467 réponses à ce sujet

[Batnat]

snfonseka wrote...

"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?

For visual purposes. Shepard starting slowly and getting more and more heroically (moronically) determined with every step. Nothing´s going to stop Commander Shepard...too bad the catwalk was too short...

[Dean_the_Young]

flanny wrote...

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

You aren't obeying him if you do it for your own reasons, and two of the three options it describes to you end with the Catalyst's death: either outright destruction, or replaced by the Shepard-Catalyst.

[Pitznik]

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.

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.

Catalyst informs you about your options, than disappears. If his goal was to prevent you from proper using of the Crucible, he didn't put much effort in it. He is not forcing you to make a choice. In fact, he could just leave you down there next to Anderson and proceed to win the war. He's not standing over your shoulder nagging, he also did no harm to you. He is either willing to cooperate or forced to cooperate.

If Catalyst's goal was talking you into Synthesis through lies and deception, why he would even inform you about destroy being possible? Why he would even tell you that you die in Syntheiss, if he is so much pushing it? He has no reason to lie, because he is the master of the situation. Even if he does lie, you might as well do what he says, you got nothing better left. While you may not trust Catalyst, you should have at least some faith in the Crucible.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

1- I know it is, and by using that weapon, I have the bigger advantage and all the reason to believe I'm going to win this war, so is it so unlogical to think my enemy will decieve me?

2-Standing there bleeding out, Shepard has no reason to believe anything that his enemy tells him, the same enemy which lead Saren and TIM, two people who wanted the best for the galaxy, and turn them into indoctrinated puppet. That's the problem with anything that the Catalyst says, is inconvenient because hes your enemy.

3-Actually no, If you honestly believe that the Catalyst is lying to you at the moment, it does make the refusal more desirable, because you already believe that the catalyst is trying to trick you, so you cross out using the crucible in your mind and then refusal becomes the best chance for survival.

[fchopin]

Let me see, Shepard is a soldier who has been trained to fight and you expect him to do nothing and just stand like an idiot and see everyone die.

The first mistake you make is that we are the builders of the crucible and we want to use it as it’s our last chance, so you expect Shepard to go round the universe and get all the help he can to build the crucible and at the same time expect some surprises on the way as we are not sure what it does or how to use it.

After all this trouble in building the crucible and getting most of the races to join you you expect Shepard to say i am not playing the game anymore, i don’t like it so i will do nothing and let everyone die.

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
3-Actually no, If you honestly believe that the Catalyst is lying to you at the moment, it does make the refusal more desirable, because you already believe that the catalyst is trying to trick you, so you cross out using the crucible in your mind and then refusal becomes the best chance for survival.

How is 0% the best chance? You either accept what is said to you in game, or not. It is said that REAPERS CAN'T BE DEFEATED CONVENTIONALLY AND WE ARE DESTINED TO LOSE WITHOUT A MIRACLE. If you disagree with that statement (even if it was said explicitly multiple times by codex, by every military person in the game, by everyone and everything really), then maybe refusal is indeed a best option for you, but we have no ground for discussion because I go with what is said in game, and you go by headcanon.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

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.

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.

Catalyst informs you about your options, than disappears. If his goal was to prevent you from proper using of the Crucible, he didn't put much effort in it. He is not forcing you to make a choice. In fact, he could just leave you down there next to Anderson and proceed to win the war. He's not standing over your shoulder nagging, he also did no harm to you. He is either willing to cooperate or forced to cooperate.

That's assuming that he brought you up, or that it wasn't hes programming that forces him to bring you up, or maybe he want's a solution that the crucible provides because he sees he's solution won't work for much longer

If Catalyst's goal was talking you into Synthesis through lies and deception, why he would even inform you about destroy being possible? Why he would even tell you that you die in Syntheiss, if he is so much pushing it? He has no reason to lie, because he is the master of the situation. Even if he does lie, you might as well do what he says, you got nothing better left. While you may not trust Catalyst, you should have at least some faith in the Crucible.

 It can be as simple as because he can say, go over there and shoot that tube (which in itself, sound ridiculous, you can even argue this makes it more suspiscious) and it will destroy the reapers, when it actually kills organics. Again, if you honestly think the Catalyst is lying, refusal becomes the more ovbious choice.

[PumpedUpKicks11]

For me, one quick conversation didn't change me. My mission was to destroy the Reapers. That was my assignment from Hackett. So I did.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
3-Actually no, If you honestly believe that the Catalyst is lying to you at the moment, it does make the refusal more desirable, because you already believe that the catalyst is trying to trick you, so you cross out using the crucible in your mind and then refusal becomes the best chance for survival.

How is 0% the best chance? You either accept what is said to you in game, or not. It is said that REAPERS CAN'T BE DEFEATED CONVENTIONALLY AND WE ARE DESTINED TO LOSE WITHOUT A MIRACLE. If you disagree with that statement (even if it was said explicitly multiple times by codex, by every military person in the game, by everyone and everything really), then maybe refusal is indeed a best option for you, but we have no ground for discussion because I go with what is said in game, and you go by headcanon.

Actually no, there are many things in the Codex that tell me that kinda supports that Reapers can be defeated conventionally. And you keep bringing up the 0% chance, but what if that's how you feel about the catalyst, then once more I will state, Refusal becomes the most desirable option.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 30 juillet 2012 - 10:23 .

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Actually no, there are many things in the Codex that tell me that kinda supports that Reapers can be defeated conventionally.

Denial of the obvious -> further discussion pointless. We can't reach any sort of agreement, because we are apparently talking about two different games, that by some mistake both were called ME3.

Modifié par Pitznik, 30 juillet 2012 - 10:26 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Actually no, there are many things in the Codex that tell me that kinda supports that Reapers can be defeated conventionally.

Denial of the obvious -> further discussion pointless. We can't reach any sort of agreement, because we are apparently talking about two different games, that by some mistake both were called ME3.

Would you like them to link it for you? It shows their might be a tiny 1-2% chance, so please, stop trying to deny it, and if you really want me too, I will. And I like how ignore everything else I wrote, and just dismissed the argument because there's no point, that shows a lot of deniance in your part. 

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Actually no, there are many things in the Codex that tell me that kinda supports that Reapers can be defeated conventionally.

Denial of the obvious -> further discussion pointless. We can't reach any sort of agreement, because we are apparently talking about two different games, that by some mistake both were called ME3.

Would you like them to link it for you? It shows their might be a tiny 1-2% chance, so please, stop trying to deny it, and if you really want me too, I will. And I like how ignore everything else I wrote, and just dismissed the argument because there's no point, that shows a lot of deniance in your part. 

We simply can't discuss interpretations of facts, if we have different idea on what facts are.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Actually no, there are many things in the Codex that tell me that kinda supports that Reapers can be defeated conventionally.

Denial of the obvious -> further discussion pointless. We can't reach any sort of agreement, because we are apparently talking about two different games, that by some mistake both were called ME3.

Would you like them to link it for you? It shows their might be a tiny 1-2% chance, so please, stop trying to deny it, and if you really want me too, I will. And I like how ignore everything else I wrote, and just dismissed the argument because there's no point, that shows a lot of deniance in your part. 

We simply can't discuss interpretations of facts, if we have different idea on what facts are.

We can, I have good reason to believe what I do, and just because it doesn't fit you, you want to dismiss it.

[Kreid]

So, in case of doubt just give up and doom everyone.

Nope.

[flanny]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

flanny wrote...

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

You aren't obeying him if you do it for your own reasons, and two of the three options it describes to you end with the Catalyst's death: either outright destruction, or replaced by the Shepard-Catalyst.

your still obeying the reaper overlord, they are 'it's' options given to you by it, you have no role here. think about return of the jedi, luke wanted to defeat vader but when he realises this is part of the emperors plans, he knows it is the wrong thing to do. Even if you wanting to do one of the three options you know you are only doing it becasue the catalyst wants you to.

Modifié par flanny, 30 juillet 2012 - 10:48 .

[Asharad Hett]

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).

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

+1

[Galbrant]

You damn right Refusal is the best choice, The Catalyst is just trying to use its space voodoo to trick Shepard to kill himself/herself. I seen him at it.

[tholloway93]

we've always trusted AI's though so why not this one lol, Vigil, the prothean AI

[Galbrant]

tholloway93 wrote...

we've always trusted AI's though so why not this one lol, Vigil, the prothean AI

... because unlike Vigil it wasn't using circuilar logic, claiming to be the Reapers creator, and asks to save the freaking galaxy by snuffing yourself out.

[flanny]

tholloway93 wrote...

we've always trusted AI's though so why not this one lol, Vigil, the prothean AI

maybe because we didn't spend three games fighting Vigil, having our friends killed my Vigil and in fact being killed by vigil.

also i think vigil was VI

[DirtyPhoenix]

Creid-X wrote...

So, in case of doubt just deliver a pretty speech, give up and doom everyone.

Nope.

Fixed. xD

[The Eruptionist]

flanny wrote...

tholloway93 wrote...

we've always trusted AI's though so why not this one lol, Vigil, the prothean AI

maybe because we didn't spend three games fighting Vigil, having our friends killed my Vigil and in fact being killed by vigil.

also i think vigil was VI

But you trusted the Illusive Man in ME2 did you not? He was part of an organization that was established as violent and sadistic. TIM even proves to you that he has no problems with lying to you when he sends you to the 'disabled Collector vessel'. TIM then sends Shepard on a suicide mission when there are numerous and legitimate reasons not to believe a word he is saying. Does this sound familiar at all?

Shepard trusted TIM as a form of faith based on necessity. Shepard must trust the Catalyst as a form of faith also based on necessity. If you don't think you can trust a word the Catalyst says then you should have stopped playing ME2 within the first 10 minutes. 

[v TricKy v]

First for all people claiming that is impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally I will quote this Codex entry
"Although clearly technologically superior to the Citadel forces, the Reapers have experienced casualties in the battles across the galaxy. This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."
So stop painting them as "invincible and impossible to defeat".

Also I fail to see how refusing is equal with taking the risk using it. If we keep fighting we take a lot of them with us. If the Crucible is actually a giant EMP Shepard just disabled every Ship and weapon we have and the only thing we can do is drop dead. I dont see how that is equal

[flanny]

The Eruptionist wrote...

flanny wrote...

tholloway93 wrote...

we've always trusted AI's though so why not this one lol, Vigil, the prothean AI

maybe because we didn't spend three games fighting Vigil, having our friends killed my Vigil and in fact being killed by vigil.

also i think vigil was VI

But you trusted the Illusive Man in ME2 did you not? He was part of an organization that was established as violent and sadistic. TIM even proves to you that he has no problems with lying to you when he sends you to the 'disabled Collector vessel'. TIM then sends Shepard on a suicide mission when there are numerous and legitimate reasons not to believe a word he is saying. Does this sound familiar at all?

Shepard trusted TIM as a form of faith based on necessity. Shepard must trust the Catalyst as a form of faith also based on necessity. If you don't think you can trust a word the Catalyst says then you should have stopped playing ME2 within the first 10 minutes. 

what are talking about? comparing TIM to the catalyst is ridiculous, in ME2 you know TIM a morally grey character willing to do what ever it takes to stop the reapers, very relatable to my own shepard, also there is the fact he you know brought you back to life and gave you a ship. the catalyst on the other hand admitted to being the reaper overlord, the guy responsible for the death of more people then we can imagine, including shepards friends and himself. Also you get the option to question TIM

[iamweaver]

v TricKy v wrote...

First for all people claiming that is impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally I will quote this Codex entry
"Although clearly technologically superior to the Citadel forces, the Reapers have experienced casualties in the battles across the galaxy. This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."
So stop painting them as "invincible and impossible to defeat".

Also I fail to see how refusing is equal with taking the risk using it. If we keep fighting we take a lot of them with us. If the Crucible is actually a giant EMP Shepard just disabled every Ship and weapon we have and the only thing we can do is drop dead. I dont see how that is equal

This is the only type of argument that makes sense in support of the "refuse" option.   You have to come up with a scenario where "refuse" is superior enough to the offered options that it's worth taking.

On every world with an advanced civ but Krogan, the Reapers have either won, or (on Palevan) are winning.  So whatever you do, it's going to be with the ships that you have, as the industrial base that was used to create the Crucible is now gone.

Hackett has told us that his two fleets should be enough to punch through the enemy lines and protect the Crucible for a short time.  That's not the same thing as being even vaguely equal in terms of firepower.  On a side note, this part of the story has one of the standard, huge plot holes of Sci-Fi space opera.  You can't really "protect" an object in space unless you shield it somehow.  Your enemies can just shoot past you and hit the object.  But I digress.

Trying to count coup in a cutscene isn't helpful.  Trying to count ship battles close to the protected Crucible isn't helpful, as that only shows you the temporary local space dominance expected by Hackett.  And unfortunately for the current galactic civilizations, you handily brought all of your ships with you, so that the Reapers will be able to clean you up in one sweep, instead of breaking into tactically useful but small guerilla groups to maximize your damage before you all die.

But you can say, "Well, all of my civilization will die, but at least I might make it easier the next go around".  And the ending supports this as a possibility (though just using canon, we don't actually know if the next cycle succeeds, only that they have the same chance that we did).

The endings also support the other options - but that's metagaming.

But ultimately, what finding logical reasons to support "refuse" shows is that Bioware made a really, really stupid mistake by having an untrusted source offer choices.