925 réponses à ce sujet

[Isichar]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did you ask all the other people in the galaxy if they wanted you to throw away their one and only chance of victory to sacrifice them all to a horrible, horrible death?

Never asked.

Maybe if it was so important to them they should have gotten to the beam first.

Did the people who chose destroy ask the geth and EDI if it was alright to sacrifice them so that organics could survive?
Did those who chose control ask the galaxy is they were ok with Shepard becoming the new overlord and using the reapers to shape the galaxy in the way he/she saw fit?
Did the people who chose synthesis ask if it was alright to force an evolution on them that no one asked for?

And since I already know these questions are going to go ignored I will tell you. No, no, no.

Modifié par Isichar, 22 août 2012 - 08:56 .

[saracen16]

Trillions of lives burned to ash, to Reaper form. This is Refuse. This is supporting the Reapers.

This is murder.

[saracen16]

Isichar wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did you ask all the other people in the galaxy if they wanted you to throw away their one and only chance of victory to sacrifice them all to a horrible, horrible death?

Never asked.

Maybe if it was so important to them they should have gotten to the beam first.

Did the people who chose destroy ask the geth and EDI if it was alright to sacrifice them so that organics could survive?
Did those who chose control ask the galaxy is they were ok with Shepard becoming the new overlord and using the reapers to shape the galaxy in the way he/she saw fit?
Did the people who chose synthesis ask if it was alright to force an evolution on them that no one asked for?

And since I already know these questions are going to go ignored I will tell you. No, no, no.

Which of those questions can you say "no" to and WIN? Which of those questions can you say "no" to and leave with a clear conscience? Definitely not refuse. Definitely... not murder.

I never denied the fact that I was sacrificing the right of everyone let alone some people to determine their own futures, but better to have them living instead of dying.

Modifié par saracen16, 22 août 2012 - 09:17 .

[Dysjong]

Isichar -

I took synthesis. Destroy would mean that Legions sacrifice would be pointless, i wouldnt be able to look joker in the eyes again.

Control was a no go, sinds i told TIM that we were not ready.

If i refuse, then all the resources, diplomancy and time i spend to reach that moment, would mean nothing. Sure i can die by my beliefs but what about the rest of the galaxy? They may not know why the crucible didnt work but, nah it would be pointless.

Synthesis why in many ways is questionable, i think that the galaxy would come to the same conclusion, that is was for the best.

However, if i let the geth die and i wasnt happy with EDI, then i would have no problem with destroy.

[robertthebard]

Isichar wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did you ask all the other people in the galaxy if they wanted you to throw away their one and only chance of victory to sacrifice them all to a horrible, horrible death?

Never asked.

Maybe if it was so important to them they should have gotten to the beam first.

Did the people who chose destroy ask the geth and EDI if it was alright to sacrifice them so that organics could survive?
Did those who chose control ask the galaxy is they were ok with Shepard becoming the new overlord and using the reapers to shape the galaxy in the way he/she saw fit?
Did the people who chose synthesis ask if it was alright to force an evolution on them that no one asked for?

And since I already know these questions are going to go ignored I will tell you. No, no, no.

No, I didn't.  I didn't ask the Geth if I could shoot the tube, in my first game, there were no Geth.  I didn't ask EDI either.  However, if I would have taken the time to think about it, I wouldn't have needed to anyway.

I didn't choose control, and likely will never, but, the galaxy evidently likes my view of the galaxy, why else would they follow me, despite the fact that they outrank me?  "If this is going to get done, you're the one to do it" is a recurring theme throughout ME 3.  Whether it's brokering peace between the Geth and Quarians, or the Krogan and Turians, or curing the Genophage, or pretending to...  I never did that, but it's a viable option.  I guess I can apply this same arguement to Synthesis.

However, they did not put me in charge to stand there drooling and go "gee, I don't know".  I love the logic of "You can't kill the Geth and EDI, but it's ok to let everyone die, including Geth and EDI because I'm standing on my principles".  I also love the logic of "Taking any of the choices is "reasoning" with the Reapers".  Are you really mad at SC?  Then shoot the pipe, it actually kills him, instead of killing everything, and everyone you know in the galaxy.  I can understand being too insecure to want to make a choice, because reading back through this thread, that's what it comes down to.  People are too insecure in their own motivations to choose Control.  I would be that guy, as I've pointed out, eternity is a long time, can I guarentee that I won't wind up like SC?  Synthesis may end the Reaper war, but what happens next?  Is all rainbows and butterflies as EDI suggests, or will the same prejudices that existed pre-Reapers still exist? 

Will the Krogan rise up against a depleted galaxy, and take over?  Understanding does not equal acceptance.  I understand most, not all, but most of the motivations listed in this thread, but I don't accept them for me.  Obviously other people don't accept them either, or this would have been a really short thread.  So what is really accomplished here?  Cessation of Reaper hostility?  How long until they don't understand enough to decide to finish what they started and return to the status quo?  Will it ever happen?  Who knows, but it could.

Then we have Destroy.  My own logic dictates that if this is handled Deomcratically, with a vote, EDI and the Geth will lose that vote.  Looking at EDI's development through the game, her vote would be to Destroy, because she already believes that preserving humanity is worth dieing for.  I'm not sure where the Geth would come down in this, but it hardly matters, after all, I don't agree with laws that are voted on, either by legislature, or the general public, but I still have to abide by them.  The same applies to this choice.  Agree or disagree, this is the choice that actually preserves our way of life.  If I'm getting this far in the end sequence, I'm damn sure finishing what I started out to do, make dead Reapers.

All of this is moot for me, because in the vast majority of my games, it never happens.  Unlike the vast majority of this community, I am sincerely unhappy with how the Crucible was handled, and sincerely believe that I wouldn't have survived being nuked by Harbinger on the way to the beam.  This is why I don't play it, as a rule.  I'm forced to play it if I want to get some of the achievements, but other than that, what does it matter?  I find it contrived to even get to the ending sequence, and I find that contrivance to be insurmountable.  That is the Ultimate Refusal, anyone that plays past there and still chooses Refusal is a poser.

[Isichar]

saracen16 wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did you ask all the other people in the galaxy if they wanted you to throw away their one and only chance of victory to sacrifice them all to a horrible, horrible death?

Never asked.

Maybe if it was so important to them they should have gotten to the beam first.

Did the people who chose destroy ask the geth and EDI if it was alright to sacrifice them so that organics could survive?
Did those who chose control ask the galaxy is they were ok with Shepard becoming the new overlord and using the reapers to shape the galaxy in the way he/she saw fit?
Did the people who chose synthesis ask if it was alright to force an evolution on them that no one asked for?

And since I already know these questions are going to go ignored I will tell you. No, no, no.

Which of those questions can you say "no" to and WIN? Which of those questions can you say "no" to and leave with a clear conscience? Definitely not refuse. Definitely... not murder.

I never denied the fact that I was sacrificing the right of everyone let alone some people to determine their own futures, but better to have them living instead of dying.

Saren once asked "is submission not preferable to extinction?"

[Isichar]

robertthebard wrote...

anyone that plays past there and still chooses Refusal is a poser.

Ok

[Isichar]

Dysjong wrote...

Isichar -

I took synthesis. Destroy would mean that Legions sacrifice would be pointless, i wouldnt be able to look joker in the eyes again.

Control was a no go, sinds i told TIM that we were not ready.

If i refuse, then all the resources, diplomancy and time i spend to reach that moment, would mean nothing. Sure i can die by my beliefs but what about the rest of the galaxy? They may not know why the crucible didnt work but, nah it would be pointless.

Synthesis why in many ways is questionable, i think that the galaxy would come to the same conclusion, that is was for the best.

However, if i let the geth die and i wasnt happy with EDI, then i would have no problem with destroy.

Synthesis sure sounds the best but requires a huge leap of faith in both trust and logic. And considering the source I dont know if I could trust it.

Modifié par Isichar, 22 août 2012 - 11:07 .

[Dysjong]

It also requires a huge leap of faith in the rachni should you choice to save them. All the big choices in this trilogy requires leap of faith, because you don't know what happens after.

[saracen16]

Isichar wrote...

Saren once asked "is submission not preferable to extinction?"

That's a different context: his submission is equivalent to extinction. Previous cycles showed that indoctrinated slaves would eventually die, and they would be spared the horrible deaths the rest of their race would endure. Here, it is different: submission isn't extinction when the cycle is finished. When you refuse the Crucible, you submit to the Reapers and sign the death warrants of every single advanced civilization out there.

[The Twilight God]

Porenferser wrote...

Because then you won't have to abandon your ideals.

Oddly enough it is Refuse which results in the loss of freedom for the Geth. Refuse is the abrogation of Shepard's ideals.

The Twilight God wrote...

A common statement by supporters of Refusal is that Shepard using the destroy function deprives the Geth of their freedom. This is an innately inaccurate statement. Using destroy deprives the Geth of their synthetic lives. There freedom was deprived when they were being subjugated by the Rannoch Reaper. And their freedom will be deprived again when the Reapers convert them into a new reaper.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 22 août 2012 - 03:13 .

[zeypher]

Lol refuse and synthesis both choices result in galactic rape.

Modifié par zeypher, 22 août 2012 - 03:10 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

saracen16 wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Saren once asked "is submission not preferable to extinction?"

That's a different context: his submission is equivalent to extinction. Previous cycles showed that indoctrinated slaves would eventually die, and they would be spared the horrible deaths the rest of their race would endure. Here, it is different: submission isn't extinction when the cycle is finished. When you refuse the Crucible, you submit to the Reapers and sign the death warrants of every single advanced civilization out there.

To add to this, none of the endings really indicate a "submission". Maybe a compromise, in order to end the conflicts. But the two are not synonymous. The Catalyst acknowledges that his solution is no longer viable. That's all on Shepard.

But considering the sheer scale of galaxy-reaching decisions you can make throughout the trilogy, the sudden belief that we don't have the right to do this without the consent of the population is very odd.

[D24O]

Can't believe its been 8 days and this thread is still going strong.

[jules_vern18]

The game does not provide any compelling reason for Shepard to trust the catalyst. From shep's point of view, his arch enemy is basically saying, "ok, so jump into that beam over there and vaporize, grab those controls and disintegrate, or shoot that pipe and explode. I promise it will turn out for the best." Refuse is the only realistic option for a paragon OR renegade Shepard unless you're metagaming.

End of line.

[Pitznik]

jules_vern18 wrote...

The game does not provide any compelling reason for Shepard to trust the catalyst. From shep's point of view, his arch enemy is basically saying, "ok, so jump into that beam over there and vaporize, grab those controls and disintegrate, or shoot that pipe and explode. I promise it will turn out for the best." Refuse is the only realistic option for a paragon OR renegade Shepard unless you're metagaming.

End of line.

A drowning man will clutch at a straw.

[robertthebard]

jules_vern18 wrote...

The game does not provide any compelling reason for Shepard to trust the catalyst. From shep's point of view, his arch enemy is basically saying, "ok, so jump into that beam over there and vaporize, grab those controls and disintegrate, or shoot that pipe and explode. I promise it will turn out for the best." Refuse is the only realistic option for a paragon OR renegade Shepard unless you're metagaming.

End of line.

Yes, because knowing full well that the galaxy is going to die, and allowing it is better than thinking you might die, and deciding that the cost is too high.

I don't know what paragon you played, but mine chose destroy, and had to live with the knowledge that his action killed the Geth and EDI.  What I didn't have to live with was the knowledge that my inaction led to the deaths of everybody I know and love, including a potential LI that I sent back to the Normandy with "No matter what happens, I have to know that somebody lives through this".

I'm also not sure what Renegade you played, because my Brutal Renegade chose Destroy too.  Although she didn't have to worry about the Geth, they were already dead, and EDI signed up, knowing full well the risks involved, and if I could have asked her, I wouldn't have.  I knew what I was going to do to the Reapers as soon as I found out that the Collector Ship was the same one that killed me at the beginning of ME 2.  I was going to find a way, and kill them all.  They wanted to make it personal?  Cool, I showed them what a mistake that was.  I didn't even hesitate, I got the chance, and bang, blew them f    ,er, guys to hell.  If I could have shot TIM sooner, I would have, hated that guy for bringing me back to life, and then promising I could leave any time I wanted to.  Even though what he meant to say was "after I'm done using you as a pawn to get my new Reaper tech", which I blew up, laughing all the way.

[Yakko77]

zeypher wrote...

Lol refuse and synthesis both choices result in galactic rape.

Blunt but that pretty much sums it up.

[The Twilight God]

Pitznik wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

The game does not provide any compelling reason for Shepard to trust the catalyst. From shep's point of view, his arch enemy is basically saying, "ok, so jump into that beam over there and vaporize, grab those controls and disintegrate, or shoot that pipe and explode. I promise it will turn out for the best." Refuse is the only realistic option for a paragon OR renegade Shepard unless you're metagaming.

End of line.

A drowning man will clutch at a straw.

They are so butthurt over Starbinger that it's getting sad.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 22 août 2012 - 04:04 .

[jules_vern18]

Neither of my renegade or paragon shepards were stupid enough to trust the catalyst to destroy its own creations. Just because it turns out that he does if you choose that option doesn't mean shepard had any reason to trust it would happen.

Again, *without metagaming*, I think the themes of the series would have had Shepard trying to find his own way.

Why, though, does my opinion bother you so much?

[Pitznik]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Neither of my renegade or paragon shepards were stupid enough to trust the catalyst to destroy its own creations. Just because it turns out that he does if you choose that option doesn't mean shepard had any reason to trust it would happen.

Again, *without metagaming*, I think the themes of the series would have had Shepard trying to find his own way.

Why, though, does my opinion bother you so much?

Tonący chwyta się brzytwy. (A drowning man will clutch at a straw.) [or a razor, if you want to be literal]

Modifié par Pitznik, 22 août 2012 - 09:55 .

[Dharvy]

nvm...

Modifié par Dharvy, 22 août 2012 - 11:00 .

[robertthebard]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Neither of my renegade or paragon shepards were stupid enough to trust the catalyst to destroy its own creations. Just because it turns out that he does if you choose that option doesn't mean shepard had any reason to trust it would happen.

Again, *without metagaming*, I think the themes of the series would have had Shepard trying to find his own way.

Why, though, does my opinion bother you so much?

I think that, standing on the pedestal, or whatever the hell it is we're standing on was Shepard finding another way.  I find the arguement that Shepard, who has a rep for getting the job done, no matter the cost, would stand there and say "No" to killing the Reapers, or at least trying to, is far fetched.  Did Shepard know the Conduit was actually going to take him/her to the Citadel?  Nope, could have been defective, since it was, in all actuallity experimental tech, Vigil tells you that.  Did Shepard trust that the Reaper IFF would really take them into a safe zone in the Galactic Core just because TIM said it would?  I know mine didn't trust TIM any farther than I could throw him on the Elcor homeworld, but we went anyway.  Why?  Because we had to get it done.  We were forced, multiple times to take things on faith.  We did it, because we had to.  This isn't any different, and, if it doesn't work, as somebody else pointed out earlier, what have we got to lose? 

Looking at the Galaxy map on the way to Earth, and watching what happened to Hammer on the way to the beam, I don't need to metagame to know that doing nothing isn't an option.  If I was going to do nothing, I'd tell Joker to put in a fake Mayday, hit the stealth system, and find a place way out of the way, and kick it with LI.  It would accomplish the same thing.  Hell, we could go hide at my apartment, if the Reapers are done in that system.  Start our own little colony; the Normandy Colony.  It would accomplish the same thing, a dead cycle, reload for the next time.  I didn't go out like that.  Most of the time, I don't talk to SC at all.  I die at the beam in London, where I can't make myself believe I got hit hard enough to melt my armor off and survive.  Between the blast and the blowing circuits in my armor, I figure I'm toast, cue up the Lazarus Project, or let me RIP.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

robertthebard wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
"he learned the fate of the many civilizations of eons past. Instead of using Sovereign as a weapon, as he had intended, Saren made it his goal to save the races of the galaxy by aiding the Reapers, proving the worth of organics to the Reapers so that they might be spared"

That's called, reasoning with Reaper ideals.

Here we are, running around in circles again.  Servants do not reason, they serve.  No where in any dialog with Saren does he suggest reasoning with the Reapers.

Reason

appease

The first is what you claim, the second is what Saren is actually doing, and you can call him on it in ME 1, and point out that TIM isn't suggesting it, unlike Saren, when talking to Hackett after the first Citadel run taking VS to the hospital after Mars.  Just because you want to twist the language to assuage your guilt for killing me and all of my relatives due to inaction doesn't mean I'm going to just say, OK, the language doesn't matter, you can twist whatever word you want to mean whatever you want.

Now, since we've come full circle to this, again, and it still has no bearing on the actual topic, do you think we can quit coming back to this?  I am starting to get dizzy from al this circular travel we're doing.

They became Indoctrinated servants by trying to reason with Reapers, that's what you fail to understand.

You know, it's pretty sad when you can quote, and emphasize a passage, and still try to twist it to mean what you want it to mean.  At any rate, I'm going to have to get off this merry go round you have going on.

That's ignorant from your point, I completely explained how it's reasoning with Reaper ideals and you just leave by saying it's wrong. A lot of deniance from your part.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Goneaviking wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
You're still not getting it, I'm saying building the crucible to Shepard's knowledge was something that always failed, yet he proceeded to do it.

If that's the way you insist on seeing it, then fine.

However creating the Crucible was a reasonably rational decision given the circumstances of the plans discovery, i.e. the rapid overwhelming attack that devastated Earth's defences and then humbled the Turian's military with a much lesser commitment (depicted as the two most powerful military forces in the game.)

Having created the Crucible, and successfully deployed it, it was a rational decision to utilitise it when given the opportunity. Don't trust the Catalyst kid? Fair enough, but you've seen the Reapers smash the ground forces that you helped land on Earth and are currently witnessing the destruction of the fleet you painstakingly assembled ever since fleeing Vancouver.

Thinking that you can somehow defeat the Reapers without using the Crucible in this cycle is irrational. All meaningful evidence is pointing to our inevitable failure.

At least one of the Catalyst's options genuinely makes no sense, and his honesty can legitimately be said to be 'doubtful'. But at least it's a chance, which is something you don't have if you choose to refuse.

Building a super-weapon that is supposedly is suppose to destroy all the Reapers, that countless of previous cycles have tried to build and failed is reasonable?

At the time the decision to create the Crucible was taken there was no talk about 'countless previous cycles', it was just a schematic they had retrieved very recently. It was taken with the knowledge that the Reapers had pulled of a surprise strike which decapitated the Prothean Empire and closed down the relay network effectively stranding every individual system and blocking any kind of collaboration.

The device is massive and requires diverse and excessive supplies of materials which would have rendered it effectively impossible to even attempt to make it credibly. Which is not to mention the amount to time it would have required to simply design such a weapon, particuliarly in an apparently isolated backwater system like Sol (where the schematices were hidden.)

By the time all of this malarkey about 'countless previous cycles' comes into play Shepard and co. are already committed to the plan and the device is well on its way to completion. Beyond that, the Crucible project is the entire focus of the multi-species alliance, if at this point they shelve the only plan anyone has put forward for mutual defence then it starts to look remarkably stupid sending your fleets away from your own homeworld to safeguard other species instead of looking out for their own survival.

So yes, it is a reasonably rational decision.

Certainly more so than throwing your forces away in pointless skirmishes while the reapers just steamroll over your major worlds and strip you of supplies and recruits.

Wrong.  
when Shepard retrieved the information on the Crucible, is clearly known before they start to build it that it's passed down from many cycles and none complete it.