80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

All the Reapers need is Shepard not wanting to use the crucible to destroy the reapers...

[masster blaster]

Guys don't forget to give the new thread some five stars.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

masster blaster wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

byne wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

So, if IT is the secret ending, then why is it triggered via Destroy and not Refuse, even though Refuse is the only ending where you outright reject the choices presented to you by the Catalyst.

To quote: "I fight for the right to choose our own fate...and if I die, I'll die knowing that I died free."

So, seriously, how is that not the special ending that has you "waking up?"

Because thats the only ending where you do nothing.

Inaction is not resisting.

Destroy is choosing to do what you came to do, and defeat the Reapers.

Refuse is choosing to lose the war on your own terms.

It's not inaction so much as it is a rejection of the Catalyst's options, which Destroy is not. In Destroy, you're willingly choosing one of  his new solutions (albeit a temporary one). Refusal is much more of a resistance than Destroy is.

How is refusing to do anything not  inaction?

Shep isn't refusing to do anything, Shep's refusing to do any of the options presented by the Catalyst.

Well a lot of people think that they added refues because fans wanted to say go f*** your self to the Catalyst but they added that you lose no matter what, even if you had some many war assets. You lose either way.

It's possible that they added the "you lose" clause as a deterrent and there's something in the works where Refuse does lead to a "waking up." Maybe Leviathan will shed some light on this.

[masster blaster]

paxxton wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

It's sad to see Mark two being covered up by the other threads.

It's sinking.  No one will be spared and left there to take care of the sacred fire of IT. 

Ready. Aim. Fire.

[gun shot's]

[saluts/]

[gun shot's]

[masster blaster]

[quote]Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

[quote]masster blaster wrote...

[[quote]Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...



Well a lot of people think that they added refues because fans wanted to say go f*** your self to the Catalyst but they added that you lose no matter what, even if you had some many war assets. You lose either way.

[/quote]
It's possible that they added the "you lose" clause as a deterrent and there's something in the works where Refuse does lead to a "waking up." Maybe Leviathan will shed some light on this.
[/quote]

we thought of that too, but for now Destroy is the way to go.

[Bill Casey]

But how would that work if it plants the suggestion not to use the Crucible in Shepard's head?

[paxxton]

masster blaster wrote...

paxxton wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

It's sad to see Mark two being covered up by the other threads.

It's sinking.  No one will be spared and left there to take care of the sacred fire of IT. 

Ready. Aim. Fire.

[gun shot's]

[saluts/]

[gun shot's]

It's raining dead birds...

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Bill Casey wrote...

All the Reapers need is Shepard not wanting to use the crucible to destroy the reapers.

But Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers, just not in a way that would accomplish one of their goals. The total rejection of Reaper ideaology is in Refuse.

[byne]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

All the Reapers need is Shepard not wanting to use the crucible to destroy the reapers.

But Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers, just not in a way that would accomplish one of their goals. The total rejection of Reaper ideaology is in Refuse.

No. In refuse you leave open the possibility of more cycles. The same as in Control or Synthesis. Only in Destroy is the threat ended for good.

In Destroy, you're rejecting the very idea of the cycles and putting an end to them. You cant really even argue that killing the geth is accomplishing the Reapers' goals, seeing as how the quarians were about to destroy the geth before the Reapers intervened, so wiping out the geth clearly isnt one of the Reapers' goals.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Bill Casey wrote...

But how would that work if it plants the suggestion not to use the Crucible in Shepard's head?

Who said it planted the idea not to use the Crucible? Shepard isn't using it because it'd accomplish one of the goals of the Reapers. All of the choices do that, save for Refuse. Refuse is also the only ending where you see the Catalyst's true colors, so to speak.

[MegumiAzusa]

masster blaster wrote...

L0NEWOLF25 wrote...

So Is it me or does the curved piece of metal in the Shepard Breath scene look alot like a peice of Object Rho from ME2:Arrival DLC?

It does, and it also looks just like the Conduit that the Reapers built.

That and a bit like

Maybe Shep got spaced again, fell down to Rannoch and hit her head? xD

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 30 juillet 2012 - 08:45 .

[TSA_383]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

byne wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

So, if IT is the secret ending, then why is it triggered via Destroy and not Refuse, even though Refuse is the only ending where you outright reject the choices presented to you by the Catalyst.

To quote: "I fight for the right to choose our own fate...and if I die, I'll die knowing that I died free."

So, seriously, how is that not the special ending that has you "waking up?"

Because thats the only ending where you do nothing.

Inaction is not resisting.

Destroy is choosing to do what you came to do, and defeat the Reapers.

Refuse is choosing to lose the war on your own terms.

It's not inaction so much as it is a rejection of the Catalyst's options, which Destroy is not. In Destroy, you're willingly choosing one of  his new solutions (albeit a temporary one). Refusal is much more of a resistance than Destroy is.

How is refusing to do anything not  inaction?

Shep isn't refusing to do anything, Shep's refusing to do any of the options presented by the Catalyst.

Well a lot of people think that they added refues because fans wanted to say go f*** your self to the Catalyst but they added that you lose no matter what, even if you had some many war assets. You lose either way.

It's possible that they added the "you lose" clause as a deterrent and there's something in the works where Refuse does lead to a "waking up." Maybe Leviathan will shed some light on this.

Possible.
But currently, your mission throughout the game is pretty simple:

Complete the crucible and use it to destroy the reapers.
Whether or not it's actually a legit device is unknown but I don't see how it can be wrong to make that choice, especially given the breath scene.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

byne wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

All the Reapers need is Shepard not wanting to use the crucible to destroy the reapers.

But Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers, just not in a way that would accomplish one of their goals. The total rejection of Reaper ideaology is in Refuse.

No. In refuse you leave open the possibility of more cycles. The same as in Control or Synthesis. Only in Destroy is the threat ended for good.

In Destroy, you're rejecting the very idea of the cycles and putting an end to them. You cant really even argue that killing the geth is accomplishing the Reapers' goals, seeing as how the quarians were about to destroy the geth before the Reapers intervened, so wiping out the geth clearly isnt one of the Reapers' goals.

According to the Catalyst, all of its choices end the cycle. But refuse isn't one of the choices.

Secondly, Destroy eliminates synthetic life everywhere, further postponing the omnicide. According to the Catalyst, that was the same point of the cycles.

[Bill Casey]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Who said it planted the idea not to use the Crucible? Shepard isn't using it because it'd accomplish one of the goals of the Reapers.

Now he subconciously thinks using the Crucible to Destroy the Reapers will help them...

[byne]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

According to the Catalyst, all of its choices end the cycle. But refuse isn't one of the choices.

Secondly, Destroy eliminates synthetic life everywhere, further postponing the omnicide. According to the Catalyst, that was the same point of the cycles.

Actually, according to the godchild, Destroy is the only choice that doesnt end the cycles.

Thats reason enough for me to pick it. I dont trust that little bastard.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Bill Casey wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Who said it planted the idea not to use the Crucible? Shepard isn't using it because it'd accomplish one of the goals of the Reapers.

Now he subconciously thinks using the Crucible to Destroy the Reapers will help them...

How do we even know Shepard will be given a choice once he actually reaches the Crucible? Would it even be the same kind of Destroy?

[TheConstantOne]

byne wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

All the Reapers need is Shepard not wanting to use the crucible to destroy the reapers.

But Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers, just not in a way that would accomplish one of their goals. The total rejection of Reaper ideaology is in Refuse.

No. In refuse you leave open the possibility of more cycles. The same as in Control or Synthesis. Only in Destroy is the threat ended for good.

In Destroy, you're rejecting the very idea of the cycles and putting an end to them. You cant really even argue that killing the geth is accomplishing the Reapers' goals, seeing as how the quarians were about to destroy the geth before the Reapers intervened, so wiping out the geth clearly isnt one of the Reapers' goals.

I think my reply to this got overlooked so I'll post it again:
***
If this is a battle in Shepard's mind, the destroy path is the route that Shepard's own resolve has crafted. By refusing to act, Shepard is not moving on to fulfill his/her goal nor is s/he allowing themself to become indoctrinated. Essentially Shepard gives up within his/her own mind and, therefore, dies. It's like the movie Inception. If you can't find your way out of the dream, your real body suffers the consequences
***

Destroy is the way out of the indoctrinated state.  The Catalyst has to mention it because Shepard's mind wants it as a possibility (for high EMS situations, anyway). The anger it feels upon Shepard rejecting is more because Shepard will die not having served the Reapers

[Arian Dynas]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

So, if IT is the secret ending, then why is it triggered via Destroy and not Refuse, even though Refuse is the only ending where you outright reject the choices presented to you by the Catalyst.

To quote: "I fight for the right to choose our own fate...and if I die, I'll die knowing that I died free."

So, seriously, how is that not the special ending that has you "waking up?"

Arian Dynas wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...
Reject is just a big fail, and was never planned. So I don't think it counts, though the "So be it!" could be a little hint.

The voice change, as well as giving you a big clue to Mr. Sparkle's true identity, also shows how angry he is that you wouldn't make a choice. He's supposedly been doing this cycle for millions of years, but now he's bigging up synthesis and getting upset if you let the cycle continue.

My interpretation is Harby gets very angry that you wont play his little game.

Not even that.

He's angry that he ruined the target.

Destroy is him going "Oh, well fine then. Be that way, have your little tantrum. I WILL have you, soon enough. I can be patient."

Refuse? Refuse means he's broken Shepard.

Shepard by nature is a man of action. Every option you are given, Paragon or Renegade? You still are taking an action. Only the neutral options let you opt out, they never turn out well, and they removed them in ME3. Paragon and Renegade are both still heroes, their methods and motivations vary, but they do share the same goals, Paragon is not good, merely charming and peaceable. Likewise Renegade is not evil, merely violent and direct.

Shepard always has a goal. Always. For three games it was "Destroy the Reapers and damn the consequences, this war WILL have casualties."

And now we have Shepard going "I don't want to be their killer, so I am going to let everyone die just so I don't have to do something I perceive as immoral." That's not Shepard. It might not necessarily be wrong, but it's not Shepard. Even if Destroy was the only option, Shepard would STILL take an option.

Bill Casey's sig puts it pretty well. Shepard is not a hero or a messiah. He's a soldier.

Harbinger WANTS Shepard. He wants Shepard exactly as he is. He isn't looking for "Not-Shepard". Choosing Refuse, Shepard has chosen not to commit one way or another, to opt out. Refuse means he has lost his determination, his necessary drive that was an integral part of him. He lost the part of himself that Harbinger wanted. He's useless to them now. What's more, he's a frustration. Somehow, in the final moment, not only did he deny Harbinger his prize, he also denied him further methods of acquiring it.

It would be like just before crossing the finish line, watching someone not only run off with your trophy, but also break it so you couldn't posess it. 

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 30 juillet 2012 - 08:56 .

[Arian Dynas]

Evebrey wrote...

Hey guys,
I've been lurking through a big chunk of Mark II with minimal input; I plan to fix that.Since the Thread is getting a reboot I thought an introduction might be fitting. So hey.

Hallo.

[byne]

Picking refuse over destroy because is basically like refusing to blow up the Alpha Relay because it will kill Batarians.

Sure, you can sit atop your moral high horse and talk about how you died free, but in the end you doomed the entire galaxy to preserve your own morals.

Thats probably the most deeply selfish thing I can think of.

[Arian Dynas]

byne wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

All the Reapers need is Shepard not wanting to use the crucible to destroy the reapers.

But Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers, just not in a way that would accomplish one of their goals. The total rejection of Reaper ideaology is in Refuse.

No. In refuse you leave open the possibility of more cycles. The same as in Control or Synthesis. Only in Destroy is the threat ended for good.

In Destroy, you're rejecting the very idea of the cycles and putting an end to them. You cant really even argue that killing the geth is accomplishing the Reapers' goals, seeing as how the quarians were about to destroy the geth before the Reapers intervened, so wiping out the geth clearly isnt one of the Reapers' goals.

Refuse requires you to accept that what the Guardian is telling you is true.

You must believe that the Geth will be wiped out by Destroy, you must believe that singularity is inevitable, you must believe the consequences he presents to you will happen. Destroy requires disbelief to be attractive in any way or form.

[TJBartlemus]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

byne wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

All the Reapers need is Shepard not wanting to use the crucible to destroy the reapers.

But Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers, just not in a way that would accomplish one of their goals. The total rejection of Reaper ideaology is in Refuse.

No. In refuse you leave open the possibility of more cycles. The same as in Control or Synthesis. Only in Destroy is the threat ended for good.

In Destroy, you're rejecting the very idea of the cycles and putting an end to them. You cant really even argue that killing the geth is accomplishing the Reapers' goals, seeing as how the quarians were about to destroy the geth before the Reapers intervened, so wiping out the geth clearly isnt one of the Reapers' goals.

According to the Catalyst, all of its choices end the cycle. But refuse isn't one of the choices.

Secondly, Destroy eliminates synthetic life everywhere, further postponing the omnicide. According to the Catalyst, that was the same point of the cycles.

Thats what the Catalyst says, but can we really trust everything he says? Really there's 3 possibilities. 1- He is telling the truth. 2- He is lying. 3- Or his logic is flawed and he believes he is telling the truth. We have already concluded that #1 is false. 

For 2 or 3 it could go any way. From what he says it is safe to assume his logic is flawed from what the player knows he says are his reasons when talking to him. But from the other rogue AI on the Citadel in ME1 it can also be assumed he is lying. The AI claimed organics will always enslave and destroy synthetics. This is totally opposite from the Catalyst but it is possible that this is the Catalyst's views as well. He just changes it 180 degrees so that Shepard trusts him and can influence Shepard into making the wrong choice. 

Modifié par TJBartlemus, 30 juillet 2012 - 09:01 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Refusal isn't Shepard giving up. If anything, it's Shepard refusing to waver in his resolve and refusing to compromise with the Reapers. The three choices are all compromises with the Reapers. Refusal is a rejection of that compromise.

[Samtheman63]

refuse is just daft

[Arian Dynas]

RavenEyry wrote...

legion999 wrote...

So which one is the ‘official' one then?

Mine? Paxxton's? This one?

This one because Byne is the First Theorizer, the chosen one.

And the only man to whom I bend knee.