80611 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

If the transmission is fake, then why does Hackett not question the follow-up to the Mars mission? Don't buy it. Don't buy the Glyph is evil nonsense either. Not everything in the game has to be boiled down to "because indoctrination" or "because Reapers".

The Reapers could have messed with the transmission that Hackett told Shepard, and to show us that something was off with Hackett, they put his scar on the other side. And why don't you see Glyph as evil?


edit: Banshee, and Estebauns i win.

Modifié par masster blaster, 21 août 2012 - 09:11 .

[demersel]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

If the transmission is fake, then why does Hackett not question the follow-up to the Mars mission? Don't buy it. Don't buy the Glyph is evil nonsense either. Not everything in the game has to be boiled down to "because indoctrination" or "because Reapers".

GLYPH is the same colour as the catalyst. THe only two instances we see this colour use in regards of a tech. Also panels from shodowbrokers ship are there, before the catalyst chamber. also the only two instances we see this used. 

[ebuchala]

demersel wrote...

That's the thing - we don't know that destroy does what the catalyst says it does!   
But that is not important really, cause there is nothing we can do about it yet. 

About refuse. I disagree that it is the best option, since you're telling the reapers that you don't accept their logic or their solution. 
In refuse you're telling reapers just that you don't accept their solution, however you do accept the premise! You do accept that everything that is there and everything that you're told is true, and you don't like given options. You accept that there is a logic to argue with. You even give a speach.

think about it this way. You want to kill a wolf, that's killed your child. You come to his cave, find him but then he speaks! He says - You can kill me if you want, but this will not change anything, since there will be other wolves, and other chilren killed by it. Also if you kill me some of you're best friends will also die, cause, you know, karma, and i'm also magical this way! But there are other options! You can tame me! And them you'll have a pet talking wolf, that is also magical, but in this scenario i will eat you first. Or! Since i'm magical, and stuff i can make everyone be part-wolf, and so no-more child killing! For the spell to work I'm afraid i'll have to eat you, so i can then combine your spirit and essence with mine and spread to everyone. 

And you go - No! I refuse to make that choice! Someday, someone will figure out the way to beat your logic! 
The wolf - Okey-dokye (eats you)

My point is - you came there to kill a monster. By choosing anything than killing a monster, you lose. (because you failed to kill a monster!!!)

Except that, again, you don't know that Destroy will actually destroy the reapers. There's a huge difference between tracking down a wolf with a gun and shooting it and the scenario we're faced with at the end of ME3. When you take that gun with you to the wolf's cave, you KNOW it's going to kill the wolf, regardless of the creature's verbal skills. When you show up on the Citadel with the Crucible, a machine that you admittedly know almost nothing about including what it actually does, and find yourself confronted with the supposed controller of all the reapers who then feeds you a line of bull****, you don't KNOW that choosing the Destroy option will actually destroy the monster in the same way you know that gun will work on the wolf.

Maybe I misunderstand IT but I thought the idea was that the whole scene with the starbrat isn't happening for reals--just in Shepard's mind (even if Shep is wandering around hallucination and performing actions based on the hallucination). Which means, that the choice you make isn't going to actually kill the monster, control the monster or merge the monster and everyone else into a verdant Utopia. It's simply going to break the hold the reapers have over you and defeat indoctrination or lead you to full indoctrination. So, as long as you defeat indoctrination, you really are destroying the monster.

I don't think refuse can be discounted as easily as you do. I don't actually remember Shepard's refusal speech that well but I don't think the culmination was that someday someone would figure out how to defeat the reaper's logic. The final statement was along the lines of "I will find another way to defeat the reapers that doesn't involve you." I can see how that might lead you to think that Shep is arguing against the starbrat's options but I choose to see it as Shepard completely rejecting the Catalyst/Crucible as a viable option because he suspects it's a reaper trap rather than a final solution.

Which still leaves me up in the air over whether Destroy or Reject is the best option or if they're just two sides of the same coin.

[masster blaster]

demersel wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Okay guys I know already we have talked about this, but i want to shed some light on the Cerberus, Rachni and Geth plot to the Reapers. You see the Reapers know how to fight a war because they have been doing this for countless cycles, but people need to understand why the Geth, Rachni, and Cerberus were fighting for the Reapers.

it starts like this. Harbinger leads the attack on Earth for four reasons.

1. To hurt Shepard's will to fight,
2.So that Humanity can let them create more of them, once they are done harvesting all 11, or so billion humans on Earth.
3 If the Reapers attacked the Citadel, then Humanity would step in and gather everyone to the galaxy, and do more damage than the Reapers can recover from.
4. To plant the seeds of indoctrination, to Shepard/ the player, and maybe Anderson.

Okay now we get into Mars. Cerberus so happened to be there when Shepard arrives, but the weird part is that when we find out the all of Cerberus's troops have been turned into a husk, like in Evolution.

Any ways when we get to meet TIM, he want's the data for his own gain, yet the Reapers are telling TIM what to do, so why is it that the Reapers want TIM to download the Crucible, and not destroy all records of the Crucible, by Destroying the Prothean archives.

Okay later on in the game, we learn that the Reapers are fighting all the ADVANCED races on all fronts, yet even thought they are hard to kill, they know that they can't be every where at once, and find out what the Galaxy's army's/ resistance is planing. So They finish indoctrinating TIM, and build his/ the Reapers private army, to cripple the galaxy's defenses, and gather humans for harvesting for the Reapers.

1. Cerberus try's to take over the Citadel, without alerting the fleets/ everyone on what has happen on the Citadel, and will close the relays, so that the Reapers can now fight there battle grounds again.
2.Cerberus activates the boom on the krogans home world, that would have brought a huge blow to the krogan, the galaxy's forces, and Shepard's assets.
3. Sanctuary, where Cerberus, not only makes more Reaper ground forces, to serve the reapers, that's right I say the Reapers are controlling the TIM made Reaper forces, and to trick Shepard into Controlling the reapers is possible.
4.Cerberus targeting secret bases, that could help in the war against the Reapers.

Now for the Geth, aw the Geth, they have an important rule in for the reapers too.
You see the Reapers see the Quarians as a threat against the Reapers because of their vast fleet's, so when the reapers learned that the Geth needed help. That's when the Reapers started to help the Geth, but for their own gain,

1. If the Geth Destroy the Quarian fleet's, then the reapers can focus their efforts on Shepard, and the rest of the galaxy.
2.Once the Geth finish off the Quarians, they will us the Geth to help them in the fight with the Galaxy/ Shepard.

Now for the Rachni, they have been forced to help the reapers with their plans, for god know how long. The Rachni wanted to live in peace, but the Reapers didn't think about what they wanted. So they used the Queens songs, and turned the workers into there own private army.

1. If the Reapers have a Rachni on their side, then it will cause the galaxy, to relive the Rachni wars again, and the krogan would be occupied fighting the Rachni again, if they help the galaxy/Shepard.
2.The Rachni can be used as heavy support, and can cause untold chaos.

Now the Reapers forces , are the bulk of the horde of their army. You see while the Reapers use their army's to fight on the front lines, they are actually getting the attention of the races of the galaxy, but it's a diversion.

Like I said up top, the Reapers have more forces than people realize, and why this all happened again.

Reapers= main army

Cerberus=Private army, Harvest collectors, and tools for the Reapers.

The Geth= strike teams, tactical diversions, and provide fleet's and troops, and tools for the Reapers

The Rachni= Cause panic across the galaxy, Provide a supply line of troops for the Reapers, and can get the Krogans attention while the Reapers hit Tuchanka.

The Collectors= Spec Ops teams for the Reapers, Gathers, and take out small Colony's for the Reapers, so that they can set up a base of operations for the Reapers, to plan, and Harvest.

indoctrinated sleeper agents= spies for the Reapers, can tell troops, and people what to do, which leads to surrendering to the Reapers, and feeling like there should be peace between them.

Now I know this has nothing to do with IT, but in some details it get's ride pf bad writing, and helps us understand why the Reapers need ground forces, and others to help them.

You forgot to mention that they started with batarians - the most secluded and isolated and secretive race in tha galaxy, so they could prepare the bulk of their strike force. 
Also as they chose humanity for the leading speacies in this cycle (me2 - human reaper etc) - that makes sense that cerberus is the new collectors - that is exactly the thing i was afraid would happen after the end of ME2 and that is why i destroyed the collector base. Also that would explain all the ME2 plot and the shodow broker deal - In mass effect 2 they checked their inventory and decided it was time to have some new toys - so they replaced the shadow broker (maybe yahgs are immnune to indoctrination to some degree) and they also replaced their minions with the new and more able ones (cerberus - i.e. Humans) - and the best thing - you actually help them most of the way. )) Also your death and rebirth in ME2 may also be planned by the reapers - to turn the champion of humanity into a tool of the reapers. (slowly, also they might just be ably to hold a grudge, and have very sadistic sense of humor, while having infinite patience. )  How is exactly you were brought back to life? With reaper tech that cerberus found and decided to test (at lest to some degree the idea of that technology must have been suggested by something found in reaper tech  - in the first game cerberus was known only for finding some tech, or plant, or life form and fusing it with a human to see what happens, and the other thing they were know for - in 100% case they f%ck up, lose control, and everyone involved dies. Or get's killed by you. that tradition continues in ME2 overlord - the project we know was later used by reapers to control the geth directly, after their virus attempt was voiled by you in ME2)   so my theory, after me1 - reapers revise their strategy, and devise a new plan, incorporating humans in it. in between me1 and me2 they start to slowly infuence cerberus, so they would eventually replace the collectors, and by the end of me2 they have cerberus under control (when illusive man tells you to keep the base). in the arrival they also get a cart blanche at Shepard. And also decide to go slowly so they can use shepard as a banner to unite the galaxy around, so they are all in one spot. By this time they also start to influence liara as the new shadow broker (it is not important that it is liara, what is important, that it is a new shadow broker) and thus by the start of me3 they control cerberus, they control rachni again, they control the geth, they control the shodow broker, they control Shepard, and god knows how many others. So , when all their peaces are in place - they come in force TA DAM TAM WE"RE BIG DUMB KILLING MACHINES WHO MAKE LOUD NOISES BEFORE WE SHOOT HA_HA_HA style. 

Yes people think the Reapers are stupid, but they are ont. You can argue that they are ( I know I do), yet if this was their plan, including IT, then it's pure awsome.

[estebanus]

masster blaster wrote...

estebanus wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

FFZero wrote...

Okay I’ve just got back from the Community Party, had a great time and Chris and Jessica are absolutely lovely people, however on the IT front...things don’t sound good depending on your outlook/interpretation of IT.

Jessica pretty much said the endings we have are 100% final and if we think anything will be added to the endings after the final choice then we have misunderstood things. She equated the ending of ME3 to Schrödinger's cat, it can be IT or it can be literal, neither is right or wrong. She also said something I find quite disturbing. The reason why Synthesis is seen as the best ending by some BW people is the fact that like the Starbrat says, it is inevitable. Synthesis will happen sooner or later. She said if they were to set a Mass Effect game in the future Synthesis will have taken place, either as a consequence of Shepard’s choice or because it’s naturally occurred.

I also brought up how could Shepard survive the explosion on the Citadel and she kind of dodged the question brining up the section seals on the citadel and such. I also asked where Shepard was in the Breath ending and she said that it doesn’t really matter whether Shepard is on the Citadel or somewhere else at this point and when I pointed out the concrete she said there was concrete on the Citadel. When I said that there wasn’t and I’ve looked through the game files to confirm it she dodged the question by saying ‘Well you’re on a new and unknown part of the Citadel’ 

 

Yep i find that extremely disturbing. Why should the galaxy follow the route of an insane idealogical extremist even if you chose an ending where the galaxy is left with a future of freedom to evolve.

Sounds like they were squirming regarding Shep lives scene. Well that's what happens when you put no effort into providing exposition and explanation into into one of the endings in something ironically called an extended cut.

It wouldn't be the same ideology. Synthesis is merely the result of a technological singularity reaching its climax. If it occurs naturally, then organics themselves have made this possible, and they could themselves choose whether to become synthorganic or remain organic.

Basically, if it occurs naturally, none of the things present in the synthesis endings would be what actually happens. No glowing green circuits, no freaky eyes, and no goody-goody utopia. A synthesis would then be something comletely different (think of Deus Ex).

How do you know that Estebauns? Can you say that we won't have green eyes, and I find it hard to be Synthetic, and Organic without changing the body at all. You say implants make us Synthetic, but that's false. If that's the case then why aren't we not called a Synthetic species, and I can't see Synthesis happen at all.

Synthesis will only change DNA, and that's it, so still how does that happen? I didn't know Synthetic have DNA, nor did I know, that Organics can have no Synthetic part's, without changeing the Body, DNA, nor the mortality, to imortality.

Whut?

Synthesis won't change DNA. That makes no sense. That isn't even what a synthesis is. I never said implants make us synthetic that's the biggest pile of bullcrap I've heard today. I said it will make us not truly organic anymore. We'd be something different than that. We aren't a synthetic species. We're organic. A synthesis will merely turn organics into something more than purely organic, but biologically, we'd still go as organic.

You don't know the slightest about what a synthesis is, do you? you only know it from the point of the ME3 endings. That is not really my point, as that is nothing but pure illogical crap. That's not how it works at all. If I decide to get implants that enhance my physical and mental performance, then I'm not purely organic anymore, since it circumvents the trial and error organic life needs to undergo to achieve this naturally.

Synthetics don't have DNA. They're not even alive. It also wouldn't make people immortal. That's not how anatomy works. The body will eventually start to decay, the bones become old and frail, the mind will stop functioning. No form of technology can prevent death.

[Hrothdane]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

If the transmission is fake, then why does Hackett not question the follow-up to the Mars mission? Don't buy it. Don't buy the Glyph is evil nonsense either. Not everything in the game has to be boiled down to "because indoctrination" or "because Reapers".

I think the connection is kinda shaky, too. Nevertheless, these are questions that are worth asking, even if for no other reason than to lead us to conclude that there is not enough proof.

We do have some compelling evidence that the Reapers are using the Crucible as a trap, but we just don't have the evidence to start saying that Hackett is indoctrinated or that Glyph is a Reaper plant.

In fact, I would argue we have evidence that Hackett is NOT indoctrinated by the fact that he so adamantly states that "dead Reapers is how we win." He always comes across as too focused on winning whatever way possible to have doubts, which seems inconsistent with indoctrination.

[masster blaster]

estebanus wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

estebanus wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

FFZero wrote...

Okay I’ve just got back from the Community Party, had a great time and Chris and Jessica are absolutely lovely people, however on the IT front...things don’t sound good depending on your outlook/interpretation of IT.

Jessica pretty much said the endings we have are 100% final and if we think anything will be added to the endings after the final choice then we have misunderstood things. She equated the ending of ME3 to Schrödinger's cat, it can be IT or it can be literal, neither is right or wrong. She also said something I find quite disturbing. The reason why Synthesis is seen as the best ending by some BW people is the fact that like the Starbrat says, it is inevitable. Synthesis will happen sooner or later. She said if they were to set a Mass Effect game in the future Synthesis will have taken place, either as a consequence of Shepard’s choice or because it’s naturally occurred.

I also brought up how could Shepard survive the explosion on the Citadel and she kind of dodged the question brining up the section seals on the citadel and such. I also asked where Shepard was in the Breath ending and she said that it doesn’t really matter whether Shepard is on the Citadel or somewhere else at this point and when I pointed out the concrete she said there was concrete on the Citadel. When I said that there wasn’t and I’ve looked through the game files to confirm it she dodged the question by saying ‘Well you’re on a new and unknown part of the Citadel’ 

 

Yep i find that extremely disturbing. Why should the galaxy follow the route of an insane idealogical extremist even if you chose an ending where the galaxy is left with a future of freedom to evolve.

Sounds like they were squirming regarding Shep lives scene. Well that's what happens when you put no effort into providing exposition and explanation into into one of the endings in something ironically called an extended cut.

It wouldn't be the same ideology. Synthesis is merely the result of a technological singularity reaching its climax. If it occurs naturally, then organics themselves have made this possible, and they could themselves choose whether to become synthorganic or remain organic.

Basically, if it occurs naturally, none of the things present in the synthesis endings would be what actually happens. No glowing green circuits, no freaky eyes, and no goody-goody utopia. A synthesis would then be something comletely different (think of Deus Ex).

How do you know that Estebauns? Can you say that we won't have green eyes, and I find it hard to be Synthetic, and Organic without changing the body at all. You say implants make us Synthetic, but that's false. If that's the case then why aren't we not called a Synthetic species, and I can't see Synthesis happen at all.

Synthesis will only change DNA, and that's it, so still how does that happen? I didn't know Synthetic have DNA, nor did I know, that Organics can have no Synthetic part's, without changeing the Body, DNA, nor the mortality, to imortality.

Whut?

Synthesis won't change DNA. That makes no sense. That isn't even what a synthesis is. I never said implants make us synthetic that's the biggest pile of bullcrap I've heard today. I said it will make us not truly organic anymore. We'd be something different than that. We aren't a synthetic species. We're organic. A synthesis will merely turn organics into something more than purely organic, but biologically, we'd still go as organic.

You don't know the slightest about what a synthesis is, do you? you only know it from the point of the ME3 endings. That is not really my point, as that is nothing but pure illogical crap. That's not how it works at all. If I decide to get implants that enhance my physical and mental performance, then I'm not purely organic anymore, since it circumvents the trial and error organic life needs to undergo to achieve this naturally.

Synthetics don't have DNA. They're not even alive. It also wouldn't make people immortal. That's not how anatomy works. The body will eventually start to decay, the bones become old and frail, the mind will stop functioning. No form of technology can prevent death.

um it does.

Catalyst ... "A new DNA" if this happence naturally, then it does change DNA.

[masster blaster]

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

estebanus wrote...

plfranke wrote...

estebanus wrote...

plfranke wrote...
Synthesis seems like it was just designed to create arguments. It's just not natural, should have never been in the game.

As an ending choice certainly not. It's wrong on so many levels. It truly only is good if organic life itself achieves synthesis naturally.

even then I wouldn't want it

I would, because it's nothing else but technological progression. People are naturally allowed to choose themselves if they'd want this, it shouldn't be forced.

IF synthesis were to ever be part of the evolutionary process then no one gets a choice, evolution is change to survive, what does not work get's discarded through natural selection.

Synthesis will not occur through uncontrolled evolution. It will only happen through controlled evolution, a.k.a synthetic limbs that are able to interface flawlessly with the neural system. However, the individual would still have to choose to undergo this process. Does the person want to remain fully organic, or does he want to become something different?

EDIT: top.

[estebanus]

masster blaster wrote...

1. You did the Geth, and Quarians. All I said is either way if you kill one of them, you help the Reapers, or if you save both races you hurt the Reapers, but you help them if you think Earth/ the Crucible is a trap.

2. I know that, but if Wrex is in charge it's the oppisite, if you Sabatoge the cure.

3. Yes, and Yes, but it does help the Reapers, and hurts you, if you don't have MP.

4. I said  by killing Shepard's old friends, and the people he/she has helped, it weakenss Shepard's will to fight, if you believe in IT, and helps the Reapers.

1. I didn't have a choice. I had to kill the geth, but that doesn't mean I helped the reapers. I still brought a fleet against them. Helping them would have been killing off both sides.
2. So it doesn't matter what way other players play? It only matters how you played it?

3. I wasn't arguing. I agreed.

4. I don't know if that's totally true, but I'm gonna agree with you on this point.

[demersel]

ebuchala wrote...

demersel wrote...

That's the thing - we don't know that destroy does what the catalyst says it does!   
But that is not important really, cause there is nothing we can do about it yet. 

About refuse. I disagree that it is the best option, since you're telling the reapers that you don't accept their logic or their solution. 
In refuse you're telling reapers just that you don't accept their solution, however you do accept the premise! You do accept that everything that is there and everything that you're told is true, and you don't like given options. You accept that there is a logic to argue with. You even give a speach.

think about it this way. You want to kill a wolf, that's killed your child. You come to his cave, find him but then he speaks! He says - You can kill me if you want, but this will not change anything, since there will be other wolves, and other chilren killed by it. Also if you kill me some of you're best friends will also die, cause, you know, karma, and i'm also magical this way! But there are other options! You can tame me! And them you'll have a pet talking wolf, that is also magical, but in this scenario i will eat you first. Or! Since i'm magical, and stuff i can make everyone be part-wolf, and so no-more child killing! For the spell to work I'm afraid i'll have to eat you, so i can then combine your spirit and essence with mine and spread to everyone. 

And you go - No! I refuse to make that choice! Someday, someone will figure out the way to beat your logic! 
The wolf - Okey-dokye (eats you)

My point is - you came there to kill a monster. By choosing anything than killing a monster, you lose. (because you failed to kill a monster!!!)

Except that, again, you don't know that Destroy will actually destroy the reapers. There's a huge difference between tracking down a wolf with a gun and shooting it and the scenario we're faced with at the end of ME3. When you take that gun with you to the wolf's cave, you KNOW it's going to kill the wolf, regardless of the creature's verbal skills. When you show up on the Citadel with the Crucible, a machine that you admittedly know almost nothing about including what it actually does, and find yourself confronted with the supposed controller of all the reapers who then feeds you a line of bull****, you don't KNOW that choosing the Destroy option will actually destroy the monster in the same way you know that gun will work on the wolf.

Maybe I misunderstand IT but I thought the idea was that the whole scene with the starbrat isn't happening for reals--just in Shepard's mind (even if Shep is wandering around hallucination and performing actions based on the hallucination). Which means, that the choice you make isn't going to actually kill the monster, control the monster or merge the monster and everyone else into a verdant Utopia. It's simply going to break the hold the reapers have over you and defeat indoctrination or lead you to full indoctrination. So, as long as you defeat indoctrination, you really are destroying the monster.

I don't think refuse can be discounted as easily as you do. I don't actually remember Shepard's refusal speech that well but I don't think the culmination was that someday someone would figure out how to defeat the reaper's logic. The final statement was along the lines of "I will find another way to defeat the reapers that doesn't involve you." I can see how that might lead you to think that Shep is arguing against the starbrat's options but I choose to see it as Shepard completely rejecting the Catalyst/Crucible as a viable option because he suspects it's a reaper trap rather than a final solution.

Which still leaves me up in the air over whether Destroy or Reject is the best option or if they're just two sides of the same coin.

In regard of IT it is about killing a monster in your mind. Then you can wake up, and live to fight another day and tell the tale (and also to see if you can do it for real). Since there is breath scene after destroy, and there isn't after refuse - i think it settles this debate untill new content and information arise. Destroy works at the moment, refuse doesn't. -  if IT. 

If not IT, and endings are literal - wolf story still valid, even more so. 

[Hrothdane]

ebuchala wrote...

demersel wrote...

That's the thing - we don't know that destroy does what the catalyst says it does!   
But that is not important really, cause there is nothing we can do about it yet. 

About refuse. I disagree that it is the best option, since you're telling the reapers that you don't accept their logic or their solution. 
In refuse you're telling reapers just that you don't accept their solution, however you do accept the premise! You do accept that everything that is there and everything that you're told is true, and you don't like given options. You accept that there is a logic to argue with. You even give a speach.

think about it this way. You want to kill a wolf, that's killed your child. You come to his cave, find him but then he speaks! He says - You can kill me if you want, but this will not change anything, since there will be other wolves, and other chilren killed by it. Also if you kill me some of you're best friends will also die, cause, you know, karma, and i'm also magical this way! But there are other options! You can tame me! And them you'll have a pet talking wolf, that is also magical, but in this scenario i will eat you first. Or! Since i'm magical, and stuff i can make everyone be part-wolf, and so no-more child killing! For the spell to work I'm afraid i'll have to eat you, so i can then combine your spirit and essence with mine and spread to everyone. 

And you go - No! I refuse to make that choice! Someday, someone will figure out the way to beat your logic! 
The wolf - Okey-dokye (eats you)

My point is - you came there to kill a monster. By choosing anything than killing a monster, you lose. (because you failed to kill a monster!!!)

Except that, again, you don't know that Destroy will actually destroy the reapers. There's a huge difference between tracking down a wolf with a gun and shooting it and the scenario we're faced with at the end of ME3. When you take that gun with you to the wolf's cave, you KNOW it's going to kill the wolf, regardless of the creature's verbal skills. When you show up on the Citadel with the Crucible, a machine that you admittedly know almost nothing about including what it actually does, and find yourself confronted with the supposed controller of all the reapers who then feeds you a line of bull****, you don't KNOW that choosing the Destroy option will actually destroy the monster in the same way you know that gun will work on the wolf.

Maybe I misunderstand IT but I thought the idea was that the whole scene with the starbrat isn't happening for reals--just in Shepard's mind (even if Shep is wandering around hallucination and performing actions based on the hallucination). Which means, that the choice you make isn't going to actually kill the monster, control the monster or merge the monster and everyone else into a verdant Utopia. It's simply going to break the hold the reapers have over you and defeat indoctrination or lead you to full indoctrination. So, as long as you defeat indoctrination, you really are destroying the monster.

I don't think refuse can be discounted as easily as you do. I don't actually remember Shepard's refusal speech that well but I don't think the culmination was that someday someone would figure out how to defeat the reaper's logic. The final statement was along the lines of "I will find another way to defeat the reapers that doesn't involve you." I can see how that might lead you to think that Shep is arguing against the starbrat's options but I choose to see it as Shepard completely rejecting the Catalyst/Crucible as a viable option because he suspects it's a reaper trap rather than a final solution.

Which still leaves me up in the air over whether Destroy or Reject is the best option or if they're just two sides of the same coin.

I'm not ready to write off refuse yet either. I still think we might see a puzzle theory/IT crossover in this regard, with new DLC opening up a refuse victory. I rather like the idea of having two victory endings and two failure endings as well.

SPOILERS FOR LEVIATHAN
Some of the data-mined dialogue seems to indicate we will have an additional version of the refuse dialogue choice to choose from. This might already be a sign of an alternate refuse coming.

[demersel]

Hrothdane wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

If the transmission is fake, then why does Hackett not question the follow-up to the Mars mission? Don't buy it. Don't buy the Glyph is evil nonsense either. Not everything in the game has to be boiled down to "because indoctrination" or "because Reapers".

I think the connection is kinda shaky, too. Nevertheless, these are questions that are worth asking, even if for no other reason than to lead us to conclude that there is not enough proof.

We do have some compelling evidence that the Reapers are using the Crucible as a trap, but we just don't have the evidence to start saying that Hackett is indoctrinated or that Glyph is a Reaper plant.

In fact, I would argue we have evidence that Hackett is NOT indoctrinated by the fact that he so adamantly states that "dead Reapers is how we win." He always comes across as too focused on winning whatever way possible to have doubts, which seems inconsistent with indoctrination.

HOWEVER - he does have some connection with the Cerberus, and there is also unexplained fact that he didn't send at least a heads up, when reapers came to earth - he was there waiting for them to come in the beginning of the game, remember? I'm saying he is indoctrinated, or that reapers control him fully, all i'm sayng, there are ligit questions to be asked. 

[estebanus]

masster blaster wrote...

um it does.

Catalyst ... "A new DNA" if this happence naturally, then it does change DNA.

OH MY F*CKING GOD!

It doesn't matter what the catalyst says. I'm not talking about the green space magic wave, damn it! That can do whatever the hell it wants, but I'm talking about achieving it naturally!

If you achieve it naturally, there's literally no way you can change your DNA that way! That's not how science works! A synthesis is scientifically possible, but not the way the catalyst describes it!

[masster blaster]

estebanus wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

1. You did the Geth, and Quarians. All I said is either way if you kill one of them, you help the Reapers, or if you save both races you hurt the Reapers, but you help them if you think Earth/ the Crucible is a trap.

2. I know that, but if Wrex is in charge it's the oppisite, if you Sabatoge the cure.

3. Yes, and Yes, but it does help the Reapers, and hurts you, if you don't have MP.

4. I said  by killing Shepard's old friends, and the people he/she has helped, it weakenss Shepard's will to fight, if you believe in IT, and helps the Reapers.

1. I didn't have a choice. I had to kill the geth, but that doesn't mean I helped the reapers. I still brought a fleet against them. Helping them would have been killing off both sides.
2. So it doesn't matter what way other players play? It only matters how you played it?

3. I wasn't arguing. I agreed.

4. I don't know if that's totally true, but I'm gonna agree with you on this point.

1. Well you did in a way help them. By either killing the Geth, or the cerators, then it weakens your fleets/ assets, unless you have MP.

2. Bioware said your chocies result in the endings you get. This could be for IT, and literale endings.

[estebanus]

masster blaster wrote...

estebanus wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

1. You did the Geth, and Quarians. All I said is either way if you kill one of them, you help the Reapers, or if you save both races you hurt the Reapers, but you help them if you think Earth/ the Crucible is a trap.

2. I know that, but if Wrex is in charge it's the oppisite, if you Sabatoge the cure.

3. Yes, and Yes, but it does help the Reapers, and hurts you, if you don't have MP.

4. I said  by killing Shepard's old friends, and the people he/she has helped, it weakenss Shepard's will to fight, if you believe in IT, and helps the Reapers.

1. I didn't have a choice. I had to kill the geth, but that doesn't mean I helped the reapers. I still brought a fleet against them. Helping them would have been killing off both sides.
2. So it doesn't matter what way other players play? It only matters how you played it?

3. I wasn't arguing. I agreed.

4. I don't know if that's totally true, but I'm gonna agree with you on this point.

1. Well you did in a way help them. By either killing the Geth, or the cerators, then it weakens your fleets/ assets, unless you have MP.

2. Bioware said your chocies result in the endings you get. This could be for IT, and literale endings.

Whut. Just whut.

[masster blaster]

estebanus wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

um it does.

Catalyst ... "A new DNA" if this happence naturally, then it does change DNA.

OH MY F*CKING GOD!

It doesn't matter what the catalyst says. I'm not talking about the green space magic wave, damn it! That can do whatever the hell it wants, but I'm talking about achieving it naturally!

If you achieve it naturally, there's literally no way you can change your DNA that way! That's not how science works! A synthesis is scientifically possible, but not the way the catalyst describes it!

1. Was talking about real life to. How do you know that DNA won't change?  Why does one thing that is not organic that is fused with an Organic part classife us as Synthesis beings. ANd why do you think we will head down this road. Other raods can open up. Synthesis could, or may happen, but it's not the final syage in Evolution for sure.

[ebuchala]

demersel wrote...


In regard of IT it is about killing a monster in your mind. Then you can wake up, and live to fight another day and tell the tale (and also to see if you can do it for real). Since there is breath scene after destroy, and there isn't after refuse - i think it settles this debate untill new content and information arise. Destroy works at the moment, refuse doesn't. -  if IT. 

If not IT, and endings are literal - wolf story still valid, even more so. 

I completely disagree with you that the wolf analogy is valid in the least, for reasons I mentioned before (you know the gun that you bring with you to kill the wolf works; Shepard has no idea what the crucible does or how it works).

As Banshee mentioned, adding a breath scene after the Refuse option would've been a dead giveaway. Not something they would likely do until all the dlc is out, if they go that route with Refuse. Plus, if IT, there is no breath scene after Destroy if your EMS isn't high enough so are you saying that if someone chooses Destroy but doesn't have high enough EMS that they become indoctrinated anyway?

Modifié par ebuchala, 21 août 2012 - 09:35 .

[masster blaster]

estebanus wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

estebanus wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

1. You did the Geth, and Quarians. All I said is either way if you kill one of them, you help the Reapers, or if you save both races you hurt the Reapers, but you help them if you think Earth/ the Crucible is a trap.

2. I know that, but if Wrex is in charge it's the oppisite, if you Sabatoge the cure.

3. Yes, and Yes, but it does help the Reapers, and hurts you, if you don't have MP.

4. I said  by killing Shepard's old friends, and the people he/she has helped, it weakenss Shepard's will to fight, if you believe in IT, and helps the Reapers.

1. I didn't have a choice. I had to kill the geth, but that doesn't mean I helped the reapers. I still brought a fleet against them. Helping them would have been killing off both sides.
2. So it doesn't matter what way other players play? It only matters how you played it?

3. I wasn't arguing. I agreed.

4. I don't know if that's totally true, but I'm gonna agree with you on this point.

1. Well you did in a way help them. By either killing the Geth, or the cerators, then it weakens your fleets/ assets, unless you have MP.

2. Bioware said your chocies result in the endings you get. This could be for IT, and literale endings.

Whut. Just whut.

Estebauns. kill Geth or Quarians is still helping the Reapers, unless you have MP. In which case you don't need the galaxy, if you just play/import MP characters into SP. If you don't have MP you help the Reapers by not having more assets in the final fight.

2. Sorry I thought you said how I played it, but ya it's based on how the player played the game, and what chocies he/she made.

[demersel]

ebuchala wrote...

demersel wrote...


In regard of IT it is about killing a monster in your mind. Then you can wake up, and live to fight another day and tell the tale (and also to see if you can do it for real). Since there is breath scene after destroy, and there isn't after refuse - i think it settles this debate untill new content and information arise. Destroy works at the moment, refuse doesn't. -  if IT. 

If not IT, and endings are literal - wolf story still valid, even more so. 

I completely disagree with you that the wolf analogy is valid in the least, for reasons I mentioned before (you know the gun that you bring with you to kill the wolf works; Shepard has no idea what the crucible does or how it works).

I didn't say anything about a gun. The analogy was about intent, and lack of it. If you REALY mean it you can kill a wolf with your bare hands. 

[masster blaster]

estebanus wrote...

plfranke wrote...

estebanus wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Synthesis seems like it was just designed to create arguments. It's just not natural, should have never been in the game.

As an ending choice certainly not. It's wrong on so many levels. It truly only is good if organic life itself achieves synthesis naturally.

even then I wouldn't want it

I would, because it's nothing else but technological progression. People are naturally allowed to choose themselves if they'd want this, it shouldn't be forced.

But what if it's forced? Can you not say that one day a person could be a Synthesis being because he/she was in an car crash, and had to get new arm, but they cut it off, and gave the person a robotic arm. Or what if some country orders all people to recive Symthetic parts, to become the perfect being.


i don't believe Synthesis is good at all. sure if you think about implants that help people in every day life, but in some cases Synthesis is bad. You say it can't be forecd, but can it. You say that it's a good idea but is it?

Modifié par masster blaster, 21 août 2012 - 09:42 .

[estebanus]

masster blaster wrote...

estebanus wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

um it does.

Catalyst ... "A new DNA" if this happence naturally, then it does change DNA.

OH MY F*CKING GOD!

It doesn't matter what the catalyst says. I'm not talking about the green space magic wave, damn it! That can do whatever the hell it wants, but I'm talking about achieving it naturally!

If you achieve it naturally, there's literally no way you can change your DNA that way! That's not how science works! A synthesis is scientifically possible, but not the way the catalyst describes it!

1. Was talking about real life to. How do you know that DNA won't change?  Why does one thing that is not organic that is fused with an Organic part classife us as Synthesis beings. ANd why do you think we will head down this road. Other raods can open up. Synthesis could, or may happen, but it's not the final syage in Evolution for sure.

Of course synthesis isn't the final stage of evolution! That makes no sense! Synthesis isn't even a part of evolution! It is the end result of technological progress! Technology is in no way whatsoever intertwined with natural evolution!

DNA can't be changed, ok? It's scientifically impossible. DNA makes you what you are. By changing it, you are no longer what you are, in every meaning of the word. Your entire physical form would shift by changing it. And, by adding something that shouldn't be there to it, you'd most probably die immediately, or get cancer, and then die.

And as expected, you don't know what a synthesis is, even though you just described it. A synthesis is nothing but a fusion of two different things, ok? Therefore, synth(as in synchronized) thesis( as in the objects used)

Say for example when you have an argument. You have a thesis, and you have an antithesis. When you combine these two, you will eliminate the weakpoints of the thesis, creating a synthesis.

[demersel]

ebuchala wrote...
 if IT, there is no breath scene after Destroy if your EMS isn't high enough so are you saying that if someone chooses Destroy but doesn't have high enough EMS that they become indoctrinated anyway?

No. They die while being knocked out, because of insificient forces to hold reapers off until shepard wakes up. 

[estebanus]

masster blaster wrote...

estebanus wrote...

plfranke wrote...

estebanus wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Synthesis seems like it was just designed to create arguments. It's just not natural, should have never been in the game.

As an ending choice certainly not. It's wrong on so many levels. It truly only is good if organic life itself achieves synthesis naturally.

even then I wouldn't want it

I would, because it's nothing else but technological progression. People are naturally allowed to choose themselves if they'd want this, it shouldn't be forced.

But what if it's forced? Can you not say that one day a person could be a Synthesis being because he/she was in an car crash, and had to get new arm, but they cut it off, and gave the person a robotic arm. Or what if some country orders all people to recive Symthetic parts, to become the perfect being.

It can't be forced! How would you even be able to force it on someone?! There will be no green wave of space magic in a synthesis of organic and synthetic, ok? Therefore, you can't force it!

If a person was in a car crash, then this person would damn well have the own choice of getting a synthetic limb. He doesn't need to get it!

If a country forces the people to get these implants, then it's the fault of the country's leadership, not the fault of the technology itself. There will always be people who misuse technology. Does that mean we should simply stop developing new things?

EDIT: Don't even bother replying. I'm leaving. Thanks for the headache.

Modifié par estebanus, 21 août 2012 - 09:53 .

[demersel]

ebuchala wrote...

I completely disagree with you that the wolf analogy is valid in the least, for reasons I mentioned before (you know the gun that you bring with you to kill the wolf works; Shepard has no idea what the crucible does or how it works).

You know what? Ok i'll add to my analogy story about a wolf:

You want to kill a wolf that has killed your child, but you don't have a gun. You look for him anyway and find his cave.

And for destroy the wolf tells you, that you can try to kill him any way, you'll kill him, but most likely also die from wounds, and there will be other wolves, and your friends will die etc...  The rest is the same. ))

OR! to continue a fairy taly analogy, you don't have gun,  a wand (surprise!), but you don't know how to use it. 

and the wolf says - WOW! You've got a wand!! You ogot me there pal. I'm beaten. 

You can beat me to death with it, but cause it is a wand and it is magical and it is not for such crude use, some of those who you cherish the most will die, because of it's released magic....  etc... )))