everyone which would not be better than the chance that someone might live past this cycle.  After all Javik did survive his and other protheans had remained hidden on Ilos.  Someone might be able to live somewhere else.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 05 août 2012 - 07:52 .

[Geneaux486]

3DandBeyond wrote...
The crucible represents a big unknown-it is the risk of making things worse.

Worse than mass Reaperfication?  I don't see the logic in that.

If Shepard shoots the kid, s/he has no idea that that has any bearing on the crucible at all, because at no point would Shepard know that doing so would mean the crucible would no longer work.

Why would he shoot something that's obviously just a holographic projection?  Shepard's got no reason to think that the Catalyst is appearing before him using any other means than the projection that EDI or any given VI would use.

My point is the same as it's been, that from Shepard's perspective, using the Crucible means a chance for victory, while not using it guarantees a fate worse than death for everyone he or she holds dear.  There's nothing illogical about using the Crucible under those circumstances. 

 but at the point Shepard shoots the kid or refuses to do what the kid says, Shepard wouldn't know that would be the only choice. It tends to prove the choices are offered by the kid (as does his "so be it") and still not to be trusted.

"The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen."  The choices are the result of the Crucible, not the Catalyst.  All the Catalyst offers is his cooperation, nothing more.  Furthermore, you're metagaming at this point, and if we venture into that territory, then we already know that the Catalyst was telling the truth about what the Crucible choices would do, and we already know the positive outcome of each.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 05 août 2012 - 10:52 .

[3DandBeyond]

Geneaux486 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
The crucible represents a big unknown-it is the risk of making things worse.

Worse than mass Reaperfication?  I don't see the logic in that.

If Shepard shoots the kid, s/he has no idea that that has any bearing on the crucible at all, because at no point would Shepard know that doing so would mean the crucible would no longer work.

Why would he shoot something that's obviously just a holographic projection?  Shepard's got no reason to think that the Catalyst is appearing before him using any other means than the projection that EDI or any given VI would use.

My point is the same as it's been, that from Shepard's perspective, using the Crucible means a chance for victory, while not using it guarantees a fate worse than death for everyone he or she holds dear.  There's nothing illogical about using the Crucible under those circumstances. 

 but at the point Shepard shoots the kid or refuses to do what the kid says, Shepard wouldn't know that would be the only choice. It tends to prove the choices are offered by the kid (as does his "so be it") and still not to be trusted.

"The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen."  The choices are the result of the Crucible, not the Catalyst.  All the Catalyst offers is his cooperation, nothing more.  Furthermore, you're metagaming at this point, and if we venture into that territory, then we already know that the Catalyst was telling the truth about what the Crucible choices would do, and we already know the positive outcome of each.

Well, it would be nice if you read what I wrote, but here goes.  You don't know that refusing or shooting the kid will result in reaperfication because you don't know it will shut off the crucible.

You don't know that making a choice won't make harvesting people easier-it could actually shut down all weapons except reaper weapons.  You don't know what it will do.

You obviously haven't seen just how many people constantly tried to shoot the kid to tell him to shut up-it was all over youtube.  I did it and almost everyone did.  The only reason some didn't for the EC was because they knew beforehand that doing so would mean everyone dies.  Almost everyone has tried shooting him. 

That crucible changed me quote is not proof of anything-you only have the kid's word for it.  The crucible was merely a big power source-if you believe the kid, he even says that.  It defies logic that any rational person would believe a thing this VI says-his very appearance is deceptive.  He indoctrinates people which is a form of lying.  So by all means risk everyone in the galaxy by picking a choice only he knows about.


Think about where the choices are and what everyone knows about the crucible.  The crucible plans could have also been his original creation. 

The crucible is meant to work with the catalyst-the kid. 

Who knows what the catalyst is?  The kid-he is the only one who knows that he is the catalyst therefore he is the only one that could have created the crucible to work with him. 

The crucible and the catalyst affect reapers.  The kid's creators were made into the first reaper so they could not have created the crucible because they would have had to know about reapers and none existed before they were one. 

No one else knew about the reapers and the catalyst, so no one could have made the crucible to work with the catalyst (and it is meant to work with him) and affect the reapers.

[Geneaux486]

You don't know that refusing or shooting the kid will result in reaperfication because you don't know it will shut off the crucible.

Whether or not the Crucible shuts off is irrelevant. The fact is that before that happens, Shepard makes the concious choice not to use the Crucible, which, yes, will result in victory for the Reapers and by extension the Reaperfication of billions.

You don't know that making a choice won't make harvesting people easier-it could actually shut down all weapons except reaper weapons. You don't know what it will do.

Let's say it somehow did make harvesting people easier. Then what? People wind up harvested. The exact same thing that happens if you don't use the Crucible. As I said, nothing to lose, everything to gain.

My original points still stand: If we're going by what Shepard knows at that moment, then he knows that the Reapers will win if the Crucible is not used. If we're going to metagame, then we know that the Catalyst was being honest with Shepard. It's that simple.

[3DandBeyond]

The point is Shepard does not know if the crucible is still usable and might actually be a weapon if Shepard refuses the kid's choice. It certainly is crucial. For all Shepard knows the kid is lying about the whole thing. Shepard only knows the crucible no longer works after shooting or refusing the kid. Shepard isn't refusing to use the crucible, but rejecting the kid and his choices.

You really have to ask yourself what you know about the crucible and the choices other than what the kid says, because he could be lying.

And the whole idea that refuse must lead to a dead galaxy is simply a ridiculous thought. I know that's how the writers decided to write it because they didn't want to write the real story and make a more complicated game.

[Geneaux486]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The point is Shepard does not know if the crucible is still usable and might actually be a weapon if Shepard refuses the kid's choice. It certainly is crucial. For all Shepard knows the kid is lying about the whole thing. Shepard only knows the crucible no longer works after shooting or refusing the kid. Shepard isn't refusing to use the crucible, but rejecting the kid and his choices.

 
He refuses to use the Crucible.  He refuses the Catalyst to, but the Crucible as well.  We see that happen.

You really have to ask yourself what you know about the crucible and the choices other than what the kid says, because he could be lying.

And if he is, the Reapers win.  And if Shepard refuses to use the Crucible, the Reapers win.  But if the Catalyst isn't lying, the day is saved.  Nothing to lose, everything to gain.

And the whole idea that refuse must lead to a dead galaxy is simply a ridiculous thought. I know that's how the writers decided to write it because they didn't want to write the real story and make a more complicated game.

I disagree with all of this.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 06 août 2012 - 12:21 .

[Baa Baa]

People agree with the Catalyst....
Yesh...

[Geneaux486]

Baa Baa wrote...

People agree with the Catalyst....
Yesh...

What, like politically?  I like his synthetic-killing policy but I don't like his organic-killing policy.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 06 août 2012 - 12:25 .

[Blueprotoss]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
Again I never said I worked for Bioware and if I did then I'm sure you wouldn't be here based on your lack of respect or level of immaturity.

Again, at least I have respect enough to not try to pass myself off as a Bioware PR agent when clearly I am not.

You have no respect at all and its sad that you still assume that I worked for Bioware when I never said anything.

Geneaux486 wrote...

Relax, I've been f*cking with him, because he was repeatedly misrepresenting the things I said. I actually like the ending and support Bioware's decision not to change it, but Blueprotoss had spent what time I was attemtping a serious discussion with him lying about the things I've said in a manner that's so blatant it comes off as deliberate. Was he doing it on purpose? Not for me to say, but there it is.  I was simply responding in kind.

If you were really looking for a debate then you wouldn't be acting that immature.

Geneaux486 wrote... 
 
Youtube the non-Refusal endings.  The Crucible is revealed to function exactly as the Catalyst said it would, proving that he was not playing you.

Actually we still don't have that much knowledge in general on the Reapers and the Crucible while its still all speculation just like the IT. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 06 août 2012 - 04:47 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Relax, I've been f*cking with him, because he was repeatedly misrepresenting the things I said. I actually like the ending and support Bioware's decision not to change it, but Blueprotoss had spent what time I was attemtping a serious discussion with him lying about the things I've said in a manner that's so blatant it comes off as deliberate. Was he doing it on purpose? Not for me to say, but there it is.  I was simply responding in kind.

If you were really looking for a debate then you wouldn't be acting that immature.

The irony, I need to get this post framed or something.

[Lord Goose]

Actually we still don't have that much knowledge in
general on the Reapers and the Crucible while its still all
speculation just like the IT.

No. Literal intepretation is based on the premise that everything shown in game is true. Shepard was on Earth, Tuchanka, Citadel, Thessia, Mars and Sanctuary, used the Crucible or refused to do it.
IT is based on the premise that not everything that shown in game is true, and set of arbitrary decisions about what is true, and what isn't.

To clarify. From literal standpoint, If the game shows dream sequences it means that Shepard really dreamed that. Or if the game shows delusional megalomaniac, there was delusional megalomaniac. Or if you see the Citadel it is the Citadel.
IT basically says that TIM was figment of Shepard's imagination, but the Citadel is the Citadel.

[Applepie_Svk]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Relax, I've been f*cking with him, because he was repeatedly misrepresenting the things I said. I actually like the ending and support Bioware's decision not to change it, but Blueprotoss had spent what time I was attemtping a serious discussion with him lying about the things I've said in a manner that's so blatant it comes off as deliberate. Was he doing it on purpose? Not for me to say, but there it is.  I was simply responding in kind.

If you were really looking for a debate then you wouldn't be acting that immature.

The irony, I need to get this post framed or something.

LoL mee too...

[Geneaux486]

If you were really looking for a debate then you wouldn't be acting that immature.

You know what you need to know.  Our conversation is over.

[Blueprotoss]

Geneaux486 wrote...

You know what you need to know.  Our conversation is over.

Yet you stopped it a long time ago.

[Blueprotoss]

Lord Goose wrote...

No. Literal intepretation is based on the premise that everything shown in game is true. Shepard was on Earth, Tuchanka, Citadel, Thessia, Mars and Sanctuary, used the Crucible or refused to do it.
IT is based on the premise that not everything that shown in game is true, and set of arbitrary decisions about what is true, and what isn't.

The IT is based on how the Reapers keep on trying to indoctrinate Shepard like every scene with the boy real or dream is an example.

Lord Goose wrote... 

To clarify. From literal standpoint, If the game shows dream sequences it means that Shepard really dreamed that. Or if the game shows delusional megalomaniac, there was delusional megalomaniac. Or if you see the Citadel it is the Citadel.
IT basically says that TIM was figment of Shepard's imagination, but the Citadel is the Citadel.