374 réponses à ce sujet

[Applepie_Svk]

saracen16 wrote...

The analogy is apt: no nation surrenders to pick its battles later, especially when it deems its existence under threat. You invoke Godwin's Law as an ad hominem because you fail to see the analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law 

Using this stuff in any different kind than history lesson on the internet is using law if you like it or not.... it doesn´t matter if you use it in analogy - what matters is that you lower yourself to use this kind of argument.

[Hannah Montana]

saracen16 wrote...

 you're sacrificing freedom to live and security from the Reapers.

No you're refusing Security to live in freedom from the Reapers.

[Memnon]

I'll say this again since it's getting ignored - we are examining this in retrospect from a purely metagaming standpoint. We know what happens with all four choices because we've seen them. We know that the Catalyst is telling the truth about the Crucible functionality because we see it happen. We know that the Reapers win if you refuse because that's what the cut scene shows us.

Without all of that knowledge, what do we have in-game? EDI establishes in ME3 that machines can deceive - she outright says that she deceiived the Alliance techs when they took over the Normandy. So there is an in-game canon example of AI deception - so that alone throws out the "why would a machine lie" defense. Based on this, you have zero reason to believe the collective consciousness of the enemy you have fighting the entire trilogy has your best interests in mind. It is telling you - Shepard, the leader of the galactic resistance - that you have to kill yourself at his feet and that will save the galaxy. There is no way I'm going to just take his word on that

Modifié par Stornskar, 22 août 2012 - 02:25 .

[Solaxe]

Hannah Montana wrote...

Refusing to use something =/= surrendering.
There is actually less Reapers, we killed loads this cycle.
The next cycle beats the Reapers without the Crucible.

Next cycle uses Crucible to defeat the Reapers, you genius.

It was confirmed on Twitter.

Stornskar wrote...

I'll say this again since it's getting ignored - we are examining this in retrospect from a purely metagaming standpoint. We know what happens with all four choices because we've seen them. We know that the Catalyst is telling the truth about the Crucible functionality because we see it happen. We know that the Reapers win if you refuse because that's what the cut scene shows us.

Without all of that knowledge, what do we have in-game? EDI establishes in ME3 that machines can deceive - she outright says that she deceiived the Alliance techs when they took over the Normandy. So there is an in-game canon example of AI deception - so that alone throws out the "why would a machine lie" defense. Based on this, you have zero reason to believe the collective consciousness of the enemy you have fighting the entire trilogy has your best interests in mind. It is telling you - Shepard, the leader of the galactic resistance - that you have to kill yourself at his feet and that will save the galaxy. There is no way I'm going to just take his word on that

No, You have MANY reasons 
to believe the collective consciousness of the enemy you have fighting the entire trilogy has your best interests in mind


Catalyst has already won. He has no reason to lie. He didn't even had to show all RGB options, but he did it. 

Modifié par Solaxe, 22 août 2012 - 02:29 .

[LiarasShield]

Solaxe wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

Refusing to use something =/= surrendering.
There is actually less Reapers, we killed loads this cycle.
The next cycle beats the Reapers without the Crucible.

Next cycle uses Crucible to defeat the Reapers, you genius.


It was confirmed on Twitter.

Never use outside sources that are outside of mass effect to claim something as cannon espically something like twitter or the interwebs

[Applepie_Svk]

Leave it here for ya

LiarasShield wrote...

Solaxe wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

Refusing to use something =/= surrendering.
There is actually less Reapers, we killed loads this cycle.
The next cycle beats the Reapers without the Crucible.

Next cycle uses Crucible to defeat the Reapers, you genius.


It was confirmed on Twitter.

Never use outside sources that are outside of mass effect to claim something as cannon espically something like twitter or the interwebs

Twitter is blight, it spoil good feeling from Refuse and made middlefinger to fanbase...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 22 août 2012 - 02:31 .

[Solaxe]

LiarasShield wrote...

Never use outside sources that are outside of mass effect to claim something as cannon espically something like twitter or the interwebs

Because?



Even if they didn't use the Crucible, Refusal ending is retarded. You choose to murder your entire Galaxy and rejecting big red "Kill all reapers" button. No comment.

Modifié par Solaxe, 22 août 2012 - 02:31 .

[Memnon]

Solaxe wrote...

No, You have MANY reasons 
to believe the collective consciousness of the enemy you have fighting the entire trilogy has your best interests in mind


Catalyst has already won. He has no reason to lie. He didn't even had to show all RGB options, but he did it. 

Are you really unable to admit that in that situation you would have any reservations whatsoever? He provides the RGB options with the caveat that you will die with each one. How can you not question that? 

[AngryFrozenWater]

saracen16 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Correction: the Reapers are the pinnacle of evolution and existence. The Catalyst is just the collective intelligence, the AI construct, the machine that runs their programming. And yes, it's that simple: a synthetic is not guided by malevolent ambitions like the rest of organic life is. It is guided by logic.

That's a good thing. Logic should drive us all. The brat and its boys were supposed to be good at it. After all, to repeat it again, the reapers claim to be "the pinnacle of evolution and existence" and the brat claims to be "the collective intelligence of all reapers". Now here you do something silly. You can insert the word "just" there, but it really does not help your cause. Making it sound less impressive, doesn't make it inferior. Nothing indicates that the reapers cannot think for themselves and nothing indicates that they are hindered in any way. You like to do that, to make them appear like they are not responsible for their actions. But I am afraid that this desire does not make it true.

saracen16 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

~snip awesome Sovereign conversation~

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

Sovereign is arguing about the inevitability of the cycle. He is enslaved to the Catalyst, who is in the end a machine with one logic in mind. With the Crucible, I dictate the terms to them, not the other way around.

He says a lot of things, but what's more important to the context of what I wrote is that he claims to be extremely smart. It looks like he claims that organics are the ones who cannot think for themselves and that reapers do. Yet, you claim the opposite. So let me use those same quotes again.

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

That sure looks like you really didn't understand his capabilities, saracen16 Shepard.

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!

Not only is Shepard incapable of understanding him, Sovereign is clearly superior.

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

And if that's not enough Shepard should really get an inferiority complex, because Sovereign thinks that organics are worth nothing. It is clearly you who fails to understand Sovereign's superiority.

saracen16 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Is submission preferable to extinction?

A question with different contexts. In Saren's situation, submission is equivalent to extinction: the cycle continues, and he would be spared the horrible deaths the rest of his species will endure. In refusal, it is no different: the cycle continues as well.

However, with the Crucible options, "submission" doesn't qualify: you are, as I said before, dictating the terms of the engagement with the Crucible. It just so happens that all 3 solutions also capitulate to the question of tech singularity, the one the Reapers seek to answer as well, in some form or other. But in the end, it is YOU who makes the choice on your terms: the cycle ends, the Reapers cease their harvest, and life continues. It is inevitable that life will be changed forever once the Reaper cycle is interrupted forever. That was the order of the cosmos that you just changed.

So your answer would be "Yes. Submission is preferable to extinction."

saracen16 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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."

There is a difference between a practical idealist and a foolish one. The former considers the realistic goals and consequences, namely the lives of organics and synthetics everywhere. The latter one pursues his goals regardless of the cost to life and livelihood.

Do you think Ghandi would condone the violation of the right of self-determination?

saracen16 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

But let's be realistic: You answer to the Council and not the reapers.

You're right: as a Spectre, Shepard's goal is to stop the Reapers no matter what it takes. As a preserver of galactic peace, he/she must do whatever it takes to end the Reaper threat and save the most amount of lives in the long run. Saren understood that well before he became indoctrinated by Sovereign.

The end justifies the means, right? Saren didn't make much friends with the Council. I can't remember them saying: Too bad Saren got indoctrinated, because he sure made sense.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 22 août 2012 - 02:37 .

[LiarasShield]

Solaxe wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Never use outside sources that are outside of mass effect to claim something as cannon espically something like twitter or the interwebs

Because?



Even if they didn't use the Crucible, Refusal ending is retarded. You choose to murder your entire Galaxy and rejecting big red "Kill all reapers" button. No comment.

I choose to not believe the being that has caused the reapers to burn the galaxy the universe for a millenia and I'd rather die fighting being free and sticking to my own believes yeah I'm really terrible or evil yup... no two ways about it by the way this is sarcasm

But we see two different things in refuse

[Applepie_Svk]

nwm 

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 22 août 2012 - 02:39 .

[Darth Asriel]

@Saracen16- I'm not sacrificing freedom. I choose freedom. I choose self determination. Organics and synthetics will chart our own course. You chose the security of sunthesis. You did glowboys job for him. He assimilated all life. I chose to fight. Always have always will. Not one dictated to us by glowboy. And i doubt TJ would disagree with me. He once chose to fight a superior force, knowing that they could possibly die in failure. He chose to fight. They won. And the Reapers are not invincible gods. Shep killed one with a Cain for crying out loud. In that moment where we are given the choices, all Sheps are looking into the abyss. The difference between mine and yours? When the abyss looked back, yours blinked!

[Hannah Montana]

Solaxe wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Never use outside sources that are outside of mass effect to claim something as cannon espically something like twitter or the interwebs

Because?



Even if they didn't use the Crucible, Refusal ending is retarded. You choose to murder your entire Galaxy and rejecting big red "Kill all reapers" button. No comment.

I think you're looking for a word other than "Murder".
Outside sources not in the game are not canon and can not be used to say what happened.

Just look at that fail book they released not too long ago, cute but you can't let it decide what actually happened.
If we let a twitter comment decide what is what then EDI would not be made of Reaper tech.

[saracen16]

[quote]BD Manchild wrote...

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

You know, Manchild, I'm right here. If you have something to say to me, say it to my face.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Honesty is refreshing, and so is the report button if you choose to continue this bedlam. 

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]
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 the phrase "unreliable source" comes to mind.[/quote]

Javik knows by experience that defeating the Reapers conventionally is impossible, and he has the experience of his cycle to back his claims. The Catalyst acknowledges the inevitability of the Reapers as well as their function and purpose of preventing tech singularity. I have every reason to believe a machine. The Reapers, however, are transcended flesh and machine intertwined. They are the means to the end of the Catalyst, and whatever they say or do is simply used to goad organics and synthetics to that end. The Catalyst, as an AI, possesses no moral qualms. He is guided by his logic of averting tech singularity and achieving peace.

[quote]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?[/quote]

Because, as I said to other posters, even though the best defense is an aggressive offense, this is not the thread to throw punches, but to raise a shield. I offered my opinion over why I think refusal is wrong and I expect you to return the debate in kind. There are other threads that debate the validity of these endings.

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

That's assuming that the rot in the foundation is not amenable. Destroy allows the foundation of the post-Reaper galaxy to be devoid of synthetics for a time being, while Control alters the purpose of the Reapers. Synthesis reduces the fundamental differences between organic and synthetics and allows galactic society to start fresh. The foundation of galactic society after the Reaper cycle is ended is itself changed.

[quote]
[quote]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?  [/quote]
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.[/quote]

Yet, Shepard is the only one aware of what the Crucible actually does and what it is: a power source. None of the cycles before it nor after it will know as well because it involves the Catalyst, which itself is the piece that redirects the dark energy transmissions and makes the Crucible work.

But let's go by what the names actually mean. The Crucible is little more than a power source, the ingredients of a chemical reaction, say carbon and oxygen, or an electrophoretic reaction even. The Catalyst dictates whether that carbon and oxygen becomes carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. Knowing these facts, I would not imagine that a future cycle will find a way to use the Crucible without the technology of the Reapers themselves, being unconventional and galactic in scope. To basically sum up my argument, I don't see any reason for the next cycle to do things differently or more advanced without the Catalyst.

[quote][quote]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?
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Read above, please. I doubt that the next cycle will do little to change what it is.

[quote]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.[/quote]

This is not a consequence that Shep's allies are willing to face. Shep's allies put their faith in the Crucible at that point to stop the Reapers. 

[quote]Leaving 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.[/quote]

The Reapers don't care about losses as it says so in the Codex on Thessia's fall. Regardless of what we accomplish, the Reapers can and will adapt to this, and I only see a 50/50 chance that the next cycle will defeat the Reapers with the Crucible or whatever means available.

And 50% is not a small number.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I suppose that is a commendable perspective, but I was not willing to beat the Reapers with hope and a prayer. Faith does not win wars quickly. You were willing to sacrifice trillions for the sake of faith. I was willing to sacrifice my life and the right of others to determine who or what they are to save the galaxy. If you can rest easy with your choice, that should be good enough for you. Your choice, unfortunately, is not good enough for me.

[Pitznik]

Darth Asriel wrote...

Refuse is freedom. I am choosing to bow to no one. I choose to live or die on my terms. We will fight to protect what we are to our last breath. A united galaxy, collectively giving glowboy and his toys the finger until one of us is gone. Its a fitting end. And if you honestly look at the entire series, its what Shep would do. Its what his allies would want. BW should have allowed Shepard to rally everyone with one final speech. Telling them the crucible is not an option, and the cost for it's use is too high. Reminding everyone that if this is our last day alive, if it is inevitable that the Reapers win, then make them pay for every inch! Make sure they always remember our cycle!

If don't choose to live or die, you choose to die. You won't die on your terms, you will die on Reapers' terms, and everything you hold dear will also die.

Less pathos, more reason.

[EricHVela]

Refusal is the wrong choice only because the game insists that it is the wrong choice.

It also insists that Synthesis is the right choice.

If you disagree with that, you're wrong according to the game (or, rather and likely more accurate, the game is wrong according to you).

[DecCylonus]

I can accept how BD Manchild arrived at his choice. It's a logical interpretation of Shepard's character. However, I disagree that Refuse is the only logical choice or interpretation of Shepard's character. It requires Shepard to believe that conventional victory is possible, and I don't think Shepard has to believe that. There is a lot of evidence that it isn't possible throughout the series. If Shepard believes that conventional victory is impossible, then Refuse is not an option because destruction of all species by the Reapers is the logical outcome. Personally I chose Destroy.

[robertthebard]

Stornskar wrote...

Solaxe wrote...

No, You have MANY reasons 
to believe the collective consciousness of the enemy you have fighting the entire trilogy has your best interests in mind


Catalyst has already won. He has no reason to lie. He didn't even had to show all RGB options, but he did it. 

Are you really unable to admit that in that situation you would have any reservations whatsoever? He provides the RGB options with the caveat that you will die with each one. How can you not question that? 

Because I knew it was a possibility going in.  I knew I might die at any point along the way, and yet I did it anyway.  You see, Shepard isn't playing a video game.  S/He doesn't know about quicksaves, and reloads.  Every time there is a possibility of death, Shepard is keenly aware of it.  It is we that disregard it, since we know we can load a quick save and get a do over.  How many times have you said something to your significant other that you wished you could load a quick save and unsay, or unsee something that you have seen?  For Shepard, this is real life, and the possibility of death has been very real from the outset.  Shepard doesn't know that the only reason some of these missions get accomplished is that, in the realm of possibility, and quick saves, there's no way it can fail.  Shepard only knows that they have done the impossible, or seemingly impossible.

From that perspective, knowing that people are already getting killed, and that the galaxy map is already overrun, why would I believe anything other than moustache twirling exposition?  If SC truly wanted to lie to you, then it would have been more akin to the Wizard of Oz:  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  Instead, it lays out the choices and the consequences, putting all it's cards on the table, because at this point, it figures you're going to choose something, so it may as well try to steer you to what it wants, if your EMS is high enough.

[saracen16]

Goneaviking wrote...

The geth had ambitions before the Quarians cam and forced their war. They were going to make that big structure and live together as a big superintelligent entity thing, their idea of the pinnacle of their evolution before they decided to splice some reaper code instead.

I'm aware of the Dyson Sphere that they were planning to build, but a programming error changed that perspective to Reaper bodies, or so as some geth thought. I don't see this as ambition more than mere programming. The geth were evolving, and this was just a manifestation.

Yes it is, evil is more often committed in the name of good than under its own banner. The manifest sadism of the Reapers methods puts them well and truly inside the immoral camp, if they they merely sought to preserve the cultures they harvested their was no need to degrade and debase them so much in the process.

They are machines, relentless and full of cold logic. Whatever method gets them the most genetic paste to preserve in Reaper form is best for them. It does not imply that they are evil for the sake of being evil. Admittedly, however, I regarded the Reapers as evil right up until the Catalyst conversation, where it was at that time shackled by the Crucible, and made me realize that it was merely fulfilling its goal of "bringing peace", although heinous and amoral in its standards.

[Hannah Montana]

Pitznik wrote...

Darth Asriel wrote...

Refuse is freedom. I am choosing to bow to no one. I choose to live or die on my terms. We will fight to protect what we are to our last breath. A united galaxy, collectively giving glowboy and his toys the finger until one of us is gone. Its a fitting end. And if you honestly look at the entire series, its what Shep would do. Its what his allies would want. BW should have allowed Shepard to rally everyone with one final speech. Telling them the crucible is not an option, and the cost for it's use is too high. Reminding everyone that if this is our last day alive, if it is inevitable that the Reapers win, then make them pay for every inch! Make sure they always remember our cycle!

If don't choose to live or die, you choose to die. You won't die on your terms, you will die on Reapers' terms, and everything you hold dear will also die.

Less pathos, more reason.

No we chose to fight until the last man, killing as many Reapers as we can.
We died on our terms, we did not lower ourselves to the Reaper ideals.


We did not use a device that is turtles all the way down.
These are our terms.

[Darth Asriel]

@Solaxe- hey genius, who cares what's on twitter. BW wanted speculation so I speculate the next cycle got my blue girlfriend's warning built massive fleets and when glowboy's toys show up they have a party.

And by party I mean a whole lot of people waiting to kill the Reapers. That twitter bs is just that bs. They couldn't be bothered to show me reuniting with my crew. I was told to imagine that. So I'm just finishing their job for them on refusal.

[Pitznik]

Hannah Montana wrote...

Refusing to use something =/= surrendering.
There is actually less Reapers, we killed loads this cycle.
The next cycle beats the Reapers without the Crucible.

Refusing to use your only opportunity to win = surrendering

Less Reapers? Indeed. And there is only next 50,000 years to rebuild their strength, and so many races to create new Reapers from.

Both "the next cycle" and "without the Crucible" are your headcanon. Game doesn't confirm neither, Twitter denies both. But Twitter is stupid, so all we know is "either this or one of the next cycles beats the Reapers somehow".

[saracen16]

Hannah Montana wrote...

No we chose to fight until the last man, killing as many Reapers as we can.
We died on our terms, we did not lower ourselves to the Reaper ideals.


We did not use a device that is turtles all the way down.
These are our terms.

Our terms = fighting the Reapers just like every other civilization before us and dying in the process, allowing us to be harvested. That sounds just like what the Reapers wanted us to do in the first place.

@Applepie, regardless of my mention, the analogy still stands: a nation does not lose a war to win another one, and can not take that chance if it was threatened with its own extinction. And http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/13006636/1 ]I'll leave this for your reading pleasure, too.[/url]

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

Refusing to use something =/= surrendering.
There is actually less Reapers, we killed loads this cycle.
The next cycle beats the Reapers without the Crucible.

Refusing to use your only opportunity to win = surrendering

Less Reapers? Indeed. And there is only next 50,000 years to rebuild their strength, and so many races to create new Reapers from.

Both "the next cycle" and "without the Crucible" are your headcanon. Game doesn't confirm neither, Twitter denies both. But Twitter is stupid, so all we know is "either this or one of the next cycles beats the Reapers somehow".

Ah but the issues here is that they only harvest the most advances races also during the battle with the protheans they didn't get a chance to make new reapers also they didn't get a chance to make new reapers in our cycle either because they don't get a real chance to harvest us because they have to kill us before we find serious ways to do damage to them

[Pitznik]

Hannah Montana wrote...

No we chose to fight until the last man, killing as many Reapers as we can.
We died on our terms, we did not lower ourselves to the Reaper ideals.

Not "we" but "you alone". You fight to YOUR last man, and you know it. Being harvested and having the cycle continued are Reapers' terms, not yours. From Reapers' perspective, your cycle changed absolutely nothing.