264 réponses à ce sujet

[iSpaceMarine]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

mavqt wrote...

iSpaceMarine wrote...

*snips*

Doesn't high EMS Destroy target Reaper tech only? Otherwise wouldn't biotic implants also be buggered, aswell as Omni-tools and the rest.

Okay, Reaper tech isn't only thing being destroyed, it's all synthetics. I don't know what that person was on, but even if it were just Reaper tech the Geth and EDI would be dead anyway.

Biotics is Eezo, that's totally different. Omni-tools are definitely not synthetic life...

Lastly, can people PLZ stop quoting the community manager as word of god? PLZ!?

Considering those community managers work for Bioware I think I'd rather trust them rather than speculations made by the fans. And EDI and the Geth wouldn't die if it was only Reaper Tech that was destroyed. EDI was made by Cerberus for the Normandy. Maybe her ''sex robot body'' is destroyed but her programming is probably still there. As for the Geth, if Reaper Tech were to be the only thing that is truly destroyed then they could easily be rebuilt.

[Jadebaby]

ghost9191 wrote...

i mean which option does what the catalyst wants, and has shepard succumbing to it's logic. the one that blows them up l., or the one that allows the reapers to continue reaping. or synthesis the one that it has tried before

As you said, death is different to synthetics. Obviously the Catalyst would favor synthesis, But he would still blindly follow his protocol.

[ghost9191]

yeah, as i said given the choices, i choose destroy for my own reasons,. not the catalysts reasons. i see one threat, the reapers and there is one choice that gets rid of the reapers, so i choose it. With hope that the races can face and overcome any probelem that might surface just as they did with the reapers.

in short like i said my reasons for picking it, not doing what the catalyst wants

but could be wrong. i am only making the choice because that is what they gave us. if they give us the chance for a conventional victory then i might choose it. that would give us the hard road, the easy way is not always the right way. but they do not do that. so all we have to work with is 3 easy choices, and i mean you push i button and it ends., no winning the war off our own steam

i pick destroy to end it, but if it was possible to end it fighting , i would do that. the price might equal the deaths that would be caused by destroy, but at least it wouldn't sacrifice a species for it. so i see how fighting to win is better but they don't give you a option for that. refuse is just crap. it is one thing if shepard would continue to fight, but just standing there meh

Modifié par ghost9191, 24 août 2012 - 11:33 .

[RebelTitan428]

don't worry, eventually the writers will fall into one of those plot holes they made...

[Jadebaby]

iSpaceMarine wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

mavqt wrote...

iSpaceMarine wrote...

*snips*

Doesn't high EMS Destroy target Reaper tech only? Otherwise wouldn't biotic implants also be buggered, aswell as Omni-tools and the rest.

Okay, Reaper tech isn't only thing being destroyed, it's all synthetics. I don't know what that person was on, but even if it were just Reaper tech the Geth and EDI would be dead anyway.

Biotics is Eezo, that's totally different. Omni-tools are definitely not synthetic life...

Lastly, can people PLZ stop quoting the community manager as word of god? PLZ!?

Considering those community managers work for Bioware I think I'd rather trust them rather than speculations made by the fans. And EDI and the Geth wouldn't die if it was only Reaper Tech that was destroyed. EDI was made by Cerberus for the Normandy. Maybe her ''sex robot body'' is destroyed but her programming is probably still there. As for the Geth, if Reaper Tech were to be the only thing that is truly destroyed then they could easily be rebuilt.

I hate to break it too you, but EDI is based on Reaper Tech. Also if you're looking for answers to a game, twitter is the last place I'd go. Try and interpret things yourself using the game rather than find the facts from BioWare staff.

[Reorte]

I wouldn't mind so much if it actually made sense - heavy price to pay and so on, but it has to be logical. "All synthetics" is simply another dose of space magic though (as is "all Reaper tech" when all the geths' Reaper tech is software).

[Pitznik]

Nyoka wrote...

Sure there is. Destroy the synthetics when they pose a threat, like you just did now for the first time. Reaperizing one species doesn't solve the problem because more species will come. Destroying one kind of synthetics doesn't either. The crucible informs the catalyst that destruction is a possibility. He doesn't like this possibility, but it is there anyway, and now he obviously prefers it to his old Reaper solution. Besides, if you get to the ending with low EMS, destruction is the only possibility. In the original ending, you couldn't even refuse, there was only destruction. If this only possibility has nothing to do with his theory, then the whole explanation becomes pointless.

What is easier, building synthetics or repairing the Citadel, the Crucible and whole mass relay system? Reapers aren't only destruction tools, they are also "preserving the organic life" in Catalyst's opinion. Which solution is better, the one you can control, or the one you can't?

Destroy doesn't work as a solution of Catalyst's problem, so he can't prefer it over the Reapers.

[iSpaceMarine]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

iSpaceMarine wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

mavqt wrote...

iSpaceMarine wrote...

*snips*

Doesn't high EMS Destroy target Reaper tech only? Otherwise wouldn't biotic implants also be buggered, aswell as Omni-tools and the rest.

Okay, Reaper tech isn't only thing being destroyed, it's all synthetics. I don't know what that person was on, but even if it were just Reaper tech the Geth and EDI would be dead anyway.

Biotics is Eezo, that's totally different. Omni-tools are definitely not synthetic life...

Lastly, can people PLZ stop quoting the community manager as word of god? PLZ!?

Considering those community managers work for Bioware I think I'd rather trust them rather than speculations made by the fans. And EDI and the Geth wouldn't die if it was only Reaper Tech that was destroyed. EDI was made by Cerberus for the Normandy. Maybe her ''sex robot body'' is destroyed but her programming is probably still there. As for the Geth, if Reaper Tech were to be the only thing that is truly destroyed then they could easily be rebuilt.

I hate to break it too you, but EDI is based on Reaper Tech. Also if you're looking for answers to a game, twitter is the last place I'd go. Try and interpret things yourself using the game rather than find the facts from BioWare staff.

Actually, I didn't choose Destroy because I read that on Twitter. For all I knew, Shepard was gonna die and so were the Geth and EDI. Could you give me some kind of proof that EDI is indeed based on Reaper Tech? I don't think it's ever mentioned through the game. In fact, what's mentioned is that she's NOT Reaper Tech. She was built by Cerberus for the Normandy SR-2. I don't think Cerberus had access to Reaper Tech back in ME2.

[Jadebaby]

ghost9191 wrote...

yeah, as i said given the choices, i choose destroy for my own reasons,. not the catalysts reasons. i see one threat, the reapers and there is one choice that gets rid of the reapers, so i choose it. With hope that the races can face and overcome any probelem that might surface just as they did with the reapers.

in short like i said my reasons for picking it, not doing what the catalyst wants

I respect that, and I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's ending. If you are afraid of being persuaded differently then you can just avoid this thread.

I'm just trying to get a new and maybe better perspective of the endings.

[Jadebaby]

iSpaceMarine wrote...

Actually, I didn't choose Destroy because I read that on Twitter. For all I knew, Shepard was gonna die and so were the Geth and EDI. Could you give me some kind of proof that EDI is indeed based on Reaper Tech? I don't think it's ever mentioned through the game. In fact, what's mentioned is that she's NOT Reaper Tech. She was built by Cerberus for the Normandy SR-2. I don't think Cerberus had access to Reaper Tech back in ME2.

Cerberus Logs at Cronos Station. She is based on technology found in Sovereign, and the VI from Luna.

And here...

http://www.youtube.c...OUB2rU7t8#t=26s

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 24 août 2012 - 11:42 .

[Jadebaby]

Reorte wrote...

I wouldn't mind so much if it actually made sense - heavy price to pay and so on, but it has to be logical. "All synthetics" is simply another dose of space magic though (as is "all Reaper tech" when all the geths' Reaper tech is software).

That's one hell 'uva virus.

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

That's supposing that will last, you cannot prove that without using headcanon. However, there is more information in the game to suggest that total control is not possible. You are also a collective intelligence of all the Reapers aswell.

We're discussing what we're seeing, unless an occurance of something is certain (as it is with new purely organic life in Synthesis since Synthesis wave didn't rewrite world chemistry so new pure organics will appear again). And what we see in Control ending + the Stargazer epilogue shows us that there's peace etc.

And what is that Reaper intelligence made of? Reaped minds of organics. You think they will agree that Shep should just continue the cycle of death? There's a reason why the Catalyst had to control the Reapers.

Nyoka wrote...

The crucible informs the catalyst that destruction is a possibility. He doesn't like this possibility, but it is there anyway, and now he obviously prefers it to his old Reaper solution.

No, he doesn't prefer it. He has no choice. Shep is already there and will do whatever he wants no matter if the Catalyst likes it or not.

Nyoka wrote...

Yes, I think that. That's why I have to refuse to acknowledge what I'm watching on my screen and headcanon Shepard destroying the Reapers for her own reasons, not as a solution to space kid's problem, like I said in my first post. I consider it's just bad writing on Bioware's part.

But when did Shep said "Yes Space Child, I agree with you that conflict is inevitable which is why I will Destroy you which is what I was coming to do here from the beginning".

Nyoka wrote...

Not quite. If there were a conventional victory available, it would be achieved for our own reasons, not as a solution to space kid's problem. We wouldn't be destroying synthetics to prevent them from surpassing us. We would be destroying Reapers because we want to get rid of them and leave in peace. In a conventional victory, we ignore everything the Catalyst says as nonsensical and pay attention to the only problem that we really have: the Reapers.

And how is Destroy different lol? You go up and destroy the power conduit initiating the reaction and Destroy the Reapers. Where do you get this idea that the Catalyst (means Bioware) somehow forced you, the player, to agree that conflict is inevitable? I just don't get it

Modifié par IsaacShep, 24 août 2012 - 11:45 .

[ghost9191]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

yeah, as i said given the choices, i choose destroy for my own reasons,. not the catalysts reasons. i see one threat, the reapers and there is one choice that gets rid of the reapers, so i choose it. With hope that the races can face and overcome any probelem that might surface just as they did with the reapers.

in short like i said my reasons for picking it, not doing what the catalyst wants

I respect that, and I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's ending. If you are afraid of being persuaded differently then you can just avoid this thread.

I'm just trying to get a new and maybe better perspective of the endings.

the yeah part was directed at you. the rest was refering to anothers post, should have been more specific , i don't see destroy as the right option. and i am always looking for better perspective on the endings. but my canon choice was made first playthrough. on march 9th or something. i can meta game now all i want but my choice was the choice i made first playthrough. i understood it, i wasn't lost and didn't know what was going on. I walked down the right path to shoot the tube. and my shep died, didn't have enough ems. and still pick it

I find destroy the right choices, according to my morals. few for the many. but if they gave us a option that we can fight to win the war, rather then just taking a easy way then i would gladly do it. easy way is not the always the right way . but al we get are 3 easy choices, that have downsides (because fighting a war with billions dead already and some species on the brink of extinction was not enough they needed to add more consequences) and refuse. but i think destroy is the best way to end the current threat that you are facing,. and that is the reapers

but that is wihtout metagaming, personally i hate synthesis even more after watching the epilogue then i did before , so thta is out of the question/ control is a second, but too iffy

so again in short, without metagaming my choice is destroy, even with metagaming actually. but am open to new perspectives


oh and the crucible choices were "programmed" by those who built it , the catalyst has no say over them or shepard being there, it has to accept. by choosing destroy or control you are doing what the crucible was built for, synthesis needs the catalyst and shepard so it is the only one affected by the catalyst. so i think

p.s i hate synthesis

pp.s but you don't care about that

ppp. s major thing that annoys me about the destroy ending though is the breath scene. is shepard alive or not. for a end to someones story, that doesnt give you much closure

Modifié par ghost9191, 24 août 2012 - 11:52 .

[iSpaceMarine]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

iSpaceMarine wrote...

Actually, I didn't choose Destroy because I read that on Twitter. For all I knew, Shepard was gonna die and so were the Geth and EDI. Could you give me some kind of proof that EDI is indeed based on Reaper Tech? I don't think it's ever mentioned through the game. In fact, what's mentioned is that she's NOT Reaper Tech. She was built by Cerberus for the Normandy SR-2. I don't think Cerberus had access to Reaper Tech back in ME2.

Cerberus Logs at Cronos Station. She is based on technology found in Sovereign, and the VI from Luna.

And here...

http://www.youtube.c...OUB2rU7t8#t=26s

She's not made by Reaper Tech, though. She just has Reaper Tech. What would be destroyed is them ''cyberwarfare attack programmes''. What I mean to say is, she's not CREATED with Reaper Tech, she just HAS Reaper Tech. 

This is just my view though. The endings were left very open-ended. I don't know if that intentional, so that the fans could just come up with a conclusion on their own or because they're just lazy.

[Obadiah]

The Geth, if they are destroyed, deserve at least a placard with the other races recognizing their sacrifice in the epilogue.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

To the OP: The brat presents the three options as solutions to its hypothetical threat.

If it's a hypothetical threat then there is even more reason to not need a solution
 

Therefor the solution must at least do *something* about that perceived problem.

You're right, it is does something about the perceived threat. But the perceived threat in this case is the Reapers

In this case its genocide of synthetics. It is not a permanent solution, but it does delay the development of synthetics.

Which is succumbing to his logic, thus proving his point that they cannot exist.
 
Instead of refusing to co-operate, at all, with his logic. Period.

I am not going to counter your post line by line. I do not believe in winning discussions. I'll try to present my thoughts about this in more detail. Not to counter you, but to give you an idea of my reasoning. To me the brat does not make sense at all, but I have to take it seriously, because it claims to be superior. That still does not mean I agree.

Like you I feel the reapers are the real threat. But the fact that there cannot be solutions to a non-existent problem does not mean that the brat thinks the problem is hypothetical. And thus for the brat even destruction is a solution, because the genocide of synthetics causes at least a delay of the development of synthetics. It even warns you that the solution is not a permanent one.

I rather reject all of the brat's solutions, but I cannot go for the refusal option, because I feel it is better to make a choice than none at all. I go for the destroy option not to exterminate synthetics, but to get rid of the reapers. I cannot refuse, because I feel that refusal is only a delay of selecting one of the three options in the future by someone else in another cycle - assuming that Liara's time capsule works. I rather make that choice myself now, because the refusal option causes the cycle to continue and would most likely result in the death of all. It then becomes the number game, much like what Shepard discussed with Garrus: You kill 10 billion here to save 20 billion there. In both the refusal and destroy option the synthetics will be killed, but in the destroy option at least the rest survives.

I don't feel happy about that number game at all, but the death of all would worry me even more. The destroy solution is also close to Shepard's primary Spectre task: Peace and stability of the galaxy. Annihilation of the entire galaxy does not fit that task. Getting rid of the reapers does. No other option does that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 août 2012 - 12:11 .

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

That's supposing that will last, you cannot prove that without using headcanon. However, there is more information in the game to suggest that total control is not possible. You are also a collective intelligence of all the Reapers aswell.

We're discussing what we're seeing, unless an occurance of something is certain (as it is with new purely organic life in Synthesis since Synthesis wave didn't rewrite world chemistry so new pure organics will appear again).

If pure organics will occur again in Synthesis, then I will feel sorry for any organic life that comes across the synthesized life. With them wanting to "ascend" the pures to hybrids. Wow, that sounds really familiar...
 

And what we see in Control ending + the Stargazer epilogue shows us that there's peace etc.

And what is that Reaper intelligence made of? Reaped minds of organics. You think they will agree that Shep should just continue the cycle of death? There's a reason why the Catalyst had to control the Reapers.

You mean has control? The Catalyst still exists, it just uses Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet Explorer.

But it didn't stop the minds from not having any say in the previous cycle. Maybe the organic minds get corrupted.

You are right though, for what we see there is peace. But for how long? Tyranny never lasts.

[Jadebaby]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am not going to counter your post line by line. I do not believe in winning discussions.

 
Neither do I, I just do this because it's easier to gain context on what pieces of information I am replying to.

But the fact that there cannot be solutions to a non-existent problem does not mean that the brat thinks the problem is hypothetical.And thus for the brat even destruction is a solution, because the genocide of synthetics causes at least a delay of the development of synthetics. It even warns you that the solution is not a permanent one.

 
I thought you said it was hypothetical? The rest I agree with.

I rather reject all of the brat's solutions and I cannot go for the refusal option, but I feel it is better to make a choice than none at all. I go for the destroy option not to exterminate synthetics, but to get rid of the reapers. I cannot refuse, because I feel that refusal is only a delay of selecting one of the three options in the future by someone else in another cycle - assuming that Liara's time capsule works. I rather make that choice myself now, because the refusal option causes the cycle to continue and would most likely result in the death of all. It then becomes the number game, much like what Shepard discusses with Garrus: You kill 10 billion here to save 20 billion there. In both the refusal and destroy option the synthetics will be killed, but in the destroy option at least the rest survives.

I was never debating that the refuse option currently presented is better, nor is this thread even about which ending is better. It is simply about certain consequences of the CSD endings. Anytime I even mention refuse, it is talking about the 'act' of refusal, not the consequences of it. As that could just be changed with, well, the Puzzle Theory. 

I don't feel happy about that number game at all, but the death of all would worry me even more. The destroy solution is also close to Shepard's primary Spectre task: Peace and stability of the galaxy. Annihilation of the entire galaxy does not fit that task. Getting rid of the reapers does. No other option does that.

Coming back to view the current refuse ending on the whole, is that it's completely nihilstic, because of it's own consequences. It really is a game over ending. But add a successful refuse ending and it can just become a low-EMS ending.

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

If pure organics will occur again in Synthesis, then I will feel sorry for any organic life that comes across the synthesized life. With them wanting to "ascend" the pures to hybrids. Wow, that sounds really familiar...

The same thing may happen if organics reach 'synthesis' (incorporate technology into their bodies) on their own. It's an entire big problem on its own not exclusive to synthesis ending. But the good news is that it won't happen till another couple billion years, that's how long it took Earth to produce the first and only space-faring species all the way from simple organic compounds in oceans. I would guess it would be similar on other planets. So hopefully, everyone will be 823743 times smarter in those couple billion years.
 

Jade8aby88 wrote...
it just uses Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet Explorer.

Perfect analogy. IE is the devil while FIrefox is amazing

Jade8aby88 wrote...

But it didn't stop the minds from not having any say in the previous cycle. Maybe the organic minds get corrupted.

What say they had in previous cycles?

Jade8aby88 wrote...

You are right though, for what we see there is peace. But for how long? Tyranny never lasts.

I don't see any turanny being inflicted by Paragon Shep-AI.

[Jadebaby]

iSpaceMarine wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

iSpaceMarine wrote...

Actually, I didn't choose Destroy because I read that on Twitter. For all I knew, Shepard was gonna die and so were the Geth and EDI. Could you give me some kind of proof that EDI is indeed based on Reaper Tech? I don't think it's ever mentioned through the game. In fact, what's mentioned is that she's NOT Reaper Tech. She was built by Cerberus for the Normandy SR-2. I don't think Cerberus had access to Reaper Tech back in ME2.

Cerberus Logs at Cronos Station. She is based on technology found in Sovereign, and the VI from Luna.

And here...

http://www.youtube.c...OUB2rU7t8#t=26s

She's not made by Reaper Tech, though. She just has Reaper Tech. What would be destroyed is them ''cyberwarfare attack programmes''. What I mean to say is, she's not CREATED with Reaper Tech, she just HAS Reaper Tech. 

This is just my view though. The endings were left very open-ended. I don't know if that intentional, so that the fans could just come up with a conclusion on their own or because they're just lazy.

Can you prove EDI's name wasn't put on the wall in HIgh-EMS destroy?

[Massa FX]

Someone mentioned this already, but I want to put my spin on it: The catalyst should have acknowledged current events in the cycle. Shepard has just ended the biggest synthetic vs organic war in the current cycle. Regardless of the crucibles introduction, the child AI ignores the best solution which is that the problem is solved. No new solution is needed.

The galaxy is fully united. The Geth volunteering to fight the Reapers and their previous withdrawal to the veil disproves the conclusion that synthetics will destroy their creators. They chose to withdraw when they could have wiped the Quarians out centuries ago.

With Shepards rally, the Quarians chose to cease fire. Proof again that the catalysts solution is no longer applicable.

Not to mention Shepard has a sentient unshakeled AI in the Normandy.

The catalyst refused to consider ALL the variables. And Shepard... BW doesn't allow Shepard the chance to point out the facts.

Which is why I will never ever like the endings.

Its all cow plop on fire!

Modifié par Massa FX, 25 août 2012 - 12:23 .

[o Ventus]

I'm not sure it's so much that the geth are "necessary" to prevent future synthetic rebellion, as much as it is the Catalyst just forgetting that the geth ever existed and being facetious.

... Not that that's any better.

Also, like I (and others) have said, the geth being killed off in Destroy is only an effect so that Destroy has a downside.

Modifié par o Ventus, 25 août 2012 - 12:24 .

[Jadebaby]

ghost9191 wrote...

snip*

Honestly, my first playthrough I got a critical mission failure for walking around the area. But when it reloaded I chose destroy without flinching. It's what the whole series had been about. I just didn't want to blow up the relays and kill the Geth.

Honestly, if I was going to go back and play it again, and pretend I didn't know the outcome so it didn't influence my decision, I would pick refuse.

Meta-gaming as the game stands now, I'd have to say destroy as well.

oh and the crucible/citadel choices were "programmed" by those who built it , the catalyst has no say over them or shepard being there, it has to accept. by choosing destroy or control you are doing what the crucible/citadel was built for, synthesis needs the catalyst and shepard so it is the only one affected by the catalyst.

 I edited your speech because I agree with this edited version. Also, yes, the Catalyst would have to blindly follow his protocol.

ppp. s major thing that annoys me about the destroy ending though is the breath scene. is shepard alive or not. for a end to someones story, that doesnt give you much closure

I'm so not getting into that here. I'll b1tch about it for hours.

[Jadebaby]

Massa FX wrote...

Someone mentioned this already, but I want to put my spin on it: The catalyst should have acknowledged current events in the cycle. Shepard has just ended the biggest synthetic vs organic war in the current cycle. Regardless of the crucibles introduction, the child AI ignores the best solution which is that the problem is solved. No new solution is needed.

The galaxy is fully united. The Geth volunteering to fight the Reapers and their previous withdrawal to the veil disproves the conclusion that synthetics will destroy their creators. They chose to withdraw when they could have wiped the Quarians out centuries ago.

With Shepards rally, the Quarians chose to cease fire. Proof again that the catalysts solution is no longer applicable.

Not to mention Shepard has a sentient unshakeled AI in the Normandy.

The catalyst refused to consider ALL the variables. And Shepard... BW doesn't allow Shepard the chance to point out the facts.

Which is why I will never ever like the endings.

Its all cow plop on fire!

Have a cookie.