374 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

care to explain why refusal is just based on petty ideals and not realism? Care to convince me otherwise?

Your a synthesis supporter who started a thread about how refusal is the less realistic choice. I doubt I would be able to convince you of much.

Refusal is more realistic than synthesis, but I don't think that thread was about "being realistic" understood as "likely to happen, probable", but rather about pragmatism vs idealism - synthesis is pragmatic choice, refusal isn't.

[Village_Idiot]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

When taking Shepherd's perspective the only choice is refusal really - Shepard in that position and without knowledge at what will actually happen later has no reason at all to believe the star child can be believed in anything, In fact he/she has every reason to not believe a word the star child is saying especially after the star child proclaims that it's a representation of the collective reaper mind.

All very much true. However, assuming conventional victory is impossible (which I believe is true) the alternative to any of the Catalyst's choices is extermination. A chance of any kind of reprieve, regardless of how small a chance it may be, is preferable in my eyes.

[MattFini]

Actually, my current playthrough is going to end with refusal.

What it boils down to is that Shepard might not trust ANYTHING StarChild has to say. And therefore, would rather take his/her chances on their own.

Also, it's a polite way of telling BioWare "no, I don't like your endings, thanks!"

Modifié par MattFini, 22 août 2012 - 12:20 .

[robertthebard]

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Care to give a more substantial reply, Hannah?

It's what the Reapers want and it is not the our future, it is the catalyst's future
Surely you will not the different between Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

The catalyst said it what we will reach anyway and as such it is wrong.
The difference betweem the Catalyst's synthesis and the synthesis will reach by ourselves is greater than diference Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

And as such it is wrong.
There is other moral issues but that will take time to write.

Fallacy by association. The fact that Shepard chooses it for the galaxy makes it our future as much as theirs. Refusal, by your logic, is no different, because the Catalyst fulfills his programming either way.

And this thread is not about synthesis. There are plenty of synthesis-bashing threads out there. This thread is about refusal and why it is a wrong choice. Therefore, the onus is on you to defend it.

Simply one person choosing something does not make it our future nor will it.
We achieve it by ourselves the right way, if it is handed to use then it will be the death of us.

- Look at the Krogan, they were uplifted the same way synthesis does.
- Look at the Geth, they tried to achieve their own but eventually were trapped by the Reapers until freed

They were not ready.
The pattern repeat themselves in this galaxy. 

The catalyst doesn't fulfill his programming in refusal.

It's current programming is to Harvest all tech advanced civilizations.  How does choosing to not stop it from doing so not fulfill it's programming?

[Hannah Montana]

saracen16 wrote...


@Hannah: yes, you are condemning them to extinction. By refusing the Crucible, you have deemed all life as meaningless in the face of idealism, and condemned these souls to burn forever just so you can have a short-lived moment of pride. How does it feel to have murdered all asari, turians, salarians, batarians, krogan, quarians, geth, and humans?

These souls are going to burn forever anyway, they are not immortal. 
And Shepard doesn't deem all life as meaningless, if he did he would pick Synthesis.

Life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional

Life is not Synthesis.

An Asari is seen in the last scene with a child, so you never know.
Condeming using the Crucible is not condemning them to extinction which they aren't anyway.

[Oransel]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

All very much true. However, assuming conventional victory is impossible (which I believe is true) the alternative to any of the Catalyst's choices is extermination. A chance of any kind of reprieve, regardless of how small a chance it may be, is preferable in my eyes.

It's a lose-lose situation, actually and that's why Crucible should have never been introduced (or at least starbrat) and that is what is exactly wrong with endings and ME3 in general.

[Hannah Montana]

robertthebard wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Care to give a more substantial reply, Hannah?

It's what the Reapers want and it is not the our future, it is the catalyst's future
Surely you will not the different between Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

The catalyst said it what we will reach anyway and as such it is wrong.
The difference betweem the Catalyst's synthesis and the synthesis will reach by ourselves is greater than diference Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

And as such it is wrong.
There is other moral issues but that will take time to write.

Fallacy by association. The fact that Shepard chooses it for the galaxy makes it our future as much as theirs. Refusal, by your logic, is no different, because the Catalyst fulfills his programming either way.

And this thread is not about synthesis. There are plenty of synthesis-bashing threads out there. This thread is about refusal and why it is a wrong choice. Therefore, the onus is on you to defend it.

Simply one person choosing something does not make it our future nor will it.
We achieve it by ourselves the right way, if it is handed to use then it will be the death of us.

- Look at the Krogan, they were uplifted the same way synthesis does.
- Look at the Geth, they tried to achieve their own but eventually were trapped by the Reapers until freed

They were not ready.
The pattern repeat themselves in this galaxy. 

The catalyst doesn't fulfill his programming in refusal.

It's current programming is to Harvest all tech advanced civilizations.  How does choosing to not stop it from doing so not fulfill it's programming?

You're limiting it's entire programming to a 50000 year or so period.
The programming of the Catalyst is not limited to this and as such it can not fulfill it's programming. 

I suggest you pick a better word to use and look at the definitions of them before you use them.

Modifié par Hannah Montana, 22 août 2012 - 12:27 .

[Village_Idiot]

Oransel wrote...

Shadrach 88 wrote...

All very much true. However, assuming conventional victory is impossible (which I believe is true) the alternative to any of the Catalyst's choices is extermination. A chance of any kind of reprieve, regardless of how small a chance it may be, is preferable in my eyes.

It's a lose-lose situation, actually and that's why Crucible should have never been introduced (or at least starbrat) and that is what is exactly wrong with endings and ME3 in general.

I agree. But there are plenty of other threads to discuss this.

[Memnon]

It is impossible to talk about Refusal without the metagame aspect included - when I first played (pre EC), I thought the Catalyst was misleading me. Here you are, the leader of the galactic resistance, and you've just met the entity who says he controls the Reapers. And THEN he says you have to pick one of three ways to end the conflict, all of which kill you ... taking you, Shepard, the leader of the resistance out of the picture. And I'm supposed to go, "Hey okay! Let's do this!" No, sorry. I'm sure Harbinger was thinking, "Damn, if it was that easy why didn't I try that with the Collectors?"

I chose Destroy because I had to make a choice - I would have refused right there on principle if I could. Post EC, you only lose because the writers say so. The entire trilogy was focused on overcoming impossible odds ...

Modifié par Stornskar, 22 août 2012 - 12:33 .

[robertthebard]

Hannah Montana wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Care to give a more substantial reply, Hannah?

It's what the Reapers want and it is not the our future, it is the catalyst's future
Surely you will not the different between Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

The catalyst said it what we will reach anyway and as such it is wrong.
The difference betweem the Catalyst's synthesis and the synthesis will reach by ourselves is greater than diference Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

And as such it is wrong.
There is other moral issues but that will take time to write.

Fallacy by association. The fact that Shepard chooses it for the galaxy makes it our future as much as theirs. Refusal, by your logic, is no different, because the Catalyst fulfills his programming either way.

And this thread is not about synthesis. There are plenty of synthesis-bashing threads out there. This thread is about refusal and why it is a wrong choice. Therefore, the onus is on you to defend it.

Simply one person choosing something does not make it our future nor will it.
We achieve it by ourselves the right way, if it is handed to use then it will be the death of us.

- Look at the Krogan, they were uplifted the same way synthesis does.
- Look at the Geth, they tried to achieve their own but eventually were trapped by the Reapers until freed

They were not ready.
The pattern repeat themselves in this galaxy. 

The catalyst doesn't fulfill his programming in refusal.

It's current programming is to Harvest all tech advanced civilizations.  How does choosing to not stop it from doing so not fulfill it's programming?

You're limiting it's entire programming to a 50000 year or so period.
The programming of the Catalyst is not limited to this and as such it can not fulfill it's programming. 

I suggest you pick a better word to use and look at the definitions of them before you use them.

Here's a thought:  Instead of throwing out veiled insults to my intelligence, you support your position?  I have cycle upon cycle of harvested civilizations that asked you how it's not fulfilling it's programming, you have "you think it's that limited".  So how about, instead of "it would take too much time for me to make up something so baffling that you couldn't figure it out if you had to" you simply provide some details.  Because quite frankly, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull**** isn't going to work.  If you want to throw out statements with the logic of "I said so" you are already argueing from a losing position, the lore in game says otherwise.  I can disregard ME 2 and ME 3 and still come out with the same answer.

[Hannah Montana]

robertthebard wrote...

Here's a thought:  Instead of throwing out veiled insults to my intelligence, you support your position?  I have cycle upon cycle of harvested civilizations that asked you how it's not fulfilling it's programming, you have "you think it's that limited".  So how about, instead of "it would take too much time for me to make up something so baffling that you couldn't figure it out if you had to" you simply provide some details.  Because quite frankly, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull**** isn't going to work.  If you want to throw out statements with the logic of "I said so" you are already argueing from a losing position, the lore in game says otherwise.  I can disregard ME 2 and ME 3 and still come out with the same answer.

I never threw out any insults, if you think that then it is because you were ignorant of my point.
I'm not even sure what you said or what your point is.

Part of the programming is to stop Organics and Synthetics from conflict with eachother.
If there is conflict in the galaxy after the catalyst was defeated then his programming was not fulfilled.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

When taking Shepherd's perspective the only choice is refusal really - Shepard in that position and without knowledge at what will actually happen later has no reason at all to believe the star child can be believed in anything, In fact he/she has every reason to not believe a word the star child is saying especially after the star child proclaims that it's a representation of the collective reaper mind.

All very much true. However, assuming conventional victory is impossible (which I believe is true) the alternative to any of the Catalyst's choices is extermination. A chance of any kind of reprieve, regardless of how small a chance it may be, is preferable in my eyes.

It's the reapers after all, A force that corrupts everything around them, Something that Shepard has seen time and time again He/She has absolutely no reason to believe anything the child says and in that light it only make sense to grasp the minimal chance for survival that refusal offers.

It's kind of like if near the end of Lords of the rings Sauron approaches Frodo and offer him three options to end the war... I'm pretty sure Frodo would say " naah I'm gonna try to climb this mountain instead". 

[Aethyl]

saracen16 wrote...

DISCLAIMER: this is a thread about REFUSAL. This is NOT a thread about destroy, control, or synthesis. There are plenty of threads out there for each ending.

Realist
re⋅al⋅ist [ree-uh-list] –noun 
1.a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are.
2.an artist or a writer whose work is characterized by realism.
3.Philosophy. an adherent of realism.–adjective 
4.of or pertaining to realism or to a person who embodies its principles or practices: the realist approach to social ills; realist paintings.  

Idealist
I⋅de⋅al⋅is [ahy-dee-uh-list] –noun 
1.a person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.
2.a visionary or impractical person.
3.a person who represents things as they might or should be rather than as they are.
4.a writer or artist who treats subjects imaginatively.
5.a person who accepts the doctrines of idealism.

Let me be clear: this is not an insult to idealism. Idealism drives most of our ambitions and dreams, and also drives our conflicts. However, idealism itself is not practical when real solutions are needed. Idealism never stopped the countless wars in our history, and never stopped the actions of those infamous leaders who committed atrocities and genocide. Refusal itself is based on idealism: sacrificing trillions of lives in the galaxy for the sake of pride, for the sake of not using the Catalyst and Crucible to end the cycle, for refusing to do what it really takes to end the Reaper cycle and repeat the same mistakes of the past, refusing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the many. The ruthless calculus of war, a fact of modern military conflict, has been bent because one refuses to sacrifice his/her life and his/her pride so that many could live. There is a fine line between idealism and realism. There is a limit to practical idealism: one can not simply aspire to higher goals and pay a hefty price for it, especially if it means the continuation of the Reaper cycle and the murder of countless species... the genocide of countless species. It is simply not practical as a solution. We already know the Reapers can not be defeated otherwise. To choose conventional warfare would be to lose and go down as just another footnote in the history of the Reaper cycles.

No one in history has been judged for sacrificing morals more than one has been judged for sacrificing lives. When lives hang in the balance, morals and ideals have no weight. The ruthless calculus of war, to sacrifice some lives so that many more could live, can not be ever more correct. The weight of a person is by his/her actions, not his/her beliefs. To refuse means you regard life, all life, as insignificant, as just more fodder for Reaper production, as another inevitability in the cycle. To refuse would be to capitulate to the Reaper's goals: to harvest all life so that tech singularity may be averted. To refuse is to commit murder, to accept responsibility for the genocide of every single species. Refusal is a choice and not a choice at the same time: it is Shepard's fault if he/she refuses, but it is not a valid choice in light of realistic goals.

The reality of the ME3 ending choices is that you can not beat the Reapers conventionally, and you need the Crucible to win. You don't have enough time to make a choice because the Reapers are attacking the Crucible and its attendant allied force. You can either destroy the Reapers and all synthetics, control the galaxy as a despot, or homogenize all life into a questionable form. One of these ways will end the cycle.  There is wisdom in harnessing the strengths of your enemy, an enemy that would otherwise be rendered almost irrelevant by the Crucible. To stop the cycle is our goal. To stop the Reapers is the key. Their control over the galaxy spans countless cycles and eons, and ending it can not come without cost as it is right now. To end an inevitability can not come without sacrifice. This is not about what the galaxy wants. This is not a democratic choice. This is about stopping the Reapers and choosing a new future for the galaxy, and which future is worth its price for ending the Reaper cycle.

Discuss.

I will personally always choose Refuse instead of Destroy, Synthesis and Control.

Modifié par Aethyl, 22 août 2012 - 12:44 .

[saracen16]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

When taking Shepherd's perspective the only choice is refusal really - Shepard in that position and without knowledge at what will actually happen later has no reason at all to believe the star child can be believed in anything, In fact he/she has every reason to not believe a word the star child is saying especially after the star child proclaims that it's a representation of the collective reaper mind.

Why would I disbelieve a program, a machine? To deceive and manipulate, a machine must have ambition, which all synthetics lack. What drives this machine is its own logic, stuck in a loop that continued for countless cycles based on the premise that synthetic-organic conflict is inevitable. It didn't take me long to trust Legion because he saved my life: up until then, all the geth were my enemies. Yet, look what happened afterwards: the geth allied themselves with the Reapers in ME3 (after the quarians backed them against the wall, literally). The Catalyst's variables have been altered by the Crucible, by the very thing the advanced civilizations themselves built to break the Reaper cycle and end their threat once and for all. For sure, I will trust it.

The Catalyst is not some evil or malevolent entity: it seeks to preserve organic and synthetic life in the long run, and the Reaper cycle was its solution, albeit a heinous and amoral one by our standards. It's not a malevolent mass murderer that does not discriminate.

[AngryFrozenWater]

saracen16 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You don't appear like a realist to me by surrendering your allies to the brat and its boys when they systematically committed genocide for the last billion years, saracen16.

To surrender to them would mean allowing the cycle to continue. His original programming as it is right now is to stop tech singularity by harvesting advanced civilizations and storing them in Reaper form. The only way to end the cycle is to use the Crucible, and those are the options in front of me. I am willing to do what it takes to stop the Reapers. In essence, I'm being very realistic.

Programming? You make them look like simple machines. Nah. The brat and its boys claim to be the "pinnacle of evolution and existence". That doesn't look like they are running on MS-DOS.

Kaidan: What's that? Some kind of VI interface?

Sovereign: Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.

Kaidan: I don't think this is a VI...

Sovereign: There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it. I am beyond your comprehension. I am sovereign!

Shepard: Sovereign isn't just some reaper ship Saren found. It's an actual reaper.

Sovereign: Reaper? A label created by the protheans to give voice to their destruction. In the end what they choose to call us is irrelevant. We simply are.

Wrex: The protheans vanished 50,000 years ago. You couldn't have been there. It's impossible!

Sovereign: Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in ears and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, your are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

And you want to cooperate with them and call that realistic? Maybe you should read that dictionary again.

saracen16 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You are also not an idealist for violating the right of self-determination by infecting your allies with synthesis against their will.

Better to violate their right to life, then, right? Either way, I impose my choice on the entire universe, just like I imposed my choice on the rachni and the krogan before them. I did it because I was in a position to do so, and refusing to make the choice would be worse for every party involved. We made these tough choices throughout the trilogy. This is no different.

Is submission preferable to extinction? You should not impose synthesis against the will of everyone involved, just because of your ideology. That is what you are trying to do, right? And that's what an idealist does, remember? "Idealist: A person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc." But let's be realistic: You answer to the Council and not the reapers.

[saracen16]

Aethyl wrote...

I will personally always choose Refuse instead of Destroy, Synthesis and Control.

Wow, you got me there, almighty Aethyl. I submit to your non-argument.

How does it feel like to be a mass murderer?

[Hannah Montana]

saracen16 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

When taking Shepherd's perspective the only choice is refusal really - Shepard in that position and without knowledge at what will actually happen later has no reason at all to believe the star child can be believed in anything, In fact he/she has every reason to not believe a word the star child is saying especially after the star child proclaims that it's a representation of the collective reaper mind.

Why would I disbelieve a program, a machine? To deceive and manipulate, a machine must have ambition, which all synthetics lack. What drives this machine is its own logic, stuck in a loop that continued for countless cycles based on the premise that synthetic-organic conflict is inevitable. It didn't take me long to trust Legion because he saved my life: up until then, all the geth were my enemies. Yet, look what happened afterwards: the geth allied themselves with the Reapers in ME3 (after the quarians backed them against the wall, literally). The Catalyst's variables have been altered by the Crucible, by the very thing the advanced civilizations themselves built to break the Reaper cycle and end their threat once and for all. For sure, I will trust it.

The Catalyst is not some evil or malevolent entity: it seeks to preserve organic and synthetic life in the long run, and the Reaper cycle was its solution, albeit a heinous and amoral one by our standards. It's not a malevolent mass murderer that does not discriminate.

On that deceive and manipulate.
The Catalyst does that by controlling Indoctrinated Organics, i.e sleeper agents.

Modifié par Hannah Montana, 22 août 2012 - 12:55 .

[Oransel]

saracen16 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

When taking Shepherd's perspective the only choice is refusal really - Shepard in that position and without knowledge at what will actually happen later has no reason at all to believe the star child can be believed in anything, In fact he/she has every reason to not believe a word the star child is saying especially after the star child proclaims that it's a representation of the collective reaper mind.

Why would I disbelieve a program, a machine? To deceive and manipulate, a machine must have ambition, which all synthetics lack. 

Dude, either you are trolling or have not played any of the 3 games.

[Sousabird]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Refuse is the wrong choice because you let yourself and everyone you know and love die when you could just shoot the tube and save them all.

This.
It's like the part in spiderman where he let's the thief escape because he's upset about getting cheated, and the thief escapes and kills his uncle. (Someone told me it was actually someone from the third movie, but I heard it sucked so I didn't watch it.)

[Memnon]

Oransel wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

When taking Shepherd's perspective the only choice is refusal really - Shepard in that position and without knowledge at what will actually happen later has no reason at all to believe the star child can be believed in anything, In fact he/she has every reason to not believe a word the star child is saying especially after the star child proclaims that it's a representation of the collective reaper mind.

Why would I disbelieve a program, a machine? To deceive and manipulate, a machine must have ambition, which all synthetics lack. 

When you first play through - pre EC - you have no idea it is a machine. Bioware even tweeted that it was believed to be a Being of Light. Even if it was a machine, EDI showed in ME3 that machines can be deceptive, so yes they can lie. Either way, you don't have enough information, nor enough time, to evaluate that it's being honest with you. If I'm going to kill myself to "save the galaxy" then it's not going to be because some glowing kid told me it was the only way to do it ...

[BD Manchild]

I really find it hard to take any arguments made my anti-Refusers seriously. I can see why someone would not pick Refuse, I really can, but every single anti-Refuse post I've seen on these forums has been nothing but ad hominem attacks and holier-than-thou petty insults, apparently unable to counter any argument against them without resorting to said insults and snobbery. The OP is no different, it just uses fancier words to call people who pick the Refuse ending murderers and the scum of the universe.

Okay, now that I've got that out of my system, let me try to articulate exactly why I picked Refuse. This isn't me saying Refuse is the right choice - as far as I'm concerned there is no "right choice" as the three main choices are morally repulsive, thematically revolting and embarrasingly bad from a literary standpoint, while Refuse is woefully rushed and even feeling flat-out insulting in its execution - this is just me describing the thought processes I - or, to be more specific, my Shepard - went through for each ending:

Destroy: Not something my Shepard could do. After all of the time she had spent helping EDI to cope with emotions and evolve beyond her initial programming, and into ensuring reconciliation between the Geth and the Quarians, to ritually sacrifice them, even if the Reapers would die with them, was something she could not do. She'd already stated to Garrus that to reduce the war to maths would make them no better than the Reapers, so committing genocide on an entire species would be gross hypocrisy. Even leaving that aside, what of the long-term implications? If another race of synthetics arises and they inevitably find out that organics would gladly destroy them if it meant saving their own worthless necks, then they would attack organics, thus fulfilling the Starchild's prophecy without any Reaper intervention being necessary.

Control: Again, to choose this would be hypocrisy on Shepard's part. She'd stated repeatedly to the Illusive Man that no-one is ready to wield the kind of power he craves. How does she know something won't go wrong with the whole procedure? She knows it wouldn't be herself in charge; just a pale imitation that might not share her values completely. Even if she did retain control she is highly doubtful that anybody would want to be in the same space as the creatures that had slaughtered everyone they knew, so again conflict seems inevitable in that choice.

Synthesis: To her mind, the most disgusting choice of all. This is essentially acknowledging that the Catalyst's preferred solution is the right one; a solution to a problem which, as far as she's concerned, simply doesn't exist. Forcing that kind of change on everyone in the galaxy without their consent, bringing about what can surely only be stagnation, is reprehensible. Also, aside from sounding completely impractical with no idea of how it works, the way the Catalyst described it sounds suspiciously like indoctrination. What guarantees does she have that the Catalyst - who has basically admitted that it's the leader of the very things she's fighting against - is telling the truth? It's already given her reason to believe that it is untrustworthy, an AI carrying out insane instructions because its creators believed that every other race would fall into the same conflicts and would want this twisted version of immortality. She already knows that the Reapers are more than capable of lies and deception; that's basically how the initial stages of indoctrination work, as Saren and the Illusive Man found out to their cost. Remember that Shepard doesn't know she's a videogame character, and thus has no reason to believe the Catalyst is right.

To her mind, none of the choices seem practical. That's why she refused to validate the Catalyst's twisted logic. She doesn't trust the Catalyst. She's not willing to sacrifice billions of Geth, even if the alternative is most likely extinction over the coming decades not only of the Geth but of everyone else. She doesn't believe she can control the Reapers or has any right to. She doesn't believe that even the Reapers' advanced science can change the DNA of every single organism in the universe nor does she believe that it's right for her to impose that on everyone else even if it did work. In any choice, even if what the Catalyst says is true, the foundations of post-war civilisation would be irreversibly stained.

So she refused. As far as she's concerned the Crucible is a dead end. It's not going to do what she needs it to do. The Allies clearly didn't have enough time to study it and understand it well enough to make it into a tool that destroys the Reapers without harming anyone else. Instead she decided to commit to a long war, even if it's one that the Allies will eventually lose. Shepard is nothing if not a realist; the Reapers almost certainly will triumph and retreat back into dark space. However, with all the resources and allies she's gathered, plus the fact that this cycle has some huge advantages that no other cycle had - for instance, stopping the Reapers' surprise decapitation attack all the way back in ME1 - she's sure that the Reapers will suffer the greatest losses that they have ever had. Bruised and battered, the Reapers would be in a prime position to be finished off by the next cycle.

This outcome wasn't entirely unforseen by Shepard either. She knew that Liara was working on a backup plan. If the Allies are unable to defeat the Reapers in this cycle, she plans to ensure that the next cycle is not scrambling around, like Shepard was, trying to find obscure clues to their defeat. She's been gathering every scrap of anti-Reaper data up to that point and place it all in a position where the Reapers can't find it and still make it available to future races so that, next cycle, the spacefaring races will have millenia to prepare for the Reapers' return and finish them off once and for all, either by being able to figure out how to get the Crucible to destroy the Reapers without any drawbacks or by using something else entirely.

In choosing to refuse, Shepard doomed her cycle to almost certain defeat, but she did so knowing that the next cycle will have the tools to defeat the Reapers, without compromise. As far as she's concerned, the price of victory by bowing to the Catalyst's logic is far too high. By refusing to carry out the Catalyst's instructions, she shows that she's willing to play the long game, if that's what it takes to defeat the Reapers. Without Liara's knowledge and backup plan, such a choice would of course be insanity.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 22 août 2012 - 01:11 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Hannah Montana wrote...

- Look at the Geth, they tried to achieve their own but eventually were trapped by the Reapers until freed

They were not ready.
The pattern repeat themselves in this galaxy.

The Geth would have done that just fine had the Quarians not intervened.

[LiarasShield]

And you know why the crucible is the wrong choice

Because you kill the geth and massively damage the mass relays destroyed the reapers who had the knowledge to repair or make the mass relays in the first place


In synthesis you force everyone to be half organic or machine against their will shepards dna and the catalyst programing get fused throughout the entire galaxy

And in the control you become the very thing that used the reapers to destroy organics in the first place and now the very enemies who burned the galaxy are now its defenders yeah and I'm sure the whole galaxy is just gonna singe happy happpy joy joy now because of that seriously each crucible choice is not that much better then refuse and

Are just trying to have a flame war by having a thread like this up

[Anacronian Stryx]

saracen16 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

When taking Shepherd's perspective the only choice is refusal really - Shepard in that position and without knowledge at what will actually happen later has no reason at all to believe the star child can be believed in anything, In fact he/she has every reason to not believe a word the star child is saying especially after the star child proclaims that it's a representation of the collective reaper mind.

Why would I disbelieve a program, a machine? To deceive and manipulate, a machine must have ambition, which all synthetics lack. What drives this machine is its own logic, stuck in a loop that continued for countless cycles based on the premise that synthetic-organic conflict is inevitable. It didn't take me long to trust Legion because he saved my life: up until then, all the geth were my enemies. Yet, look what happened afterwards: the geth allied themselves with the Reapers in ME3 (after the quarians backed them against the wall, literally). The Catalyst's variables have been altered by the Crucible, by the very thing the advanced civilizations themselves built to break the Reaper cycle and end their threat once and for all. For sure, I will trust it.

The Catalyst is not some evil or malevolent entity: it seeks to preserve organic and synthetic life in the long run, and the Reaper cycle was its solution, albeit a heinous and amoral one by our standards. It's not a malevolent mass murderer that does not discriminate.

This "machine" as you're so fond of calling it freely admit to being the collective conscious of the reapers - Shepard saw first hand the reapers deceive and manipulate Saren, deceive and manipulate the Rachni to war not to mention the whole cycle is one big exercice in deception and manipulation.

[Aethyl]

saracen16 wrote...

Aethyl wrote...

I will personally always choose Refuse instead of Destroy, Synthesis and Control.

Wow, you got me there, almighty Aethyl. I submit to your non-argument.

How does it feel like to be a mass murderer?

Haha yeah, fear my ultimate power.

More seriously, I personally never agreed on any of the 3 choices that were given to me by this Catalyst.
I don't want my Shepard to become a Reaper god, I don't want to mess with the whole galaxy, by killing every variety and difference in the whole universe. I always enjoyed the clear difference that was made between Synthetics and Organics in the Mass Effect universe. And even with those differences, the organics and synthetics proved themselves to be able to work together, and fight side by side against the global menace, AKA the reapers.
I don't want to render all this evolution meaningless, by thinking "Synthetics and organics must be merged to be able to live together". Also, this whole idea of "merging" makes no sense to me in the Mass Effect universe.
Following this idea, I don't support Destroy, since it basically means saving the Organics by destroying all the Synthetics, even those who supported Shepard till the end.

That's why I personally prefer going down by fighting the conventional way. Yes we may lose everytime, since conventional victory is supposedly impossible, but at least, I won't follow some terms that I ultimately disagree with.

Of course, it's just my opinion.

Modifié par Aethyl, 22 août 2012 - 01:04 .