80611 réponses à ce sujet

[401 Kill]

SwobyJ wrote...

If its in Shepard's mind, its not a Reaper game. It's the Reapers having to play YOUR game, because you're SO resiliant that they actually have to appear as a small child in order to even begin to break down your/Shepard's resiliance.

If it was up to, say, Harbinger, Destroy wouldn't even be an option.

Great point.

[JMDekker2]

masster blaster wrote...

JMDekker2 wrote...

Succumbing to indoctrination = Synthesis (the paragon way), or Control (Renegade)
Overcoming Indoctrination = Refuse (Paragon), Destroy (Renegade)

Putting it very simply. The star brat is catering to both types of players, and refuse was only added so that exclusively paragon minded players would have an option to overcome indoctrination. That's a very simple take on it anyway.

IF they add a breath scene to refuse, yes, if not then no.

I think a breath scene would have been to obvious. Instead you get a rather bleak "everyone you know dies" ending. I'm not sure what to make of that, only that it sets it apart from the other endings. All the other endings are made to look like a victory. Man I need to gather my thoughts before I start writing replies. Anyway, the way I see it, control and synthesis are only painted as being good as the reapers require Shepard's continued and full support of each choice, whereas in refuse, they show him the complete opposite to what he intended when he picked refuse. He thought he could fight on his own terms, they immediately "demonstrate" that he can't. This seems like a desperate attempt to undermine his determination. As for the lack of a breath scene, my only explanation is that it would have lacked subtlety. Think that made sense, will check back here in a few hours, though at the rate of this thread I'll probably be way behind by then. Have fun guys 

[titusrsoooooo1337]

JMDekker2 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

JMDekker2 wrote...

Succumbing to indoctrination = Synthesis (the paragon way), or Control (Renegade)
Overcoming Indoctrination = Refuse (Paragon), Destroy (Renegade)

Putting it very simply. The star brat is catering to both types of players, and refuse was only added so that exclusively paragon minded players would have an option to overcome indoctrination. That's a very simple take on it anyway.

IF they add a breath scene to refuse, yes, if not then no.

I think a breath scene would have been to obvious. Instead you get a rather bleak "everyone you know dies" ending. I'm not sure what to make of that, only that it sets it apart from the other endings. All the other endings are made to look like a victory. Man I need to gather my thoughts before I start writing replies. Anyway, the way I see it, control and synthesis are only painted as being good as the reapers require Shepard's continued and full support of each choice, whereas in refuse, they show him the complete opposite to what he intended when he picked refuse. He thought he could fight on his own terms, they immediately "demonstrate" that he can't. This seems like a desperate attempt to undermine his determination. As for the lack of a breath scene, my only explanation is that it would have lacked subtlety. Think that made sense, will check back here in a few hours, though at the rate of this thread I'll probably be way behind by then. Have fun guys 

I actually found the refuse ending to be shepard's mind shutting down. What's taking place in his mind must no-doubt be a lot to handle, which the options of having extreme determination to destroy the reapers or synthesize/control them giving him the only ways out, whether or not that be as a now-indoctrinated individual. Refusing any option almost seems like shepard has no determination, and therefore secumbs not to indoctrination, but to a "coma" or something. In which case, the scene of liara's time capsule would be in reality, as shepard died and the cycle continued. Just how I saw it.

[Jadebaby]

byne wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

byne wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

byne wrote...
Last I checked, Casey Hudson described ME3's theme as victory through sacrifice.

Last time I checked, ME themes went out the window with the ending (literal)

True enough.

But it's not just the Geth, it's ALLL Synthetics...

So, the geth + EDI+ Shepard.

fixed

No. My first version was correct. Shepard is not a synthetic.

Sorry to dig this up again, I was playing EP5 of the Walking Dead. Amazing game, truly amazing, I recommend it!

Shepard is partly synthetic, this the Catalyst is not lying about. (Unless of course, you never played Mass Effect 2) you should know this.

And not just Geth + EDI + Shepard. But plus the Virtual Aliens and every.single.other seperate synthetic entity.

[byne]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Sorry to dig this up again, I was playing EP5 of the Walking Dead. Amazing game, truly amazing, I recommend it!

Shepard is partly synthetic, this the Catalyst is not lying about. (Unless of course, you never played Mass Effect 2) you should know this.

And not just Geth + EDI + Shepard. But plus the Virtual Aliens and every.single.other seperate synthetic entity.

Well, I just dont see Shepard as being enough synthetic to count as a synthetic, and apparently neither does the Crucible.

I forgot about the virtual aliens, but other than them, EDI, and the geth, what other synthetics are there?

[DoomsdayDevice]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

byne wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

byne wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

byne wrote...
Last I checked, Casey Hudson described ME3's theme as victory through sacrifice.

Last time I checked, ME themes went out the window with the ending (literal)

True enough.

But it's not just the Geth, it's ALLL Synthetics...

So, the geth + EDI+ Shepard.

fixed

No. My first version was correct. Shepard is not a synthetic.

Sorry to dig this up again, I was playing EP5 of the Walking Dead. Amazing game, truly amazing, I recommend it!

Shepard is partly synthetic, this the Catalyst is not lying about. (Unless of course, you never played Mass Effect 2) you should know this.

And not just Geth + EDI + Shepard. But plus the Virtual Aliens and every.single.other seperate synthetic entity.

Only if you believe Starbinger.

Riddle me this:

If the crucible does not discriminate, why do you only control Reapers in control, and not all synthetics?

[DoomsdayDevice]

The game is full of references to having to make hard choices and sacrifices.

Even a paragon Shepard should be prepared to make sacrifices in extreme cases.

I don't agree with the whole notion that refuse is the paragon way to resist indoctrination.

You think you resist, but you don't. You stopped wanting to destroy the Reapers because you believed the "catalyst" that it would kill all synthetics.

You say you did everything you could, except you didn't. You refused to do anything.

Shepard: If you had saved them all, would things have worked out better?
Vega: I... I don't know. I don't think so.
Shepard: The right choice is usually not the easy one.

Garrus: "If just one survivor is left standing at the end of the war, then the fight was worth it. But humans want to save everyone. In this war, that's not going to happen."

Shiala: (on Benezia) "She always sought the paths of peace and harmony. She joined with Saren because she hoped to turn him away from his path of destruction."

Shepard: "It's hard enough you're fighting a war, but it's even worse knowing that no matter how hard you try, you can't save them all."

(And then there's the one where you have the discussion about ruthless calculus with Garrus, and if you say you want to save as many as possible, he says: "A nice sentiment. Let's hope we will be able to live by it.")

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:29 .

[Jadebaby]

byne wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Sorry to dig this up again, I was playing EP5 of the Walking Dead. Amazing game, truly amazing, I recommend it!

Shepard is partly synthetic, this the Catalyst is not lying about. (Unless of course, you never played Mass Effect 2) you should know this.

And not just Geth + EDI + Shepard. But plus the Virtual Aliens and every.single.other seperate synthetic entity.

Well, I just dont see Shepard as being enough synthetic to count as a synthetic, and apparently neither does the Crucible.

I forgot about the virtual aliens, but other than them, EDI, and the geth, what other synthetics are there?

they're not saying that Shepard is synthetic... *partly* is the key word in the OP. Which you cannot deny she/he is. Because it's fact. Not even a matter for debate. This doesn't mean their mind is partly synthetic. But their body is.

As for other synthetics. Just because we don't know every.single.synthetic in the entire Milky Way galaxy doesn't mean they don't exist. We didn't know what a Vorcha was until ME2, but did they exist in ME1? Of course, we just didn't see them.

In the same way we encountered the rogue A.I on the citadel in ME1, and the 'peaceful' Geth in ME2, just because we don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

@Doomsday, I'm only speculating on what we do know, not what we don't. That goes for Byne to, because we just don't know (that there aren't other synthetics out there.)

[titusrsoooooo1337]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

The game is full of references to having to make hard choices and sacrifices.

Even a paragon Shepard should be prepared to make sacrifices in extreme cases.

I don't agree with the whole notion that refuse is the paragon way to resist indoctrination.

You think you resist, but you don't. You stopped wanting to destroy the Reapers because you believed the "catalyst" that it would kill all synthetics.

You say you did everything you could, except you didn't. You refused to do anything.

Shepard: If you had saved them all, would things have worked out better?
Vega: I... I don't know. I don't think so.
Shepard: The right choice is usually not the easy one.

Garrus: "If just one survivor is left standing at the end of the war, then the fight was worth it. But humans want to save everyone. In this war, that's not going to happen."

Shiala: (on Benezia) "She always sought the paths of peace and harmony. She joined with Saren because she hoped to turn him away from his path of destruction."

Shepard: "It's hard enough you're fighting a war, but it's even worse knowing that no matter how hard you try, you can't save them all."

(And then there's the one where you have the discussion about ruthless calculus with Garrus, and if you say you want to save as many as possible, he says: "A nice sentiment. Let's hope we will be able to live by it.")

Exactly my thoughts. As I said, I see refuse as you being unable to take the pressure of making sacrifices, which shows a weak-willed mind, and inevitably keeps shepard from ever recovering from his in-mind indoctrination experience. Refuse is simply shepard breaking down in the heat of all the pressure he is taking of how much he's willing to give up to acheive victory.

[Salient Archer]

The most controversial thing to ever happen in the Mass Effect universe... yes that's correct; more controversial than the refuse option that everyone is still debating over after all this time... what is it you may ask?

BSN and longtime Indoctrination theorists Salient Archer and Starbuck8 are now an item!

So if anyone had been wondering why we were so quiet of late; it's because we've been "busy" doing other things.

[byne]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

As for other synthetics. Just because we don't know every.single.synthetic in the entire Milky Way galaxy doesn't mean they don't exist. We didn't know what a Vorcha was until ME2, but did they exist in ME1? Of course, we just didn't see them.

In the same way we encountered the rogue A.I on the citadel in ME1, and the 'peaceful' Geth in ME2, just because we don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I guess the thing is, that despite my Shepard always sticking up for synthetics across all three games, I'm ok with sacrificing them if it gets rid of the Reapers.

[DoomsdayDevice]

SwobyJ wrote...

Oh and if the Destroy option is shooting the tube, you're actually 'breaking' the Crucible (even in the literal ending sense).

Yes, that's why you shoot it. You don't activate it, you blow the damn thing up.

We built it, but we don't know what it does, which symbolizes we are not ready to use it. By building it, we followed the path others have laid out before us. (Probably the Reapers). By using it, we doom ourselves. We achieve the Reapers' future, not our own. By blowing up the crucible, we achieve our own future by rejecting Reaper technology. I think that's also why the relays were destroyed in the original ending.

SwobyJ wrote...

That would mean the original purpose of the Crucible was either to control or merge with the Reapers. LOL.

No, the crucible doesn't have those functions at all. That's the catalyst presenting you the options in your head. The destroy option is there because it's a defense mechanism of Shepard's brain. It symbolizes that Shepard struggles, and that (s)he reacts violently to the attempt to control him.

Unless you believe in Deception Theory, I guess.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:40 .

[byne]

Salient Archer wrote...

The most controversial thing to ever happen in the Mass Effect universe... yes that's correct; more controversial than the refuse option that everyone is still debating over after all this time... what is it you may ask?

BSN and longtime Indoctrination theorists Salient Archer and Starbuck8 are now an item!

So if anyone had been wondering why we were so quiet of late; it's because we've been "busy" doing other things.

Well congratulations to you two!

[HAWKNUTS007]

 

STARBINGER WILL BE PUT TO JUSTICE!!!

[DoomsdayDevice]

SwobyJ wrote...

I know. I'm going by the Catalyst and the scenario's 'logic', haha.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Jadebaby]

byne wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

As for other synthetics. Just because we don't know every.single.synthetic in the entire Milky Way galaxy doesn't mean they don't exist. We didn't know what a Vorcha was until ME2, but did they exist in ME1? Of course, we just didn't see them.

In the same way we encountered the rogue A.I on the citadel in ME1, and the 'peaceful' Geth in ME2, just because we don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I guess the thing is, that despite my Shepard always sticking up for synthetics across all three games, I'm ok with sacrificing them if it gets rid of the Reapers.

Well that's where we're different, If it was just the Geth? Or just the Geth and EDI? I'd be okay with that...

But ALL synthetic life? No...

that's not like commiting genocide on Asian people, or African people, or English people. It's like commiting genocide on all humans.

It's not like commiting genocide on ants, or grass hoppers. It's commiting genocide on all insects.

No way. And if this cycle is soo different from any other cycle, then maybe we'd already established peace with synthetics (ala Rannoch and EDI). So wiping all that out would just reset the possiblity of it all restarting..

[Leonia]

Well it's not like committing genocide is a new thing for Shepard..

And there's nothing that says synthetics couldn't be rebuilt and "live" again at some point in the future afterwards.

Modifié par leonia42, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:44 .