zapphoman24 wrote...
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.
Rational reason = there is nothing else giving hope, so why not go with the great unknown.3DandBeyond wrote...
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.
Pitznik wrote...
It is by the arbitrary decision of the writers, not by weighting military strength or counting how many dreadnoughts each race has.
Isichar wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Isichar wrote...
I have received much bashing on this topic for "letting billions die" from people who seem to quickly forget who has done all the killing here, and who will continue to kill.
They'll continue to kill only if you'restupidcrazy enough to let them
Yes I suppose you would have to be crazy to question a magic spacegun fusing all life and machines together in the galaxy by jumping in a beam as been the solution to ending the reaper threat.
I am not letting them do anything, I am refusing to fire the crucible, you see that as been the direct choice to let everyone die, its not.
Pitznik wrote...
Rational reason = there is nothing else giving hope, so why not go with the great unknown.
Yes, it is idiotic, or even beyond idiotic that galaxy didn't prepare. Still, they didn't. The game shows some techniques working on a very small scale, with vast disproportion of forces engaged - ONE Destroyer on Tuchanka, ONE Destroyer on Rannoch, but it has nothing to do with real war, where there are hundreds of capital ship Reapers. If the whole galaxy tells me there in no way to win, I believe that, I take it as an established reality of ME3. I won't discuss this any further, if you don't believe Reapers are undefeatable, I have no way to convince you. It is by the arbitrary decision of the writers, not by weighting military strength or counting how many dreadnoughts each race has.
Shepard in ME3 secures Crucible plans, gathers scientists and resources to make building it possible, gathers military strength to make deploying it possible. Without Shepard, there wouldn't be any chance at all. Crucible is not a person, but a tool. Someone has to use this tool, and this is Shepard. It is still Shepard and allied forces of the galaxy that give this tool an opportunity to work. It is not Reaper IFF that makes destroying Collectors possible, but Shepard using it. There is no difference.
Really, every single Refusal discussion turns out to be the refuser being angry on writers and saying "It is not me who amde the wrong decision, but it is writers who made ME3 wrong." You can't accept the fact that even if you don't like how ME3 plot was constructed (and noone can blame you for it), it is the only reality of ME3 Shepard knows, and decision is based on that reality, not on what "could be" or "should be".
About your other post - no, his goal is and always was preventing the destruction of organic life by synthetic life. No matter how you will twist it, destroying the whole galaxy doesn't make any sense for him.
SkullStrife wrote...
! BUT the three choices presented by the child ARE ALL MADE ACCORDING TO THAT FAULTY LOGIC!!! (Destroy because machines will rebel... control to avoid the future conflicts and synthesis so there are no created and creators...)... all of the choices, even destroy are letting them win!! SO SAYING NO, IS THE RIGHT PATH! if you truly are a galactic leader like Shepard...
SHARXTREME wrote...
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.
3DandBeyond wrote...
Another part then of Shepard's reality is that Shepard has never seen anything as impossible. Improbable, hard to do, sure. Occam's Razor.
Refuse is also not fully known because Shepard would not know that in refusing to do what the kid says s/he could do, the Crucible would shut off and not be usable. Shepard is refusing what the kid says, but not necessarily the Crucible. It could merely mean Shepard does not believe that's how the Crucible would be used, for those 3 choices, the kid's 3 solutions.
T-Raks wrote...
You do know that you can destroy the reapers with the crucible, right?
Ghost1017 wrote...
You actively know there are 3 other ways to stop the Reaper threat but choose not to(or refuse) and what of the people that couldn't make peace with the Geth/Quarians on Rannoch. If the Quarians killed the Geth then Shepard would only be sacrificing EDI who says she would sacrifice her functionality for organics.
But Shepard doesn't make a choice based on what "should be" but on what "is"! How does that even matter in discussion about refusal. That is completely different discussion. Of course the choice would be different if what you think "should be" would be real. Refusal doesn't magically teleport you to some different ME3 where allied military strength is able to beat the Reapers.3DandBeyond wrote...
People are stating their opinion that the writers made a faulty decision and then will state how they see it could have worked. That's how speculation works. You state what is now shown and recognize that you know why. If you don't on the BSN, then someone will say "you just don't understand it's impossible". So, people say they know it is said to be impossible by the writers but it should not be. They are explaining their logic because they have to or someone will object. So, now it's wrong to explain thinking. Even you just did that to me. You think I don't understand the writers have written that. Honest to god, it's really hard to discuss anything. If someone is too specific, then they're criticized for it. If not specific enough, then they stupidly don't understand what they are being told.
3DandBeyond wrote...
Refuse is also not fully known because Shepard would not know that in refusing to do what the kid says s/he could do, the Crucible would shut off and not be usable. Shepard is refusing what the kid says, but not necessarily the Crucible. It could merely mean Shepard does not believe that's how the Crucible would be used, for those 3 choices, the kid's 3 solutions.
Reorte wrote...
There's no good reason not to activate the Catalyst unless you've got good reason to believe that it'll make things even worse.
D24O wrote...
T-Raks wrote...
You do know that you can destroy the reapers with the crucible, right?
You're f***ing with me right? How? I never knew that? Pls respond.
Psst. Don't tell.
... which isn't really worse than to be harvested in weeks or months or years. It is still WIN/LOSS vs LOSS.3DandBeyond wrote...
Reorte wrote...
There's no good reason not to activate the Catalyst unless you've got good reason to believe that it'll make things even worse.
The possibility exists that it could make everything worse, but you have no idea what it will do until you see what it does. It could just as easily be an instant everybody is harvested now button.
T-Raks wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
In case like this Shepard would just call Starkid out again, or just follow with his (Crucible's?) instructions. You can't do it ingame, but you can reload. In fact, that is what should happen, refusing should just leave you barely alive in an empty room, with your ems counter slowly going down, showing how your friends and allies die one by one, all the way to zero. With all three crucible "interfaces" still usable. Maybe then you would grow a pair and make a choice, when shown what you have done by talking everyone into Crucible plan and then not using it.
I skipped the part when you twist Catalyst's goal into something that it is not. No point discussing your headcanon. If you are in fact scared that you destroy the galaxy by using the Crucible, then maybe indeed refuse works for you. My Shepard can't believe that Crucible even could do it (or can't believe that synthesis can even happen, for that matter).
Pitznik wrote...
... which isn't really worse than to be harvested in weeks or months or years. It is still WIN/LOSS vs LOSS.3DandBeyond wrote...
Reorte wrote...
There's no good reason not to activate the Catalyst unless you've got good reason to believe that it'll make things even worse.
The possibility exists that it could make everything worse, but you have no idea what it will do until you see what it does. It could just as easily be an instant everybody is harvested now button.
SeptimusMagistos wrote...
SkullStrife wrote...
! BUT the three choices presented by the child ARE ALL MADE ACCORDING TO THAT FAULTY LOGIC!!! (Destroy because machines will rebel... control to avoid the future conflicts and synthesis so there are no created and creators...)... all of the choices, even destroy are letting them win!! SO SAYING NO, IS THE RIGHT PATH! if you truly are a galactic leader like Shepard...
So you're willing to let people die so that the Catalyst doesn't feel a moment of satisfaction?
I do not pick Control because I agree with the Catalyst. I disagree with him on every particular. I don't think the problem exists. I don't think synthetics and organics will necessarily conflict. I think every single thing it's done is wrong. But now he's letting me stop it. I will make my choice based on my own logic. Then I will use the Reapers to undo as much of the damage they caused as I can. Again, according to my own logic and none of the Catalyst's.
Just because I take one of its options doesn't mean I agree with it, you know?
3DandBeyond wrote...
The possibility exists that it could make everything worse, but you have no idea what it will do until you see what it does. It could just as easily be an instant everybody is harvested now button.
sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Shoot the ****ing pipe, Marine.
Retour en haut