247 réponses à ce sujet

[Geneaux486]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...


The most important thing not being checked off:  A reveal that he was indoctrinated by the conclusion of the narrative.

The precise mechanics of the indoctrination effect are poorly understood. 

And Shepard is never shown to be indoctrinated before the story concludes.

It doesn't matter if deceptions are not touched upon in the end. My point is that the audience doesn't necessarily know whether or not the Catalyst is telling the truth. Regardless of what is shown, this point stands. You keep focusing on the fact that a deception must be revealed by the story's conclusion, but it doesn't have to be.

 
The only time the Catalyst's honesty is touched on is in the outcome of the usage of the Crucible, where we're shown that what he told us about its effects was completely true.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 22 juillet 2012 - 06:08 .

[SubAstris]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Especially since Shepard doesn't have many of the symptoms found in the Codex entry: Headaches in normal gameplay, no, whispers in gameplay, no, feelings of being watched, no, you get the picture...

Wiki:
The precise mechanics of the indoctrination effect are poorly understood. It is believed that the Reapers generate an electromagnetic field, waves of infrasound and ultrasound, or both in order to stimulate areas of a victim's brain and limbic system. The resulting effect varies depending on the intent of the Reaper: the victim may suffer headaches and hallucinations, have feelings of "being watched" or paranoia, or come to view the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signal, manifesting as voices within the victim's mind. 

Rachni :
Oily Shadows

ME3:
- Dreams with oily shadows and dead child
- whispers in dreams
- Shepard had some headaches after nightmares 
- ventkid image pressent on Citadel´s memorial wall 
- Shepard´s stress performance is unstable (claimed by Joker) 
- Shepard loosing control over body in conversation with TIM
- Halucionation aka Catalyst
- Catalyst taking image of dead kid 

1) Whispers of dead people, not necessarily indoctrination, and none of them during consciousness which is what is implied. Likewise shadows of dead people, not necessarily indoctrination either.

2) He doesn't have headaches though

3) That should really cement the fact that he is real and not an indoctrination agent.

4) A solitary remark , in a joke I believe? Hardly conclusive

5) That is the only part I actually agree upon, only bit of evidence you could say yes on

6) Explain the logic of Catalyst taking image of dead kid=Indoctrination

And many of those things, like being watched, don't happen

[AresKeith]

Geneaux486 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The player doesn't have to trust the Catalyst to use the Crucible, he only has to trust the Crucible.  Furthermore, not using the device results in a loss.  Using the Crucible means having nothing to lose, and everything to gain.  Choosing destroy is no less a leap of faith than either of the other two choices.

that first statement doesn't even make sense, and sometimes a leap of faith isn't always a good thing.

How does it not make sense?  Regardless of what the Catalyst says you know for a fact that your side constructed this thing and plugged it in, it's still your weapon.

except the fact that its not a weapon, the plans for it was created after the first Reaper started to harvest, and everyone built it from the blue-prints of the Crucible. And the options your given carries out the Starbrats plans.

[SubAstris]

Applepie_Svk wrote...
 and none on existence of Catalyst...

Vendetta, what does he say, there is a controlling force behind the Reapers, I wonder what the Catalyst is...

[Geneaux486]

AresKeith wrote...
except the fact that its not a weapon, the plans for it was created after the first Reaper started to harvest, and everyone built it from the blue-prints of the Crucible. And the options your given carries out the Starbrats plans.

It not being a weapon is semantics.  The thing can unleash destructive energy that kills everything.  It's weaponized.  Also, none of the options carry out the Catalyst's plans.  It's not part of the plan for the Reapers to die, leaving the galaxy with no safety net.  It's not part of the plan to be controlled by Shepard.  It's not part of the plan to synthesize, as that was a solution the Reapers were incapable of and deemed impossible, and by picking synthesis, the Reapers are proven to not be the pinnacle of life as they believed, and their actions against the galaxy are invalidated.

[Arisugawa]

Geneaux486 wrote...
 
The only time the Catalyst's honesty is touched on is in the outcome of the usage of the Crucible, where we're shown that what he told us about its effects was completely true.

I'm not doubting its honesty in how the Crucible will work once activated. It's the conversation leading up that point, and that the Catalyst speaks with Shepard at all, that is in question.

[Ageless Face]

elitehunter34 wrote...
Why can't Shepard hallucinate if Shepard is in the process of indoctrination?

This is the high point. Shepard in the hallucination is now in a point where s/he will either be indoctrinated, or will shake it off. The fact the process reached this far is already telling the reapers took Shepard's mind. Fighting off the hallucination, or the indoctrination will not hold a long time. As I said, very little time.

[Applepie_Svk]

SubAstris wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...
 and none on existence of Catalyst...

Vendetta, what does he say, there is a controlling force behind the Reapers, I wonder what the Catalyst is...

And also said that Citadel is Catalyst ... if you are taking both as assumtions than your deffense is irelevant based on speculation.

[Applepie_Svk]

Geneaux486 wrote...



And Shepard is never shown to be indoctrinated before the story concludes.

Same as Rana Thanoptis which was 3 years in process of indoctrination and after arrival shot few officials from asari gouverment, that´s the point - Reapers doing as they please with indoctrination so Shepard could be in process long ago...  

[AresKeith]

Geneaux486 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
except the fact that its not a weapon, the plans for it was created after the first Reaper started to harvest, and everyone built it from the blue-prints of the Crucible. And the options your given carries out the Starbrats plans.

It not being a weapon is semantics.  The thing can unleash destructive energy that kills everything.  It's weaponized.  Also, none of the options carry out the Catalyst's plans.  It's not part of the plan for the Reapers to die, leaving the galaxy with no safety net.  It's not part of the plan to be controlled by Shepard.  It's not part of the plan to synthesize, as that was a solution the Reapers were incapable of and deemed impossible, and by picking synthesis, the Reapers are proven to not be the pinnacle of life as they believed, and their actions against the galaxy are invalidated.

Liara even said its a device not a weapon, Hackett even said it. Destroy= proving that Synthetics are the real problem and you kill them just to kill the Reapers. Control= the Shepard AI fuses with the Catalyst being Shreaper and dominate the Galaxy when a war starts again. And Synthesis is what the Starbrat wanted all along he even tells you this. The Reapers are Organic and Synthetic=Synthesis.

And the fact that the Starbrat says he controls the Reapers shatters everything Sovereign and Harbinger says in the past games

[D24O]

Does the clay sayeth to him that fashioneth it, "what makest thou?"

[SubAstris]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...
 and none on existence of Catalyst...

Vendetta, what does he say, there is a controlling force behind the Reapers, I wonder what the Catalyst is...

And also said that Citadel is Catalyst ... if you are taking both as assumtions than your deffense is irelevant based on speculation.

The fact is it is explained in the narrative that Vendetta was slightly wrong in an assumption, and we as the player realise this and it is explaiined well. No such explanation is given for the controlling force of the Reapers if it isn't the Catalyst

[AngryFrozenWater]

HagarIshay wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Yes. Catalyst supporters or even better: reaper apologists. Those who defend the hypothetical threat or the solutions to that hypothetical threat by the reapers or by the brat in the ending.

I never defended it and said he was right about it. In fact, I haven't seen anyone defending the catalyst. So from where did you get that I or anyone else defend the catalyst or the reapers? I never believed what they did is right, nor do I believe their logic is right.

Then I assume you have chosen destroy, because that is the closest option to disagree with the brat. Both control and synthesis are supposed to be solutions to its hypothetical problem. I can even understand control when a Shepard was a firm supporter of TIM in ME2. Synthesis, on the other hand, is violating the right of self-determination by infecting your allies with synthesis without their consent. Shepard made pacts with the allies to defeat or destroy the reapers. In that option Shepard is not respecting those wishes and replaces these with his/her elitist views that reaperfy them.

HagarIshay wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

One major problem is that the three platforms are part of the Citadel and are not part of the Crucible. That means that whatever option you select must have the approval of the brat. Each option is part of his agenda. Even destroy, which exterminates the geth. We see the brat disappear in thin air in control and destroy, but not in synthesis. Does it mean that the brat is dead or just gone in any of those options?

Does it matter? We know the reapers won't attack in synthesis. There is peace now, the catalyst living doesn't change that. The people who chose synthesis are aware of that.

Of course it does matter. Control and synthesis were ways to keep the reapers alive. Call it self-preservation. Synthesis even goes one step further by joining the reapers.

Of course the reapers won't attack in synthesis, because they have gotten what the wanted. Shepard's "essence of who [he/she] is and what [he/she] is" takes care of anyone complaning about their situation.

There *must* be mind control in synthesis, because otherwise the former allies would rise against these sudden docile reapers who exterminated most of the population, including their friends and family.

Also, if there was no mind control then reapers would become aware of their gazillion atrocities. Would they be able to live with that?

Plus, if there was no mind control then who is controlling the reapers? The brat? It's not like control where Shepard becomes the new brat to take over control.

What if there are some who do not agree with synthesis? Should they kill themselves? There was no opt-in and there was no opt-out.

What happens to the husks infected by synthesis? Are they standing as living sculptures to remind everyone to the atrocities of the past?

What about all those harvested minds? Is only their knowledge left or do they have an eternal prison sentence with no where to go? Robbed of their environment, their goals in life, their loved ones, etc. Wouldn't they become mad if they too were aware of their situation? Or are they mind controlled as well? Let's hope they are reduced to knowledge, otherwise their lives will be a living hell.

No. In good old reaper fashion, Shepard has violated the right of self-determination by infecting everyone against their will.

If there is no utopia with mind control then synthesis should not act like one.

HagarIshay wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

And synthesis is exactly what Saren described.

"The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steal. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!" - Saren Arterius.

Since when is submission equal to compromise?

Also, Saren was refering only to organics. Synthesis will merge both synthetics and organics.

I agree that submission is not a compromise. That's why synthesis is an invalid option in any case.

Saren's "vision of the future" worked fine for organics. And of course Saren does not care about synthetics. He, like the reapers, saw them as tools to achieve their goal. At that time Shepard fought the geth, so Shepard only saw them as a problem. We learn later that these geth were actually a minority, called the heretics, who were turned hostile by the reapers. So there are reasons enough not to mention the synthetics in that vision.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 22 juillet 2012 - 07:22 .

[Ageless Face]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Then I assume you have chosen destroy, because that is the closest option to disagree with the brat. Both control and synthesis are supposed to be solutions to its hypothetical problem. I can even understand control when a Shepard was a firm supporter of TIM in ME2. Synthesis, on the other hand, is violating the right of self-determination by infecting your allies with synthesis without their consent. Shepard made pacts with the allies to defeat or destroy the reapers. In that option Shepard is not respecting those wishes and replaces these with his/her elitist views that reaperfy them.

 

No I didn't. I chose control. Does that mean I agree with him? No. I don't care about his solution, I control the reapers from different reasons than his. Just because you don't understand a choice doesn't make it wrong you know. I don't understand by the slightest why people choose refuse, except for people that chose it didn't do it for the reapers to continue reaping, they didn't choose it because they agreed with the catalyst.

Of course it does matter. Control and synthesis were ways to keep the reapers alive. Call it self-preservation. Synthesis even goes one step further by joining the reapers.

Of course the reapers won't attack in synthesis, because they have gotten what the wanted. Shepard's "essence of who [he/she] is and what [he/she] is" takes care of anyone complaning about their situation.

There *must* be mind control in synthesis, because otherwise the former allies would rise against these sudden docile reapers who exterminated most of the population, including their friends and family.

Also, if there was no mind control then reapers would become aware of their gazillion atrocities. Would they be able to live with that?

Plus, if there was no mind control then who is controlling the reapers? The brat? It's not like control where Shepard becomes the new brat to take over control.

What if there are some who do not agree with synthesis? Should they kill themselves? There was no opt-in and there was no opt-out.

What happens to the husks infected by synthesis? Are they standing as living sculptures to remind everyone to the atrocities of the past?

What about all those harvested minds? Is only their knowledge left or do they have an eternal prison sentence with no where to go? Robbed of their environment, their goals in life, their loved ones, etc. Wouldn't they become mad if they too were aware of their situation? Or are they mind controlled as well? Let's hope they are reduced to knowledge, otherwise their lives will be a living hell.

No. In good old reaper fashion, Shepard has violated the right of self-determination by infecting everyone against their will.

If there is no utopia with mind control then synthesis should not act like one.

How did you get from peace with the reapers to mind control? Can't the reapers and the cycle just have peace with each other, no brainwash whatsoever? EDI sounded like a normal person. EDI and Joker hugging each other showed individual minds.

Synthesis does not brainwash anyone. People just learned to live with the reapers. It happens, you know. You can make peace with your enemy.

BTW, peace =/= utopia. We only heard EDI's side to it. I'm sure that the galaxy is itself, just more advanced and having fun with the Reapers. 

I agree that submission is not a compromise. That's why synthesis is an invalid option in any case.

 

Not it's not. Because no matter how much you'd like to believe, as do many other people, synthesis is a compromise. The galaxy won't submit to the reapers. They will work with them. Check the epilouge again if you don't believe me. Or what the catalyst says.

[Geneaux486]

Liara even said its a device not a weapon, Hackett even said it.

It sure can wipe out a galaxy pretty efficiently for not being a weapon.

Destroy= proving that Synthetics are the real problem and you kill them just to kill the Reapers.

The Crucible was designed by previous cycles to take out all synthetic life because each previous cycle was at war with synthetics. It's a sad consequence, but in the minds of some players it is a necesarry one.

Control= the Shepard AI fuses with the Catalyst being Shreaper and dominate the Galaxy when a war starts again.

Never stated in game, epilogue disproves the notion that this would happen.

And Synthesis is what the Starbrat wanted all along he even tells you this. The Reapers are Organic and Synthetic=Synthesis.

The Catalyst wants to make everyone into Reapers. Synthesis allows everyone to keep their individuality. Nobody becomes a reaper. This is clearly shown in the epilogue for Synthesis.

And the fact that the Starbrat says he controls the Reapers shatters everything Sovereign and Harbinger says in the past games

No it doesn't.

[The Twilight God]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Stating that everything turns out good in the end still doesn't explain why Shepard would trust the Catalyst (who is currently trying its best to destroy every space-farring civilization) if he wasn't indoctrinated.

The player doesn't have to trust the Catalyst to use the Crucible, he only has to trust the Crucible.  Furthermore, not using the device results in a loss.  Using the Crucible means having nothing to lose, and everything to gain.  Choosing destroy is no less a leap of faith than either of the other two choices.

But Shepard does have to trust the Catalyst.

Just because there is a beam pouring out of the Crucible does not mean jumping into it would somehow collect Shepard's DNA. There is no evidence or precedence whatsoever to conclude that jumping into a particle beam will do anything save incernerate the hapless fool who jumps in.

Disagree? Please explain.

The Control consle isn't even a part of the Crucible. It is a part of the Citadel. Again, there is no evidence or precedence whatsoever to conclude that being incinerated by high voltage will do anything save kill the hapless fool who decides to act as a fuse.

Disagree? Please explain.

With Destroy you do have a precedent to believe that the Cruicble will fire an anti-reaper payload. The issue then becomes, why does the Catalyst have a Crucible suppression device built into the Citadel if he was never expecting it? Why does he have a Control console there also if the option just became available? It's not adding up. Something is not right here.

The diifference being that if destroying the suppression device doesn't activate the Crucible it doesn't equate to imminent death. Even if it didn't unleash the Crucible's payload you are still alive to look for a fire button. With the other 2 you are commiting suicide solely on the endorsment of the Reaper King. No second chances. No Shepard in their right mind is going to do that. You know very well that if it was real life you would not risk everything so foolishly. It is only from the perspective of a video game player that you would make that choice because there are no real consequences for you or the people of Earth.

The only explaination is that Shepard is indoctrinated. Their is no in-game reason for why Shepard would gamble the lives of every species in the entire galaxy.

[JamieCOTC]

I don't believe that Shepard was indoctrinated. I do believe the end has sloppy writing, sloppy continuity and sloppy game mechanics and people are desperately trying to make some sense out of it when there is none to be made. I hate the Catalyst, but that's how I explain it.

[Geneaux486]

The only explaination is that Shepard is indoctrinated. Their is no in-game reason for why Shepard would gamble the lives of every species in the entire galaxy.

This is your opinion, and I disagree with it. The explanation is that any of the three Crucible functions require a leap of faith to lose, but without that leap, everyone dies. Nothing to lose, everything to gain, deparate times, etc. There is no reason why Shepard would have to be indoctrinated to recognize that.

[AresKeith]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The only explaination is that Shepard is indoctrinated. Their is no in-game reason for why Shepard would gamble the lives of every species in the entire galaxy.

This is your opinion, and I disagree with it. The explanation is that any of the three Crucible functions require a leap of faith to lose, but without that leap, everyone dies. Nothing to lose, everything to gain, deparate times, etc. There is no reason why Shepard would have to be indoctrinated to recognize that.

thats not an explanation

[AngryFrozenWater]

HagarIshay wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Then I assume you have chosen destroy, because that is the closest option to disagree with the brat. Both control and synthesis are supposed to be solutions to its hypothetical problem. I can even understand control when a Shepard was a firm supporter of TIM in ME2. Synthesis, on the other hand, is violating the right of self-determination by infecting your allies with synthesis without their consent. Shepard made pacts with the allies to defeat or destroy the reapers. In that option Shepard is not respecting those wishes and replaces these with his/her elitist views that reaperfy them.

No I didn't. I chose control. Does that mean I agree with him? No. I don't care about his solution, I control the reapers from different reasons than his. Just because you don't understand a choice doesn't make it wrong you know. I don't understand by the slightest why people choose refuse, except for people that chose it didn't do it for the reapers to continue reaping, they didn't choose it because they agreed with the catalyst.

Control is a solution to its hypothetical problem. If you think there is no problem then there is no need to keep the infrastructure intact.

HagarIshay wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Of course it does matter. Control and synthesis were ways to keep the reapers alive. Call it self-preservation. Synthesis even goes one step further by joining the reapers.

Of course the reapers won't attack in synthesis, because they have gotten what the wanted. Shepard's "essence of who [he/she] is and what [he/she] is" takes care of anyone complaning about their situation.

There *must* be mind control in synthesis, because otherwise the former allies would rise against these sudden docile reapers who exterminated most of the population, including their friends and family.

Also, if there was no mind control then reapers would become aware of their gazillion atrocities. Would they be able to live with that?

Plus, if there was no mind control then who is controlling the reapers? The brat? It's not like control where Shepard becomes the new brat to take over control.

What if there are some who do not agree with synthesis? Should they kill themselves? There was no opt-in and there was no opt-out.

What happens to the husks infected by synthesis? Are they standing as living sculptures to remind everyone to the atrocities of the past?

What about all those harvested minds? Is only their knowledge left or do they have an eternal prison sentence with no where to go? Robbed of their environment, their goals in life, their loved ones, etc. Wouldn't they become mad if they too were aware of their situation? Or are they mind controlled as well? Let's hope they are reduced to knowledge, otherwise their lives will be a living hell.

No. In good old reaper fashion, Shepard has violated the right of self-determination by infecting everyone against their will.

If there is no utopia with mind control then synthesis should not act like one.

How did you get from peace with the reapers to mind control? Can't the reapers and the cycle just have peace with each other, no brainwash whatsoever? EDI sounded like a normal person. EDI and Joker hugging each other showed individual minds.

Synthesis does not brainwash anyone. People just learned to live with the reapers. It happens, you know. You can make peace with your enemy.

BTW, peace =/= utopia. We only heard EDI's side to it. I'm sure that the galaxy is itself, just more advanced and having fun with the Reapers.

Synthesis is supposed to be a solution for that same hypothetical problem. Somehow that has to be achieved. Giving anyone green eyes only doesn't feel like a solid solution. And thus there must be something else that creates that utopia-like world. And synthesis has a lot of implications. If you care to explore these, a lot of things do not add up.

HagarIshay wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I agree that submission is not a compromise. That's why synthesis is an invalid option in any case.

Not it's not. Because no matter how much you'd like to believe, as do many other people, synthesis is a compromise. The galaxy won't submit to the reapers. They will work with them. Check the epilouge again if you don't believe me. Or what the catalyst says.

You said "I never defended it and said he was right about it." If you do not believe in that hypothetical thread then there is no reason to join their cause and select control or synthesis. After all, why should you select a solution to a non-existent problem?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 22 juillet 2012 - 09:23 .

[Ageless Face]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Control is a solution to its hypothetical problem. If you think there is no problem then there is no need to keep the infrastructure intact.

 

How about... Defending and advancing galactic society with reapers' help? Not helping the catalyst, having a reason to keep the reapers.

Believe me, if I wanted the reapers to do what the catalyst wanted to do, you'd think I won't know I'm his supporter?

I don't accept his problem. I don't want to find a solution to it. And that's that.

 
Synthesis is supposed to be a solution for that same hypothetical problem. Somehow that has to be achieved. Giving anyone green eyes only doesn't feel like a solid solution. And thus there must be something else that creates that utopia-like world. And synthesis has a lot of implications. If you care to explore these, a lot of things do not add up.

And if someone didn't pick synthesis because he wanted to help the reapers? What if someone picked synthesis because of the advancemts to both synthetics and organics? 

There is peace between synthetics and organics. Just like there is peace between all organics. Does it mean there IS actually peace? Of course not! It's more of co-existence. There can never be utopia. And no, people aren't brainwashed in sythesis, from reasons I said a post before. 

You said "I never defended it and said he was right about it." If you do not believe in that hypothetical thread then there is no reason to join their cause and select control or synthesis. After all, why should you select a solution to a non-existent problem?

For crying out loud...

You can look at all the three choices as "believing the hypocrytical problem".

Synthesis is merging synthetics and organics and stopping conflicts.
Control is keeping the reapers. Just in case something goes wrong.
And destroy will destroy all synthetic lives.

So you see, destroy will also help the catalyst's cause.

Do you believe the catalyst's logic? Are you a catalyst supporter? 

[The Twilight God]

JamieCOTC wrote...

I don't believe that Shepard was indoctrinated. I do believe the end has sloppy writing, sloppy continuity and sloppy game mechanics and people are desperately trying to make some sense out of it when there is none to be made. I hate the Catalyst, but that's how I explain it.

If the story is presented in a way that dictates he is indoctrinated then he is indoctrinated, regardless of the intent of the writer. They messed up and until they fix it what the actually wrote stands, not what they post of Twitter.

Geneaux486 wrote...

The only explaination is that Shepard is indoctrinated. Their is no in-game reason for why Shepard would gamble the lives of every species in the entire galaxy.

This is your opinion, and I disagree with it. The explanation is that any of the three Crucible functions require a leap of faith to lose, but without that leap, everyone dies. Nothing to lose, everything to gain, deparate times, etc. There is no reason why Shepard would have to be indoctrinated to recognize that.

No, only one two require a leap of faith. Destroy does not require Shepard to commit suicide. Fact.

It is already established that the Crucible was created to Destroy the Reapers. Fact.

Shepard has no evidence to suggest that control or synthesis are even possible. Fact.

There is a valid reason to not trust the Catalyst beside it being the "Reaper King" (See #1 & 3 below). Fact.

"We thought the Crucible design was destroyed"... but we have this Crucible docking area set up here. Lie #1
Your presence here alters the variables. Our previous solution will not work... except if you chose Refusal. Lie #2
The Crucible has opened new possibilities. So why was the Control console already built and ready to go? Lie #3
Synthesis is "inevitable", unless you refuse. Hard to achieve it if it continues killing us. Lie #4

The EC actually reveals the Catalyst to be deceitful beyond the initial lies. Fact.

It's not my opinion. It is fact. There is no reason whatsoever for Shepard to trust the Catalyst. Neither you or anyone else can demonstrate otherwise. Ergo, it is not just my personal opinion, but an objective statement of fact that I know you recognize despite claims to the contrary. You certainly have no counter argument so your disagreement is pointless. Similarly, you could state fire doesn't consume oxygen, but we both know it does.

You like the choice, but you don't like the implications of the choice. That is all there is to it. And I get that. It's an understandable human reaction.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 22 juillet 2012 - 09:47 .

[AlanC9]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You said "I never defended it and said he was right about it." If you do not believe in that hypothetical thread then there is no reason to join their cause and select control or synthesis. After all, why should you select a solution to a non-existent problem?

Because you like the results anyway? Or prefer it to any other available option?

[AtreiyaN7]

Saren was a deluded fool who thought he could outmaneuver the Reapers, and so was TIM. How is this proof of anything at this point other than the fact that their hubris brought them both down? I'm not a Catalyst supporter, and choosing either Synthesis or Control doesn't equate to a person being a "Catalyst supporter" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Look, the IT was interesting, but it's over with - this proof is essentially meaningless, although you're certainly still free to run with IT in your game and posit that that's what happened. The epilogues alone contradict the statement about Control or Synthesis not being possible.

________________________________________________________________

As for the separate "Synthesis = submission" comment I saw, that's ridiculous. It only "submission" if you're a person who's fixated on organic life remaining organic and are rabid haters of all artificial life as a result of the Reapers' actions.

You know, there are other people who MIGHT view advancing all civilizations and making an evolutionary leap forward as a positive thing as opposed to, you know, killing everyone in the galaxy for the principle of it all or killing off all synthetic life because you can't stand the idea of anything besides destroying the Reapers.

*checks Synthesis epilogue again* Yeah, as far as I can tell, this alleged submission leads to:

1. Rebuilding on Tuchanka and the advancement of krogan civilization.
2. Rebuilding on other worlds.
3. A Golden Age for all civilizations.
4. Leisure time to engage in intellectual pursuits or to just catch up with loved ones (Samara and her daughter sure looked happy enough!).
5. Intellectual freedom and the right to do anything you want with your life - including having krogan babies or whatever else floats your boat.

Wow, it's terrible being enslaved in such horrible conditions like that. *sarcasm* I know that I'd much rather have been blown to bits and had my life thrown away just because someone thought their principles were super-important over the good of all mankind.

[Geneaux486]

No, only one two require a leap of faith. Destroy does not require Shepard to commit suicide. Fact.

Incorrect. You have no more assurance that destroy will do what it's supposed to do than you do either of the other two options. Whether or not Shepard dies is irrelevant. He's a soldier, he's trained to die for the greater good if need be.