925 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...


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.

You see, the impossible problem of ME3 are the Reapers. By building and using the Crucible, you are changing impossible to possible, so it fits the theme of previous parts of the trilogy. If you do everything wrong in suicide mission just believing that "ME is about beating impossible, so let's have Jacob doing the tech work" you can also die.

ME is about beating the impossible by using what you got, not about always beating impossible because theme. If you throw your only chance away, impossible remains impossible.

I would prefer ME3 without the stupid Crucible, but what we got is different. It is established that we didn't prepare, that Reapers are impossible to beat, and that Crucible is our only chance. It was true at the beginning of ME3, and it didn't change when you stand before the Catalyst.

Modifié par Pitznik, 14 août 2012 - 01:45 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Isichar wrote...

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.

Well, let's see:

The Protheans and several of the cycles before them were relying on the Crucible as their game-ending superweapon, struggling to complete and refine it.
The greatest scientists in the galaxy spent the entirety of the war building it in the apparent belief it would indeed fire.
The guy who was neck-deep in Reaper tech believed it would work and tried his best to stop it from being completed and fired.
When the actual Reapers sighted the thing they fired on it in an attempt to destroy it.
Finally, we based our entire war plan on getting the Crucible running and firing it. If I were going to distrust it then that was the time to raise concerns, not the moment I was actually standing in front of it.

So yes, I had reason to believe it would work. I had no real reason to believe it was part of some sort of a master plan on the part of the Reapers.

So please stop painting it as a choice between two unknowns that have an equal chance of working. It was a choice between the plan I spent literally the entire war working on, endorsed by the scientific bodies of every major race as well as their governments, my companions, and the virtual ghosts of races past and between trying to attack the Reapers head-on which I knew wouldn't work because we had fewer ships, our ships were less powerful, and every tactical advantage favored them. It was the well-researched superweapon or nothing. I chose the superweapon, trusting the entire galaxy to not lead me astray. The only real way you could see it as an 'equal unknowns' situation is if you chose to ignore or mistrust every source of information in your way.

More importantly I thought this was a discussion about the moral repercussions of choosing one of the Catalyst's options vs. refusing to do so. From the beginning you were pushing the viewpoint that it's immoral to do so even if you know the consequences. If the discussion falls onto whether we know that the Crucible will work or whether we trust the Catalyst's description of what it does, that's an entirely different topic.

[3DandBeyond]

Isichar 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.

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.

I tend to see refuse and reject as making more sense than shooting off the big question mark in the sky-the crucible.  No one knows what it does, but now the kid says it does certain things that are geared more to accomplishing his goal than anything else.  Using it is very risky and it is known to contain or be capable or releasing unquantifiable levels of energy.  The kid says he has a directive to prevent or defuse conflict between organics and synthetics, but he's never been able to accomplish it-the conflict always returned.  His current solution (the reapers) is no longer working.  And they were always also temporary because organics created synthetics-he sees this as the crux of the problem.  The choices that exist are not permanent either and he recognizes that.  Even Synthesis is not permanent-people could still create purely organic and purely synthetic life.  So, it's logical to think he may have a permanent solution-total galactic annihilation.  The crucible could be one big galaxy killer.  It's possible.  Shepard raises questions about the crucible several times. 

Refuse/reject makes sense as soon as the kid says he controls the reapers.  When he says the reapers are his solution and they are no longer working, so he needed a new solution, the whole idea of the crucible starts to become a mess.  They were creating a weapon and got some device that changes the kid to give him new ways to solve his problem.  Thanks a lot, what a waste of time.  And the kid's descriptions of the choices really leave a lot to have to be imagined.  Destroy is a mess of contradiction.  Synthesis would make him happiest.  Control would maintain the status quo and make it worse.  2 of the 3 choices leave the reapers alive.  This alone calls into question the validity of relying on the Crucible.  The goal wasn't to let them live, but the device everyone worked hard on can let them live.  The Crucible isn't meant to help them.

[Pitznik]

@3DandBeyond:

Destroying the galaxy is completely contradicting Catalyst's logic. It destroys both the presumed threat AND what he preserved already (the Reapers) and what he tries to preserve (organic life not advanced enough). If he would like to destroy all life, he could. Don't think bronze age cultures would be more than day of work for one Reaper.

[flanny]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Isichar wrote...

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.

Well, let's see:

The Protheans and several of the cycles before them were relying on the Crucible as their game-ending superweapon, struggling to complete and refine it.
The greatest scientists in the galaxy spent the entirety of the war building it in the apparent belief it would indeed fire.
The guy who was neck-deep in Reaper tech believed it would work and tried his best to stop it from being completed and fired.
When the actual Reapers sighted the thing they fired on it in an attempt to destroy it.
Finally, we based our entire war plan on getting the Crucible running and firing it. If I were going to distrust it then that was the time to raise concerns, not the moment I was actually standing in front of it.

So yes, I had reason to believe it would work. I had no real reason to believe it was part of some sort of a master plan on the part of the Reapers.

So please stop painting it as a choice between two unknowns that have an equal chance of working. It was a choice between the plan I spent literally the entire war working on, endorsed by the scientific bodies of every major race as well as their governments, my companions, and the virtual ghosts of races past and between trying to attack the Reapers head-on which I knew wouldn't work because we had fewer ships, our ships were less powerful, and every tactical advantage favored them. It was the well-researched superweapon or nothing. I chose the superweapon, trusting the entire galaxy to not lead me astray. The only real way you could see it as an 'equal unknowns' situation is if you chose to ignore or mistrust every source of information in your way.

More importantly I thought this was a discussion about the moral repercussions of choosing one of the Catalyst's options vs. refusing to do so. From the beginning you were pushing the viewpoint that it's immoral to do so even if you know the consequences. If the discussion falls onto whether we know that the Crucible will work or whether we trust the Catalyst's description of what it does, that's an entirely different topic.

then you didn't listen to the game very well, the reapers always leave traps for the next cycle to find, i expected the crucible to be a trap all along but the damn auto-dialogue continues to make Shep look like an idoit. Taking into account all knowledge and lore from the ME series it is far more likely to be a trap.

The sheer implausibility that people have been leaving plans behind for cycles for a giant space battery, though no cycle knows what the battery is for, nor do they know about the choice room. Plus if the catalyst wanted the cruicible he could have made it himself 

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...


You see, the impossible problem of ME3 are the Reapers. By building and using the Crucible, you are changing impossible to possible, so it fits the theme of previous parts of the trilogy. If you do everything wrong in suicide mission just believing that "ME is about beating impossible, so let's have Jacob doing the tech work" you can also die.

ME is about beating the impossible by using what you got, not about always beating impossible because theme. If you throw your only chance away, impossible remains impossible.

I would prefer ME3 without the stupid Crucible, but what we got is different. It is established that we didn't prepare, that Reapers are impossible to beat, and that Crucible is our only chance. It was true at the beginning of ME3, and it didn't change when you stand before the Catalyst.

You need to stop telling me what I obviously know.  The crucible is a magic save everyone device that people want to make for no known rational reason. 

Yes, in the suicide mission everyone can die, but you missed the part where I said you can go back and save everyone and finish the mission and all.

The only reason the crucible exists if lazy story writing.  It's IMO idiotic that no one did anything given all the info they had that the reapers were real.  The reapers could have been seen as impossible made possible by the perseverance of people that exist, using what they learned and not relying on some big unknown of dubious origin.

The game on the one hand would say the reapers are impossible to beat.  And yet, it shows certain techniques to be effective on a small scale.  The problem is the crucible makes the people of the galaxy (Shepard included) into idiots.  I'm sorry, but it does.  In ME1, Shepard's chasing Saren and gets to the Conduit because Saren goes there and Shepard makes it possible for Sovereign to be defeated through his/her actions.  In ME2, Shepard can get to the Collector's Base because of a derelict reaper's IFF.  Shepard can make right and wrong decisions and then can destroy the Collectors and save or destroy their base through his/her actions.  In ME3, Shepard doesn't do anything to save anyone.  The crucible does it (supposedly).  Shepard basically pushes a button to make the crucible do stuff.  Shepard dies or not based on what the crucible wants or the catalyst wants or the citadel or reapers or somebody else wants.

ME3 ignores everything having to do with ME that came before.  Shepard doesn't beat the reapers.  No one beats them.  They either just maybe die, give up, or spread their seed to everyone in the galaxy because of something someone else created.  People in the galaxy are shown to be just children, incapable of doing anything for themselves and when things get tough (impossible), they need something, anything to cling to for help, no matter how ridiculous, even if they don't know what it will do.

I know what they devs are trying to say here-it's a commentary on real issues and it's myopic.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 14 août 2012 - 02:16 .

[Isichar]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Isichar wrote...

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.

Well, let's see:

The Protheans and several of the cycles before them were relying on the Crucible as their game-ending superweapon, struggling to complete and refine it.
The greatest scientists in the galaxy spent the entirety of the war building it in the apparent belief it would indeed fire.
The guy who was neck-deep in Reaper tech believed it would work and tried his best to stop it from being completed and fired.
When the actual Reapers sighted the thing they fired on it in an attempt to destroy it.
Finally, we based our entire war plan on getting the Crucible running and firing it. If I were going to distrust it then that was the time to raise concerns, not the moment I was actually standing in front of it.

So yes, I had reason to believe it would work. I had no real reason to believe it was part of some sort of a master plan on the part of the Reapers.

So please stop painting it as a choice between two unknowns that have an equal chance of working. It was a choice between the plan I spent literally the entire war working on, endorsed by the scientific bodies of every major race as well as their governments, my companions, and the virtual ghosts of races past and between trying to attack the Reapers head-on which I knew wouldn't work because we had fewer ships, our ships were less powerful, and every tactical advantage favored them. It was the well-researched superweapon or nothing. I chose the superweapon, trusting the entire galaxy to not lead me astray. The only real way you could see it as an 'equal unknowns' situation is if you chose to ignore or mistrust every source of information in your way.

More importantly I thought this was a discussion about the moral repercussions of choosing one of the Catalyst's options vs. refusing to do so. From the beginning you were pushing the viewpoint that it's immoral to do so even if you know the consequences. If the discussion falls onto whether we know that the Crucible will work or whether we trust the Catalyst's description of what it does, that's an entirely different topic.

First off I admit you make some very good points, and yes my topic was meant to be more morally based.

I just wanted to make a point that there is a pretty heavy risk regardless of what you choose. The crucible has never been proven to have worked or even been fired. Infact we did not even know how to fire the damned thing. What would Shepard have done without the catalyst to even explain how to have used it? Because even firing the crucible was dependant on us trusting the catalyst.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Isichar wrote...

What would Shepard have done without the catalyst to even explain how to have used it?

Well, there are basically the three objects in the room to interact with, so presumably he'd end it all with a rousing game of eenie meenie miney moe.

Still better than just walking away as far as I'm concerned.

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

@3DandBeyond:

Destroying the galaxy is completely contradicting Catalyst's logic. It destroys both the presumed threat AND what he preserved already (the Reapers) and what he tries to preserve (organic life not advanced enough). If he would like to destroy all life, he could. Don't think bronze age cultures would be more than day of work for one Reaper.

His primary goal is to stop conflict, not preserve organics.  He says he was to find balance and peace.  He keeps trying to find a final solution.  He keeps failing and his programming has morphed or adapted to do that.  He is already killing organics and sees that as always preserving them.  He has no logic that is logical anymore.  He was to find peace and he creates war.  He kills advanced organics to keep synthetics from killing all organics but sends in synthetic/organic constructs to kill organics.  He also has them seed the galaxy with tech in order to advance organics to a point where they will be able to create synthetics that he thinks will kill them. 

He sees Synthesis as perhaps the best solution and keeps trying to achieve it even when it isn't working.  He believes it is perfection, again showing he is warped in his logic.

His logic is non-existent at this point.  Therefore it is not inconceivable that at some point if he thinks killing is preserving, he would consider total annihilation similarly.  He could at some point believe that the only way to achieve peace is for it to be impossible for any organics to exist to create synthetics.  He's halfway there already.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

memorysquid wrote...

Isichar wrote...

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Cobalt2113 wrote...

Better to just let the horrible deaths continue then?

Yes. Reapers will fail no matter what you do, At least then the sacrfices actually meant something and all those people who died fighting the reapers did not do so just for someone to ultimately say "hey catalyst you were right to do what you did"

Yes I would much rather die fighting for what I believed in then justify the murdering of trillions of lives, just so I can live.

So it's better for later generations to use the Crucible instead of Shepard? I am not sure I understand the logic here.

Thats because you assume that future generations will actually use the crucible, I think they stopped the reapers the correct way, seeing as how the game does not actually state that future generations use the crucible to win.

No they go synthesis all the way next cycle and you wasted our galaxy's one shot for nothing.  "Pulling a Shepard" becomes the next cycle's metaphor for a total **** up resulting in needless galacticide.

Bioware twitter is not canon.

[Isichar]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Isichar wrote...

What would Shepard have done without the catalyst to even explain how to have used it?

Well, there are basically the three objects in the room to interact with, so presumably he'd end it all with a rousing game of eenie meenie miney moe.

Still better than just walking away as far as I'm concerned.

"I dont like the look of this tube over here, looks like it could be important to the reapers"

*Shoots the tube*

*Reaper threat ends*



And I didn't just walk away. I shot the catalyst in the face and fingered him, and then walked away.

Modifié par Isichar, 14 août 2012 - 02:19 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Isichar wrote...

And I didn't just walk away. I shot the catalyst in the face and fingered him, and then walked away.

Yes, but in your hypothetical scenario the Catalyst wasn't there.

[saracen16]

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.

And if you refuse the Crucible, trillions more deaths, including yours and all of humanity as well as the other advanced races of the cycle, are on your hands. Using the Crucible saves the most lives and ends the cycle. Refusing it means letting the Reapers win knowingly. Refuse is an idiotic choice.

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.

Not in the least. In fact, if anything, the Crucible honors those sacrifices: one of them - a Prothean overseer - died fighting the Reapers on "Tranbir Nine".

[Zardoc]

Destroy will always be better and more sensible than Refuse.

[AresKeith]

Geneaux486 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

beaverskenneth wrote...
 If you choose synthesis, you are DESTROYING what makes organic life so unique!

You're enhancing what makes organic life unique.  I'm sure you've seen the cutscenes, humans are still humans, krogan are still krogans, turians are still turians, etc.  Granted I don't like it either, but that's just because I feel like if it really is the final evolutionary stage, they'd need to reach it on their own.

so you think having everyone's mind connected to the Reapers and being partly synthetic now is the final evolutionary stage?

Well it's a fictional story and that's how the authors chose to write it, so yes. 

I'm sorry even for a Sci-fi game Synthesis is BS, it went from Science Fiction to Science Fantasy

It was already science fantasy. 

umm no, Mass Effect is categorized as Science Fiction (Sci-fi) not Science Fantasy

[zapphoman24]

Zardoc wrote...

Destroy will always be better and more sensible than Refuse.

Agreed. I'm sorry but I see the Refusal ending as just selfish.

There are fleets of other species fighting and sacrificing their lives in a battle that you brought them to so you can have time to get to and fire off the Crucible. Then you simply refuse to use it due to some sense of pride, selfishness, or incompentence to make a difficult disicion.

EDI said she would give her life to stop the reapers and the Geth are only machines. Sure it's sad because they found their individualality but I would like to think that Shepard would consider the fact that sacrificing one species is better than losing half the galaxy, especially the most advanced races. And then theres that whole Reaper threat being over forever and the possibilty of organics learning from their mistakes.

"Shepard isn't qualified to choose Synthetics." Really? The man who united an entire galaxy and spent more time in the conciousness of synthetics (ie Overlord and the Geth concenses) than any other organic has no right chosing that option at all? Also if the only price to pay for peace between synthetics and organics is glowing green, I would happily pay it.

Control...well that just depends on what kind of person Shepard is. It could be beneficial or a nightmare for the entire galaxy.

Now I agree that the starbrats logic is completely flawed and I didn't like it either but I would rather play along and save as many lives as I could than die with a sense of freedom while dooming multiple species to a horrible death and making everyone who died to achieve the Reapers destruction sacrifices in vain.

[DirtySHISN0]

Wait. wait. wait.

Submitting to the reapers and refusing to fight aren't the same thing?

[zapphoman24]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Wait. wait. wait.

Submitting to the reapers and refusing to fight aren't the same thing?

Yeah they're the same. That's why I never submit and destroy them everytime. I was just explaining why, to me, synthesis and control are better than doing nothing.

[v TricKy v]

At all people calling refuse "idiotic"
Look at the link in my sig to see how a refuse victory could play out

[DirtySHISN0]

zapphoman24 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Wait. wait. wait.

Submitting to the reapers and refusing to fight aren't the same thing?

Yeah they're the same. That's why I never submit and destroy them everytime. I was just explaining why, to me, synthesis and control are better than doing nothing.

Sorry i meant OP, read his post and was utterly confused as to how he could justify one when both are the same.

[zapphoman24]

^^^^Oh...my bad.

[shodiswe]

Refuse is the same as failing all those people who put their trust on you... Least that's how i see it.

All those people who got killed in the previous cycles, they wanted the cycles to end. I can't see how dying helps anyone, instead you're failing them, you don't stop the autrossities when you got the chance to complete their work. You turned your back on them. That's how I see it. Any option is better than Refuse.

[SentinelShepParagon]

This topic makes absolutely no sense at all. If you refuse, all advanced life WILL DIE. That is a given. So why not at least do something to try to stop it? If you chose destroy, at least you save the VAST MAJORITY of life. If control, you stop the killing. If synthesis, you stop the killing. If refuse, everyone dies. How is refuse possibly better?

[Legbiter]

Refusal is being a b**** and not using the Crucible thus dooming this cycle only for the next one to build and use the Crucible....

[AlanC9]

Edit: DP.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 août 2012 - 05:47 .