467 réponses à ce sujet

[Maias227]

xsdob wrote...

How about, and this might be just crazy talk, how about the best ending for everyone...is the ending that they like the best?

[MystEU]

Refuse sucks, 'cause really, someone else is making the same crappy choices later. Only exception is trillions of lives are loss because of your stubbornness!

[v TricKy v]

Pitznik wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

Simply put, from Shepard's point of view, he is being confronted with a VI that claims to have created the Reapers, and who presents a very flawed argument before presenting 3 choices to him, none of which line up with his morals or original goals. These choices are not even presented in a professional manner, such as inputting them in a terminal. Instead, for all shepard knows, the VI who admits to being a Reaper ally just told him to either shoot a fuel tank at close range, grab a live power line, or step into a giant beam of energy that will disintegrate him.

So let's see... Shepard is supposed to refuse because the options might be traps. Or is it because the options don't line up with his morals and original goals? If it's a trap, the Catalyst sure isn't very good at baiting it.

But let's say Shepard thinks it's probably a trap. What of it? If it is a trap, all that means is that the galaxy is doomed anyway, and whatever Shepard does just doesn't matter.

Exactly
So why should I take the chance to possibily help the Reapers?
It could trigger an EMP which disables all our ships. Why should I risk that? You can say that everyone dies anyway so why dont risk it. All that can happen is that you die.
But what is better way to die? Going down fighting and taking as many as you can with them(remember they have no way to replace their capital ships) or die hopeless in your disabled ship unable to do anything?

The argument about not taking chances can work both ways

Because they are clearly winning and they don't need to try any tricks. They are safe. It is you who loses, so it is your turn to move. Plus, you knew that this whole Crucible thing was supposed to work for you, and not for the Reapers.

Why shouldnt they try new tricks? Did you got forget about all the things they do? The Citadel trap, the Rachni wars, the Geth heretics, controlling the true Geth, taking control of the zha'til. With your logic they should just fly in everytime and take on the whole galaxy. But it is clear they take every advantage they can get.
Also how did you know that the Crucible is supposed to be helping you? The only thing people know is that releases energy but nobody knows in which form it releases it, nobody knows who created it and it requires the Citadel the heart of every previous Reaper attack. 

Modifié par v TricKy v, 30 juillet 2012 - 08:18 .

[Zan51]

I tried Refuse when going through the other options (Mine was Destroy) and could not believe that it all ended as it did! Geez! It would be the sensible option if you had another option after you decided that! Because I didn't believe a word the VI said and still don't.
I was being controlled to shoot Anderson, and still am being controlled all through that ending. How can you say that the EC endings were "proof" it wasn't lying, it could as easily be more of that being controlled stuff.

I am still back on Earth in London, thank you! Never made it to the Citadel....

[Lord Goose]

elegolas1 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

As far as Shep is concerned though, the catalyst tells him/her
to grab live wires, jump over a cliff or shoot a fuel line.

He actually doesn't tell you to do it. Shepard comes to this conclusion by him/herself.

Shepard is such a ****** in me3 hahaha
Just as Shep jumps into the beam the catalyst shouts out "wait, the console's right there!"

Yeah,
But it still makes argument invalid. Catalyst never told Shepard what to do, and he decided it on his/her own. 

Modifié par Lord Goose, 30 juillet 2012 - 08:30 .

[daecath]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

The Ending in a Nutshell

In the last ten minutes of the game, we meet the real antagonist, who dismisses the previous antagonist (the Reapers), the one that the other 99.84% if the trilogy was about fighting. Now, instead of fighting and defeating this new contrived antagonist, our protaganist is forced to make a morally ambiguous choice with little explanation and arbitrary consequences, that will fix the antagonist's problem for him (synthetics vs. organics).

Close, but I'll boil it down a bit more.

In the last few minutes, the leader of an enemy that routinely uses lies and manipulation to get what they want (ie. indoctrination) tells you something that makes no sense and is directly contradicted by every experience you've had, and then asks you to commit suicide, claiming something good will happen if you do.

Conniving_Eagle wrote...
There is no best choice. They are all terrible like the ending.

Yep.

[Pitznik]

v TricKy v wrote...


Why shouldnt they try new tricks? Did you got forget about all the things they do? The Citadel trap, the Rachni wars, the Geth heretics, controlling the true Geth, taking control of the zha'til. With your logic they should just fly in everytime and take on the whole galaxy. But it is clear they take every advantage they can get.
Also how did you know that the Crucible is supposed to be helping you? The only thing people know is that releases energy but nobody knows in which form it releases it, nobody knows who created it and it requires the Citadel the heart of every previous Reaper attack. 

They do not have to. They are winning. They are controlling the galaxy.

You know it is supposed to help, you just don't know how. That is what Liara and everyone else is telling you - that every other cycle put their hopes in Crucible.

You know you will lose. You're not goining to take a chance to WIN, no matter how small, just because you are afraid you will lose in disabled ship? You will rather lose less (if it can be even descibed like that) than have a chance to win?

[daecath]

Pitznik wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

Simply put, from Shepard's point of view, he is being confronted with a VI that claims to have created the Reapers, and who presents a very flawed argument before presenting 3 choices to him, none of which line up with his morals or original goals. These choices are not even presented in a professional manner, such as inputting them in a terminal. Instead, for all shepard knows, the VI who admits to being a Reaper ally just told him to either shoot a fuel tank at close range, grab a live power line, or step into a giant beam of energy that will disintegrate him.

So let's see... Shepard is supposed to refuse because the options might be traps. Or is it because the options don't line up with his morals and original goals? If it's a trap, the Catalyst sure isn't very good at baiting it.

But let's say Shepard thinks it's probably a trap. What of it? If it is a trap, all that means is that the galaxy is doomed anyway, and whatever Shepard does just doesn't matter.

Exactly
So why should I take the chance to possibily help the Reapers?
It could trigger an EMP which disables all our ships. Why should I risk that? You can say that everyone dies anyway so why dont risk it. All that can happen is that you die.
But what is better way to die? Going down fighting and taking as many as you can with them(remember they have no way to replace their capital ships) or die like hopeless in your disabled ship unable to do anything?

The argument about not taking chances can work both ways

Because they are clearly winning and they don't need to try any tricks. They are safe. It is you who loses, so it is your turn to move. Plus, you knew that this whole Crucible thing was supposed to work for you, and not for the Reapers.

How are they clearly winning? We killed one reaper with a giant hand cannon, annother with 2 missiles, another with a laser pointer (and a fleet bombarding it, but still), and another with a giant worm. These things aren't indestructable. You just have to know where to hit them, and clearly we do.

And another point, if they are so "safe", if they're impossible to beat, then, in the words of Captain Kirk, "What do reapers need with indoctrination?"

[Pitznik]

daecath wrote...

How are they clearly winning? We killed one reaper with a giant hand cannon, annother with 2 missiles, another with a laser pointer (and a fleet bombarding it, but still), and another with a giant worm. These things aren't indestructable. You just have to know where to hit them, and clearly we do.

And another point, if they are so "safe", if they're impossible to beat, then, in the words of Captain Kirk, "What do reapers need with indoctrination?"

If you can't see that Reapers are winning, I have nothing to talk about with you. Cba to prove that black is in fact black.

[Lord Goose]

How are they clearly winning?

Like how they captured Earth in a matter of weeks?
Ripped through strongest military in the galaxy in the same time?
Captured Thessia in a matter of days?
Took Citadel easily?

Like how all military experts believe that we have no chance to actually win?

Sure, few of them were killed during the battles, but really. Galaxy may keep fighting for hundred years or so, but in the end it is meaningless.

"What do reapers need with indoctrination?"

Reduce the effort. Make it easier. You';re basically asking: "Why billionare does not live in tower made of gold, if he is so rich?"

Modifié par Lord Goose, 30 juillet 2012 - 08:51 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

daecath wrote...
We killed one reaper with a giant hand cannon

That was an AA canon. Not a reaper.

annother with 2 missiles, another with a laser pointer (and a fleet bombarding it, but still), and another with a giant worm.

The small ones. the truth is, we haven't seen a big reaper killed since sovereign. And those are the real threat; the capital ships.

And when we compare this to the number of ships we're losing.. its not even a fair comparison.

"What do reapers need with indoctrination?"

Because each reaper is a preserved civilization. So the loss of each reaper means loss of an entire civilization. So it makes sense that they'd try to reduce casualties.

Modifié par pirate1802, 30 juillet 2012 - 09:24 .

[daecath]

Pitznik wrote...

daecath wrote...

How are they clearly winning? We killed one reaper with a giant hand cannon, annother with 2 missiles, another with a laser pointer (and a fleet bombarding it, but still), and another with a giant worm. These things aren't indestructable. You just have to know where to hit them, and clearly we do.

And another point, if they are so "safe", if they're impossible to beat, then, in the words of Captain Kirk, "What do reapers need with indoctrination?"

If you can't see that Reapers are winning, I have nothing to talk about with you. Cba to prove that black is in fact black.

Watch the final battle again. You know what you'll see? A fairly even fight. I counted 3 fleet fighters being destroyed, and saw one fleet ship that appeared to have been destroyed. And I saw 2 reaper fighters being destroyed and one reaper ship being destroyed. Yeah, it's not an easy battle, but I didn't see any evidence of them "winning", not by any means.

Lord Goose wrote...

How are they clearly winning?

Like how they captured Earth in a matter of weeks?
Ripped through strongest military in the galaxy in the same time?
Captured Thessia in a matter of days?
Took Citadel easily?

Like how all military experts believe that we have no chance to actually win?

Sure,
few of them were killed during the battles, but really. Galaxy may keep
fighting for hundred years or so, but in the end it is meaningless.

"What do reapers need with indoctrination?"

Reduce
the effort. Make it easier. You';re basically asking: "Why billionare
does not live in tower made of gold, if he is so rich?"

Like
how we managed to amass the largest armada the galaxy has ever seen,
consisting of the combined fleets and armies of no less than 4 different
races, and up to potentially 10?
Like how we continue to hold them off despite "overwhelming odds"?

Like how those same "experts" spend
the first few minutes of the game asking a grunt - who has never
actually fought a live reaper, has no background in military strategy or
advanced weapon design - what they should do?

"A few of them were killed during the battles." Yeah,
that's how you win. And if the galaxy is around to keep fighting for
100 years, you don't think that's potentially enough time to come up
with a better plan than committing suicide because your enemy tells you to?

No,
I'm asking why an enemy that is so powerful bothers to take the time to
understand the unique and complex neurochemical workings of all the
distinct races it comes across in order to control them, when there's no
need since they are so clearly unbeatable, unless they know something
we don't. Unless they know that they aren't as unbeatable as they seem.

[daecath]

pirate1802 wrote...

daecath wrote...
We killed one reaper with a giant hand cannon

That was an AA canon. Not a reaper.

Looked like the same tech to me. Unless they purposefully make their weapons significantly weaker, because why?

pirate1802 wrote...

annother with 2 missiles, another with a laser pointer (and a fleet bombarding it, but still), and another with a giant worm.

The small ones. the truth is, we haven't seen a big reaper killed since sovereign. And those are the real threat; the capital ships.

Actually the fleet killls one in the first few minutes of the final space battle.

pirate1802 wrote...
And when we compare this to the number of ships we're losing.. its not even a fair comparison.

Again, watch the space battle. You only see 3 fighters and potentially one fleet ship destroyed, vs. 2 fighters and one reapers ship destroyed.

pirate1802 wrote...

"What do reapers need with indoctrination?"

Because each reaper is a preserved civilization. So the loss of each reaper means loss of an entire civilization. So it makes sense that they'd try to reduce casualties.

I could be wrong about this, but I thought I remembered somewhere that indoctrinated people couldn't actually be used to build a reaper. I might be making that up, or read it in a fan-fic, or something.

[Batnat]

Even though I´m thankful the Refuse option got put into the game (for whatever reason), I wouldn´t go so far as to call it the Best Choice. The way it is right now, it´s as good/bad as any other choice IMO.

And does it not depend on the kind of Shepard one plays anyway? Maybe I´m too stuck on the RPG part of the game, but I can enjoy say the Control ending with one of my Sheps even though I myself would definitely NOT choose it.

I like smart discussions about the different choices presented, their possible consequences, philosophical meanings etc., and of course have my own opinions, but the extend some people go to to validate their own view as the only one viable is a bit too far I think. 

Anyway, personally I prefer Refuse along with Destroy but I reserve my final judgement on which is the "best" option for me (= my main Shep) until I´ve seen the last ME3 DLC.
I just have a feeling I haven´t been given the whole story yet...at least I hope so, for the sake of my continued enjoyment of the overall trilogy.

[Eclipse merc]

Yeah there really is no reason to believe that what he's saying is true, the tube you shoot might just blow up and kill you and nothing else for all Shepard knows.

[Pitznik]

Eclipse merc wrote...

Yeah there really is no reason to believe that what he's saying is true, the tube you shoot might just blow up and kill you and nothing else for all Shepard knows.

Why explode and take a chance, if you can bleed out without taking it.

[Pitznik]

daecath wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

daecath wrote...
We killed one reaper with a giant hand cannon

That was an AA canon. Not a reaper.

Looked like the same tech to me. Unless they purposefully make their weapons significantly weaker, because why?

Because bigger gun draws more power? Because it is physically bigger and heavier and leaves less capacity for armor and shield generators? Because legs of Destroyer =/= Destroyer?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...


Why shouldnt they try new tricks? Did you got forget about all the things they do? The Citadel trap, the Rachni wars, the Geth heretics, controlling the true Geth, taking control of the zha'til. With your logic they should just fly in everytime and take on the whole galaxy. But it is clear they take every advantage they can get.
Also how did you know that the Crucible is supposed to be helping you? The only thing people know is that releases energy but nobody knows in which form it releases it, nobody knows who created it and it requires the Citadel the heart of every previous Reaper attack. 

They do not have to. They are winning. They are controlling the galaxy.

You know it is supposed to help, you just don't know how. That is what Liara and everyone else is telling you - that every other cycle put their hopes in Crucible.

You know you will lose. You're not goining to take a chance to WIN, no matter how small, just because you are afraid you will lose in disabled ship? You will rather lose less (if it can be even descibed like that) than have a chance to win?

Actually. 

They aren't winning. You're on the crucible standing in the control room of a machine with the power to wipe out the entire reaper fleet. Dismantle the plan of the Catalyst entirely, perhaps even destroy the very galaxy if used improperly.

The Starchild has every single reason to get you to choose the option that retains his solution, and every single reason to lie. But tell me then, what possible reason given these circumstances would the catalyst, even supposing he was winning, have to tell the truth? 

You see, as unlikely most scenarios where we should default to truth unless proven otherwise, the burden of proof with regards to the credibility of a being who has lied not just to the Illusive Man and Saren, who let us remember both began their quest by attempting to stop the Reapers as well but also the entire galaxy thousands of times over, a being that is telling you something that appears to contravene logic, a being that not moments ago you said no one could trust. Tells you that by shooting a machine, jumping to a beam, or controlling them and killing yourself, you will bring about the survival of your cycle.

That is absurd.

Taken.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 30 juillet 2012 - 09:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

daecath wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

The Ending in a Nutshell

In the last ten minutes of the game, we meet the real antagonist, who dismisses the previous antagonist (the Reapers), the one that the other 99.84% if the trilogy was about fighting. Now, instead of fighting and defeating this new contrived antagonist, our protaganist is forced to make a morally ambiguous choice with little explanation and arbitrary consequences, that will fix the antagonist's problem for him (synthetics vs. organics).

Close, but I'll boil it down a bit more.

In the last few minutes, the leader of an enemy that routinely uses lies and manipulation to get what they want (ie. indoctrination) tells you something that makes no sense and is directly contradicted by every experience you've had, and then asks you to commit suicide, claiming something good will happen if you do.

The Reapers don't routinely lie, though. They imply liberal usage of mind control, but their deceit comes from letting other people jump to their own conclusions rather than communicating misinformation.

The Catalyst also doesn't ask you to commit suicide and claim something good will happen if you do: the Catalyst points out that triggering the device you've been trying to trigger will kill you in the process. You die either way, but the the Catalyst isn't activating the device in return for you comitting suicide.

[Thaa_solon]

Why do people trust the catalyst, he's illogical and stupid.

Why do the catalyst even bother to speak with shepard?

Why didn't the catalyst use his superior logic and choose for shepard and dump him there with that stupid elevator.

Why is the catalyst so stupid?

Why doesn't the catalyts, a limitless AI, alterd programming cause the crusible, why doesn't the catalyst end the cycle the way his programming deems best? why shepard?

Why make a choice which result in a illogical decision. Why is shepard stupid?

Why?

[snfonseka]

"shoot a fuel tank at close range" - I always wonder why Shepard gets so close to the tank. He can shoot it from a safe distance. So why getting so close?

[DirtyPhoenix]

daecath wrote...

Looked like the same tech to me. Unless they purposefully make their weapons significantly weaker, because why?

It looked similar because it uses the same chassis (lower portion). That doesnt mean its the same thing. Many ARVs use the same chassis as tanks, that don't make them tanks. It was also mentioned as "Hades canon" instead of Destroyer. Its purpose is to shoot down ships.

Actually the fleet killls one in the first few minutes of the final space battle.

Sorry but that reaper ship merely had its tentacles blown off, and just
two of them. And that was after repeated hits.It still had enough
firepower to blow the offending dreadnought into the next galaxy with a
single shot. Thats not what I'd call destroyed, not even disabled.

Again, watch the space battle. You only see 3 fighters and potentially one fleet ship destroyed, vs. 2 fighters and one reapers ship destroyed.

After Shepard enters the beam, one reaper lands on a ship and crushes it with its bare tentacles, didn't even need to fire its guns. Also the battles above Earth (starting) and Palaven. One lost above earth, zero reaper lost. Atleast two lost over Palaven, no reaper casualty.

The codex says you need 4 dreadnoughts to reduce the shields of a sovereign-class reaper. We simply don't have that many number of ships, if we conside how long the reapers have been reaping. And we can't make more considering our industrial centers are ore or less gone. We can hold out for a short period of time, maybe even win some wars locally, but in the long term we will lose. We simply don't have the numbers.

I could be wrong about this, but I thought I remembered somewhere that indoctrinated people couldn't actually be used to build a reaper. I might be making that up, or read it in a fan-fic, or something.

I have no idea about that But why can't they be used to make reapers? All they need is their genetic goo. Indoctrinating them just means easier times.

[Dean_the_Young]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

They aren't winning. You're on the crucible standing in the control room of a machine with the power to wipe out the entire reaper fleet. Dismantle the plan of the Catalyst entirely, perhaps even destroy the very galaxy if used improperly.

And that's the only course of victory you have available, because they're winning the conventional war. Which really should have been obvious from his context.

The Starchild has every single reason to get you to choose the option that retains his solution, and every single reason to lie. But tell me then, what possible reason given these circumstances would the catalyst, even supposing he was winning, have to tell the truth?

A big giant anal probe called 'the Crucible' which is interfaced with the Citadel.

Also, ideology, variable change, and long-term planning.

You see, as unlikely most scenarios where we should default to truth unless proven otherwise, the burden of proof with regards to the credibility of a being who has lied not just to the Illusive Man and Saren, who let us remember both began their quest by attempting to stop the Reapers as well but also the entire galaxy thousands of times over, a being that is telling you something that appears to contravene logic, a being that not moments ago you said no one could trust. Tells you that by keeping the Reapers alive but killing yourself, you will bring about the survival of your cycle.

That is absurd.

Whether the Catalyst is deceitful is actually irrelevant to whether the Refusal choice is desirable, because Refusal is never going to produce superior results to the Crucible options: it is always a less than/equal to option.

The 'best' you can hope for is that the Catalyst is lying, at which point all the options are equivalent. If the Crucible doesn't work, then the galaxy still goes down fighting like it would in the Refusal ending.

If the Catalyst isn't lying, however, Refusal is worse because not only does it throw away victory in this cycle, but it offers the Reapers a chance to undo the Prothean sabotage and upgrade their trap for all future cycles.

[flanny]

i agree, I mean I still find it odd that the crucible wasn't a trap in the first. to obey the reaper overlord after spending three games fighting him and even being killed by him is just stupid

[Dean_the_Young]

pirate1802 wrote...

I have no idea about that

It's not in the games, at least.

But why can't they be used to make reapers? All they need is their genetic goo. Indoctrinating them just means easier times.

There seems to be a mental component as well, given that the Reapers use living people for their Reaper goo and either discard or use dead bodies for husks. If viable people need to have a good body and a good mind, it wouldn't be unreasonable for indoctrination to invalidate someone.