348 réponses à ce sujet

[MetioricTest]

Refuse.

Paragon Shep wouldn't trust the ****ing Reapers.

[The Twilight God]

Rommel49 wrote...

That's only assumed; as I've noted in the past, there's actually nothing that definitively shows that refusal results in defeat, due to how incredibly vague the ending is.

It's not assumed. It's not vague. It's an in-game fact that conventional victory is not possible.

The Twilight God wrote...

Option 4: Let the Reapers Win
Shepard is wholly aware that the combined forces of galactic civilization are incapable of defeating the Reapers surrounding Earth, much less waging a prolonged conventional war against their entire armada. Admiral Hackett is the one leading the battle, fighting the war. He is in the best position to know how the war is going and if victory is possible.

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."

Before the Citadel Coup Hackett states, "I won't lie, Shepard. We're bogged down. Things aren't looking good in most sectors." He continues with, "This won't end well for the human race. Or any race."

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."

Admiral Hackett does not believe we are losing the war. He does not think we are losing the war. He does not suspect we are losing the war. He KNOWS we are losing the war because it IS being lost. Fact. No room for doubt. No room for interpretation. We ARE losing.

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."

Modifié par The Twilight God, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[RedHotElite]

MetioricTest wrote...

Refuse.

Paragon Shep wouldn't trust the ****ing Reapers.

Actually, Paragon Shep is more, often than not, shown to  trust others. Possibly even a dangerously omnicidal AI, especially when a new solution must be met. I honestly don't believe a Paragon Shepard would sit idly on a moral high chair as he/she condemns trillions to death just to keep his/her hands clean in a war that can't be won conventionally. Paragons were always about doing things so others won't have to, including making a galaxy-changing decision.

And to answer the OP, any ending can fit a Paragon Shepard, or any Shepard, for that matter. Even Refusal if you can manage to squint really hardrationalize it. The standard Paragon/Renegade system can't apply to the endings because each are meant to be morally ambiguous. I wish people would just realize that. What ending you may see as more Renegade-fitting another may see as more Paragon-fitting. It all depends on the person and how they roleplay their Shepard.

If there's anything I love about the EC endings, it's that they aren't so cut-and-dried and are so thought-provoking.

Modifié par KevinHawke, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:46 .

[Rommel49]

The Twilight God wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

That's only assumed; as I've noted in the past, there's actually nothing that definitively shows that refusal results in defeat, due to how incredibly vague the ending is.

It's not assumed. It's not vague. It's an in-game fact that conventional victory is not possible.

Which is countered by the fact the codex states defeating the Reapers is possible in the Reaper Vulnerabilities entry, etc. Citing only Hackett is an appeal to authority and circular logic "Hackett says conventional victory is impossible, conventional victory is impossible because Hackett says so". I've covered this previously, Hackett's contradicted by multiple other sources - including potentially the Commander himself:

Javik's first reading of the good Commander aboard the Normandy depending upon what is done at the time: "For a soldier in a war against the Reapers, I sense more... confidence than fear. You believe you are winning" - emphasis mine. Nevermind "might" win, not "could" win, through Javik, it's directly stated that the Commander not only believes defeating the Reapers is possible, but that it's being achieved.

It's absolutely an assumption that Refusal results in defeat, since we never actually see a defeat take place. Let's look at the actual details (or lack thereof) given in the ending:

There's no given timeline of events (people assume it's the next cycle without evidence). We don't know when Liara made the recording (except that it was after a refusal), etc. No specific entities are named, the only item the narrator's species finds is the archive and by her own account everything they know about "the ones who came before" came from that archive, they evidently found no ruins, artifacts, or corporeal remains from the current cycle, contrary to every other cycle.

The "without the information they passed on, we too would be threatened line" is usually taken to mean that her species built the Crucible, but it could just as easily refer to the Leviathans and their Disco ball artifacts, hell, the current cycle could be their religion. It also doesn't make sense given the context, Liara's recording pegs the Crucible as basically being a lemon: "We built the Crucible, but it didn't work". The narrator never mentions the Reapers by name, or that her species ever even encountered them.

The fact remains we see no ruins, bodies, etc. and we don't see an actual defeat take place, so yeah, by definition it is an assumption that refusal results in a defeat. Such a defeat is never observed.

Modifié par Rommel49, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:33 .

[zombieord]

seitani wrote...

I'm playing through ME 3 full paragon(savior of Krogan, savior of geth..blah..blah...) and im halfway through the game and already pondering which ending to choose. For renegade characters destroy was easy choice but now i don't which one fits for a full paragon character.

IMO Refusal. Control might be painted blue and Synthesis might sound like the right thing to do, but in the end a Paragon does not compromise his morals. At least mine didn't.

Destroyers, you might not mind killing the Geth and EDI, but a Paragon would.

[DirtyPhoenix]

zombieord wrote...


IMO Refusal. Control might be painted blue and Synthesis might sound like the right thing to do, but in the end a Paragon does not compromise his morals. At least mine didn't.

Destroyers, you might not mind killing the Geth and EDI, but a Paragon would.

Forced to choose between his morals and the existance of the galaxy, a true hero would rather sacrifice his morals. Maybe yours wouldn't and its obvious we have different definitions of a hero, but that's what my Shepard thinks and that's what she did. You (the galaxy) think I'm a monster? Fair enough. Atleast you're alive to be able to think that. Better be a monster to a living galaxy than be a hero to a dead galaxy.

Modifié par pirate1802, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:55 .

[Rommel49]

zombieord wrote...

seitani wrote...

I'm playing through ME 3 full paragon(savior of Krogan, savior of geth..blah..blah...) and im halfway through the game and already pondering which ending to choose. For renegade characters destroy was easy choice but now i don't which one fits for a full paragon character.

IMO Refusal. Control might be painted blue and Synthesis might sound like the right thing to do, but in the end a Paragon does not compromise his morals. At least mine didn't.

Destroyers, you might not mind killing the Geth and EDI, but a Paragon would.

There's a difference between "not minding" and seeing it as a necessary sacrifice to achieve the stated objective. This is a common theme (particularly in the third installment), On Tuchanka Lt. Victus doesn't want to lose his men to complete the mission, on Thessia, Lt. Kurin doesn't want to lose her troops so that the temple can be reached, ditto for the last soldier at outpost Tikus when asked to call in air support - the Commander convinces them all to do it, Paragon or no.

[Bill Casey]

Rommel49 wrote...

Which is countered by the fact the codex states defeating the Reapers is possible in the Reaper Vulnerabilities entry, etc. Citing only Hackett is an appeal to authority and circular logic "Hackett says conventional victory is impossible, conventional victory is impossible because Hackett says so". I've covered this previously, Hackett's contradicted by multiple other sources - including potentially the Commander himself:

Liara: What are our options? You know we can't win this conventionally.

Garrus: We both know conventional strategy won't beat the Reapers.

Vendetta: Resistance is not enough. Conventional means will not defeat the Reapers.

[Necrotron]

There is no paragon choice at the end. There is only what the Reapers want, who were apparently lying about everything through their entire dialogue with Shepard throughout the series and were apparently controlled by a small child AI that's insane, and you either pick an option they want or die.

Modifié par Bathaius, 09 septembre 2012 - 06:25 .

[zombieord]

Rommel49 wrote...

zombieord wrote...

seitani wrote...

snip

snip

There's a difference between "not minding" and seeing it as a necessary sacrifice to achieve the stated objective. This is a common theme (particularly in the third installment), On Tuchanka Lt. Victus doesn't want to lose his men to complete the mission, on Thessia, Lt. Kurin doesn't want to lose her troops so that the temple can be reached, ditto for the last soldier at outpost Tikus when asked to call in air support - the Commander convinces them all to do it, Paragon or no.

Do any of your examples include the genocide of an allied race? Yes, I understand there are casualties in war. That's obviously a revolving theme in ME3.

But have you considered there are things more important than "winning"? That war has costs other than lives? These are also themes explored in ME3.

[Necrotron]

KevinHawke wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

Refuse.

Paragon Shep wouldn't trust the ****ing Reapers.

Actually, Paragon Shep is more, often than not, shown to  trust others. Possibly even a dangerously omnicidal AI, especially when a new solution must be met.

Well, the Reapers have consistently indoctrinated and dominated the mind of every other great being they have come in contact with throughout the series, so I think Shepard refusing to deal with them in any shape or form seems not only prudent, but the only safe course of action to save the galaxy.  Obviously, the writers didn't want that to happen, but unfortunetly, the story doesn't set up the Reapers with any sort of trustworthiness to warrant Shepard killing himself to hopefully achieve a bittersweet solution to a problem that might not even exist (e.g. the synthetics vs organics problem).

Refusal seems like a logical choice when the Reapers have been known to lie or at least, deceive and overtake the mind of every person or creature they've come into contact with before.  Why should Shepard believe the self-described creator of the Reapers is telling the truth about how to fire the crucible?  Refusal, to me, means Shepard searching for the fire button and ignoring the Reaper attempt to take over yet another victim in Shepard.  Obviously, that is not the choice the writers intended and is obviously not the 'right' answer using metagaming knowledge, but it seems the correct answer from the character's perspective.

[Rommel49]

Bill Casey wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

Which is countered by the fact the codex states defeating the Reapers is possible in the Reaper Vulnerabilities entry, etc. Citing only Hackett is an appeal to authority and circular logic "Hackett says conventional victory is impossible, conventional victory is impossible because Hackett says so". I've covered this previously, Hackett's contradicted by multiple other sources - including potentially the Commander himself:

Liara: What are our options? You know we can't win this conventionally.

Garrus: We both know conventional strategy won't beat the Reapers.

Vendetta: Resistance is not enough. Conventional means will not defeat the Reapers.

Legion: "With these upgrades, our fleet could retake Earth"

Javik (with regards to the Crucible): "It was supposed to be our miracle, I put no faith in it"

In addition to the codex entry and Javik's reading of the Commander itself; hell, what exactly qualifies as "conventional" or not is also pretty poorly defined.

[HiddenInWar]

I don't personally feel there's a paragon nor renegade choice.

The ending you choose is the one that your Shepard feels what was right.

[Rommel49]

zombieord wrote...

Do any of your examples include the genocide of an allied race? Yes, I understand there are casualties in war. That's obviously a revolving theme in ME3.

But have you considered there are things more important than "winning"? That war has costs other than lives? These are also themes explored in ME3.

Why would the morals change just because of the scale of the sacrifice? The fact remains that when these issues are brought up, the good Commander agrees with them if it means completing the mission he was charged with. Why should that change just because the stakes are higher?

[zombieord]

Rommel49 wrote...

zombieord wrote...

snip

Why would the morals change just because of the scale of the sacrifice? The fact remains that when these issues are brought up, the good Commander agrees with them if it means completing the mission he was charged with. Why should that change just because the stakes are higher?

Surely you can see the imbalance between sacrificing yourself or your squad and sacrificing an entire sentient race? Would you approve of the Geth sacrificing all organics to appease the Reapers so that they could live?

[Subject M]

Rommel49 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

While control does not "free" the Reapers it does stop their aggression. Its unclear if the Reapers even have a concept of "freedom" in the same way that we do, and a military effort is rarely a democracy to begin with and if on loses a war, paying war-reparations is expected.

Changing leadership and directing them to stop attacking and instead helping instead is not exactly a harsher fate then killing them all off. And it provides means and data to further understand and analyse the main problem and why the harvest was thought up as a solution to begin with. If a new solution long term solution can be found as suggested (if the catalyst was right and everyone eventually will synthesize, but it is done willingly) then the Reapers will no longer be needing someone "laying down the law" to them in some supposed dictatorial fashion they are not "confortable" with.

That's exactly it though; the Reapers have always effectively been shackled to the old catalyst - they never had the option to say "no" and do anything else; that's the difference. If you believe synthetics are alive, that applies to Reapers, if the Reapers are alive, they're basically slaves - all Control does is shackle them to a new catalyst, just because the new slave driver might be more benevolent than the old one doesn't somehow make it not slavery.

The Geth can't make that claim as they willingly allied with the Reapers twice; first the heretic split, then the Battle for Rannoch. Indeed, the more I think about it, the less sorry I feel for the Geth as collateral damage... attacked by the Quarians or no. The Geth themselves set the tone when they willingly chose to join an enemy whose objective was the extinction of all advanced organic life.

When it comes to destroy and Control, the choice is basically between killing all the agressive "slaves" or take control over them to build a new future. Its only through control an synthesis that a new including future can be built.

The Geth sided with the Reapers in order to survive or simply, to buy themselves more time. It would not have happened if the Qurians had not destroyed the Super-structure (or if they simply had protected it better) They know that it was not a long term solution as they would end up being harvested too. People often to horrible stuff to stay alive.

A new future can be built after any of the endings, and really arguably only in destroy can the survivors build their own - an idea that even the Geth value.

Which is exactly the point; the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers to save themselves - hell, they potentially could've just abandoned Rannoch itself and rebuilt elsewhere. When one signs up to join an enemy whose mission is the extinction of the other dozen or so space-faring species to guarantee their own future, to me that implies consent at the idea I may do the same to them to guarantee the futures of those species in turn.

1. Of course a new future can be built after destroy. But I wrote "a new including future" referring to a future for those involved in the conflict.

2. We do not know if the Geth had a plan or not with their alliance with the Reapers or what that plan was. Its risky to speculate about any consent or reasoning regarding these matters. But I doubt the Geth and EdI would approve their own destruction when there was other options available, especially after they had finally made peace with the Quarians.

[Subject M]

Bill Casey wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

Which is countered by the fact the codex states defeating the Reapers is possible in the Reaper Vulnerabilities entry, etc. Citing only Hackett is an appeal to authority and circular logic "Hackett says conventional victory is impossible, conventional victory is impossible because Hackett says so". I've covered this previously, Hackett's contradicted by multiple other sources - including potentially the Commander himself:

Liara: What are our options? You know we can't win this conventionally.

Garrus: We both know conventional strategy won't beat the Reapers.

Vendetta: Resistance is not enough. Conventional means will not defeat the Reapers.

The problem is that ME3 nerfed the Reapers and did not lay out power-balance well enough. People might get the notion that filling the EMS meter is somehow tied to defeating the Reapers. It should have been more clear that its something that will slow the Reapers down and pre-occupy them. So that Frodo can sneak into Mordor and drop the ring into the lava pit in Mount doom.

Modifié par Subject M, 09 septembre 2012 - 12:53 .

[Subject M]

seitani wrote...

Edited OP to include destroy and refusal choices.

A Paragon Shepard that besides wanting to save the galaxy from being harvested also cares about a multilateral solution without synthesising everyone without their consent would do well in choosing control. Its a good middle ground with the potentiality of a volutary synthesis and without loses other the Shepards physical form.

Modifié par Subject M, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:03 .

[The Twilight God]

Rommel49 wrote...

Which is countered by the fact the codex states defeating the Reapers is possible in the Reaper Vulnerabilities entry, etc.

The codex does not say that.

"Although clearly technologically superior to the Citadel forces, the Reapers have experienced casualties in the battles across the galaxy. This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."

I love how you trivialize the entire plot of the series by taking one codex entry completely out of context to arrive at your preconceived notion. The key word is "theorhetically". We don't have the right intelligence, right weapons or right strategy. We definitely do not have the right weapons.

But again, none of that matters as we ARE losing. Fact. Nothing you can say, hope for or theorize can change that reality.

Rommel49 wrote...

Citing only Hackett is an appeal to authority and circular logic "Hackett says conventional victory is impossible, conventional victory is impossible because Hackett says so". I've covered this previously, Hackett's contradicted by multiple other sources - including potentially the Commander himself:

Hackett is never contradicted. There is not 1 iota of evidence that conventional victory is attainable. None. Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Rommel49 wrote...

Javik's first reading of the good Commander aboard the Normandy depending upon what is done at the time: "For a soldier in a war against the Reapers, I sense more... confidence than fear. You believe you are winning" - emphasis mine. Nevermind "might" win, not "could" win, through Javik, it's directly stated that the Commander not only believes defeating the Reapers is possible, but that it's being achieved.

Shepard is "winning" as far as gathering forces to deliver and work on the Crucible. He is winning as far as his assignment is concerned. However, Shepard is not fighting on the frontlines. Fact. Shepard's action have nothing to do with defeating the Reapers head on. Fact. Again, you grasp at straws, completely ignoring the context. Why is Shepard asking Hackett for updates if he already knows the scoop? Why doesn't Shepard correct Hackett and tell him what's really going on since he magically knows more about how the war is going than the guy actually fighting it head on? Please, think about what you post before you post it.

Rommel49 wrote...

It's absolutely an assumption that Refusal results in defeat, since we never actually see a defeat take place. Let's look at the actual details (or lack thereof) given in the ending:

It is a fact. Our force cannot win. It has been established. Period. Your denial borders on an insane delusion.

Rommel49 wrote...

There's no given timeline of events (people assume it's the next cycle without evidence). We don't know when Liara made the recording (except that it was after a refusal), etc. No specific entities are named, the only item the narrator's species finds is the archive and by her own account everything they know about "the ones who came before" came from that archive, they evidently found no ruins, artifacts, or corporeal remains from the current cycle, contrary to every other cycle.

The female stargazer says that they only know of Shepard through the archives, which is expected as he is just a single individual. Ruined skyscrapers and decayed bone tissue aren't going to give you those kinds of personal details. There is nothing stating that the archive is the only way they are aware other civilizations came before. Again, please think about what you post before you post it. With the crap you're typing out it's like you have internet tourette's syndrome.

Rommel49 wrote...

The "without the information they passed on, we too would be threatened line" is usually taken to mean that her species built the Crucible, but it could just as easily refer to the Leviathans and their Disco ball artifacts, hell, the current cycle could be their religion. It also doesn't make sense given the context, Liara's recording pegs the Crucible as basically being a lemon: "We built the Crucible, but it didn't work". The narrator never mentions the Reapers by name, or that her species ever even encountered them.

First of all, if the Leviathans had the power to take on the Reapers they would have done so already. There is a reason they are hiding and claimed Shepard brings only death.

So how exactly does the information in the archive allow for peace if they never even encountered the Reapers? They wouldn't need any information if the Reapers were already defeated. She explicitely states that without that information they would have been threatened. Which means they used it to prevent war. Given what in-game information we have the only way for the Stargazer's cycle to have not fought a terrible war AND to have achieved this outcome based on the archive data is if they built the Crucible prior to the Reaper's invasion and used it as soon as the Reapers arrived. Or they built it and the Reapers know it's waiting for them and are stuck out in darkspace. Heck, they may have flown it out to where they hibernate and blew it up in their faces. The details are unknown. But these types of scenarios are the only way they could have avoided a drawn out conflict given the information at our disposal. The entirety of galactic civilization showed up and they lost that battle. They went in knowing they couldn't win conventionally. And that wasn't even all the reapers forces. The Reapers were all over the galaxy map. The Reapers were so confident in victory they still had dreadnaughts and destroyers on the ground. They didn't even need their full might up in orbit.

It's possible we came up with another way to defeat them and it was too late to use it. But rather the next cycle used the Crucible or not, the efforts of our cycle were not completely in vain. However, our cycle did lose. And the Stargazer and Liara's beacon dialog attests to that fact. 

"We fought as a united galaxy, but that wasn't enough"

Rommel49 wrote...

The fact remains we see no ruins, bodies, etc. and we don't see an actual defeat take place, so yeah, by definition it is an assumption that refusal results in a defeat. Such a defeat is never observed.

Scenario: A guy gets stabbed through the throat, severing his spine at the neck. For that first second he is alive. Cut to black. Roll credits.

You: Well, we didn't see him die so it's just an assumption. We don't know if the guy actually died.

Me: https://encrypted-tb...xRPS4Dc-bnCt1yw
 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 10 septembre 2012 - 06:16 .

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

Synthesis, no one dies.
Although that ending sucks very badly.

The only option there should have been is destroy, and from there you get more then 30 variations of the ending.

[M0keys]

The Twilight God wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

That's only assumed; as I've noted in the past, there's actually nothing that definitively shows that refusal results in defeat, due to how incredibly vague the ending is.

It's not assumed. It's not vague. It's an in-game fact that conventional victory is not possible.

The Twilight God wrote...

Option 4: Let the Reapers Win
Shepard is wholly aware that the combined forces of galactic civilization are incapable of defeating the Reapers surrounding Earth, much less waging a prolonged conventional war against their entire armada. Admiral Hackett is the one leading the battle, fighting the war. He is in the best position to know how the war is going and if victory is possible.

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."

Before the Citadel Coup Hackett states, "I won't lie, Shepard. We're bogged down. Things aren't looking good in most sectors." He continues with, "This won't end well for the human race. Or any race."

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."

Admiral Hackett does not believe we are losing the war. He does not think we are losing the war. He does not suspect we are losing the war. He KNOWS we are losing the war because it IS being lost. Fact. No room for doubt. No room for interpretation. We ARE losing.

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."

or perhaps it'd be more interesting fiction if hackett was feeling desperately lost and starting to buy into reaper propaganda (it works after all!) and the starkid is there to make you think that everything the Reapers ever said was right. but the lesson is that after everything you still have to trust yourself.

But... they didn't go that way did they..

kinda boring, i think... no conflict in the end, just... oh, don't worry about the reapers, they're fine.

oh really? thanks.

[The Twilight God]

M0keys wrote...

or perhaps it'd be more interesting fiction if hackett was feeling desperately lost and starting to buy into reaper propaganda (it works after all!) and the starkid is there to make you think that everything the Reapers ever said was right. but the lesson is that after everything you still have to trust yourself.

It wouldn't be interesting. It would be completely plot breaking and trivialize the threat.

There were other ways to end the reaper threat without a MacGuffin. Neuron pulse beams based on the renegade collector base explosion. Eezo negation. Neutralize their eezo and Reapers are F'd. Activating the Citadel Relay and learning clues from a Reaper Headquarters in darkspace. Personally, I think the Intelligence should have been met there and killed halfway through the game. The Crucible should have been a trap and Shepard dies, but his sacrifice in some way makes the future victory possible. Telling a war of this supposed magnitude in 1 installment with a MacGuffin was really lazy writting. They can claim whatever they want, they did NOT plan ahead. ME3 is not the result of a plot seven years in development.

So really... I guess they already trivialized the Reapers. Making the Reapers a lesser threat than we expect wouldn't be any worse, I guess.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 10 septembre 2012 - 06:02 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

pirate1802 wrote...

zombieord wrote...


IMO Refusal. Control might be painted blue and Synthesis might sound like the right thing to do, but in the end a Paragon does not compromise his morals. At least mine didn't.

Destroyers, you might not mind killing the Geth and EDI, but a Paragon would.

Forced to choose between his morals and the existance of the galaxy, a true hero would rather sacrifice his morals. Maybe yours wouldn't and its obvious we have different definitions of a hero, but that's what my Shepard thinks and that's what she did. You (the galaxy) think I'm a monster? Fair enough. Atleast you're alive to be able to think that. Better be a monster to a living galaxy than be a hero to a dead galaxy.

Hey, I kept my morals and the galaxy still exists. Doing better than yours is, even.

Your argument only works if there are no other choices. There were other choices. You were just too afraid/stubborn to take them.

[Jeb231]

After watching the EC and starting to understand what Bioware was trying to do it's pretty obvious it ranks this way:Synthesis, Control, Renegade, Refuse.

But for me it would be control.