saracen16 wrote...
You know, Manchild, I'm right here. If you have something to say to me, say it to my face.
Okay, since you're right here, I'll say that any attempts you made to validate your argument were drowned out in a sea of thinly-veiled insults which made me want to go behind my monitor, unscrew the cover, reach in and slap you. Credit where it's due though for actually changing the title; at least it sounds a bit more open to an actual debate.
Shepard may not know that he/she is a videogame character, but he has no reason to believe the Catalyst is wrong, either. His programming is based on assumptions that have manifested themselves several times in the Mass Effect universe. As for the rest of this part of your post, I suggest you take your qualms with destroy, control, or synthesis elsewhere.
Except that the source of this information is the Catalyst, who has basically stated that he's essentially the one running the Reaper show. Shepard knows that Reapers can use deception and manipulation to achieve their own goals; why should the Catalyst be any different? She's only got the word of the Catalyst (and the fundamentalist Javik) that this cycle is inevitable, and even EDI has established that even machines can lie. The phrase "unreliable source" comes to mind.
Also, why should I? You pointed out why you think Refusal is the "wrong" choice. I offered a counter giving my reasons why I felt the other choices could potentially be "wrong". How is that not relevant to the discussion?
So, what you're saying is that your Shepard believes that sacrificing lives is tantamount to sacrificing morals? No one said that fighting the Reapers would be easy, and no one said that the post-war civilizations would be left unscathed: changing an order that has existed for eons is going to drastically change the universe one way or another, and change all the political, social, and economical spheres of existence.
I went over my rationale when discussing the other endings; looking at the long-term, Shepard could see no positives to any of the choices, that post-war civlisation will never truly rid itself of the source of its rot. It's like trying to build a house on rotten foundations; no matter how much you try to reinforce it, it's going to fall sooner or later.
Admittedly, this is a different take on refuse than most of the refusers have had on these boards, and it's commendable. However, what makes you so sure that a solution other than what has been contrived for dozens of cycles (i.e. the Crucible) will be found in the next cycle? What makes you so sure that the next cycle will defeat the Reapers? How many more cycles will be extinguished? These are all uncertainties that none of the races right now are willing to face because their own survival is tantamount to themselves. What value do you place on life?
Hence the part I wrote about the next cycle finding a way to adjust the Crucible. I mentioned this specifically to bring up the idea that an entirely new solution may not even be necessary. Looking at the wider scope for a moment, Liara mentions in the epilogue that the Crucible didn't work; of course she doesn't know that it was because Shepard refused to use it, but it does give the other cycles clue that a solution exists, but it's a flawed one and needs improvement. It exists, it's built, but it needs refinement. Refining the existing solution would certainly take a shorter time than trying to find an all-new solution, and because of this warning there's now more time for the next cycle to refine it, time that Shepard's cycle didn't have.
In answer to your other points, I'll direct you to my final response.
As far as I recall, Liara's intentions are to pass on the story of Shepard and the plans for the Crucible. All of what you said is something you're putting up to chance and chance alone. As far as we know, no one knows of the Shepard-Catalyst conversation other than Shepard and the Catalyst. What makes you so sure that the next cycle will have someone who will not choose destroy, control, or synthesis? What makes you so sure that the next cycle will bring up a solution other than the Crucible, the only documented way to stop them? The Crucible uses the technology of the Reapers against them. What makes you so sure that another method will work?
Again, you haven't addressed the point I made of the possibility of the next cycle refining the Crucible to give a more desirable outcome.
That said, I will make the admission here that, in spite of all the preparation and knowing about Liara's backup, it's still basically a leap of faith on the part of my Shepard (perhaps I should have made that more clear in my previous post). It's Shepard placing her faith in her allies, as she has done throughout the entire series, and her own attempts to prepare the galaxy adequately for the war, avoiding the surprise attack that played a large factor in the destruction of previous cycles and her attempts to truly unite the galaxy, possibly for the first time in the history of the conflict against the Reapers. Even if you leave aside the Crucible for a moment, this cycle has accomplished what no other cycle managed before it, giving it a real chance to at least make the Reapers suffer the biggest losses they have ever taken, and Shepard has to believe that her faith is well-placed and that, in the end, the Reapers will never win.
That's a key theme of the series for me; faith, particularly faith in others, in the friends and allies that you make along the way. If the ending scenes with Liara's message and the Stargazer are anything to go by, then my Shepard's faith was justified. True, it may not be the happy ending that the other choices present, but it's still an ending with hope.
Modifié par BD Manchild, 22 août 2012 - 02:29 .
Retour en haut
