925 réponses à ce sujet

[JBPBRC]

Isichar wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

For the same reason he claims synthesis was not possible beforehand as well.

Space magic didn't exist before the Crucible was completed and attached, so it really WAS impossible before. He spoke the truth, at least in that regard.

So it makes sense that a group of organics created a device capable of altering DNA in the entire galaxy without realizing it, when a group of advanced AI's who have been around for millions if not billions of years could not create despite harvesting the cycles of the ones who made the gun? How does that seem more logical to you?

Never said it was. Your example isn't space magic though, just ignorance and stupidity. (from the galaxy/Reapers)

Magic green beams of light that create synthesis/control Reapers if they turn blue/destroy Reapers if they turn red ARE space magic.

Modifié par JBPBRC, 14 août 2012 - 07:41 .

[Cobalt2113]

Isichar wrote...

This is pretty simple. What if firing the crucible turned everyone into husks? Something which most IT theorists believed would happen. You have no reason to believe it wouldnt until it is actually fired. At least if its not fired you can try and fight to the death.

Why wouldnt the catalyst have done this before?

For the same reason he claims synthesis was not possible beforehand as well.

Seriously, that's your reasoning? How is being turned into a husk worse than being turned into a reaper.

I'd love to hear you try and explain that to the crew. "Sorry guys, I had to let mass extinction take place. Otherwise something really bad might've happened."

[JBPBRC]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

Isichar wrote...

This is pretty simple. What if firing the crucible turned everyone into husks? Something which most IT theorists believed would happen. You have no reason to believe it wouldnt until it is actually fired. At least if its not fired you can try and fight to the death.

Why wouldnt the catalyst have done this before?

For the same reason he claims synthesis was not possible beforehand as well.

Seriously, that's your reasoning? How is being turned into a husk worse than being turned into a reaper.

I'd love to hear you try and explain that to the crew. "Sorry guys, I had to let mass extinction take place. Otherwise something really bad might've happened."

And then Javik throws Shepard out the airlock.

[AlanC9]

Isichar wrote...
This is pretty simple. What if firing the crucible turned everyone into husks? Something which most IT theorists believed would happen. You have no reason to believe it wouldnt until it is actually fired. At least if its not fired you can try and fight to the death.

So they die right now instead of dying after a couple of years of increasing terror? Or even a couple of decades? All the time knowing that their species, and everything they know, is doomed to extermination?

I just don't see how prolonging an inevitable total defeat is a better outcome than a chance at victory, however small.

[Isichar]

JBPBRC wrote...

Isichar wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

For the same reason he claims synthesis was not possible beforehand as well.

Space magic didn't exist before the Crucible was completed and attached, so it really WAS impossible before. He spoke the truth, at least in that regard.

So it makes sense that a group of organics created a device capable of altering DNA in the entire galaxy without realizing it, when a group of advanced AI's who have been around for millions if not billions of years could not create despite harvesting the cycles of the ones who made the gun? How does that seem more logical to you?

Never said it was. Your example isn't space magic though, just ignorance and stupidity. (from the galaxy/Reapers)

Magic green beams of light that create synthesis/control Reapers if they turn blue/destroy Reapers if they turn red ARE space magic.

The entire nature around the crucible working is space magic, thats all it comes down to.

[JBPBRC]

Isichar wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

Isichar wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

For the same reason he claims synthesis was not possible beforehand as well.

Space magic didn't exist before the Crucible was completed and attached, so it really WAS impossible before. He spoke the truth, at least in that regard.

So it makes sense that a group of organics created a device capable of altering DNA in the entire galaxy without realizing it, when a group of advanced AI's who have been around for millions if not billions of years could not create despite harvesting the cycles of the ones who made the gun? How does that seem more logical to you?

Never said it was. Your example isn't space magic though, just ignorance and stupidity. (from the galaxy/Reapers)

Magic green beams of light that create synthesis/control Reapers if they turn blue/destroy Reapers if they turn red ARE space magic.

The entire nature around the crucible working is space magic, thats all it comes down to.

No, that's just lazy/rushed writing trying to solve the Reaper problem. The Crucible could have just as easily been a shield-disabling device or a Death Star type weapon. Still ridiculous, but more plausible. The space magic comes from the magical beams of HOPE and FRIENDSHIP so now everyone is a friend to everyone! Even that Banshee over there!

[Isichar]

I am going to bed.

I have had enough of been called stupid, illogical, and crazy by people who don't have any interest in why someone would actually choose refuse.

I have been on these forums long enough to know that in just about all aspects of the ending there is someone arguing that it is stupid/illogical ect. ect. without actually asking why people believe what they do. I guess its much easier to bash the OP rather then spending any effort in understanding why they view what they do.

Fact is you dont know that firing the crucible will result in anything better until you actually fire it, and people believing that firing a magic gun is somehow a more valid chance at winning then conventional victory because Hacket says so comes down to opinion.

To the very few who argued against me without basing your opinions around: your stupid and wrong for thinking that. Ty.

To those who mindlessly typed "You would kill everyone for that?" over and over again, you missed the point and have 0 understanding that not everyone shares your PoV on the situation.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Isichar wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

You know that the Crucible does things other that Synthesis right?

Yeah, 1 option forces you to commit genocide and damage most technology (Ignoring the issue of how many races actually are dependant on tech to survive) and the other lets me kill myself to create a new catalyst, oh joy.

Not really. You don't lose anymore technology than you've already lost. You may lose the Geth if they're still around, and if so you do commit genocide. Better to sacrifice 10 billion so that trillions may live, because you condemn not only the remainder of your cycle to death, but perhaps the next cycle and several following cycles.

Besides, no one is going to put you on trial even if you survive. You are going to be a goddam hero. You saved the galaxy from certain destruction.

Push the damned button or shoot the damned tube. End the massacre once and for all.

[flanny]

 I always think of Rorschach from the Watchmen, he is similar to my Shep he's a full renegade who doesn't take authority well, but is uncompromising with his morals. It is better to die and fail than to live and succeed if it means compromising yourself. That is why Rorschach proved to be the greatest hero of all of them.

'it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees'

I also think it come down to the fact without metagaming trusting the catalyst is foolish. It also depends on what you think your chances are of defeating the reapers without the crucible (no it is not impossible)

Modifié par flanny, 14 août 2012 - 10:17 .

[Goneaviking]

Isichar wrote...

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.

So you're saying it's better to increase the number of deaths so that the next cycle has a chance to stop the reapers because our avatar doesn't want to let the catalyst think he's won the debate?

[Goneaviking]

flanny wrote...

 I always think of Rorschach from the Watchmen, he is similar to my Shep he's a full renegade who doesn't take authority well, but is uncompromising with his morals. It is better to die and fail than to live and succeed if it means compromising yourself. That is why Rorschach proved to be the greatest hero of all of them.

'it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees'

I also think it come down to the fact without metagaming trusting the catalyst is foolish. It also depends on what you think your chances are of defeating the reapers without the crucible (no it is not impossible)

Also, the greatest villain.

At least when Ozymandias committed his mass murder it was with the intent of 'saving the world'; when Rorschach blows him off it's not for any perceived greater good, it's just an unwillingness to bend to meet the circumstances.

[fchopin]

Isichar wrote...

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 are picked to represent Earth and all other races in our galaxy and not for your own amusement so do your job as a soldier and shoot the pipe.

[SHARXTREME]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

You know that the Crucible does things other that Synthesis right?

Yeah, 1 option forces you to commit genocide and damage most technology (Ignoring the issue of how many races actually are dependant on tech to survive) and the other lets me kill myself to create a new catalyst, oh joy.

Not really. You don't lose anymore technology than you've already lost. You may lose the Geth if they're still around, and if so you do commit genocide. Better to sacrifice 10 billion so that trillions may live, because you condemn not only the remainder of your cycle to death, but perhaps the next cycle and several following cycles.

Besides, no one is going to put you on trial even if you survive. You are going to be a goddam hero. You saved the galaxy from certain destruction.

Push the damned button or shoot the damned tube. End the massacre once and for all.

That's the problem. That math doesn't work. You don't save the galaxy from certain destruction. You save just a FEW technlogicaly advanced, space faring species. 3% of the galaxy.
3%. And by choosing synthesis or control you're putting  the survival of 3% before the will of 97% of species.
You even decide by YOURSELF how those 3%,or 100% should live from there on. Like a true galaxy overlord. Like Catalyst.

If you're just playing the game(without knowing the endings and tweets from Bioware), you can't possibly know that Refusal will enrage the little holo-mass murderer that much that he will shutdown the Crucible. 

I'm yet to hear a logical argument on why should Shepard comply to Catalyst without knowing the ending results.

[flanny]

Goneaviking wrote...

flanny wrote...

 I always think of Rorschach from the Watchmen, he is similar to my Shep he's a full renegade who doesn't take authority well, but is uncompromising with his morals. It is better to die and fail than to live and succeed if it means compromising yourself. That is why Rorschach proved to be the greatest hero of all of them.

'it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees'

I also think it come down to the fact without metagaming trusting the catalyst is foolish. It also depends on what you think your chances are of defeating the reapers without the crucible (no it is not impossible)

Also, the greatest villain.

At least when Ozymandias committed his mass murder it was with the intent of 'saving the world'; when Rorschach blows him off it's not for any perceived greater good, it's just an unwillingness to bend to meet the circumstances.

you are missing the point, he compromises everything he is for the supposed 'greater good' this is what makes him a villain. 
Rorschach knows he can't win but would rather die then compromise who he is, this is the sign of being a true hero.

Same with Shep except Shep actually does have a cahnce to win, he is just betrayed by ME3s writers quest for spite.

[DazzUnited]

Why is there so much critisism over what ending some ME fans pick? anyone lol

[3DandBeyond]

ZerebusPrime wrote...

There needed to be a Destroy-Refuse option.  And I don't mean conventional victory.  I mean...

"So that's the thing over there that will destroy you?"
"Yes, it is, but our destruction will solve noth-"
"Ok thanks done talking now." *BLAM BLAM BLAM*

This.  They were supposedly building a weapon-all the greatest minds said so.  The crucible wasn't finished-it needed the catalyst, but even then it wasn't finished.  Finish it and make destroy make sense, targets only reapers.  There still might be collateral damage due to destroyed reapers, but make the explanation for it coherent, and make it do what it was supposed to do with more EMS or something.

[Pitznik]

This thread is based on OP's denial about chances of conventional victory. He simply doesn't believe Hackett, any other military leader, or Shepard himself. OP roleplays Shepard against everything Shepard did in ME3 and he thinks it is the right choice, and that he stays in character. For him it is just unknown versus unknown, while everyone in the galaxy knows it is unknown versus death.

[flanny]

Pitznik wrote...

This thread is based on OP's denial about chances of conventional victory. He simply doesn't believe Hackett, any other military leader, or Shepard himself. OP roleplays Shepard against everything Shepard did in ME3 and he thinks it is the right choice, and that he stays in character. For him it is just unknown versus unknown, while everyone in the galaxy knows it is unknown versus death.

not this nonsense again, just because bioware made a refuse ending to spite the fans doesn't mean it isn't possible to win conventionally.

Also as I've said before I'd pick refuse even if I knew all it would do is mean a pyrrhic victory for the reapers.

[Pitznik]

flanny wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

This thread is based on OP's denial about chances of conventional victory. He simply doesn't believe Hackett, any other military leader, or Shepard himself. OP roleplays Shepard against everything Shepard did in ME3 and he thinks it is the right choice, and that he stays in character. For him it is just unknown versus unknown, while everyone in the galaxy knows it is unknown versus death.

not this nonsense again, just because bioware made a refuse ending to spite the fans doesn't mean it isn't possible to win conventionally.

Also as I've said before I'd pick refuse even if I knew all it would do is mean a pyrrhic victory for the reapers.

That is exactly what I am talking about. You just don't believe what game says to you. If I didn't believe, refuse would also make perfect sense to me (though then building Crucible would be really hard to explain).

There is no pyrrhic victory if your opponent has 50,000 years to rebuild his strength.

Modifié par Pitznik, 14 août 2012 - 01:24 .

[Isichar]

Pitznik wrote...

This thread is based on OP's denial about chances of conventional victory. He simply doesn't believe Hackett, any other military leader, or Shepard himself. OP roleplays Shepard against everything Shepard did in ME3 and he thinks it is the right choice, and that he stays in character. For him it is just unknown versus unknown, while everyone in the galaxy knows it is unknown versus death.

Umm your so far offbase I dont know where to begin. I am not in denial over anything, I asked how the use of the crucible was anymore likely to lead to success vs trying conventionally because you had no more reason to believe the crucible would even work.

When both options seem equal in risk and likely to get you killed then neither option is better then the other. You may disagree with this but I am only trying to say that not everyone viewed the situation the same as you.

As for "roleplaying" the context in which you are making a choice is important to the choice itself. I am simply asking you to look at these options as if you had not actually made/seen them yet.

Modifié par Isichar, 14 août 2012 - 01:31 .

[Isichar]

flanny wrote...

 I always think of Rorschach from the Watchmen, he is similar to my Shep he's a full renegade who doesn't take authority well, but is uncompromising with his morals. It is better to die and fail than to live and succeed if it means compromising yourself. That is why Rorschach proved to be the greatest hero of all of them.

'it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees'

I also think it come down to the fact without metagaming trusting the catalyst is foolish. It also depends on what you think your chances are of defeating the reapers without the crucible (no it is not impossible)

+1

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

This thread is based on OP's denial about chances of conventional victory. He simply doesn't believe Hackett, any other military leader, or Shepard himself. OP roleplays Shepard against everything Shepard did in ME3 and he thinks it is the right choice, and that he stays in character. For him it is just unknown versus unknown, while everyone in the galaxy knows it is unknown versus death.

Well, at the risk of being called negative may I say that maybe he or she like many others saw that as one of the big failures of ME3, the idea that impossible suddenly meant impossible to everyone.  This is precisely where it diverges from ME.  In ME1 and 2 the impossible is done repeatedly.  It happens in ME3 as well.  No one ever thought the Krogan could become a thinking part of the galactic community and work with salarians and turians.  Or that the geth and quarians could do the same, but they did.  Everyone thought that it was impossible that Shepard was right about the reapers, but Shepard was.

ME1 and 2 set up the story world of ME.  ME3 diverges from it.  ME2 opened with the impossible made possible.  It ended with the impossible made possible-a return from a suicide mission which was a foray into a place that no one had ever returned from. 

ME1 ended with an impossible happening.  Every step of the way, impossibilities were overcome.  We didn't have to be told things were impossible because they were shown to be and Shepard could did and teammates could die, but if we worked hard enough at it and re-did it, we could make it happen and succeed.

You've said I'm negative and I reject that.  I see the game as forcing you to be negative.  I don't believe in impossible, but people are really happy to see it in this game.  ME3 got stupid and there's no doubt in my mind about that.  No one in the Alliance used any of the data Shepard gathered or that anyone else gathered on the reapers to do anything to prepare for them.  In fact, the great Hackett ignored it and let Shepard sit in detention while he picked his nose.

Then Shepard goes before the committee and says basically they can do nothing except unite.  They fight or die as they stand together.  Well, that's brilliant.  And Hackett just says it's all impossible unless they find some magical device to save them all.  This is not ME.  And what if they never found anything to save them? 

People say using anything but the crucible and catalyst is too unrealistic but I think what we have no is way more unrealistic.  If they had to make some contrivance in order to get it done, I'd have rather it was that people really had come up with innovative ways to fight reapers, including things that could change their mass (javelins do) and weaken their kinetic barriers, geth hacking attempts or geth with cains trying to board reapers, EDI trying to hack them to weaken barriers and shields, attempts to reverse their indoctrination signal, data obtained from Cerberus which shows more vulnerabilities, and the use of codex entries that show vulnerabilities.  Ask the Rachni-they were around with the Protheans and the queen has genetic/ancestral memories-she might know of other vulnerabilities.  Pay attention to what happened during other cycles-there are hints on many other planets.

What we have now is unrealistic and fantasy, in my opinion, and it means you don't have to play ME1 or 2 and a lot of 3.  It doesn't fit with the rest of the story.  Actually trying to fight reapers and prove it's not impossible to fight and beat them does fit in more with the rest of ME.  The speech Shepard gives in refusal is the best thing about the endings as far as I'm concerned.

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

Umm your so far offbase I dont know where to begin. I am not in denial over anything, I asked how the use of the crucible was anymore likely to lead to success vs trying conventionally because you had no more reason to believe the crucible would even work.

When both options seem equal in risk and likely to get you killed then neither option is better then the other. You may disagree with this but I am only trying to say that not everyone viewed the situation the same as you.

As for "roleplaying" the context in which you are making a choice is important to the choice itself. I am simply asking you to look at these options as if you had not actually made/seen them yet.

Both options aren't anywhere near equal in risk. Crucible will work or not, conventional warfare will not work. You either believe it is like that (Shepard does), or you don't. You make your choice based on this.

[flanny]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

This thread is based on OP's denial about chances of conventional victory. He simply doesn't believe Hackett, any other military leader, or Shepard himself. OP roleplays Shepard against everything Shepard did in ME3 and he thinks it is the right choice, and that he stays in character. For him it is just unknown versus unknown, while everyone in the galaxy knows it is unknown versus death.

Well, at the risk of being called negative may I say that maybe he or she like many others saw that as one of the big failures of ME3, the idea that impossible suddenly meant impossible to everyone.  This is precisely where it diverges from ME.  In ME1 and 2 the impossible is done repeatedly.  It happens in ME3 as well.  No one ever thought the Krogan could become a thinking part of the galactic community and work with salarians and turians.  Or that the geth and quarians could do the same, but they did.  Everyone thought that it was impossible that Shepard was right about the reapers, but Shepard was.

ME1 and 2 set up the story world of ME.  ME3 diverges from it.  ME2 opened with the impossible made possible.  It ended with the impossible made possible-a return from a suicide mission which was a foray into a place that no one had ever returned from. 

ME1 ended with an impossible happening.  Every step of the way, impossibilities were overcome.  We didn't have to be told things were impossible because they were shown to be and Shepard could did and teammates could die, but if we worked hard enough at it and re-did it, we could make it happen and succeed.

You've said I'm negative and I reject that.  I see the game as forcing you to be negative.  I don't believe in impossible, but people are really happy to see it in this game.  ME3 got stupid and there's no doubt in my mind about that.  No one in the Alliance used any of the data Shepard gathered or that anyone else gathered on the reapers to do anything to prepare for them.  In fact, the great Hackett ignored it and let Shepard sit in detention while he picked his nose.

Then Shepard goes before the committee and says basically they can do nothing except unite.  They fight or die as they stand together.  Well, that's brilliant.  And Hackett just says it's all impossible unless they find some magical device to save them all.  This is not ME.  And what if they never found anything to save them? 

People say using anything but the crucible and catalyst is too unrealistic but I think what we have no is way more unrealistic.  If they had to make some contrivance in order to get it done, I'd have rather it was that people really had come up with innovative ways to fight reapers, including things that could change their mass (javelins do) and weaken their kinetic barriers, geth hacking attempts or geth with cains trying to board reapers, EDI trying to hack them to weaken barriers and shields, attempts to reverse their indoctrination signal, data obtained from Cerberus which shows more vulnerabilities, and the use of codex entries that show vulnerabilities.  Ask the Rachni-they were around with the Protheans and the queen has genetic/ancestral memories-she might know of other vulnerabilities.  Pay attention to what happened during other cycles-there are hints on many other planets.

What we have now is unrealistic and fantasy, in my opinion, and it means you don't have to play ME1 or 2 and a lot of 3.  It doesn't fit with the rest of the story.  Actually trying to fight reapers and prove it's not impossible to fight and beat them does fit in more with the rest of ME.  The speech Shepard gives in refusal is the best thing about the endings as far as I'm concerned.

very well put and I agree on all points

[Isichar]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

This thread is based on OP's denial about chances of conventional victory. He simply doesn't believe Hackett, any other military leader, or Shepard himself. OP roleplays Shepard against everything Shepard did in ME3 and he thinks it is the right choice, and that he stays in character. For him it is just unknown versus unknown, while everyone in the galaxy knows it is unknown versus death.

Well, at the risk of being called negative may I say that maybe he or she like many others saw that as one of the big failures of ME3, the idea that impossible suddenly meant impossible to everyone.  This is precisely where it diverges from ME.  In ME1 and 2 the impossible is done repeatedly.  It happens in ME3 as well.  No one ever thought the Krogan could become a thinking part of the galactic community and work with salarians and turians.  Or that the geth and quarians could do the same, but they did.  Everyone thought that it was impossible that Shepard was right about the reapers, but Shepard was.

ME1 and 2 set up the story world of ME.  ME3 diverges from it.  ME2 opened with the impossible made possible.  It ended with the impossible made possible-a return from a suicide mission which was a foray into a place that no one had ever returned from. 

ME1 ended with an impossible happening.  Every step of the way, impossibilities were overcome.  We didn't have to be told things were impossible because they were shown to be and Shepard could did and teammates could die, but if we worked hard enough at it and re-did it, we could make it happen and succeed.

You've said I'm negative and I reject that.  I see the game as forcing you to be negative.  I don't believe in impossible, but people are really happy to see it in this game.  ME3 got stupid and there's no doubt in my mind about that.  No one in the Alliance used any of the data Shepard gathered or that anyone else gathered on the reapers to do anything to prepare for them.  In fact, the great Hackett ignored it and let Shepard sit in detention while he picked his nose.

Then Shepard goes before the committee and says basically they can do nothing except unite.  They fight or die as they stand together.  Well, that's brilliant.  And Hackett just says it's all impossible unless they find some magical device to save them all.  This is not ME.  And what if they never found anything to save them? 

People say using anything but the crucible and catalyst is too unrealistic but I think what we have no is way more unrealistic.  If they had to make some contrivance in order to get it done, I'd have rather it was that people really had come up with innovative ways to fight reapers, including things that could change their mass (javelins do) and weaken their kinetic barriers, geth hacking attempts or geth with cains trying to board reapers, EDI trying to hack them to weaken barriers and shields, attempts to reverse their indoctrination signal, data obtained from Cerberus which shows more vulnerabilities, and the use of codex entries that show vulnerabilities.  Ask the Rachni-they were around with the Protheans and the queen has genetic/ancestral memories-she might know of other vulnerabilities.  Pay attention to what happened during other cycles-there are hints on many other planets.

What we have now is unrealistic and fantasy, in my opinion, and it means you don't have to play ME1 or 2 and a lot of 3.  It doesn't fit with the rest of the story.  Actually trying to fight reapers and prove it's not impossible to fight and beat them does fit in more with the rest of ME.  The speech Shepard gives in refusal is the best thing about the endings as far as I'm concerned.

ty for wording it much better then I ever could