374 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

Jamesui wrote...

H4nniba11 wrote...

EDI does tell that Reapers are killing those people in camps but it is true that she does not mention them being turned into a reaper. Or maybe she did. I'm not sure did she use the word ''Reaper processing plant''. We however never actually see even a single camp through Shepards eyes.

I think it's safe to assume that Reapers wouldn't round up people in camps just to kill them, unless the method or execution is liqueification followed by absorption into a new reaper.

You have no ingame proof! They could round them up just to hug them. It is only interpretation, so mine is as valid as yours.

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Edi may have mentioned it but their is nothing ingame that shows that the reapers took civilians in reaper concentration camps
 
Or for them to harvest captured forces pitznik is talking out of hiss ass and can't show ingame video proof of actual reaper camps or them harvesting civilians so he is blowing smoke in the air to proof how he feels to be right and he has given up because he can't show any proof.

So everything characters mention, but not shown explicitly in game isn't real? Ok. I guess I deserve that for stooping to your level, lesson learned.

Yes your using twitter tactis to say something is cannon when it didn't happen or that it wasn't shown in game your blowing smoke everywhere no where in me3 did we see reaper camps or civilians getting indoctrinated so you might as well be making up or doing fanfics off the top of your head and headcannoning like you have accused many others of doing.

Ok, it is EDI's headcanon then. But why she would do it? Can you even take yourself seriously? I know I can't.

Well I can't really take you serious either since your headcannoning reaper camps and civilians getting harvested when we never saw it in game and probably use twitter as a excuse to back up certain things

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Edi may have mentioned it but their is nothing ingame that shows that the reapers took civilians in reaper concentration camps
 
Or for them to harvest captured forces pitznik is talking out of hiss ass and can't show ingame video proof of actual reaper camps or them harvesting civilians so he is blowing smoke in the air to proof how he feels to be right and he has given up because he can't show any proof.

So everything characters mention, but not shown explicitly in game isn't real? Ok. I guess I deserve that for stooping to your level, lesson learned.

Yes your using twitter tactis to say something is cannon when it didn't happen or that it wasn't shown in game your blowing smoke everywhere no where in me3 did we see reaper camps or civilians getting indoctrinated so you might as well be making up or doing fanfics off the top of your head and headcannoning like you have accused many others of doing.

Ok, it is EDI's headcanon then. But why she would do it? Can you even take yourself seriously? I know I can't.

Well I can't really take you serious either since your headcannoning reaper camps and civilians getting harvested when we never saw it in game and probably use twitter as a excuse to back up certain things

Not me. Edi does. Poor confused AI, she made up them camps. Also, I dare you to find my post where I take twitter as canon. I reject twitter canon on a principle.

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Edi may have mentioned it but their is nothing ingame that shows that the reapers took civilians in reaper concentration camps
 
Or for them to harvest captured forces pitznik is talking out of hiss ass and can't show ingame video proof of actual reaper camps or them harvesting civilians so he is blowing smoke in the air to proof how he feels to be right and he has given up because he can't show any proof.

So everything characters mention, but not shown explicitly in game isn't real? Ok. I guess I deserve that for stooping to your level, lesson learned.

Yes your using twitter tactis to say something is cannon when it didn't happen or that it wasn't shown in game your blowing smoke everywhere no where in me3 did we see reaper camps or civilians getting indoctrinated so you might as well be making up or doing fanfics off the top of your head and headcannoning like you have accused many others of doing.

Ok, it is EDI's headcanon then. But why she would do it? Can you even take yourself seriously? I know I can't.

Well I can't really take you serious either since your headcannoning reaper camps and civilians getting harvested when we never saw it in game and probably use twitter as a excuse to back up certain things

Not me. Edi does. Poor confused AI, she made up them camps. Also, I dare you to find my post where I take twitter as canon. I reject twitter canon on a principle.

Oh you do ok then scratch the twitter comment but yes it was never shown ingame so for me it might as well have not have happended so I can't take you seriously on it sorry

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

Oh you do ok then scratch the twitter comment but yes it was never shown ingame so for me it might as well have not have happended so I can't take you seriously on it sorry

I'm sorry, but we are unable to discuss any longer. If you can't take what an ingame character says as a truth (without anything implying she can lie or has reasons to lie or that she is wrong), we have no base to discuss anything at all.

[H4nniba11]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Oh you do ok then scratch the twitter comment but yes it was never shown ingame so for me it might as well have not have happended so I can't take you seriously on it sorry

I'm sorry, but we are unable to discuss any longer. If you can't take what an ingame character says as a truth (without anything implying she can lie or has reasons to lie or that she is wrong), we have no base to discuss anything at all.

Finally you agree to disagree. Now everybody can move on and live a happy and long life.

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Oh you do ok then scratch the twitter comment but yes it was never shown ingame so for me it might as well have not have happended so I can't take you seriously on it sorry

I'm sorry, but we are unable to discuss any longer. If you can't take what an ingame character says as a truth (without anything implying she can lie or has reasons to lie or that she is wrong), we have no base to discuss anything at all.

Well if it didn't happen ingame or we didn't see it happen despite using the normandy to fly all across the galaxy then yes you're right we don't have anything to discuss

[Hannah Montana]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Oh you do ok then scratch the twitter comment but yes it was never shown ingame so for me it might as well have not have happended so I can't take you seriously on it sorry

I'm sorry, but we are unable to discuss any longer. If you can't take what an ingame character says as a truth (without anything implying she can lie or has reasons to lie or that she is wrong), we have no base to discuss anything at all.

The fact that she is the only source of this "evidence" implies that she is wrong. 

Modifié par Hannah Montana, 22 août 2012 - 04:48 .

[Pitznik]

H4nniba11 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Oh you do ok then scratch the twitter comment but yes it was never shown ingame so for me it might as well have not have happended so I can't take you seriously on it sorry

I'm sorry, but we are unable to discuss any longer. If you can't take what an ingame character says as a truth (without anything implying she can lie or has reasons to lie or that she is wrong), we have no base to discuss anything at all.

Finally you agree to disagree. Now everybody can move on and live a happy and long life.

Lets just agree to disagree, my friend! *makes the throat-cut gesture in Admiral-General Aladeen's style*

[Pitznik]

Hannah Montana wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Oh you do ok then scratch the twitter comment but yes it was never shown ingame so for me it might as well have not have happended so I can't take you seriously on it sorry

I'm sorry, but we are unable to discuss any longer. If you can't take what an ingame character says as a truth (without anything implying she can lie or has reasons to lie or that she is wrong), we have no base to discuss anything at all.

The fact that she is the only source of this "evidence" implies that she is wrong. 

Your post implies that I shouldn't discuss with you any further.

[Bill Casey]

The argument could be made that Shepard refusing to compromise his principles in the face of Armageddon can ultimately leave the galaxy in a much better place, since Shepard becomes a galactic legend for all time...

At the incredibly pricey cost of this cycle...

An idea isn't so easily destroyed...
Only our actions are remembered...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 août 2012 - 04:55 .

[H4nniba11]

Pitznik wrote...
Lets just agree to disagree, my friend! *makes the throat-cut gesture in Admiral-General Aladeen's style*

I wish people would just agree that all endings are crap and don't fit into the narrative instead of fighting endlessly which one is the best and showing their viewpoints as only possible truth. So what if she wants to disregard EDI's saying. How does it actually affect you?

[LiarasShield]

Bill Casey wrote...

The argument could be made that Shepard refusing to compromise his principles in the face of Armageddon can ultimately leave the galaxy in a much better place, since Shepard becomes a galactic legend for all time...

At the incredibly pricey cost of this cycle...

An idea isn't so easily destroyed...
Only our actions are remembered...

That reminds me of batman the dark knight how harvey dent the idea of him lived on

[Hannah Montana]

H4nniba11 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...
Lets just agree to disagree, my friend! *makes the throat-cut gesture in Admiral-General Aladeen's style*

I wish people would just agree that all endings are crap and don't fit into the narrative instead of fighting endlessly which one is the best and showing their viewpoints as only possible truth. So what if she wants to disregard EDI's saying. How does it actually affect you?

The endings are terrible.
Doesn't mean we anti enders should not get in a scuffle over them. 

[M Hedonist]

I tried each ending and each ended the cycle. Which endings are you talking about again?

[robertthebard]

Jassu1979 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
If you choose destroy, it says they fought a terrible battle so their cycle wouldn't have to.  The Reapers are defeated in our cycle, and the video is basically the same.  So how is Refusal superior again?

You are meta-gaming, employing hindsight.

The godchild clearly identifies itself as the personification of an enemy that's been consistently known to manipulate people and warp their minds. It then proceeds to tell you how you are TOTALLY capable of controlling them (unlike that loser TIM, whom they indoctrinated), and that shooting that piece of machinery over there will DEFINITELY activate the kill-switch that'll take out the whole Reaper fleet. But if you do not like either option, you could also jump into that disintegrating ray back there, which will magically transform everybody and make them live in peace and prosperity.

Now, I dare you to take a strict in-game perspective, without any prophetic knowledge of what's going down if you actually follow through with any of these instructions.

And then tell me that you'd just go along with any of these options, based on who the godchild is and how your enemies have operated throughout the series.
Seriously, if the writers responsible for that scene had any sense at all, the Catalyst would indeed have been lying through its holographic teeth, urging you to sabotage the machine ("Destroy"), become indoctrinated ("Control"), or just commit a rather spectacular suicide ("Synthesis").

If you are going to single out my response to a metagaming comment, at least include the metagaming comment.  I was linked a video, and I commented on the Destroy version of said video, nothing more.

I have actually answered the rest of your post several times.

robertthebard 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.

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.

Source.  Yep, no metagaming required.

[DecCylonus]

Jassu1979 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
If you choose destroy, it says they fought a terrible battle so their cycle wouldn't have to.  The Reapers are defeated in our cycle, and the video is basically the same.  So how is Refusal superior again?

You are meta-gaming, employing hindsight.

The godchild clearly identifies itself as the personification of an enemy that's been consistently known to manipulate people and warp their minds. It then proceeds to tell you how you are TOTALLY capable of controlling them (unlike that loser TIM, whom they indoctrinated), and that shooting that piece of machinery over there will DEFINITELY activate the kill-switch that'll take out the whole Reaper fleet. But if you do not like either option, you could also jump into that disintegrating ray back there, which will magically transform everybody and make them live in peace and prosperity.

Now, I dare you to take a strict in-game perspective, without any prophetic knowledge of what's going down if you actually follow through with any of these instructions.

And then tell me that you'd just go along with any of these options, based on who the godchild is and how your enemies have operated throughout the series.
Seriously, if the writers responsible for that scene had any sense at all, the Catalyst would indeed have been lying through its holographic teeth, urging you to sabotage the machine ("Destroy"), become indoctrinated ("Control"), or just commit a rather spectacular suicide ("Synthesis").

Okay, I'll play. I'm Shepard. I fought my way to the Citadel. I'm badly wounded, possibly mortally. Anderson, my only ally who made it this far, is dead. I'm lost in an unknown part of the Citadel. I have no idea how to escape and rejoin my team. My time is limited because allied fleets are engaging a superior Reaper force, and I don't know if I'm going to die from my wounds. The Crucible, which the entire galaxy united behind and poured resources into, is docked and ready for activation. The Catalyst gave me three options for activating it.

My choices are simple. I can activate it and hope it works, regardless of which option I pick. Or I can refuse. This is our only chance to use the Crucible. We can't hold Earth or the Citadel, and we likely can't build another and attach it to the Citadel again. Therefore, I have nothing to lose by activating the Crucible and everything to lose by refusing.

If I refuse, I lose the only opportunity we have to ever use the Crucible. I'm committing the entire galaxy to a conventional war that we may not win, without even trying the weapon we poured all our resources into.

If I activate the Crucible and the the Catalyst lied to me, I've lost nothing. The galaxy still has to fight a conventional war, so this possibility is the same as refusing. The Catalyst might kill me, but I might die from my wounds or starve to death before I can escape the Citadel anyway.

If I activate the Crucible and it works, we win.

Therefore, Shepard has the least to lose by activating the Crucible. It isn't a perfect solution, but it's arguably better than committing to a conventional war with the odds against us. Shepard's mission is to save his/her own cycle, and refusing to use the Crucible throws away the best efforts of the entire galaxy, and a solution that many people of many races believed in. It just isn't a logical choice for Shepard.

[saracen16]

Jamesui wrote...

... You've gotta be kidding me. I'm pretty sure their killing of millions of our own firmly establishes them as enemies. Not much wiggle room there.

The same premise established the governments of Bautista, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, and for a while, Saddam, as friends of the United States. It's also the same premise that established Japan as an enemy, now an important ally of the United States in the Far East. Plenty of room to wiggle, because cooperation furthers mutual goals.

You can't state that off hand. An AI doesn't even need a self-preservation instinct. Then again, even if it were true, why would it offer the control and destroy endings? Both involve its destruction.

Don't misrepresent me. I said that the goal of a ROGUE AI is self-preservation. Since the destroy and control endings are offered at all, it's clear that the Catalyst is not interested in self-preservation moreso than fulfilling its programming, hence going along with the fact that it is shackled ("I can't make them happen", "You have to choose") and going against the notion that it is rogue.

I know. My Shep's lied plenty. But dishonesty and deceit does mean we can't trust the Catalyst AI's exposition of our options or its motivations in doing so.

Dishonesty and deceit employed in the context of the Catalyst's original programming is not the same as outright dishonesty and deceit as a result of personal ambition. There's no reason for the Catalyst to lie if self-preservation is not its goal. Think about what Legion said regarding the heretics on the Heretic Station in ME2: "the minds of both forms of life can be shaped. Organics require time for it. With synthetics, replacement of a data file is the only requirement." This is exactly what happened with the Crucible.

You've got the implication the wrong way. Let's say "Defeat the Reapers" is D and "Use the Crucible" is C. Then "The crucible is the only way to defeat te reapers" means D->C, not C->D. So, yes, you can't defeat te reapers outright without the Crucible (~C->~D by contraposition), but the Crucible does not guarantee victory.

Yet it is stated that using the Crucible will defeat the Reapers and using the Crucible will defeat them. The biggest unknown is how it will do so. 

You did just grant that the Catalyst might be lying.

That's only if you consider it at base value in the initial meeting, but what it had to say as the conversation went on convinced me otherwise: it's got no reason to deceive you at this time.

There's a difference between prescriptive and descriptive purpose. It's prescriptive goal - defeating the Reapers - is known, but the descriptive goal - its purpose now that the Catalyst AI is at its helm - is not. If this were not the case, how do we have three options? If the prescriptive goal - the one we "know" - were the descriptive goal, there would be no choice. There'd be no point in engineering a last-ditch device that provides a last-minute choice.  

I disagree that the Catalyst AI is at the helm: what the Catalyst clearly said is that the Crucible is what changed him, not the other way around. Using the Crucible's components, the Catalyst can be guided, by Shepard, to implement the solution Shepard wishes. If the Catalyst is a gun and the Crucible it's magazine, Shepard is the trigger finger whose aim will guide the future.

The choice to refuse bears with it an acceptance that you will eventually fail. The goal is not to survive or defeat the reapers, but rather to destroy more of them than they can replace. The idea is to turn the massive cycle count against the reapers. We will not win, but we will weather them down a bit, and hope that the next x cycles do the same with the guidance we've left them.

There's too many of them to care, and a point that we have to agree to disagree on.

I'm sensing some hostility, and I would like to try to diffuse some of it. I am not against the EC-rejiggered normal endings (except for synthesis). My "canon" Shepard is a destroyer. I just think that the Refusal choice is justifiable if you don't trust the Catalyst, I think distrusting the Catalyst is justifiable, and I like the way it was written despite the FU undertones. I am well aware that its writing clashes considerably with my justifications of the decision, and in my headcanon my Refusal speech is more along the lines of "I'd rather die fighting for our successors than hand you the instruments of our own demise"

I'm not hostile. I'm stating a fact: you are choosing to sacrifice the lives of many if you don't use the Crucible. As for the refusal ending, the consequences are understandable: you don't succeed against the Reapers in such a context. And this is another point we'd have to agree to disagree on.

[BatmanPWNS]

Well, refuse is the second most popular ending on these boards.

[Hannah Montana]

Sauruz wrote...

I tried each ending and each ended the cycle. Which endings are you talking about again?

Only with refuse are we certain 100% we ended the cycle and not tricked by the catalyst into thinking we ended the cycle by showing us the choices he presented to us.
Accepting the choices the reapers offers is bad because he is probably indoctrinating us.
Being so close to the collective mind of the Reapers and then accepting him can not be good for your mental health.

Refuse is the only true ending, free of possible doubt.

[robertthebard]

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Oh you do ok then scratch the twitter comment but yes it was never shown ingame so for me it might as well have not have happended so I can't take you seriously on it sorry

I'm sorry, but we are unable to discuss any longer. If you can't take what an ingame character says as a truth (without anything implying she can lie or has reasons to lie or that she is wrong), we have no base to discuss anything at all.

Well if it didn't happen ingame or we didn't see it happen despite using the normandy to fly all across the galaxy then yes you're right we don't have anything to discuss

So did you go back to ME 2?  If you had, you would see the crew of the Normandy taken by force.  They didn't kill them all on the ship, they took them, alive.  They stuck them in tubes, along with the remaining Horizon colonists, depending on how many missions you do after you get back to the Normandy, you can even save them.  But I guess, despite what we see happening to them, and how we conclude the first part of that little adventure, that none of that stuff that happened before we got there happened, because, well, we didn't see it, right?  Hey, you know what?  We didn't actually see the Salarians create the Genophage, so I guess that didn't happen either, right?  Nor did we see the Turians deploy it, so I guess the Genophage was made up, right?  All of these things are things that happened in game, whether we were there or not.  The Genophage happed 1300 years before Shepard was even born.  Hey, if we didn't play LotSB, does that mean that despite what Liara claims in ME 3, she's not really the SB, after all, if we didn't play it, it can't have happened, right?  Starting to see the flaw in your logic yet?

The fact is, we hear from Hackett that we are losing colonies faster than we can evacuate them.  The vast majority of those colonies are going to be civilians.  Do you have something from in game that says they are all just being killed?  Isn't it just as likely that they are being harvested?  How do you know either way, since it's not presented in game?  You want to know what is presented in game?  Reaper controlled space.  Take a look at your galaxy map at various stages of the game, and see how much Reaper controlled space is expanding.  What's happening to all those people?  Can you say, with 100% certainty, that they are all just killed?  Can you document that none of them are being harvested?  I can, with an ingame example:  EDI's conversation.  This isn't Twitter, or some iphone app, it's presented in game.  This makes it 1000 times more credible than you telling me that it never happens because you never see it, especially with the list of things that happen in game that we never see.

[Bill Casey]

Hannah Montana wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

I tried each ending and each ended the cycle. Which endings are you talking about again?

Only with refuse are we certain 100% we ended the cycle and not tricked by the catalyst into thinking we ended the cycle by showing us the choices he presented to us.
Accepting the choices the reapers offers is bad because he is probably indoctrinating us.
Being so close to the collective mind of the Reapers and then accepting him can not be good for your mental health.

Refuse is the only true ending, free of possible doubt.

____________________________________________________


Shepard: The Reapers have it right? You're indoctrinated.

Illusive Man: I could say the same of you, wasting your time on a war that can't be won.

_____________________________________________________


EDI: Shepard, I'm keeping track of the investigation into Udina's actions on the Citadel. It appears he was motivated to seize power in order to launch a counterattack on Earth. Most experts would agree that such a move at this point would be doomed to failure. His poor plan may have been exactly what the Reapers wanted. It is possible he was indoctrinated.

Shepard: He'd better be. At least that way, he'd have an excuse.

______________________________________________________


Not wanting to use the Crucible to Destroy the reapers plays into the reapers' hands...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 août 2012 - 05:27 .

[Memnon]

DecCylonus wrote...

Okay, I'll play. I'm Shepard. I fought my way to the Citadel. I'm badly wounded, possibly mortally. Anderson, my only ally who made it this far, is dead. I'm lost in an unknown part of the Citadel. I have no idea how to escape and rejoin my team. My time is limited because allied fleets are engaging a superior Reaper force, and I don't know if I'm going to die from my wounds. The Crucible, which the entire galaxy united behind and poured resources into, is docked and ready for activation. The Catalyst gave me three options for activating it.

My choices are simple. I can activate it and hope it works, regardless of which option I pick. Or I can refuse. This is our only chance to use the Crucible. We can't hold Earth or the Citadel, and we likely can't build another and attach it to the Citadel again. Therefore, I have nothing to lose by activating the Crucible and everything to lose by refusing.

If I refuse, I lose the only opportunity we have to ever use the Crucible. I'm committing the entire galaxy to a conventional war that we may not win, without even trying the weapon we poured all our resources into.

If I activate the Crucible and the the Catalyst lied to me, I've lost nothing. The galaxy still has to fight a conventional war, so this possibility is the same as refusing. The Catalyst might kill me, but I might die from my wounds or starve to death before I can escape the Citadel anyway.

If I activate the Crucible and it works, we win.

Therefore, Shepard has the least to lose by activating the Crucible. It isn't a perfect solution, but it's arguably better than committing to a conventional war with the odds against us. Shepard's mission is to save his/her own cycle, and refusing to use the Crucible throws away the best efforts of the entire galaxy, and a solution that many people of many races believed in. It just isn't a logical choice for Shepard.

The bolded part is where I disagree - you're basically saying that we're going to die anyways, may as well die using the device. At this point, you are assuming that we can't win conventionally because the slides tell us so - but we've just learned that that the collective conscious of the Reapers, their "controller" and leader is housed on the Citadel. So that is a potential point of weakness

I've said this before, people get caught up with the phrase "conventional victory." We're not talking about lining fleets up on opposite sides and duking it out until one side wins - Shepard is a Spectre, and excels at finding "unconventional" methods to overcoming hardships.

Modifié par Stornskar, 22 août 2012 - 05:30 .

[Hannah Montana]

Bill Casey wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

I tried each ending and each ended the cycle. Which endings are you talking about again?

Only with refuse are we certain 100% we ended the cycle and not tricked by the catalyst into thinking we ended the cycle by showing us the choices he presented to us.
Accepting the choices the reapers offers is bad because he is probably indoctrinating us.
Being so close to the collective mind of the Reapers and then accepting him can not be good for your mental health.

Refuse is the only true ending, free of possible doubt.

____________________________________________________


Shepard: The Reapers have it right? You're indoctrinated.

Illusive Man: I could say the same of you, wasting your time on a war that can't be won.

_____________________________________________________



EDI: Shepard, I'm keeping track of the investigation into Udina's actions on the Citadel. It appears he was motivated to seize power in order to launch a counterattack on Earth. Most experts would agree that such a move at this point would be doomed to failure. His poor plan may have been exactly what the Reapers wanted. It is possible he was indoctrinated.

Shepard: He'd better be. At least that way, he'd have an excuse.

______________________________________________________


Not using the Crucible to Destroy the reapers plays into the reapers' hands...

No, using the Crucible could play right into their hands.
You never know if they tricked you.

The Crucible was a massive waste of resources that could have been used to help destroy Reapers instead.
For all Shepard knows it could be a trap created by the Reapers so that cycles pour all their resources into this instead of using them against the Reapers.
After all the Crucible is turtles all the way down.

Modifié par Hannah Montana, 22 août 2012 - 05:30 .

[Bill Casey]

Hannah Montana wrote...

No, using the Crucible could play right into their hands.
You never know if they tricked you.

Shepard was going to use the Crucible to destroy the reapers before Starboy...