925 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

If they wanted to say explicitly it in game, they would. Twitter doesn't count.

[AresKeith]

I don't accept twitter canon either, but apparently Bioware does, since they killed Emily Wong just to put in Diana Allers :/

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

I loved watching the control ending, the synthetic Shepard voice was haunting and perfect for its tone. Plus I would like to say it was the most appropriate of all the original endings imo (thematically, not in terms of what I would pick).

Theres 2 main issues I have with picking it. One I don't feel that Shepard 2.0 or anyone should act in the way the catalyst did and I can not help but feel it may become unavoidable over time. Since it is far too easy to let your ideals become the rule of the galaxy. Well destroy presents a risk that things could eventually revert back to the way it was, it is still something that can arguably be avoided (Although I think less likely since the Synthetics who were actually your allys are now gone) but with control the threat of the reapers is still there, even if it feels like less of a threat. But it still feels like potentially it could be the most dangerous assuming all the options worked as the catalyst claimed they would.

And 2nd I think the reapers themselves deserve peace from what is essentially their prison.

Lets pretend for a moment I did not refuse and everyone does not die, then I would like to think I would have left the galaxy in a state that does need the reapers to grow. Having the reapers around could force peace between the races, but that is not exactly fixing anything.

In case Shepard-Catalyst goes mad, it will be again crazy AI + reapers vs the galaxy, so no different than refusal really. Same about Reapers - once they're done, tehy can be destroyed.

One thing that worries me, is that Shepard AI can have completely different point of view than flesh and blood Shepard. Maybe for Shepard AI destroying the Reapers would be illogical? Hell knows, how exactly he thinks.

[Pitznik]

AresKeith wrote...

I don't accept twitter canon either, but apparently Bioware does, since they killed Emily Wong just to put in Diana Allers :/

These really don't depend on each other - it is not like there can be only two named reporters in the galaxy, and third one must die.

[SpamBot2000]

Pitznik wrote...

Neither my english nor knowledge about philosophy is good enough to answer you. What is ITRW?

In The Real World?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Comsky159 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

fortunately twitter isn't apart of the me universe

Emily Wong died via Twitter canon :/

Firstly, Twitter isn't canon. If you don't want to accept Emily's death via Twitter, there's nothing stopping you.

Secondly, even if some things on Twitter ARE canon, there is an explicit difference between a Twitter feed for the "Alliance News Network" which was set up to tell a short story directly related to ME3, and a producer's personal Twitter feed. 

If Emily Wong had died via contemporary short story that was distrubted on BioWare's website (or, frankly, sent to you as an email in game) there would not have been the outrage about it. People simply want to blame the medium it was told in.

Quite frankly, I enjoyed the Emily Wong story because it showed that Twitter can be used for more than "LOL im poopin an twitterin at teh same time".

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Isichar wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

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.

Got ya... okay. I did read your original post. It's just that the discussion veered off in this direction so I went with it.

You ORIGINALLY said:

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most
horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the
reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the
crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it
just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to
actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.

Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

You've built a big ****ing gun, and you've got it pointed at the head of this reaper AI that is trying to negotiate with you. It wants you to join with them in Synthesis. It will accept your Control. It will resign to being Destroyed. If you Refuse to do anything it will simply continue what it has been doing because it knows no different.

So what you're saying is that it is better to become a jar of human preserves than to destroy the thing to save our cycle, because you think this somehow dishonors the trillions it has already killed? That by destroying it with this big ****ing gun, you justify what it has been doing?

Do I have it right now?

The only valid reason I can see for refusing (and I'd pick the shooting option) the Starbrat is giving the middle finger to BW for giving us this s*** f*** of an ending to Shepard's story.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 17 août 2012 - 07:53 .

[Dharvy]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

You've built a big ****ing gun, and you've got it pointed at the head of this reaper AI that is trying to negotiate with you. It wants you to join with them in Synthesis. It will accept your Control. It will resign to being Destroyed. If you Refuse to do anything it will simply continue what it has been doing because it knows no different.

*snipped*

This right here. This is the simple reality of the situation.

So many speculate, and fear, and distrust, and get confused, and think its some elaborate trap, and think you're submitting, and make up all kinds of differing ideals about what is happening at the end with the talk with the Catalyst.

Modifié par Dharvy, 17 août 2012 - 08:06 .

[Goneaviking]

3DandBeyond wrote...
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.

Your evidence is youtube videos? Not only is that purely subjective based on which links you clicked on, it's also dependant on the makers of the videos being honest.

People can complain as much as they want about the endings, and post that they want the developers to change the ending and postulate about what they want to happen but their's no reason to actually expect them to change it to suit them. Especially since we were all told explicitly that their would be no new endings, only closure and clarifications on the existing ones. Even the refuse ending isn't new. It just steps up the pace from the previous ending where if you waited long enough you all die anyway to include an option that if you shoot the kid you annoy him.

You cite people on BSN wanting to tell the kid off, he shuts up and then the crucible fires anyway. They can want it until the cows start eating people sandwiches, all it amounts to is a powerfantasy. "Yeah, the reaper wanted me to pick an option and I told it shut the **** up and then made it into my ****."

In short, they just want it to have it both ways.

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 read what you had to say, and I saw the point you were making. But the argument holds no water because it turns a decisive and canny veteran into an indecisive and witless rube. The whole series it's made clear that the weight of responsibility is thrust onto Shepard's shoulders - the rest of the galaxy either can't do anything about the menace or chooses not to. The whole series Shepard makes hard decisions - whether to save the council (or maybe just the Destiny Ascension because it had a damned big gun) or hold forces back to get a better advantage - whether to cure the genophage or indirectly cause the extinction of the krogan by destroying the cure AND tricking them into a suicidal war at the behest of the peole who created the taint in the first place - to destroy the Collecter Base because the knowledge it might contain was too dangerous to trust to the Illusive Man or hand it over to him in the hopes it will allow us to survive long enough for him to turn his xenophobic ambitions into reality.

It's conceivable that Shepard fell into the same trap that the Council did three years earlier, not believing the evidence before his eyes. But if he tells the Catalyst to get bent and shoots him, then he's still responsible for the outcome. It was his choice and it was predictable even if he didn't predict it himself.

He would still be responsible even if there was no reason to believe it, because it was still his choice to make.

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.

Except there is a way to know that refusing the choices is refusing to use the crucible. The evidence supports it, I can accept that it's conceivable not to see that in the heat of the moment but the evidence is there. 

You spend an entire game trying to facilitate the creation of a mystery device whose effect you can't even predict and then walk into a conversation with a spectral kid who's shape was taken out of your subconscious and you argue that there is no way it was possible to make the deductive leap that this is what's supposed to happen?

That is total garbage. Of course it was possible, the very fact that you had no idea about what the weapon could do - and presumably no knowledge about what operating system it used is enough to open up the possibility that it was telling the truth to any open mind. Doesn't necessarily guarantee it was speaking truthfully, but it definitely possible to reasonable take it at face value in the circumstances.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Isichar wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

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.

Got ya... okay. I did read your original post. It's just that the discussion veered off in this direction so I went with it.

You ORIGINALLY said:

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most
horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the
reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the
crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it
just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to
actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.

Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

You've built a big ****ing gun, and you've got it pointed at the head of this reaper AI that is trying to negotiate with you. It wants you to join with them in Synthesis. It will accept your Control. It will resign to being Destroyed. If you Refuse to do anything it will simply continue what it has been doing because it knows no different.

So what you're saying is that it is better to become a jar of human preserves than to destroy the thing to save our cycle, because you think this somehow dishonors the trillions it has already killed? That by destroying it with this big ****ing gun, you justify what it has been doing?

Do I have it right now?

The only valid reason I can see for refusing (and I'd pick the shooting option) the Starbrat is giving the middle finger to BW for giving us this s*** f*** of an ending to Shepard's story.

What if you absolutely believe that the catalyst is lying, doesn't it seem more reasonble to take a chance with you allies.

By using the crucible, your taking the same chance you do in refuse, that a miracle might happen. The only reason Refusal is hated on is because it leads to failure, if it lead to victory, most people would be saying trusting the catalyst is loony and that trusting your allies to win makes more sense.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 17 août 2012 - 11:56 .

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

What if you absolutely believe that the catalyst is lying, doesn't it seem more reasonble to take a chance with you allies.

By using the crucible, your taking the same chance you do in refuse, that a miracle might happen. The only reason Refusal is hated on is because it leads to failure, if it lead to victory, most people would be saying trusting the catalyst is loony and that trusting your allies to win makes more sense.

Believing that someone is lying isn't the same as knowing he is not telling the truth. There is some risk, some chance involved. There is hammered to your head since the start of ME3 that conventional victory just can't happen. No chance. So it is still choice between suspicious unknown and certain defeat. Unless you don't consider the defeat certain, but that is a whole different arguement.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

What if you absolutely believe that the catalyst is lying, doesn't it seem more reasonble to take a chance with you allies.

By using the crucible, your taking the same chance you do in refuse, that a miracle might happen. The only reason Refusal is hated on is because it leads to failure, if it lead to victory, most people would be saying trusting the catalyst is loony and that trusting your allies to win makes more sense.

Believing that someone is lying isn't the same as knowing he is not telling the truth. There is some risk, some chance involved. There is hammered to your head since the start of ME3 that conventional victory just can't happen. No chance. So it is still choice between suspicious unknown and certain defeat. Unless you don't consider the defeat certain, but that is a whole different arguement.

You can speak for yourselve, but not for someone else. It s completely reasonable to believe that trusting the catalyst will lead to certain defeat, so it's reasonable to take a chance with your allies.
Also, in all honesty, Shepard makes a living out of doing the impossible. And even if you believe that there is no way to win conventionally, but also believe that the Catalyst is lying. You don't have to take the risk, you can refuse, lower down their numbers for the next cycle, try to survive via stasis pods,etc.

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

You can speak for yourselve, but not for someone else. It s completely reasonable to believe that trusting the catalyst will lead to certain defeat, so it's reasonable to take a chance with your allies.
Also, in all honesty, Shepard makes a living out of doing the impossible. And even if you believe that there is no way to win conventionally, but also believe that the Catalyst is lying. You don't have to take the risk, you can refuse, lower down their numbers for the next cycle, try to survive via stasis pods,etc.

Denial then. Ok, valid answer nonetheless.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

You can speak for yourselve, but not for someone else. It s completely reasonable to believe that trusting the catalyst will lead to certain defeat, so it's reasonable to take a chance with your allies.
Also, in all honesty, Shepard makes a living out of doing the impossible. And even if you believe that there is no way to win conventionally, but also believe that the Catalyst is lying. You don't have to take the risk, you can refuse, lower down their numbers for the next cycle, try to survive via stasis pods,etc.

Denial then. Ok, valid answer nonetheless.

Denial how?

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

You can speak for yourselve, but not for someone else. It s completely reasonable to believe that trusting the catalyst will lead to certain defeat, so it's reasonable to take a chance with your allies.
Also, in all honesty, Shepard makes a living out of doing the impossible. And even if you believe that there is no way to win conventionally, but also believe that the Catalyst is lying. You don't have to take the risk, you can refuse, lower down their numbers for the next cycle, try to survive via stasis pods,etc.

Denial then. Ok, valid answer nonetheless.

Denial how?

About chance of conventional victory. But it doesn't matter, at least I know where you come from. If I believed that cv has a chance of happening, I would probably stick to it, too.

[AlanC9]

Pitznik wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I don't quite get how someone can actually be a serious Kantian ITRW; but if someone is, it isn't selfish to act according to those precepts. Nor irresponsible.

Neither my english nor knowledge about philosophy is good enough to answer you. What is ITRW?

In The Real World (thanks, SpamBot). Kant's system works great if you're an academic somewhere who doesn't actually have to make any important decisions ever.

Some people really do think that way. We've had a couple of them in this thread.

[Pitznik]

AlanC9 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I don't quite get how someone can actually be a serious Kantian ITRW; but if someone is, it isn't selfish to act according to those precepts. Nor irresponsible.

Neither my english nor knowledge about philosophy is good enough to answer you. What is ITRW?

In The Real World (thanks, SpamBot). Kant's system works great if you're an academic somewhere who doesn't actually have to make any important decisions ever.

Some people really do think that way. We've had a couple of them in this thread.

I guess I'm just too old for that. I just reject any philosophical concept of morality that doesn't really work in practice. For me choice is either meaningless or judged by its consequences.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Isichar wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

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.

Got ya... okay. I did read your original post. It's just that the discussion veered off in this direction so I went with it.

You ORIGINALLY said:

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most
horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the
reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the
crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it
just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to
actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.

Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

You've built a big ****ing gun, and you've got it pointed at the head of this reaper AI that is trying to negotiate with you. It wants you to join with them in Synthesis. It will accept your Control. It will resign to being Destroyed. If you Refuse to do anything it will simply continue what it has been doing because it knows no different.

So what you're saying is that it is better to become a jar of human preserves than to destroy the thing to save our cycle, because you think this somehow dishonors the trillions it has already killed? That by destroying it with this big ****ing gun, you justify what it has been doing?

Do I have it right now?

The only valid reason I can see for refusing (and I'd pick the shooting option) the Starbrat is giving the middle finger to BW for giving us this s*** f*** of an ending to Shepard's story.

What if you absolutely believe that the catalyst is lying, doesn't it seem more reasonble to take a chance with you allies.

By using the crucible, your taking the same chance you do in refuse, that a miracle might happen. The only reason Refusal is hated on is because it leads to failure, if it lead to victory, most people would be saying trusting the catalyst is loony and that trusting your allies to win makes more sense.

No it does not. I think you're being a bit too paranoid. There's a healthy degree of paranoia which I have, and there's unhealthy paranoia which is tinfoil hat stuff. See you have 0% chance of winning conventionally. This is evidenced over 20,000 or more cycles. No one has beaten the reapers, and this cycle is more primative than some; could have been more organized but it let petty grievances interfere. So 0% chance. This is, in effect, an objective truth like gravity.

Your absolute belief that the AI construct is lying is a belief and nothing more. A person may have an absolute belief in the existance of the flying spaghetti monster (I use that as an example so as not to get into forbidden topics), but that doesn't mean it exists.

What you choose to do is believe the AI is lying and continue to do something that has been tried and has failed 100% of the time probably over 20,000 consecutive times ever since the first reaper was created.

Blowing up or shooting the plasma conduit (RED) is something that has never been tried. Sure, you don't know if it's going to work. You are taking its word that it will work. You may believe that it is lying about that, but what if it's not? This is also a belief, and is equally as valid, and may actually have more merit because it is something that hasn't been tried before. Ever played Liar's Dice? Sometimes you tell the truth.

Isn't it better to try something that hasn't been tried before that might work, than to do the same thing for the 20,000+ time that has failed and will fail again?

And actually the hellfire and brimstone stuff did happen when I shot the red plasma conduit.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 18 août 2012 - 01:15 .

[robertthebard]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

What if you absolutely believe that the catalyst is lying, doesn't it seem more reasonble to take a chance with you allies.

By using the crucible, your taking the same chance you do in refuse, that a miracle might happen. The only reason Refusal is hated on is because it leads to failure, if it lead to victory, most people would be saying trusting the catalyst is loony and that trusting your allies to win makes more sense.

What would the Catalyst have to gain by lying to you?  Wouldn't it make more sense, if it is lying, to leave Destroy out?  After all, that is the only ending that actually ends it's existence.  Control changes the dynamics, as does Synthesis, although Synthesis will have less of an impact than Control, I think.

I hate all 4 choices equally, because I hate that you can actually survive something that rips a cruiser in half to get to them.  My head canon revolves around the situation evolving from there, where I died.  I don't have any problem with that, and frankly, if the game had ended there, I'd have been ecstatic about the ending.  It's not like the Council races, including Humans, took advantage of the time the Protheans bought us to prepare.  They were denying Sovereign's existence before they got the pieces cleaned out of the Presidium.  That's why Udina grounds the Normandy in ME 1.  Yes, ending the game right there would have been a slap in the face to the Turian Councilor's "Ah Reapers" meme, not that the condition of Palaven when we get there isn't already.

By using the Crucible, I am doing what I set out to do, in the two games where I have forced myself to play on from the beam.  No, I don't know for sure what it does, but I have seen the galaxy map, and I have seen what's happening on Earth, Thessia, and Palaven.  Doing nothing does not seem like a viable solution.  Even if my forces manage to take back Sol, how long is that going to last?  Part of a conventional war is cutting off supply lines, maybe sieging a system, as the Turians did to the colony in the First Contact War, but the Reapers don't need supplies.  There is no supply line to cut, no chain of command to exploit.  So unchecked, they will continue to harvest, and nothing is going to stop them.  GaW is misleading, at best, because despite what it may claim, the galaxy map is completely controlled by the Reapers.  So saying "I don't trust you to tell me the truth, so I'm going to do nothing" doesn't seem logical. 

I can see taking that road, and even know exactly how I would justify it, but it has nothing to do with trusting or not trusting SC.  It has everything to do with my own conviction, when I get there, if I get there...that the galaxy isn't worth saving.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

You can speak for yourselve, but not for someone else. It s completely reasonable to believe that trusting the catalyst will lead to certain defeat, so it's reasonable to take a chance with your allies.
Also, in all honesty, Shepard makes a living out of doing the impossible. And even if you believe that there is no way to win conventionally, but also believe that the Catalyst is lying. You don't have to take the risk, you can refuse, lower down their numbers for the next cycle, try to survive via stasis pods,etc.

Denial then. Ok, valid answer nonetheless.

Denial how?

About chance of conventional victory. But it doesn't matter, at least I know where you come from. If I believed that cv has a chance of happening, I would probably stick to it, too.

Even without conventional victory, I explained you what else.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

robertthebard wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

What if you absolutely believe that the catalyst is lying, doesn't it seem more reasonble to take a chance with you allies.

By using the crucible, your taking the same chance you do in refuse, that a miracle might happen. The only reason Refusal is hated on is because it leads to failure, if it lead to victory, most people would be saying trusting the catalyst is loony and that trusting your allies to win makes more sense.

What would the Catalyst have to gain by lying to you?  Wouldn't it make more sense, if it is lying, to leave Destroy out?  After all, that is the only ending that actually ends it's existence.  Control changes the dynamics, as does Synthesis, although Synthesis will have less of an impact than Control, I think.

I hate all 4 choices equally, because I hate that you can actually survive something that rips a cruiser in half to get to them.  My head canon revolves around the situation evolving from there, where I died.  I don't have any problem with that, and frankly, if the game had ended there, I'd have been ecstatic about the ending.  It's not like the Council races, including Humans, took advantage of the time the Protheans bought us to prepare.  They were denying Sovereign's existence before they got the pieces cleaned out of the Presidium.  That's why Udina grounds the Normandy in ME 1.  Yes, ending the game right there would have been a slap in the face to the Turian Councilor's "Ah Reapers" meme, not that the condition of Palaven when we get there isn't already.

By using the Crucible, I am doing what I set out to do, in the two games where I have forced myself to play on from the beam.  No, I don't know for sure what it does, but I have seen the galaxy map, and I have seen what's happening on Earth, Thessia, and Palaven.  Doing nothing does not seem like a viable solution.  Even if my forces manage to take back Sol, how long is that going to last?  Part of a conventional war is cutting off supply lines, maybe sieging a system, as the Turians did to the colony in the First Contact War, but the Reapers don't need supplies.  There is no supply line to cut, no chain of command to exploit.  So unchecked, they will continue to harvest, and nothing is going to stop them.  GaW is misleading, at best, because despite what it may claim, the galaxy map is completely controlled by the Reapers.  So saying "I don't trust you to tell me the truth, so I'm going to do nothing" doesn't seem logical. 

I can see taking that road, and even know exactly how I would justify it, but it has nothing to do with trusting or not trusting SC.  It has everything to do with my own conviction, when I get there, if I get there...that the galaxy isn't worth saving.

The catalyst has every reason to lie, I'm winning. And if you want to know what I mean, just ask.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

No it does not. I think you're being a bit too paranoid. There's a healthy degree of paranoia which I have, and there's unhealthy paranoia which is tinfoil hat stuff. See you have 0% chance of winning conventionally. This is evidenced over 20,000 or more cycles. No one has beaten the reapers, and this cycle is more primative than some; could have been more organized but it let petty grievances interfere. So 0% chance. This is, in effect, an objective truth like gravity.

Your absolute belief that the AI construct is lying is a belief and nothing more. A person may have an absolute belief in the existance of the flying spaghetti monster (I use that as an example so as not to get into forbidden topics), but that doesn't mean it exists.

What you choose to do is believe the AI is lying and continue to do something that has been tried and has failed 100% of the time probably over 20,000 consecutive times ever since the first reaper was created.

Blowing up or shooting the plasma conduit (RED) is something that has never been tried. Sure, you don't know if it's going to work. You are taking its word that it will work. You may believe that it is lying about that, but what if it's not? This is also a belief, and is equally as valid, and may actually have more merit because it is something that hasn't been tried before. Ever played Liar's Dice? Sometimes you tell the truth.

Isn't it better to try something that hasn't been tried before that might work, than to do the same thing for the 20,000+ time that has failed and will fail again?

And actually the hellfire and brimstone stuff did happen when I shot the red plasma conduit.

You say that previous cycles have failed before when defeating the Reapers conventionally, but now I ask you this.

Previous cycles failed before to finish the Crucible and we didn't. So we were able to do something even though previous cycles failed at it, so the point of "is worse to try something that has failed before" is moot, because your whole plan of finishing the crucible was done knowing previous cycles failed.

[AlanC9]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The catalyst has every reason to lie, I'm winning. And if you want to know what I mean, just ask.

I'm asking.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

No it does not. I think you're being a bit too paranoid. There's a healthy degree of paranoia which I have, and there's unhealthy paranoia which is tinfoil hat stuff. See you have 0% chance of winning conventionally. This is evidenced over 20,000 or more cycles. No one has beaten the reapers, and this cycle is more primative than some; could have been more organized but it let petty grievances interfere. So 0% chance. This is, in effect, an objective truth like gravity.

Your absolute belief that the AI construct is lying is a belief and nothing more. A person may have an absolute belief in the existance of the flying spaghetti monster (I use that as an example so as not to get into forbidden topics), but that doesn't mean it exists.

What you choose to do is believe the AI is lying and continue to do something that has been tried and has failed 100% of the time probably over 20,000 consecutive times ever since the first reaper was created.

Blowing up or shooting the plasma conduit (RED) is something that has never been tried. Sure, you don't know if it's going to work. You are taking its word that it will work. You may believe that it is lying about that, but what if it's not? This is also a belief, and is equally as valid, and may actually have more merit because it is something that hasn't been tried before. Ever played Liar's Dice? Sometimes you tell the truth.

Isn't it better to try something that hasn't been tried before that might work, than to do the same thing for the 20,000+ time that has failed and will fail again?

And actually the hellfire and brimstone stuff did happen when I shot the red plasma conduit.

You say that previous cycles have failed before when defeating the Reapers conventionally, but now I ask you this.

Previous cycles failed before to finish the Crucible and we didn't. So we were able to do something even though previous cycles failed at it, so the point of "is worse to try something that has failed before" is moot, because your whole plan of finishing the crucible was done knowing previous cycles failed.

You're on the ropes and reaching.

Crucible: Yes we completed it because ours wasn't sabotaged like the previous cycles were. That's why we were successful in completing it.

Conventional Victory: 1) Entire battle plan is based around a) cutting an opening for hammer to reach earth and they took a lot of casualties to do that; protecting the crucible. 2) The manufacturing capacity of the galaxy is drastically diminished. There is not sufficient capacity to build replacements at a rate needed. 3) The entire galactic fleet was committed to this one battle. This is all or nothing. Hackett is counting on the Crucible to work. If the Crucible doesn't work we lose. If you don't use the Crucible it is the same as it not working, hence we lose. Those are the odds. No Crucible = 0% chance of victory --> i.e. "get the hell out of here and drop as many of those time capsules on garden worlds as we can before we're destroyed."

So you can 1) go with the 0% chance; or 2) gamble that the Crucible will work as advertised. In real life I'd take the gamble.

PS: the Galaxy At War map is a lie. You are not winning even though it says you are. Stop playing Multi-player or your iOS app for a few weeks, or don't use a gibbed save game and you'll see what happens.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 18 août 2012 - 03:29 .

[Dharvy]

Well whether you hate the Catalyst or the "kid" as so many refers to it and thinks its lying, you learn beforehand that you NEED the Catalyst to use the Crucible. First you think the Catalyst is simply the Citadel but now you find the Catalyst is much more than just the Citadel. And the fact that you nearly passed out dead before you could actually use the Crucible, remember? "Its not firing, must be something on your end," from Hackett. So the Catalyst appearing and waking you up and explaining how it interacts with your Crucible and pretty much dragging you to the controls and placing the you in control of the destiny of your cycle somehow is a ruse to get you to lose?

Its not the Catalyst offering you choices its the Catalyst telling you how your Crucible interacts with it, the Catalyst, in order to fire. There is no using the Crucible without the Catalyst if the Crucible needs the Catalyst to operate. And if you all of a sudden don't trust the Catalyst, do you expect there's some instructions somewhere that say "push this button to use Crucible without the Catalyst"

But if you're really speculating and a little paranoid I can see if you think the Crucible is going to eventually fire, just a long wind up time to gather energy or whatever and the Catalyst has brought you up there to trick you into disarming the thing by shooting or messing with its connectors before it can fire. I can understand refusing based on that premise. But after waiting for a time you may be tempted to choose to operate the Crucible according to how you were instructed. But then you didn't really refuse based on principal, the Catalyst just used your high levels of distrust to trick you into not using your very own weapon. Which, storywise, is a good little trick twist ending.