925 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Isichar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You didn't put any reasons in that post. Am I supposed to read your mind? All you've got there is that the probability of conventional victory is known to be so low as to be effectively zero, and you think the probability of using the Crucible is very low for reasons you don't bother to explain, and then you conclude that both numbers are effectively the same, for no apparent reason at all.

I don't know what's going on in your brain, but what's on my screen is nonsense. As in, non-sense. No argument.

Edit: It isn't effectively zero, it is zero. The Alliance is no more capable of defeating the Reapers than the Germans were of defeating the Allies after January 1945.

Oh because the Crucible is a magic space gun designed to make all your problems go away, yeah that does not sound too good to be true /sarcasm

The entire existance of the crucible is stuck into the story as a plot device. And as for conventional warfare... to be honest I dont really care anymore about arguing that since arguing the odds really has nothing to do for me involving why I chose refuse.

Both are pretty much impossible. One in the context of the story, the other in any logical form.

or the hummus offensive. 

Be glad it didn't come to that. Entire galaxies have been destroyed by that weapon.

[memorysquid]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well, criminal negligence carries much less of a penalty than mass murder.  That's the thing.  But I still believe it can be argued that Shepard has no idea that refusing the kid is refusal to act and to use the Crucible.  Shooting the kid certainly isn't.  Shepard has to be psychic to know that refusing the choices would shut down the Crucible and only if Shepard believes that the Crucible as a "weapon", it's original intent, no longer is viable do the consequences of not using the Crucible become a point.  Shepard does not know with any degree of certainty that the kid is the catalyst and that the crucible is linked to the choices.  Everything else is irrelevant.

And in your example you have to insert someone like the kid.  If the guy that pushed them off the cliff showed up and told me he was there to help, would I believe him?  That's the real question.  If he told me furthermore that 2 of his 3 options will actually also help the rest of his gang who have been pushing people off cliffs, his credibility is shot.  If he gives me options and he's the only one that knows about the options, if I trust him I am putting my trust is something that is a vaporous as the kid. 

In order to make a choice you must believe too many incredible things to believe that not using them is worse.  And it's not about not using the crucible, it's about not believing that you have to make a choice to use it.

Do you need to be a genius to figure out that if you ignore the Reaper King's offer to let you take the reins, much less shoot his avatar up, he'll react poorly?  Shepard needn't be psychic to understand the choices offered him now or even pre-EC, just poorly written.  Even, and especially, pre-EC he understood the choices to his satisfaction.  You are so very resistant to the message the authors are conveying which is to solve a dilemma, and if you've done well enough they make it into a trilemma where one option is clearly superior. 

[Father_Jerusalem]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...



or the hummus offensive. 

Be glad it didn't come to that. Entire galaxies have been destroyed by that weapon.

I will stop the Reapers, no matter what it takes. Even if entire galaxies must be sacrificed to the hummus.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...



or the hummus offensive. 

Be glad it didn't come to that. Entire galaxies have been destroyed by that weapon.

I will stop the Reapers, no matter what it takes. Even if entire galaxies must be sacrificed to the hummus.

*weary sigh*

So be it.

Deploy the Crucihummus.

Gods help us all.

[Dharvy]

 @3DandBeyond I understand where you and some others are coming from with the lack of trust, and the slight paranoia that’s it’s a trap, but it feels like a small lack of deductive reasoning.

Let me explain. First of all I already knew or suspected or figured that the crucible was going to be some kind of signal weapon. I didn't foresee it to be no space cannon firing and destroying Reapers. I seen it as being able to send out a signal that shut down the Reapers. The closer I got to the deployment of the Crucible the more and more likely that seemed like the likely scenario. Especially dealing with Rannoch and shutting down the Geth by signal. Then actually meeting up with the Vendetta VI in the Cerberus HQ and him telling you of the Catalyst being the Citadel. Now the Citadel is known to have power to affect all the Relays or something to that regard so it have some kind of powerful signaling capabilities. 

Now arriving on the Citadel and meeting up with the Catalyst it appears to be some kind of sentient being. But it don't come off in the same manner as Sovereign, Harbinger, or the Rannoch Reaper. It seems rather reasonable and not all "You petty organic, resistance is futile!" as all the other Reapers seem to come off as. I don't have to agree with its methods or its thought patterns but at least I finally find out the driving beliefs and ideals behind the Reapers. But it now seems flexible and reserved to change and or except defeat and almost admiring of the simple premise of how resourceful and hopeful we organics have become in the face of overbearing opposition. 

Now the choices. I already figured the Crucible was going to fire a signal possibly disabling all the Reapers so Destroy was no surprise. The fact that it was going to target all Synthetics and some technology was not altogether surprising because a signal powerful enough to shut down/disable the reapers would probably be like an EMP or Gun effect; its not discriminating. Control was not to far off because I've just seen in the Sanctuary arc that you can hi-jack the signal of the Reapers and do a form of control and if the Crucible sending out a signal that can effect all the Reapers, through disarming, shutting off, sending a virus, or rewiring then control is not a leap in simple deduction.
Now Synthesis caught be my surprise and just seemed like space magic.

The Catalyst didn't come off as being untrustworthy. Shepard was just told the Crucible wasn't firing and there was something to be done on his end. Shepard tries to do something then pass out and now finds him facing the Catalyst. The fact that it seem to bring you half dead to the firing mechanism of the Crucible when it could have just let you die, gives the impression that your resolve, determination, strength, hope, and willing to fight to the end for what you believe somehow moved it. (Or the Crucible is forcing it, whichever you prefer) We are losing and yet our enemy has just helped us to the very weapon we purposed to destroy it? It almost appears that it has a change of heart and is surrendering. Because when all you can do is to fight honorably and die for your belief, you can only hope to change your oppressors’ mind by your actions especially when you don’t have means to defeat them naturally.

And simply put if the Crucible was to do anything other than what Catalyst tells me it does and actually help the Reapers then they would’ve implemented it themselves throughout the cycles, pretty much how they use the Citadel to shut off the Relays and such, which my information says didn't happen. And constantly refusing the Catalyst and to use the Crucible seems counterproductive when there were no real way we had the numbers to defeat the Reapers anyway conventionally. Plus it seems that its no longer desiring to keep reaping and seems willing to find another way to end the madness but it needs your help. If it could or would stop on its own then it just wouldn‘t need you to make a choice anyway. It was my last big shot to stop the Reapers and the reapings. I had to take a leap of faith and pick an option and fire the signal weapon.

Refusing was not an option.

Edit: And in refuse, if you're just grandstanding to make the catalyst rethink its solutions and end it on its own, then when that fails you can run up and say wait I want to pick an option. Since the game wont' let you do that (reset) well at least you didn't actually refuse just slipped up.

Modifié par Dharvy, 17 août 2012 - 02:12 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Thank you for editing that Dharvy.

It was a mess before you added the spaces.

[Isichar]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

So it all is down to your denial about chance of conventional victory? Again? Whole topic? 21 pages?

You could just say so - I disagree with 0% of conentional victory, I see it higher, and I rather stick with my 2% than with great unknown. That makes sense.

My denial of conventional victory?

And here I just said I know we are screwed conventionally.

What part of I dont believe in conventional victory is so hard for you to grasp. I said I dont believe the crucible is any more likely to work then conventional victory, hich as you stated is about 0w% chance.

There is no unknown in conventional victory. There is unknown in Crucible. So it is still Crucible > conventional victory. Worst case scenario - it just does what Reapers will do anyway.

/Headdesk

Ok last post you get from me, hard to respond to someone who just ignores everything you say.

I've been following this with amusement.

1)  So you're saying conventional victory = 0% chance, right? this is proven over the course of 20,000 cycles give or take, and the fact that Hackett has committed the entire galactic fleet for this one battle. This is all or nothing. And the losses are staggering. Yes we've taken out several of them, but we're taking very heavy losses. If we have to fight it out conventionally we're hosed.

2) You believe that the crucible/citadel combo won't work any better than conventional victory. IOW you believe Citadel + Crucible = 0%, right?

So the dilemma I'm having is that 1) is based on a consecutive repeatable event that ends in exactly the same result. In other words for all intents and purposes is an objective truth. You follow me?

And 2) has never happened before, and you're basing your entire decision on a belief, or faith, that it's not going to work, and rather than even take a chance that it will even have a possibility of working, since you don't know, you would rather go with the absolute certainty of 1) that results in the current cycle getting hosed.

Am I right?

Actually he said 0% I just used his odds to show that both are the same to me.

Both points are invalid since 1. Improbable is not the same as been impossible, you can argue that point all day long and your not actually gonna convince me otherwise so stop wasting time doing so, please.

and 2. I've never tried smearing medi-gel all over a reaper either to deactivate it either, so by that definition it could work, since you dont know. Whats to stop you from trying that as a viable strategy to beat the reapers?

And since I have already directly stated many, many times in this thread (And I am sure you will continue to ignore this) I don't think we will actually win with conventional victory (I am quite certain we will die) so I dont see why every third post I am making is in regards to my belief over conventional victory.

Maybe you should consider rereading my original post because you dont seem to understand that refuse was not something i chose based on the odds of survival, as i repeatedly keep typing and you and others are quite content to ignore.

You know, feel free to make your own thread discussing the odds of both working since your so intent with going on about it.

Modifié par Isichar, 17 août 2012 - 04:58 .

[Bowie Hawkins]

LiarasShield wrote...

refuse just different choices that we believe or think is best for our shepards

Choosing Refusal is choosing to condemn every one of the species that you have spent three games fighting to protect to either death or conversion into Reapers. This is proven fact from the Refusal ending of the game, so how is that not a more evil choice than any of the other three?

The only "freedom" you give anyone by refusal is the freedom of the grave.

[SpamBot2000]

And it always comes down to "as proven by what subsequently happens". And yet again, it needs to be pointed out Shepard is not clairvoyant. And it is not "someone" who offers him a way to stop the enemy, it is that very enemy.

All in all, I feel the ending is... how should I put this... kinda bad.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 17 août 2012 - 08:23 .

[Pitznik]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And it always comes down to "as proven by what subsequently happens". And yet again, it needs to be pointed out Shepard is not clairvoyant. And it is not "someone" who offers him a way to stop the enemy, it is that very enemy.

All in all, I feel the ending is... how should I put this... kinda bad.

Catalyst made to do it by the Crucible. All about the interpretation.

And, yes, yes it is.

[robertthebard]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And it always comes down to "as proven by what subsequently happens". And yet again, it needs to be pointed out Shepard is not clairvoyant. And it is not "someone" who offers him a way to stop the enemy, it is that very enemy.

All in all, I feel the ending is... how should I put this... kinda bad.

Yet it doesn't, always.  For example, I didn't have to make much of an intuitive leap to figure out that Refusal means the cycle continues, and since I'm one of two survivors that actually got to the beam, out of hundreds, and I've seen the actual galaxy map to know that the entire galaxy is Reaperville, somebody else's name, but it's catchy, how much of a leap is it to think that Refusal equals Reapers win?  I have been presented with 3 options, and I chose to choose none of them, so the galaxy burns.  Well, that's certainly surprising, considering the galaxy was burning before I ever got to where I could make the choices.

3D talks about videos and dialogs where people are surprised that Refusal was a loss, but I'm going to postulate that those people figured they could refuse and get a conventional victory, totally ignoring what's been happening to the galaxy up to the point they get to make their choice.  It's like they think they're making that choice in a vacuum, and none of the events of the past matter.  When I look at the galaxy map, getting ready to go to Earth at the end, and it's completely Reaper dominated, that tells me that despite whatever my EMS is, and mine is never all that high, although if I could play MP worth a crap, it could be higher, but somebody that does play says it doesn't matter, despite the Galaxy at War saying the Reapers are being pushed back on some fronts, they are still winning.  We then take the bulk of our forces, and concentrate them on one goal, delivering the Crucible(I'll touch on bad ending is bad), we're going to lose even systems where we might have been managing some kind of real resistance.

The whole presentation of the Crucible is poorly handled, and the end sequence especially so.  However, we, just like every cycle before us, are getting hammered.  This isn't a stretch to believe, since it's happened countless times before.  We were given an oppurtunity to do things differently, and maybe come away with a win w/out the Crucible, but it was squandered.  Instead of preparing for the inevitable, leadership pretended the problem didn't exist, to the point of accusatory "So that's our plan" from people that should have been taking the threat more seriously after Sovereign, instead of pretending it was a one off thing.  So no, I didn't need precognition, or metagame knowledge to know that choosing to do nothing means we lose.  It's quite literally written in the stars, w/out needing any space magic to see it, just plotting a course on the galaxy map.

[Comsky159]

Refuse was necessary to keep foreign substances from being introduced into our precious bodily fluids.

[3DandBeyond]

Goneaviking wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well, criminal negligence carries much less of a penalty than mass murder.  That's the thing.  But I still believe it can be argued that Shepard has no idea that refusing the kid is refusal to act and to use the Crucible.  Shooting the kid certainly isn't.  Shepard has to be psychic to know that refusing the choices would shut down the Crucible and only if Shepard believes that the Crucible as a "weapon", it's original intent, no longer is viable do the consequences of not using the Crucible become a point.  Shepard does not know with any degree of certainty that the kid is the catalyst and that the crucible is linked to the choices.  Everything else is irrelevant.
[snip]

Great, fine. Shepard called the catalyst's bluff, but the catalyst wasn't bluffing. He took a chance, it didn't pay off but he's still responsible for the outcome.

And no. It doesn't require a psychic to know that refusing to make a choice would end in his failure, virtually every Shepard managed to make that deduction on the first playthrough. We knew we'd been making a device that the protheans believed would end the cycle of destruction, but we had no idea what would happen when we turned it on. A conversation with a ghost child wouldn't have been on my list of likely scenarios, but when it happened the most prudent response was to just roll with it.

No, virtually every Shepard did not.  Have you checked out youtube where people have posted their first playthroughs of the EC?  There are a lot of Refuse videos that people have even narrated as they played that show they were completely surprised by it.  A great many posts in discussions about how bad the original endings were was about wanting to be able to refuse the kid and his choices and having that "shut off" the kid and make the crucible either function as a weapon of some sort.  Not a big space cannon but maybe some EMP like device that would impact reapers only.  That is why a lot of people may well have been surprised by refuse and shooting the kid doing something.

I was speaking here of not metagaming.  You have no way of knowing what will happen until you do it.  You have no way of knowing the origins of the plans and the Protheans were at least partly wrong about it.  They thought the citadel was the catalyst.  The Protheans weren't gods, but you still are missing my point.  Shepard could believe the choices are not related to the crucible-the crucible might be able to be used to power them, but that doesn't have to mean that the choices are the only way the crucible could be used.  You're not reading what I've said.  The kid could be using the crucible to power the choices, but that doesn't mean Shepard would even have to think making a choice is necessary to use the crucible.  Shepard could think the kid is just using the choices as a trap and if s/he refuses to do so that the crucible could be used for its real purpose.

I know what happens is what happens.  I am speaking purely from Shepard's POV.  Of course refuse as it is just kills off the galaxy, but from Shepard's POV there's no way to know that.  And there's no way to know that refusing the choices is refusing to use the crucible.  Your Shepard would have to be psychic to know that.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 août 2012 - 12:09 .

[3DandBeyond]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And it always comes down to "as proven by what subsequently happens". And yet again, it needs to be pointed out Shepard is not clairvoyant. And it is not "someone" who offers him a way to stop the enemy, it is that very enemy.

All in all, I feel the ending is... how should I put this... kinda bad.

This is the exact point.  The kid does want you to make a choice.  He also has two other lesser choices.  They are solutions to the problem as he sees it.  But the choices might not be what he says they are and they might not be the only way the crucible could be used.  We are being Shepard and Shepard can't repeatedly do things to see what happens and then make his/her real choice.  The enemy stands there spewing a lot of garbage and it would take some real lapse on Shepard's part to believe anything he says.

Shepard cannot prove the kid is right and truthful before making a choice.  Shepard is asked to put faith in the enemy. 

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Shepard cannot prove the kid is right and truthful before making a choice.  Shepard is asked to put faith in the enemy. 

... or in the Crucible. The Reapers did fight against deploying the Crucible, don't forget about it. Consequences of Crucible's deployment aren't really beneficial for the Reapers. Of course you can also interpret this as a reverse psychology, but this "traps within traps" can get ridiculous fast.

But in general I agree with you - refusal through shooting is plain retarded. Refusal through dialogue exploration is also very surprising, it isn't in line with other endings, having it confirmed through dialogue alone is very unforeseen, especially for the people who played original endings and expected to be left alone in empty room making a choice, but wanted to check on new lines added first.

I'm against even adding refusal as an option, since I find it completely out of character, but I understand some people wanted it. But it was implemented in the wrong way - you can't just suggest a player that choice is made by actual actions (through visions of TIM/Anderson/synth-hole), and then surpise him like that, that is counter-intuitive.

Kid getting angry about shooting his hologram is completely, absolutely stupid.

If we assume he is forced to give you choice, shooting him shouldn't take the possibility away from you.

If we assume he simply wants to give you choice, shooting him shouldn't make him go all angry, he is millenia old AI, not a sulky kid!

I don't believe refusal was meant as FU to players, but refusal through shooting seems to be just that.

How I see choices in game:

- metagaming knowledge ie Shepard knows how each ending plays out - refusal out of the question

- no metagaming knowledge, Shepard doesn't know how endings play out, he doesn't know if Catalyst is lying or not, but he knows refusing won't let him make other choice - refusal is still out of the question, on somewhat weaker base, requiring big leap of faith - that is how it should be

- Shepard doesn't know anything at all, and player simply tries to roleplay - refusal is sadly an option here - that's how it is

Modifié par Pitznik, 17 août 2012 - 12:43 .

[Ageless Face]

Wait OP. So people who use the Crucible are justifying the loss of trillions. But aren't you justifying yourself for refusing, and by that justifying the loss of trillions that you could have saved but didn't?

Talk about hypocrisy...

[estebanus]

I refused simply because of what it represents: Freedom.

If you choose refuse because of the consequences, I'm not sure that would be a good choice.

[Ageless Face]

estebanus wrote...

I refused simply because of what it represents: Freedom.

If you choose refuse because of the consequences, I'm not sure that would be a good choice.

Unless you hate everyone. Then refuse is a great choice by it's consequences.

[Reorte]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Shepard cannot prove the kid is right and truthful before making a choice.  Shepard is asked to put faith in the enemy. 

No he doesn't, because he's in a "well, there's nothing to lose by trying it" position (although I'm in the camp that thinks that overall and taking the very long view Synthesis is worse than Refuse, so there is something to lose - god, I hate space magic that can literally do anything so all bets at all for this story and every other ME one are off the table).

[Reorte]

estebanus wrote...

I refused simply because of what it represents: Freedom.

If you choose refuse because of the consequences, I'm not sure that would be a good choice.

It represents death. The freedom of the grave is massively over-rated. Is it better for everyone else than the freedom they have with the Reapers gone in Destroy? Sure, believe that Shepard gave in to the enemy to achieve that but then he's sacrificed his integrity for the sake of everyone (other than the geth) if that's what you think it means.

Edit to add: Not even the freedom of the grave for the ones who get melted into a new Reaper, until the next cycle kills them at any rate.

Modifié par Reorte, 17 août 2012 - 12:59 .

[estebanus]

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...

I refused simply because of what it represents: Freedom.

If you choose refuse because of the consequences, I'm not sure that would be a good choice.

Unless you hate everyone. Then refuse is a great choice by it's consequences.

yup.

[estebanus]

Reorte wrote...

estebanus wrote...

I refused simply because of what it represents: Freedom.

If you choose refuse because of the consequences, I'm not sure that would be a good choice.

It represents death. The freedom of the grave is massively over-rated. Is it better for everyone else than the freedom they have with the Reapers gone in Destroy? Sure, believe that Shepard gave in to the enemy to achieve that but then he's sacrificed his integrity for the sake of everyone (other than the geth) if that's what you think it means.

You're once again mixing consequence and representation up. It represents freedom because of what Shepard says.
If it would represent death, then Shepard would have said that s/he isn't making a choice because s/he wants to see everyone die.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...


3D talks about videos and dialogs where people are surprised that Refusal was a loss, but I'm going to postulate that those people figured they could refuse and get a conventional victory, totally ignoring what's been happening to the galaxy up to the point they get to make their choice.  It's like they think they're making that choice in a vacuum, and none of the events of the past matter.  When I look at the galaxy map, getting ready to go to Earth at the end, and it's completely Reaper dominated, that tells me that despite whatever my EMS is, and mine is never all that high, although if I could play MP worth a crap, it could be higher, but somebody that does play says it doesn't matter, despite the Galaxy at War saying the Reapers are being pushed back on some fronts, they are still winning.  We then take the bulk of our forces, and concentrate them on one goal, delivering the Crucible(I'll touch on bad ending is bad), we're going to lose even systems where we might have been managing some kind of real resistance.

snipped

Sure it's possible some did think they could try and get a conventional victory.  And there's nothing wrong with thinking that.  I don't care what the game says at places, at other places it says you have good chances of winning, so it's contradictory.  A person could reasonably have assumed (based on the other games and things said in ME3) that some type of actual fight, not fully conventional could win.  I don't want to argue about it-the writers said it was impossible in some places, but said it might be possible in other places.  Sure, it proved impossible.  I understand that.  But, when you first play the game, if you actually read everything and paid attention to all that you were shown, it was possible to conclude that with some luck and hard work, refuse would make it possible.  We saw that was not true.  If you didn't have high enough EMS then you never saw one big sign that said it was possible-on the war assets screen.  Chances of winning are even.  That does not mean it's impossible.  But ok it was.  But that was not the main thing people thought would happen if they shot or refused the kid.  They repeatedly asked for a refuse that shut off the kid and the choices and made the crucible work as it was supposed to. 

Shepard could figure that using one of those choices is a gamble that could indeed make things worse.  People ask how death in time due to reapers could be made worse, well how about all that built up power being used for an instant harvest or to annhilate the galaxy by releasing a huge amount of dark energy at once?  Some say the kid wouldn't do that.  Well I disagree.  He already has a warped idea of how to handle an exaggerated, all but imaginary problem, and he carries it out in the most abhorrent way.  He seeds the galaxy with reaper tech so that organics will develop and be ready to harvest every 50k years.  He harvests them at the point where they can make synthetics that he thinks will kill them.  He does all that to avoid a conflict.  He is capable of doing anything to avoid that conflict.  His goal isn't saving organics, he is to prevent a conflict.  So the choices could do anything.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 août 2012 - 01:06 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

estebanus wrote...

Reorte wrote...

estebanus wrote...

I refused simply because of what it represents: Freedom.

If you choose refuse because of the consequences, I'm not sure that would be a good choice.

It represents death. The freedom of the grave is massively over-rated. Is it better for everyone else than the freedom they have with the Reapers gone in Destroy? Sure, believe that Shepard gave in to the enemy to achieve that but then he's sacrificed his integrity for the sake of everyone (other than the geth) if that's what you think it means.

You're once again mixing consequence and representation up. It represents freedom because of what Shepard says.
If it would represent death, then Shepard would have said that s/he isn't making a choice because s/he wants to see everyone die.

So...it's okay that everyone gets killed/reaperfied as long as Shepard makes some idealistic speech first?

...Gotcha:mellow:

[3DandBeyond]

Reorte wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Shepard cannot prove the kid is right and truthful before making a choice.  Shepard is asked to put faith in the enemy. 

No he doesn't, because he's in a "well, there's nothing to lose by trying it" position (although I'm in the camp that thinks that overall and taking the very long view Synthesis is worse than Refuse, so there is something to lose - god, I hate space magic that can literally do anything so all bets at all for this story and every other ME one are off the table).

This is not a choice of using the crucible or not using the crucible.  This is about making a choice or refusing the choices and the kid.  Shepard does not know that refusing or shooting the kid will shut down the crucible.  The kid is the only one linking himself and the choices to the crucible. 

Yes s/he does have to put faith in the enemy.  You assume there's nothing to lose because you are still believing the kid and you are metagaming.  Shepard cannot and would not base anything on what the kid says.  It makes no sense to believe the kid.  The kid is telling Shepard what the choices are, even if he didn't create the choices-he explains them.  But they are also new solutions because his old solution won't work-the reapers won't work.  He needs a new solution to his warped idea of a problem.

The choice isn't necessarily use the choices or try a conventional fight.  The decision is more complicated than that.  The choices might not really do what the kid says they do.  Are they labeled and say Control, Synthesis, Destroy.  No, the kid says what they are. Shepard has to trust that.  Who says that's all the crucible will do?  No one.  The kid doesn't even ever say that.  The kid never says if Shepard doesn't make a choice then the crucible will shut off.  He does try to dissuade Shepard and say the s/he will lose and all that, but again that is just what the kid says.  Shepard would have to trust him in order to believe that.

Using the choices is all based on trusting the kid.  It is as simple as that.  He is the only one telling you that the choices work with the crucible.  He's the only one telling you about the choices.  You have no way of knowing that making a choice won't make things worse than not making a choice.