222 réponses à ce sujet

[Saans Shadow]

JG The Gamer wrote...

 As I see it, the attack on Earth is in fact the biggest distraction in galactic history. I know going in that a long, drawn out battle on our terms as a united galaxy will ultimately be a futile one. The Reapers are just too much to handle. We've been told that many times. So we hedge the galaxy's bets on the Crucible even though we don't know what it does. I don't see a better option. It has to be something that can stop the Reapers as past cycles have hedged their galaxy's bets on it too.

And then I look at our three teams our united galaxy has been divided into:

Sword Fleet - The biggest distraction in galactic history. Until we can get the Citadel arms open, this fleet has to keep the Reapers amused and entertained for long sustained period of time. They knew that they had to hold back the Reapers at all costs.

Shield Fleet - The most important escort in galactic history. The better this armada, the better chance you have of getting the Crucible to the Citadel completely intact. Their objective was to defend the Crucible at all costs.

Hammer Team - Now THIS is a textbook suicide mission. Take that Collector Base! Most if not all of the team got decimated by the time all was said and done. The objective was to get to the beam and onto the Citadel at any cost and open those arms.

Okay, so once we on the Citadel, we get the arms open and the Crucible docks. Now we meet the Catalyst. It says that the Crucible's addition changed it, gave it new choices, but it can't make them happen. I remember someone said that it was designed for an organic to use.

Over the past cycles, countless numbers of people have worked on it, added to it, improved upon its design.The initial idea to destroy all synthetics was the primary objective and so it's the first choice the Catalyst mentions. Somewhere along the line, a cycle likely chose to control the Reapers and maybe there was a splinter faction that wanted to destroy the Reapers resulting in organic dissolution.

I'm guessing Synthesis was an option at one point in time, but the Catalyst said conditions made it impossible though it is a choice now.

And eventually the time has come to choose. Back to the topic at hand. Why pick 'Refuse'? I'm not sure. You battled for three games to get to this point in time. A point where the three choices in front of you will result in the Reapers ceasing the galactic harvest. People say they refuse because they don't trust the Catalyst. I ask those people if they see a better option. We may be this 'united galaxy' but it's going to mean nothing by the time this war is over as we WILL LOSE. Sure you may have your morals and beliefs intact, but they'll mean nothing because the galaxy was obliterated again. As Javik said, "Stand on the ashes of a trillion dead and ask the ghosts if honour matters". Even I argued with him, but I began to see the writing on the wall as the game went on. That victory in this war is going to come with some heavy prices to pay.

And at that moment in time, you learn what the exact price is going to be for each decision that will end the cycles, and because you don't like any of them, you throw up your arms and say "I quit"?

Sometimes I think the best part about these choices is that they are in fact a reflection of ourselves. What we see when we're faced with a very difficult decision with very heart-wrenching outcomes for each one. With Destroy, we wipe out all synthetics in the crossfire but the Reapers are gone forever. With Control, we become the new Catalyst, ordering the Reapers to stop the harvest at the cost of our own life/humanity. Or with Synthesis, we dissolve ourselves so that the galaxy fastforwards to the point where everyone is partially synthetic.

Some here claim that they don't trust the Catalyst. I wouldn't either, considering what this piece of software has done to the galaxy over billions of years. But time is running out and it probably knows more about what is going on than I do. If I follow what it says, I may end up dead. If I don't follow, I AM DEAD. So I choose to follow, cautiously. (Looking back on reading what I typed, it sounds like I'm indoctrinated, hahaha. IT?)

All of these are difficult choices that do indeed guarantee an end to the harvest. We're not supposed to like these choices, but they are a reflection of ourselves and the person that we are (if you are indeed playing as what you would do if you were in Shepard's shoes). And perhaps some people just can't live with themselves for making such a difficult decision. So they would rather refuse and pass the problem onto someone else for whom honour isn't the be all end all virtue? I couldn't just get all the way to the finish line and say "I quit" because I don't like that last turn in the race. I have to make a choice of some sort, to try and give the galaxy a future that isn't just about imminent death at the hands of the Reapers.

I personally chose Destroy. It did rub me the wrong way, considering all I did for EDI and the geth. But it was the choice that would rid the galaxy of the Reapers forever, so that the galaxy can indeed rebuild itself on its own terms and dictate its own future. Maybe synthetics will be rebuilt, maybe they won't. That's for the galaxy to decide.

If I ever get pulled out of the rubble, I doubt I'll be seen as a war criminal. More so as a hero likely. Of course what I did I'll have to carry with me, knowing that I made a difficult choice. 10 billion synthetics lost their lives so trillions of organics can win. They're heroes in my mind, because without their sacrfice the Reaper-free future isn't possible.

Anyways, that's my 2 Canadian cents. *Yawns* I need a coffee. Hope this makes enough sense to all of you.

I know exactly where you are coming from and completely agree with what the ending choices represent.  I chose synth though

[Rommel49]

MythicalStick wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Do you loose?

We hurt the ****s and they don't another cycle because of our actions. We don't live but we still defeat them and we do it on our own terms and not their's.

Refusal's a fine option. You still win... as much as you win with any of these terrible endings.

Yes, you lose, trillions die, and the next cycle survies because Liara was able to tell them.

"Have cojones.  Use the crucible.  Don't be the ultimate loser like Commander Shephard.  That is the way to win. " 

Except that's not what's said. One can just as easily infer that Liara's actual message on the Crucible was that it was the ultimate lemon: "We built the Crucible, but it didn't work".

As I detailed above, the refusal ending is so incredibly vague that there's nothing that definitively shows it actually even resulted in defeat, that's an assumption (albeit a logical one)... but still an assumption. The female stargazer never even mentions the Reapers by name, nevermind any events actually involving them, etc. even the idea that she's in the cycle after our own is just an assumption, since there's no basis to assume an actual timeframe of events.

The only thing that can be safely determined is that Liara planted the archive sometime after the refusal, everything between that event and the stargazer in regards to how much time passed and what other events occurred are kept vague enough that they're basically just queston marks.

Modifié par Rommel49, 02 septembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[The Twilight God]

Veneke wrote...

I fear if you continue ranting I'm not going to reply to you.

Oh, noes!!! Whatever will I do!?!

Veneke wrote...

No reason at all? Thanix cannon, which are not particularly large weapons, can take out a Reaper. We can take out the smaller variants with something as small as a hand cannon (a heavy weapon for infantry) or a well placed missile. We have the combined fleets of the entire galaxy at our disposal and loads more stuff that we spent about half the game collecting besides.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a thanix cannon can 1-shot a reaper dreadnaught or destroyer. Furthermore, our thanix cannons are nowhere near as powerful as reaper thanix. They are fired at nowhere near relative speeds as you can see the projectile traveling with the naked eye.

It took 8 thanix missiles, fired at a specific area of a destroyer to take it out. Not to mention the fact that Reaper vessels are weaker in atmophere because they must divert power to lowe their weight.

A hades cannon is a cannon, not a reaper; like their harvesters and troop ships. They don't appear to even have shields on top of having an exposed interior. The Cain goes right down its gullet.

We have everything we can possibly muster and it still was not enough. And that's just for the Reapers at Earth. The galaxy is literally covered in reapers when we go to Earth. We know this going in. Sword and Sheild are there to distract the Reapers. Not vanguish them. No one has any delusions that they can win conventionally. You don't like the endings and so your making stuff up to validate your desired outcome. Feel free to pull whatever headfiction you like out of your own ass, but don't pretend the game itself supports your lunacy.

Veneke wrote...

Against this, we have Adm. Hackett's line saying that we can't beat the Reapers conventionally. Really? Hackett is now clairvoyent is he? This isn't like the Iraq-US argument. Who knows how hard or easy it would be to beat the Reapers? Nobody, except maybe the fleet that took out Sovereign. And they didn't all have Thanix cannon did they?

He doesn't have to be clairvoyant. He is the one leading the fight against the Reapers. He is losing - fact. And Hackett lead the fleet that took out Soveriegn. Again, you can close your eyes and pretend whatever you want but it is an objective fact that conventional victory is impossible.  

Veneke wrote...

Remember that Hackett and the Turians etc are all losing because they're conserving the fleet for the final push against the Reaper forces on Earth.

In which the entire fleet is being torn apart.

Veneke wrote...

It isn't a true reflection of how the battle is going. This was the plan - we fall back resisting as much as possible with as little as possible to assemble the combined might of the galaxy in one final push.

Show me where it is ever said that we are resisting with the minimum effort possible.

Veneke wrote...

I'm not suggesting that it's an instant-win, I'm simply pointing out that conventional victory is not a 'not happening' thing aside from the fact that the writers won't allow it. There's nothing in the trilogy to suggest that conventional victory isn't possible, quite to the contrary, aside from Hackett.

Everything is the series declares conventional victory isn't possible. The entire plot of the series is based around this fact.

[Kamfrenchie]

Saans Shadow wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Saans Shadow wrote...

MythicalStick wrote...

You
Cannot
Defeat
The Reapers
Without
The Crucible

Proof:

You got the entire military might of the galaxy together for one fight in one system against only a portion of the Reaper's strength, and were losing. Good luck with refuse. I'll tell your wife how brave you were marching into Mordor.

This is how I feel but some people want to keep thier personal morals by refusing..  I can't understand that viewpoint and find it a little selfish because you sacrifice an entire cycle just to keep your personal morals intact, I don't see the good in that, but the same can be said about all the choices.  My preferred method is Synth, no if's, and's or but's about it.  I will not however tell you your choice is wrong since it's all based on opinion and personal preference, we all have a reason to choose what  we chose and why we chose it and while I may not agree with it I will respect it and why you chose it.

so you would force everyone to have a new DNA and let giant shipsthat an inoctrinate people live ? Don't use metagaming btw, like using the EC epilogue.

After the EC I see the Reapers as victims and as far as I'm concerned its augmenting the DNA with tech in organics and true emotional awareness and organic comprehension to synthetics, so forcing organics with a tech upgrade that doesn't sacrifice free will or racial identity but provides learning and understanding at the speed of light and giving synthetics the ability to truely comprehend emotion and organic thinking...yeah I'll do it.  Everytime.  I don't consider it evil or brainwashing or bending to the Reapers will.  If both forms of life were headed that way anyway, why not help it along.  People keep saying that we don't have the right to do that but I say the same for all of the endings.  Thats the point though.  The ending choices present you with a way to end your game but at some kind of sacrifice and not just yourself. 

With Control you assume control (no pun  intended lol) of the reapers becoming the new AI that directs them.  I believe in the old axiom "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"  I wasn't willing to take that chance.

With Destroy you have to sacrifice EDI and the Geth to get your "Reapers are dead" win.  I wasn't willing to commit genocide and kill one of my own crew members whom I have helped to guide her with her struggle with becoming more than what she is.

You already have my viewpoints on Refusal.

All of them are supposed to tug on your moral heartstrings its just synth seems like the best option to me.  Don't sacrifice the Geth or EDI, I'm not some new AI in control of reapers that could possibly go rouge. Oh and I forgot to mention, what if somebody (AKA new super badguy organization similar to cerberus) builds another crucible, rewrites shepard (not actually sure if it's even possible now but that would worry me) and is now in control of reaper armada of doom.  I don't feel like I have the right to control someone or end their life/lives.  So if that means I have to alter life to survive and end the cycle I will do it.  If Synthesis had negated free will then I would be a destroyer all the way because I know EDI and the Geth wouldn't have wanted to live as slaves.

Sorry this took me a while to respond, I'm currently at work lol

Sadly, my disbelief was so high that i couldn't take these choices seriously. Control, we've been fighting against that the whole game an sasying it wasn't possible, an insane AI won't convince me otherwise. Synthesis not being foreshadowed, being a rainbow ending and hving no exlanation just made me feel like saying "do i look that stupid ?"

there is refuse and dstroy left. my only reason to pick destroy is to save garrus and tali

still
interesting post, in this case i would like your opinion on the master plan of fallout1 (if you played it )

and on this


wuld you approve this one ? (no one would approvethe master plan)

[AlexMBrennan]

Everything is the series declares conventional victory isn't possible. The entire plot of the series is based around this fact.

Arguably the writers forgot about this when they made ME3. But no, they just had to have epic space battles and a contrived "fight to take back Earth", and Reapers got nerfed to make things work.

[The Twilight God]

daecath wrote...

Yes, and if you like meta-gaming that's fine.

I like playing as Shepard. I like taking on the role of someone who doesn't have the ability to see the future. Shepard doesn't know what the results of his actions will be.

Yes, he does - Fact.

http://social.biowar...9372/1#13419499

He has absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt Hackett, who is fighting the war and losing it. Hackett does nto think he is losing. He IS losing. Fact.

daecath wrote...

You say that refuse is "letting everyone die". And yes, Shepard knows that that is a possible outcome. It always was. But what if the catalyst is just another reaper trap. What if it's technology that was planted for us to find, and instead of what the catalyst says, pushing any button would cause it to send out a mass indoctrination pulse through the relays, instantly indoctrinating everyone.

If they could do that they would have let the Crucible dock without resistance and pushed the button themselves. Please listen to yourself. You're grasping at straws. Fact is, you don't like the decisions and you want to completely ignore the entire plot of the game because you're butthurt.

daecath wrote...

Trillions of people mindlessly walking to their doom.

That's what synthesis does. 

daecath wrote...

You say that refuse is "letting everyone die", but you only say that because you know that's how the game is written. But from the perspective of within the story, Shepard wouldn't know that, and from outside the story, the writers didn't have to write it that way.

As already proven. Shepard does know it will lead to absolute defeat.

daecath wrote...

One person's opinion (Hackett's) doesn't make it true.

 
It's not an opinion. It is a fact. He IS losing. He IS fighting the war while you run around as peace ambassador. He knows that he cannot win conventional. He does not think he's losing. He KNOWS he is losing because he IS losing.

daecath wrote...

The game itself says that conventional victory is possible.

No, it doesn't. That is a blatant lie. EVERYTHING in the entire series says it is impossible. It's possibility is completely theorhetical in the event that we have superior tech than we have now. As we don't have the necessary weaponry to face the Reapers we cannot win.

daecath wrote...

From a certain point of view, not only is refuse the better option, it is literally the only possible option for victory. All you have to do is recognize that every other option is in some way cooperating with the enemy, and it becomes clear that that's a bad idea, and the only option left is to refuse.

That is a nonsensical statment. Destroying the Kid, the Reapers and ending their "solution" is not cooperating with them. It is the exactl opposite of what they want.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:01 .

[The Twilight God]

Ratimir wrote...

"Allied Forces holding steady; Winning Key locations"

The Twilight God wrote...

Just prior to landing on Mars Hackett says, "There's no way we can defeat them conventionally..." followed by "...found a way to stop the Reapers... only way to stop them...".

After the first visit to the Citadel Hackett states that the purpose of gathering fleets is to keep hitting the Reapers in all theatres to slow them down and occupy their forces; to "buy us time to figure out the [Crucible]". This is followed up by, "Think of it as a giant armada for delivering the device".

Prior to the Diplomatic Summit Hackett states, "We'll never defeat the Reapers in a full frontal assault, Shepard. The battle against Sovereign three years ago took everything we had, and that was just one Reaper." This is followed by, "The reality is, Shepard, everything I'm doing is a delaying action for you. I'm buying us time, keeping us in the game while you gather what we need for [the Crucible]."

Following Priority: Tuchanka Hackett says, " The good news is we're managing to win in some sectors. The bad news is we're losing in others." After Priority: Rannoch Hackett states, "Our threat projections show the Reapers will gain the advantage on most other fronts."

Before heading to Sol Hackett informs Shepard that, "We don't have enough fire power to keep the Crucible safe for long." Hackett goes on to say, "But this is the only plan we have. If we wait, the Reapers bleed us slowly. Conventionally... we can't defeat the Reapers without the Crucible."

If you believe the Kid it confirms Hackett's assessments stating, "You are vastly outnumbered. You have sacrificed many of your resources just to reach this point. If you do not use the Crucible the Reapers will not be stopped and the cycle will continue."

Thank you. Come again.

[The Twilight God]

Rommel49 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

U.S forces took casualties in Iraq. I guess the Iraqi forces could have won and conquered the U.S. The ability to inflict casualties does not mean you can win a war. I'm not going to repeat this anymore because you are clearly in denial.

Your own example undermines the point you're trying to make - it's debateable if the U.S. achieved victory in the Iraq war... quite the contrary, a lot of people argue that the fact we're leaving the country is conceding defeat.

It doesn't matter if the US defeated Iraq. all that matters is that the Iraqi military did not stand a chance in hell of defeating the U.S. Period. The ability to inflict casualties does not mean victory can be achieved. It demonstrates the absurdity of your flawed logic.

Rommel49 wrote...

Victory is about achieving objectives. It's very rarely been the case that victory necessitates killing every single enemy, occupying every scrap of land, etc. when on the defense or being occupied, simply making the effort too costly for the enemy to want to continue can accomplish that... and in the case of the current cycle, we're already mathematically not worth it at this point - Objectively, the Reapers have lost far more from this cycle than they'll ever get from it, just during the battles for Palaven.

How do you figure that? Exactly what is stopping them from replenishing their numbers? They are harvesting on multiple fronts.  

And to top it off, they are machines with a mandate. They CANNOT simply let us live. They would continue to fight to the last reaper or come back with a new strategy. But they would never simply give up and go home.

Rommel49 wrote...

As noted, the number of sources suggesting or stating that a conventional victory is possible are both more numerous, and in atleast one case, more knowledgeable about Reaper capabilities than Hackett. It's kinda telling you scurry away from this point (of course, it's not the only one).

There is no source stating conventional victory is possible. Not one.

Rommel49 wrote...

To reiterate, why do the Reapers bother locking down missile silos? The math tells us why.

Of course, I expect you to flee from these points too, just like you did the last time.

You have no point. They are destroying our defenses. Anything that can be used against them. That's as inane a question as asking why are they shooting back when our forces attack them. Why not just stand there until their shields finally fail? Really? As I've already demonstrated, the ability to inflict damage upon an enemy unit does not mean you can conventionally defeat them as a whole.

A better statement would be: The reapers locked down our missile silos. So we can't use them. So our chances are chances of a conventional victory are that much less.

[The Twilight God]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Everything is the series declares conventional victory isn't possible. The entire plot of the series is based around this fact.

Arguably the writers forgot about this when they made ME3. But no, they just had to have epic space battles and a contrived "fight to take back Earth", and Reapers got nerfed to make things work.

How did they get nerfed?

You think blowing up a few destroyers on the ground means they were nerfed? Especially considering there were no destroyers in any past game. You're basically trying to lump dreadnaughts with ground based (i.e. weakened) destroyers.

Again, I ask. How ere the reapers nerfed in ME3?

[Pitznik]

The Twilight God, bravely fighting the emotion of denial with razor-sharp sword of logic. Probably an exercise in futility, still a good read.

[Rommel49]

The Twilight God wrote...

It doesn't matter if the US defeated Iraq. all that matters is that the Iraqi military did not stand a chance in hell of defeating the U.S. Period. The ability to inflict casualties does not mean victory can be achieved. It demonstrates the absurdity of your flawed logic.

Again, reading comprehension is your friend. The fact the U.S. is leaving Iraq (debateably without achieving our objectives) is taken by quite a few people that the United States conceeded defeat, i.e. we were defeated and the Iraqi Insurgency achieved victory.

This is why your own example undermines your point - during the Revolutionary War, did we invade the British Home Islands or sink their entire navy on the High Seas? No? According to your reasoning, our inability to do either means we never could've won. I guess that explains why America's still a British colony... Oh, wait.

Simply put, you clearly don't understand how war actually works.

How do you figure that? Exactly what is stopping them from replenishing their numbers? They are harvesting on multiple fronts.

The harvest of each cycle only yields one Sovereign-class Reaper, this is established by the Leviathan - a race that's witnessed the Reaper's entire existence from start to finish. The Turians destroyed several such capital ships during the battles for Palaven (in some cases with suicide bombers, no less). That's hundreds of thousands of years worth of harvesting and work down the toilet, for the homeworld of one race. Right from the destruction of Sovereign, the best the Reapers would've ever done with this cycle is merely break even, production-wise.

At this point, with the established rate of Reaper production, organics winning a war of attrition against the Reapers is not only possible, but inevitable - at the absolute worst, it'd just require additional cycles beyond the current one. The cycle after ours would find things like our technology along with the numerous dead Reapers the current cycle is leaving behind. That cycle after our own would research that technology, develop it, build it, etc., and if that cycle failed to eliminate the Reapers? There's always the one after it which finds their technology and the corpses of whatever Reapers they killed, and the cycle after that, and so on.

That's how the cycles work, it's like the city of Troy - each layer is built upon the one that came before it, just as we ganked our technology from Prothean ruins, and the Protheans got their technology from the Inusannon before them. As long as each cycle destroys more than one Sovereign-class Reaper, organics are winning the war of attrition - even if a cycle after our own drops the ball and destroys only one Sovereign-class Reaper, they're keeping their numbers stagnant. 

And to top it off, they are machines with a mandate. They CANNOT simply let us live. They would continue to fight to the last reaper or come back with a new strategy. But they would never simply give up and go home.

That mandate is the preservation of species by harvesting them and turning them into new Reapers, a mandate which they're not accomplishing if they're being blown up, and especially not at a greater rate than they're producing new Reapers.

They're also fully capable of letting organics live; if they weren't they'd never both with indoctrination and just kill every intelligent creature they came across. Sovereign hid itself and operated through intermediaries (both organic and synthetic) rather than simply killing them and bumrushing the Citadel from the word "go" (When it did do that as a last resort to try and get help from its buddies, it died for it), Harbinger puppeteered the Collectors for millenia, and of course there's the Citadel's Keepers which are potentially as old as the Citadel itself.

There's also the fact that Harbinger didn't fire at the Normandy during the evacuation, or ensure a certain someone was dead so they couldn't reach the Citadel.

There is no source stating conventional victory is possible. Not one.

Codex entry: Reaper Vulnerabilities directly states it, try again.

Beyond that, Legion implies it, and Hell, the Leviathan basically states it when asked to help stop the Reapers: "they perceive you as a threat", "your victories are more than the product of random chance" within the same conversation they also say "its outcome is unknown" with regards to the Crucible.

It also ignores the fact that just because something is said to be impossible doesn't make it so - the so-called Suicide Mission through the Omega 4 Relay can be accomplished without a single casualty.

You have no point. They are destroying our defenses. Anything that can be used against them. That's as inane a question as asking why are they shooting back when our forces attack them. Why not just stand there until their shields finally fail? Really? As I've already demonstrated, the ability to inflict damage upon an enemy unit does not mean you can conventionally defeat them as a whole.

A better statement would be: The reapers locked down our missile silos. So we can't use them. So our chances are chances of a conventional victory are that much less.

And... you fled the point, particularly little things like "math", nukes wouldn't "damage" Reapers - they'd kill them outright. The numbers don't lie: Four Dreadnoughts together can destroy a Reaper, just one warhead (out of several) on a modern day Minuteman III ICBM produces more destructive power than those four dreadnoughts combined (170 kilotons for the warhead vs. 38*4 = 152 kilotons for the Dreadnoughts), and that's a fairly small warhead, previous warheads averaged anywhere from 4 - 10 times as powerful

Modifié par Rommel49, 02 septembre 2012 - 09:26 .

[Saans Shadow]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Saans Shadow wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Saans Shadow wrote...

MythicalStick wrote...

You
Cannot
Defeat
The Reapers
Without
The Crucible

Proof:

You got the entire military might of the galaxy together for one fight in one system against only a portion of the Reaper's strength, and were losing. Good luck with refuse. I'll tell your wife how brave you were marching into Mordor.

This is how I feel but some people want to keep thier personal morals by refusing..  I can't understand that viewpoint and find it a little selfish because you sacrifice an entire cycle just to keep your personal morals intact, I don't see the good in that, but the same can be said about all the choices.  My preferred method is Synth, no if's, and's or but's about it.  I will not however tell you your choice is wrong since it's all based on opinion and personal preference, we all have a reason to choose what  we chose and why we chose it and while I may not agree with it I will respect it and why you chose it.

so you would force everyone to have a new DNA and let giant shipsthat an inoctrinate people live ? Don't use metagaming btw, like using the EC epilogue.

After the EC I see the Reapers as victims and as far as I'm concerned its augmenting the DNA with tech in organics and true emotional awareness and organic comprehension to synthetics, so forcing organics with a tech upgrade that doesn't sacrifice free will or racial identity but provides learning and understanding at the speed of light and giving synthetics the ability to truely comprehend emotion and organic thinking...yeah I'll do it.  Everytime.  I don't consider it evil or brainwashing or bending to the Reapers will.  If both forms of life were headed that way anyway, why not help it along.  People keep saying that we don't have the right to do that but I say the same for all of the endings.  Thats the point though.  The ending choices present you with a way to end your game but at some kind of sacrifice and not just yourself. 

With Control you assume control (no pun  intended lol) of the reapers becoming the new AI that directs them.  I believe in the old axiom "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"  I wasn't willing to take that chance.

With Destroy you have to sacrifice EDI and the Geth to get your "Reapers are dead" win.  I wasn't willing to commit genocide and kill one of my own crew members whom I have helped to guide her with her struggle with becoming more than what she is.

You already have my viewpoints on Refusal.

All of them are supposed to tug on your moral heartstrings its just synth seems like the best option to me.  Don't sacrifice the Geth or EDI, I'm not some new AI in control of reapers that could possibly go rouge. Oh and I forgot to mention, what if somebody (AKA new super badguy organization similar to cerberus) builds another crucible, rewrites shepard (not actually sure if it's even possible now but that would worry me) and is now in control of reaper armada of doom.  I don't feel like I have the right to control someone or end their life/lives.  So if that means I have to alter life to survive and end the cycle I will do it.  If Synthesis had negated free will then I would be a destroyer all the way because I know EDI and the Geth wouldn't have wanted to live as slaves.

Sorry this took me a while to respond, I'm currently at work lol

Sadly, my disbelief was so high that i couldn't take these choices seriously. Control, we've been fighting against that the whole game an sasying it wasn't possible, an insane AI won't convince me otherwise. Synthesis not being foreshadowed, being a rainbow ending and hving no exlanation just made me feel like saying "do i look that stupid ?"

there is refuse and dstroy left. my only reason to pick destroy is to save garrus and tali

still
interesting post, in this case i would like your opinion on the master plan of fallout1 (if you played it )

and on this


wuld you approve this one ? (no one would approvethe master plan)

I'm not too familiar with The Master Plan from Fallout, but I think I understand the basis of it and while it has some similarities I don't think it's close enough to really compare it with this situation.  The episode of spiderman is def closer to the point, but the one key thing is spidey doesn't have is a skyscraper size exponentially more advanced robotic army numbering in the hundreds of thousands hovering over him threatening to harvest all organic life.   I think that would help alter his mindset a bit.  In synth while there are some physical changed AKA: the glowing, its not as radical as being turned into a lizard monster man making it a bit easier to swallow.  Now I already know some of you out there will completely disagree with me on that point but chances are if woke up one day looking like a lizard then the next day with glowing green eyes and flowing circuitry body light but would retain your former physical shape you would probably prefer the ladder, humans tend to go with the familiar.  Again I don't know some peoples personal tastes...some people might enjoy being a lizard person I don't know lol.
While the spidey episode is similar to synth the surrounding situation is too different to actually compare the two in a similar context.
My short answer to lizard man is "No".  He had selfish reasons.  I did what I did to save the galaxy and I even did it to save the reapers.  I've already said it before and I will say it again.  They are victims and a living legacy of their respective parent races.  I bare no ill will toward the catalyst as it was doing only what it was programmed to do.  I blame the Leviathans.  They were the arrogant dumb-asses that designed the AI.  Besides I think they are a bigger threat but thats a different topic. lol  While I know most people probably don't agree with me all I ask is that you respect my opinion and my reasonings behind my choice. Thank you for you time


Hi my name is Saans_Shadow and I'm a mass effect addict...

Modifié par Saans Shadow, 03 septembre 2012 - 12:09 .

[Veneke]

The Twilight God wrote...
...
Oh, noes!!! Whatever will I do!?!

Stop ranting? Dunno, just throwing it out there as an option.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a thanix cannon can 1-shot a reaper dreadnaught or destroyer. Furthermore, our thanix cannons are nowhere near as powerful as reaper thanix. They are fired at nowhere near relative speeds as you can see the projectile traveling with the naked eye.

I said nothing about 1-shotting a reaper. I said thanix cannon could take down reapers, which they can.

It took 8 thanix missiles, fired at a specific area of a destroyer to take it out. Not to mention the fact that Reaper vessels are weaker in atmophere because they must divert power to lowe their weight.

No, it took 1 correctly aimed and fired missile to kill a destroyer. Might have taken 8 (pretty sure it was less but let's just run with it) but what difference does that make? You think we might run out?

A hades cannon is a cannon, not a reaper; like their harvesters and troop ships. They don't appear to even have shields on top of having an exposed interior. The Cain goes right down its gullet.

I'm not even following this.

We have everything we can possibly muster and it still was not enough. And that's just for the Reapers at Earth. The galaxy is literally covered in reapers when we go to Earth. We know this going in. Sword and Sheild are there to distract the Reapers. Not vanguish them. No one has any delusions that they can win conventionally. You don't like the endings and so your making stuff up to validate your desired outcome. Feel free to pull whatever headfiction you like out of your own ass, but don't pretend the game itself supports your lunacy.

?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how chronology works. You can't use what happens after the fact as definitive proof that you know this will happen. Unless you're psychic. It hasn't happened yet. Anything anyone says about losing is speculation. This isn't a matter of story-telling, this is an inability to understand how time works... apparently.

He doesn't have to be clairvoyant. He is the one leading the fight against the Reapers. He is losing - fact. And Hackett lead the fleet that took out Soveriegn. Again, you can close your eyes and pretend whatever you want but it is an objective fact that conventional victory is impossible.

He's losing on purpose, conserving the fleet/ground force for the main battle. It's a strategic move to conserve your forces which is smart - it doesn't particularly matter if we lose every system in the galaxy so long as the fleet stays intact and the final battle has not commenced.

In which the entire fleet is being torn apart.

Which you don't find out until after the battle. It doesn't even make any sense because everything up until Adm. Hackett's 'We're gonna lose' suggests a difficult but achievable fight.

Show me where it is ever said that we are resisting with the minimum effort possible.

My god man, you spent the entire game with this shoved in your face. The whole point about ME3 was to unite the galaxy to conserve forces for the final battle so that the Crucible could interact with the Citadel. I mean like really. What do you propose was happening? Your war assets were being constantly and fully engaged throughout the game and they just managed to miraculously disengage and converge on Earth for the battle?

Everything is the series declares conventional victory isn't possible. The entire plot of the series is based around this fact.

No, quite to the contrary. It's only in ME3 that we're given to understand that it's impossible and even then it doesn't make a huge amount of sense unless you ignore things like squad weapons with the ability to take down Reapers, Thanix cannon, missiles etc.

The plot of ME as a whole, if there can be said to be one (I think it only works retrospectively), is pretty much running around collecting a bunch of different things that can kill the Reapers. Whether it's technology, people, intelligence, whatever.

Modifié par Veneke, 03 septembre 2012 - 09:12 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Ugh, can't we all just agree all the ends have their own faults, failures and plot holes and get back to the campfire and singing kumbaya?

[Dried Donkey]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Ugh, can't we all just agree all the ends have their own faults, failures and plot holes and get back to the campfire and singing kumbaya?

I'll drink to that! 

[Saans Shadow]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Ugh, can't we all just agree all the ends have their own faults, failures and plot holes and get back to the campfire and singing kumbaya?

Agreed!

[RadicalDisconnect]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Ugh, can't we all just agree all the ends have their own faults, failures and plot holes and get back to the campfire and singing kumbaya?

Can't you see that this is BSN? What you are proposing is impossible here. <_<

[Pitznik]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Ugh, can't we all just agree all the ends have their own faults, failures and plot holes and get back to the campfire and singing kumbaya?

I respect other people's opinions, as long as they're not wrong. And by wrong I really mean "unlike my own opinion". So no kumbaya for me.

[Harorrd]

its the canon ending, and not garbage ending

[Rommel49]

Also, it's complete bunk that Shepard himself never believed victory was possible, quite the opposite, based on the "reading" and conversation with Javik on the Normandy (provided the EMS score is high enough): "For a soldier facing the Reapers, I sense more... confidence than fear. You believe you are winning".

What Javik cites as the reason for the Prothean's defeat is the fact that they followed one doctrine; their order of battle collapsed and the subordinate races became disorganized and confused without Prothean direction - in short, they lost cohesion when the chain of command went poof. He even claims that the current cycle's "only hope" may be that its races cooperate but maintain their unique identies and diversity. On the subject of the Crucible, however, Javik says "It was supposed to be our miracle, I put no faith in it", emphasis mine.

[Achaewa]

The refuse ending is there, because Bioware wanted to give a big middle finger to those who wanted a different ending, those who believed in the indoctrination theory, and last to troll everyone who expected something better.

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

Successful troll is successful!
Awww yeah!

[Greed1914]

I know I probably would have gone for Refuse if the next cycle didn't go ahead and use the Crucible anyway. I probably would have been fine with losing the war since it was done in order to reject the Catalyst, but by having the Crucible be used anyway, it's like the Star Gazer scene is just saying, "WRONG! Try again."