467 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Not using the only weapon that can put down the reapers for good is stupid. Don't need to metagame to know that refuse is just plain idiotic

Absolute tosh. I'm a bright enough lad and had no idea choosing Refuse would result in Mac and Casey giving me the virtual bird! Lets be absolutely clear: Refuse leads to the annihilation of everything in the galaxy only because the aforementioned 'artists' were waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more invested in defending their original endings than appeasing those who refused to roleplay a war criminal.

Unfortunately, a machine cannot be a 'war criminal' no matter how bad it's programming error is, maybe their creators and those utilizing reaper technology could be busted on a conspiracy charge, but who'd try them?

The roleplay a war criminal quote was referring to Shepard not the kid.

I know, I mea culpa'd to the poster earlier, with further explanation as to why that didn't work either. Sheps a spector by the way, cannot be tried for war crimes. The Arrival DLC pretty much takes that opinion out of the equation as well.

[incinerator950]

Fandango9641 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I personally think that anyone who picks Refuse is either a coward or Kant, but to each their own.

And which solution do you advocate?

Winning or surviving. 

[Batnat]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Except you do and then you don't use it at the last minute so that is why refuse is a stupid decision.  The whole point of the entire battle of the sole system was to deploy and use the crucible.  To me refuse would only make sense if you reject the crucible early on in ME 3 and then you work on an alternative way to destroy the reapers but the game wasn't structured like that.  You spent all of ME 3 gathering fleets and resources for the sole purpose of deploying the crucible.  Not using the crucible means you put everybody else's efforts in vain and for nothing.  All those fleets and soldiers died for nothing because you wouldn't pull the trigger

I can see your point, but let´s consider this for a moment:

The ReaperAI lies (I know, totally impossible, right?!).
EC reveals:
Control ends with Shepard desintegrating and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Synthesis ends with mass-indoctrination and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Destroy ends with destruction of all non-reaper tech and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Refusal: War continues, outcome depends on your choices, Paragon/Renegade, squad and EMS...it could even still include the crucible in some way.

Without metagaming...does this possible outcome seem really SO outlandish to you?
I think it could just as easily have happend this way arround.
I´m not the kind of person who trusts their enemy (who annihilated how many civilizations exactly?) just because they tell me they only do what they think is best...without providing any kind of proof nor sound logical reasons!
How many "bad guys" justify their deeds with the sole purpose of wanting to be bad?
Usually people have reasons they themselves see as good intentions or the right or logical things to do, no matter how warped those might really happen to be.

Just as often it is said in ME3 that we can´t defeat the reapers with "convential" means it is also acknowledged no one knows what the weapon will do. For all we know it could be a reaper device like all the other nice things they left lying around for us to find. I´m not saying that it is, just pointing out the possibility.
The ReaperAI doesn´t help either...some people see its reasons as incentive to go through with using the crucible others see it as a kind of proof that they bet on the wrong horse the whole time and don´t risk using it.

Judging people´s choices based on the knowledge of the outcome, which we all have by now, will get no one anywhere. No matter what one chooses, they´re not idiots or morons or murderers. It just depends how one happens to interpret what we´ve been given.
Either the whole concept is flawed or this is exactly the kind of outcome the artist...ahm...architect of the story wanted to provoke.

[DirtyPhoenix]

3DandBeyond wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
But the real Shepard would choose refuse and want to try and fight.  He wouldn't choose this crap and wouldn't make people live out any fate created by the choices.  The real Shepard wouldn't make a choice offered by the enemy to solve the enemy's problem.  The real Shepard would try for a fight and a possible win on his and the galaxy's terms, not the enemy's.  A renegade would never get past the kid saying, "I control the reapers."  Shepard would shoot the kid at that point.  A paragon would listen and refuse to make one of those choices.

There is no "real" Shepard. There are just my Shepard, your Shepard and other's Shepards.. Here you seem to be talking about your Shepard. This doesn't represent my Shepard.

With all due respect, contrary to what everyone believes Shepard works within certain boundaries in the games.  You are doing a bit of metagaming.  The choices Shepard gets within the game are not limitless.  A renegade acts before thinking and punches reporter that say things that are nowhere as bad as what the kid says.  The game allows a paragon to choose certain things within boundaries too.  A paragon Shepard also has said so many things in the game that would make all of these choices invalid ones.

For instance, the kid sees conflict as inevitable and says Shepard must make a choice based on that.  Destroy dooms the geth to extinction.  A paragon Shepard has said "you don't doom a whole race to extincition base on what may happen."  A paragon also says, you don't kill some over here to save others over there.  Just a couple examples.

But in metagaming, I can ignore all that and decide that destroy makes sense because I will ignore what Shepard has said before.  But a paragon Shepard without metagaming would live his/her previous choices.

I'm not saying you aren't free to interpret it as you would see it and you can of course choose anything you want.  I'd never tell you not to.  I'm only ever saying what I think, just as you are saying what you think.

Ok I think I see your point. But people change, their viewpoint change, no? Like I may say I won't sacrifice anyone's life to save myself but in desperate times I may do that. All the endings are morally ambiguous. But still, somehow all my Shepards come to find something in their chosen endings to resemble their ideology.
Like my renegade Shepard agrees with the ruthless calculus of war so she blew up the tube. I try to maintain this in every playthrough, that my Shepard picks the ending that is the most fitting to his/her personality and goal, but a slight bit of meta-gaming creeps in. Its inevitable

[incinerator950]

Fandango9641 wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I personally think that anyone who picks Refuse is either a coward or Kant, but to each their own.

And which solution do you advocate?

Winning or surviving. 

How about a straight answer coward?

Surviving, which was destroying all Synthetic life and miraculously surviving.  Or winning, which was destroying all Synthetic life without surviving, or dying to replace the old Catalyst and create a new one with yourself.  Then their's synthesis, but I think of it more as a compromise with an idea I don't wrap my head around, and never take.  

Now please refrain from name calling before I rebute you so hard I win another troll medal.

[Ukomba]

Batnat wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Except you do and then you don't use it at the last minute so that is why refuse is a stupid decision.  The whole point of the entire battle of the sole system was to deploy and use the crucible.  To me refuse would only make sense if you reject the crucible early on in ME 3 and then you work on an alternative way to destroy the reapers but the game wasn't structured like that.  You spent all of ME 3 gathering fleets and resources for the sole purpose of deploying the crucible.  Not using the crucible means you put everybody else's efforts in vain and for nothing.  All those fleets and soldiers died for nothing because you wouldn't pull the trigger

I can see your point, but let´s consider this for a moment:

The ReaperAI lies (I know, totally impossible, right?!).
EC reveals:
Control ends with Shepard desintegrating and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Synthesis ends with mass-indoctrination and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Destroy ends with destruction of all non-reaper tech and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Refusal: War continues, outcome depends on your choices, Paragon/Renegade, squad and EMS...it could even still include the crucible in some way.

Without metagaming...does this possible outcome seem really SO outlandish to you?
I think it could just as easily have happend this way arround.
I´m not the kind of person who trusts their enemy (who annihilated how many civilizations exactly?) just because they tell me they only do what they think is best...without providing any kind of proof nor sound logical reasons!
How many "bad guys" justify their deeds with the sole purpose of wanting to be bad?
Usually people have reasons they themselves see as good intentions or the right or logical things to do, no matter how warped those might really happen to be.

Just as often it is said in ME3 that we can´t defeat the reapers with "convential" means it is also acknowledged no one knows what the weapon will do. For all we know it could be a reaper device like all the other nice things they left lying around for us to find. I´m not saying that it is, just pointing out the possibility.
The ReaperAI doesn´t help either...some people see its reasons as incentive to go through with using the crucible others see it as a kind of proof that they bet on the wrong horse the whole time and don´t risk using it.

Judging people´s choices based on the knowledge of the outcome, which we all have by now, will get no one anywhere. No matter what one chooses, they´re not idiots or morons or murderers. It just depends how one happens to interpret what we´ve been given.
Either the whole concept is flawed or this is exactly the kind of outcome the artist...ahm...architect of the story wanted to provoke.

Hadn't thought of it that way at first.  You had no garantee that any of those actions would have had the result the hostile artificial inteligence said would happen.  Wouldn't even have to be so advanced as to have the oposite effect, each action could have simply broken the crucible.

Destory Fuel lines explode, blowing up the crucible.
Synthesis Organic material clogs the power conduit causing it to over heat and shutdown
Control Shepard causes a short that causes a shutdown.
Refusal: The crucible finishes charging and releases a pulse that destroys all the reapers in the sol system.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Those solutions make Shep an active participant in the destruction, subversion or suppression of entire species.

Well, there's no Synthesis Shep to bring to trial. And I'd like to see someone arrest Control Shep, assuming you consider that to be the same being.

[Batnat]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It is because the writers only listened to the idea of refuse as they saw it.  Every post on refuse that I ever saw or took part in discussing was for Shepard to regain a backbone and tell the kid to F off.  And then the real fight to Take Earth Back could begin which could end in many variations of loss or win or sacrifice.  You know, a variety like what we were promised and some actual fight to take Earth back and not a conversation with the reaper king.

This refuse is not that refuse.  I know many thought this would be one way that they could keep their "boy" and allow others to get some of what they wanted.  But it just comes off as finger food.  But it seems to me the logical "choice" if not metagaming.

Yeah, I agree completely.

And I get kinda tired of all the "we can´t win without magic super weapon / starbrats helping hand" arguments.
Had the fleshed out EC-endings including a Refusal-Win-Scenario been in the original game...I doubt all these people would have pointed out the then-plot-hole "OMG, nooo...but...but...Hackett said we couldn´t win conventionaly!" Urgh...
<_<

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Oooo, is there a button in your mom's basement that'll zap me with a metaphysical paintbrush? Respecting the inaliable rights of all life of the galaxy in the face of a great threat is less cowardly than slavery and genocide Mr Courageous...do you know what the word means?

I agree. Refuse may be crazy, but it isn't cowardly.

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I personally think that anyone who picks Refuse is either a coward or Kant, but to each their own.

How does opting to fight an enemy rather than set off a magical space non-gun that may or may not do what the kid says make one a coward?

The space fantasy machine may kill Shepard but it may also make harvesting either.  No one except the kid knows what it will do and he could be lying.  If Shepard uses it it could turn everyone into marshmallows for all Shepard knows. 

So deciding to actually try and fight a very tough (some would say impossible) fight is cowardice?

the crucible is not a 'non gun' it's an inexplicable tool of the catalyst creators.  The catalyst has no  clue what the crucible is, it thinks it's just a powere supply. That shows that the catalyst is just a minor AI and only a small part in the end game. The undertow of this is that there is 'something/one' else pulling strings,especially Shepards behind the scence. This is not meta gamed, it's there if you can see it. TIM says: If you could only 'see it' with my eyes, it's "beautiful". What's beautiful? Indoctrination, or the actual 'being' of the original creators? The reapers brought Shep back to life via indoctrinated TIM, just after killing him with indoctrinated collectors, of which NONE can act on their own. To think that Shep is the ONLY non indoctrinated person in the MEU that can directly communicate with the catalyst and reapers? He got a first tip from that beacon, then did it again and again through out his travels, all for the purpose of ending the cycle. Maybe the Laviathan isn't just meta game lore after all, or the creators want to make a come back. Their society is still retained in the reaper built on their 'essence'?

[incinerator950]

Fandango9641 wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I personally think that anyone who picks Refuse is either a coward or Kant, but to each their own.

And which solution do you advocate?

Winning or surviving. 

How about a straight answer coward?

Surviving, which was destroying all Synthetic life and miraculously surviving.  Or winning, which was destroying all Synthetic life without surviving, or dying to replace the old Catalyst and create a new one with yourself.  Then their's synthesis, but I think of it more as a compromise with an idea I don't wrap my head around, and never take.  

Now please refrain from name calling before I rebute you so hard I win another troll medal.

Oooo, is there a button in your mom's basement that'll zap me with a metaphysical paintbrush? Respecting the inaliable rights of all life of the galaxy in the face of a great threat is less cowardly than slavery and genocide Mr Courageous...do you even know what the word means?

So says the Galiant Fandango who courageously turned down the Catalysts offer, and then died.  Only remembered (slightly) in a tape recording from a friend (possibly ex-girlfriend) who told of his outlandish and daring exploits of constructing an Ominous superweapon which never activated. 

If history be the judge of my actions, I will choose to remember mine and be remembered for saving my people then dooming them to obscurity and destruction for my pride.  Also, yours is the one who I can press in the kitchen to serve me refreshments or time in my quarters.  

[AlanC9]

Batnat wrote...

The ReaperAI lies (I know, totally impossible, right?!).
EC reveals:
Control ends with Shepard desintegrating and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Synthesis ends with mass-indoctrination and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Destroy ends with destruction of all non-reaper tech and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Refusal: War continues, ends with Reapers harvesting the galaxy

Fixed.

[Wayning_Star]

The crucible isn't a weapon, it's a tool, organics are 'hung up' on weapons cause of the blanket of fear the reapers instill in them. So don't be a scardy cat, just handle it, stop the cycle..if you're, er Brave enough.

[incinerator950]

AlanC9 wrote...

Batnat wrote...

The ReaperAI lies (I know, totally impossible, right?!).
EC reveals:
Control ends with Shepard desintegrating and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Synthesis ends with mass-indoctrination and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Destroy ends with destruction of all non-reaper tech and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Refusal: War continues, ends with Reapers harvesting the galaxy

Fixed.

A somewhat original and unusually disturbing headcanon. 

[AlanC9]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Sure, Control. Also, I let Gerrel deal with the geth, so their deaths aren't on my head. All I killed was EDI.

Good point. That's how Bio can canonize Destroy without Shep committing genocide.

[3DandBeyond]

Batnat wrote...

I can see your point, but let´s consider this for a moment:

The ReaperAI lies (I know, totally impossible, right?!).
EC reveals:
Control ends with Shepard desintegrating and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Synthesis ends with mass-indoctrination and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Destroy ends with destruction of all non-reaper tech and Reapers harvesting the galaxy.
Refusal: War continues, outcome depends on your choices, Paragon/Renegade, squad and EMS...it could even still include the crucible in some way.

Without metagaming...does this possible outcome seem really SO outlandish to you?
I think it could just as easily have happend this way arround.
I´m not the kind of person who trusts their enemy (who annihilated how many civilizations exactly?) just because they tell me they only do what they think is best...without providing any kind of proof nor sound logical reasons!
How many "bad guys" justify their deeds with the sole purpose of wanting to be bad?
Usually people have reasons they themselves see as good intentions or the right or logical things to do, no matter how warped those might really happen to be.

Just as often it is said in ME3 that we can´t defeat the reapers with "convential" means it is also acknowledged no one knows what the weapon will do. For all we know it could be a reaper device like all the other nice things they left lying around for us to find. I´m not saying that it is, just pointing out the possibility.
The ReaperAI doesn´t help either...some people see its reasons as incentive to go through with using the crucible others see it as a kind of proof that they bet on the wrong horse the whole time and don´t risk using it.

Judging people´s choices based on the knowledge of the outcome, which we all have by now, will get no one anywhere. No matter what one chooses, they´re not idiots or morons or murderers. It just depends how one happens to interpret what we´ve been given.
Either the whole concept is flawed or this is exactly the kind of outcome the artist...ahm...architect of the story wanted to provoke.

That's exactly it, the kid has lied.  Indoctrination creates lies.  The kid is the only one that knows all about what this whole mess will do.  He contradicts himself. 

I look back at the only non-metagaming I could do.  That's when I first played the endings.  I couldn't believe this was what I'd been working towards.  And then I couldn't believe this is what I was expected to do.  And back then there was a lot less crap being said.  He was "crazy" but not crazy with all those words and the slides of happiness that came after the crazy.  I instantly saw him as my enemy.  He was a wolf in sheep's clothing.  A totally insane one, but one nonetheless.