543 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

Xilizhra wrote...

on the other hand .. "each reaper is a nation of its own" ... so .. you forcefully subdue the forccfully taken essences of countless civilisations to achieve your goal?

each outcome stinks ...

It's a temporary solution. If Synthesis is inevitable, the Reapers will be free eventually, and if they've already been under control for millions of years, a few more won't kill them.

and people call me cynical.

so syhnthesis is inevitable? ... "r2 never trust a foreign computer" ...

just because the catalyst says that, it is not my aithority to make a decision for every sentient being in the galaxy. to meld with everybody and give up a lot of personal space and freedom is nothing done lightly. what would you personally do, if i would force you to do a job you dont like? .. you would protest! this step is a very personal and individual choice. what about the people who would have rejected the decision? .. are they being "reprogrammed" by the "overmind" like the geth?

[Xilizhra]

Again (and I cannot stress this enough) all three choices solve its problem. It says this itself.

Why do you feel like the Catalyst has to lose for you to win?

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...
Choosing to genocide a race of legitimate lifeforms in order to 'protect' life is a pretty extreme repudiation of a theme.  As is celebrating autonomy and freedom by using mind control to become the most powerful dictator in the universe.  And eugenically mutating every being in the universe in order to celebrate diversity likewise entirely undermines what the game up to that point had been about...

To me every one of the endings is an extraordinary and absolute reversal of the themes in the game.

Refusal seems to be the only one that lets you remain faithful to your ethics, and to keep faith in the tenacity of your friends - and that one gets you wiped out. 

Sucks to you for believing in stuff.

Agree about Control and Synthesis so don't want to go into those.

But about Destroy v Refuse: I agree that Refuse is appealing on moral grounds.  It is the ethically right thing to do.  But the consequences are, everybody dies.  So the game asks you to decide, what are you prepared to do?  It's a disgusting choice, morally repugnant, no doubt about it, but it is preferable to letting everybody die.

In other words, choosing refuse is quite arrogant in my opinion, because you are letting everybody die so that you can stick to your moral code.

It goes against a theme of the game, but it was clearly intended to.  This isn't some unintended mistake by the writers.  It's asking you if you're prepared to go to these lengths to save the galaxy.  If you're willing to let 5 trillion die for the sake of saving 10 trillion.  This was also a big theme of the ME games.  It's a disgustig choice, but one you're asked to make.  And different players will have different views on it.  

My point being, I agree with your views on the choices, but I think this final choice is at the core of the ME narrative, not contrary to it.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...


War has casualties for victory. You can't save everyone. Saying that a person is wrong to do he extreme at the time of the extreme is very narrow minded.
Control also is never showncrushing anyones freedom

If you see your action effect the uniniver positively thenI don't think many people of that world would question your actions....Thought that many be the horror of synthesis., control and destory allow free will to exsist.

The destory choice is nothing more then the same lesson taught in Ender's game, which had the character cummit a genocide to save the his race, and then him living with the act for the rest ofhis life.

Control is a lesson in sacrific, if you have issue with Shepard having so much power...Well, it'sbased on you shepard, that would not be a problem...In fact,he/she many not keep it.

The fact reamain that it the law of nature that at time a being or race has to dothe nessiary thing to servive.  The universe does not bend to us. If we find that the only way to servive is to do extreme acts, it understandable that the majority will do it,the minority would die...

I don't care about Ender's Game and what was in that.  This is about this game, this story.  So another story features genocide as a good thing to do and you think that makes it ok?  Wow.

I don't care what was inserted in slide shows at the end, either.  They are unrealistic and were put there merely to make it obvious the relays didn't destroy the galaxy.  But they are not logical conclusions of these choices at all.

War has casualties.  Oh, really?  Do tell.  Let me get my popcorn because this is a new concept.  The boy that lived down the street from my brother's family, and that went through school with my niece and nephews and was a friend of my oldest nephew died in war.  This was a boy that liked to dress up as a vampire at Halloween and I remember him and I think of his family and the hole he left behind.  A boy I worked with was shot several times (and survived) in war.  A young man who was being mentored after coming back from war in order to find his way back to his life, committed suicide because he could not get that war out of his head.  I worked with many men who lost whole groups of friends in war.  I've had quite a few young men that I worked with go off to war and I worried every day about them until they returned safely.  I've seen real casualties of violence and watched people die.  Have you?

I don't care what control does or doesn't show-I'm talking about logic and the use of real,not fabricated logic and how people really react to things.  No one except some crazy person in the game, would be happy to see reapers flying around fixing things and acting as galactic guardians.  A) they would be afraid of them, they would think they had gone crazy, C) they would not like them existing after killing trillions of people, D) they would not know Shepard controls them, D) they would want revenge-this at the very least is Human nature if not the nature of other races in the galaxy, E) the Shepard AI has no feelings anymore.

Genocide is not just some random happening of war.  The minute you know a race is targeted, you are choosing to commit genocide and it's not some accident.

Survival at any and all cost is often not gaining something, especially if what you lose in getting to live is worse than what you might lose in dying.  There are things worse than death.  And that means sometimes the best answer is to die. 

It's so ridiculous that this is what it comes down to for a video game.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Because the Catalyst told you so?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk - but that's what it comes back to for me. The head Reaper tells Shepard - totally arbitrarilly - that things will be different for her, when all evidence in the narrative of the game says the complete opposite.

You have no precedent for anyone uploading themselves into the Catalyst, which was controlling the Reapers anyway, and then being indoctrinated by that... somehow. They were all using different means in the narrative, and just because those didn't work, doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't.
Also, didn't you want to accomplish the impossible by winning conventionally, which no one else in the narrative has ever done either?

Arguing about the speculated 'imposibility' of conventional victory is distinctly different from believing what your enemy promises when he asks you to suicide yourself and do what you have seen several others egotistically fail to do... 

Indeed, I'm not really sure what you were hoping to illustrate with that comparison besides blurring the issue.

Fighting by your own means even if things seem hopeless is surely better than make a deal with your enemy while he goes on trying to destroy you...

[Xilizhra]

I don't care what control does or doesn't show-I'm talking about logic and the use of real,not fabricated logic and how people really react to things. No one except some crazy person in the game, would be happy to see reapers flying around fixing things and acting as galactic guardians. A) they would be afraid of them, they would think they had gone crazy, C) they would not like them existing after killing trillions of people, D) they would not know Shepard controls them, D) they would want revenge-this at the very least is Human nature if not the nature of other races in the galaxy, E) the Shepard AI has no feelings anymore.

EDI possessed emotions of a sort. The Shepard-Catalyst could easily do the same. And they actually do seem fairly happy to see the Reapers giving up the war; certainly there may be some unrest afterwards, but it's better than Destroy's genocide, and I suspect that Shepard would, at some point, be able to make it clear more or less what had happened.

[Eterna]

The Twilight God wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Honestly, full renegade Shepard gets a perfect ending an ending that more closesly aligns with the renegade options presented throughout the series. He removes all synthetics and even survives. Unfortunatey, paragon Shepard can't make an ending decision without making a violation of morals, from genocide, to forced change, to totalitarian order. Isn't this kinda unfair towards most paragon Shepards?

The only genocide options are control, synthesis(sorta) and refuse.

Destroy is the only paragon or renegade choice. The rest are just...

It's like you guys have completely lost it.  The gymnastic loops your brain must have made to come to this conclusion is staggering. 

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

When does it say it in the game?

"When fire burn is it at war, conflict or is it doing what it made to do....We are no different."
Catalyst.

Leviathen addes even more....


Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



[color=rgb(170,170,170)">Leviathan: ]perserve life at any cost.[/color]

That basicly means  they made a shackled  AI to solve a problem with no limit ever given to how.


And you missing the point. It not asking Shepard to help it suicide...It's asking you to choose for it.

The fact remain you have the option to destroy it  , control it and pick synthesis which it wants. And when you pick the other choices it does not want, it does not stop you. It's fate is in your hands

Firstly, I'm not sure that those quotes bearing out all that you are reading into them - but I guess your point is that it has no control over it's final choice?

Well yes: that's kind of my point.  It gets you to choose for it.  It says: here are three repulsive solutions to my totally idiotic and racist problem, and now you get to be the Reaper and choose which one you like best. 

Again (and I cannot stress this enough) all three choices solve its problem.  It says this itself.

1.The reason why it's actioning is not racist.
2. It's programed to think there is a problem.
3.You have admit, we had a lot of conflic with AI's inthe series. ME1, points out the conflict. ME2, show the synthetics poitn and organics has balame in the conflict as well. And ME3 shows all the flaws of both synthetic and organic life.
The conflict with organic and synthetic life happens.

4.Lastly, the catalyst has not control over what destroy and control does. This is premade into th crucible. Itonly control synthesis.

Ifyou want someone to blame for the horrors of destory and control, look at the past racesthat designed it.

[3DandBeyond]

Xilizhra wrote...

Again (and I cannot stress this enough) all three choices solve its problem. It says this itself.

Why do you feel like the Catalyst has to lose for you to win?

Because in making a choice that solves his problem you are picking something that is not in alignment with your goal.  The kid's solution is based on solving what you should see as a false or not insurmountable problem.  Any solution he has come up with has failed and at least one (the reapers) has been a killer, a horrific disgusting killer.  And it's his latest solution until now.  So, choosing something he wants or offers you is likely to be just as flawed as the reapers and even more overtly horrific.  He ups the ante in an effort to solve what he can never solve.  He says this himself.  Inevitable is inevitable and it does not matter what solution he comes up with.  His solutions have always failed, because they must or the problem does not exist.

1.If there is a solution that stops the conflict, the conflict is not inevitable. 
2.If the conflict is not inevitable, it is not a problem. 
3.If it is not a problem, then the solution is not needed.

The kid's programming can never allow for a workable solution or no solution would ever be needed.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Again (and I cannot stress this enough) all three choices solve its problem. It says this itself.

Why do you feel like the Catalyst has to lose for you to win?

At the end of the movie Seven you meet the serial killer who has been killing everyone because he believes he has a higher purpose.  He believes that people are fundamentally corrupt and sinners.

He wants Brad Pitt to kill him, because by killing him, he will be proven right. 

The Catalyst likewise asks to be proven right.  Synthetics and organics will never get along.  Use one of my solutions to prove it.

Firstly I don't want him to 'win' because my Shepard would never mutate, massacre, or dominate the rest of the galaxy against their will.  Secondly, I don't want him to 'win' because everything that he advocates is sick and intollerant and ignorant.  I do not want him to 'win' by being proven right. 

Brad Pitt guns that serial killer down.  It is not a victory.  He has sacrificed his morality, and proved a lunatic correct about the darkness in the human soul.

[inversevideo]

Davik Kang wrote...

drayfish wrote...
Choosing to genocide a race of legitimate lifeforms in order to 'protect' life is a pretty extreme repudiation of a theme.  As is celebrating autonomy and freedom by using mind control to become the most powerful dictator in the universe.  And eugenically mutating every being in the universe in order to celebrate diversity likewise entirely undermines what the game up to that point had been about...

To me every one of the endings is an extraordinary and absolute reversal of the themes in the game.

Refusal seems to be the only one that lets you remain faithful to your ethics, and to keep faith in the tenacity of your friends - and that one gets you wiped out. 

Sucks to you for believing in stuff.

Agree about Control and Synthesis so don't want to go into those.

But about Destroy v Refuse: I agree that Refuse is appealing on moral grounds.  It is the ethically right thing to do.  But the consequences are, everybody dies.  So the game asks you to decide, what are you prepared to do?  It's a disgusting choice, morally repugnant, no doubt about it, but it is preferable to letting everybody die.

In other words, choosing refuse is quite arrogant in my opinion, because you are letting everybody die so that you can stick to your moral code.

It goes against a theme of the game, but it was clearly intended to.  This isn't some unintended mistake by the writers.  It's asking you if you're prepared to go to these lengths to save the galaxy.  If you're willing to let 5 trillion die for the sake of saving 10 trillion.  This was also a big theme of the ME games.  It's a disgustig choice, but one you're asked to make.  And different players will have different views on it.  

My point being, I agree with your views on the choices, but I think this final choice is at the core of the ME narrative, not contrary to it.

I follow your reasoning up to a point.

You lost me with choosing refuse is arrogant.

If you are playing the game as a shooter, then you are justified in meta-gaming, no problem.
You see the future outcome of each choice, then based on how each choice plays out , you go back and select the choice that best fits, that has the best outcome. I have no quarrel with anyone playing this way.

However, another style of play is to simply role-play. To make your choices based solely on the information you have available, up to the moment you are presented with the choice. This style of play requires that you do not accept any information from YouTube or the future. You ignore or do not consider information that your character cannot know, prior to making the decision with which you are confronted.

I see both styles of play as being equally valid. As such I try not to label a players style as 'bad', simply because it is different from my own.

[Reorte]

Xilizhra wrote...

Again (and I cannot stress this enough) all three choices solve its problem. It says this itself.

Why do you feel like the Catalyst has to lose for you to win?

The only problem I've got that needs solving is the one that the Catalyst is creating and convincing it of that doesn't appear to be possible.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


War has casualties for victory. You can't save everyone. Saying that a person is wrong to do he extreme at the time of the extreme is very narrow minded.
Control also is never showncrushing anyones freedom

If you see your action effect the uniniver positively thenI don't think many people of that world would question your actions....Thought that many be the horror of synthesis., control and destory allow free will to exsist.

The destory choice is nothing more then the same lesson taught in Ender's game, which had the character cummit a genocide to save the his race, and then him living with the act for the rest ofhis life.

Control is a lesson in sacrific, if you have issue with Shepard having so much power...Well, it'sbased on you shepard, that would not be a problem...In fact,he/she many not keep it.

The fact reamain that it the law of nature that at time a being or race has to dothe nessiary thing to servive.  The universe does not bend to us. If we find that the only way to servive is to do extreme acts, it understandable that the majority will do it,the minority would die...

I don't care about Ender's Game and what was in that.  This is about this game, this story.  So another story features genocide as a good thing to do and you think that makes it ok?  Wow.

I don't care what was inserted in slide shows at the end, either.  They are unrealistic and were put there merely to make it obvious the relays didn't destroy the galaxy.  But they are not logical conclusions of these choices at all.

War has casualties.  Oh, really?  Do tell.  Let me get my popcorn because this is a new concept.  The boy that lived down the street from my brother's family, and that went through school with my niece and nephews and was a friend of my oldest nephew died in war.  This was a boy that liked to dress up as a vampire at Halloween and I remember him and I think of his family and the hole he left behind.  A boy I worked with was shot several times (and survived) in war.  A young man who was being mentored after coming back from war in order to find his way back to his life, committed suicide because he could not get that war out of his head.  I worked with many men who lost whole groups of friends in war.  I've had quite a few young men that I worked with go off to war and I worried every day about them until they returned safely.  I've seen real casualties of violence and watched people die.  Have you?

I don't care what control does or doesn't show-I'm talking about logic and the use of real,not fabricated logic and how people really react to things.  No one except some crazy person in the game, would be happy to see reapers flying around fixing things and acting as galactic guardians.  A) they would be afraid of them, they would think they had gone crazy, C) they would not like them existing after killing trillions of people, D) they would not know Shepard controls them, D) they would want revenge-this at the very least is Human nature if not the nature of other races in the galaxy, E) the Shepard AI has no feelings anymore.

Genocide is not just some random happening of war.  The minute you know a race is targeted, you are choosing to commit genocide and it's not some accident.

Survival at any and all cost is often not gaining something, especially if what you lose in getting to live is worse than what you might lose in dying.  There are things worse than death.  And that means sometimes the best answer is to die. 

It's so ridiculous that this is what it comes down to for a video game.

Here's the problem with your point...If yougive anyone else inthe ME universe to option to pick in your stead,  do you think they would refuse the choices?

You can go on you high horse about moral but that would do nothing abou the events on hand. No matter what you do, you morals is not going to change the events on hand. It ether you stick to you moralsand pride  and have everyone die or save as many people as you can and go ageinst your morals.

I'm sure people will be thanking for sticking to you moral as they are being killed off.

[Xilizhra]

Because in making a choice that solves his problem you are picking something that is not in alignment with your goal. The kid's solution is based on solving what you should see as a false or not insurmountable problem. Any solution he has come up with has failed and at least one (the reapers) has been a killer, a horrific disgusting killer. And it's his latest solution until now. So, choosing something he wants or offers you is likely to be just as flawed as the reapers and even more overtly horrific. He ups the ante in an effort to solve what he can never solve. He says this himself. Inevitable is inevitable and it does not matter what solution he comes up with. His solutions have always failed, because they must or the problem does not exist.

My solution is to stop the Reapers. All of its means do that. And just because the Reapers were bad doesn't mean that every solution it offers has to be just as bad (and indeed, none are), to say nothing of the fact that the Catalyst doesn't actually control what the Crucible does.

Firstly I don't want him to 'win' because my Shepard would never mutate, massacre, or dominate the rest of the galaxy against their will. Secondly, I don't want him to 'win' because everything that he advocates is sick and intollerant and ignorant. I do not want him to 'win' by being proven right.

Brad Pitt guns that serial killer down. It is not a victory. He has sacrificed his morality, and proved a lunatic correct about the darkness in the human soul.

Maybe it's not an optimal victory, but the serial killer is no longer a threat, and who cares about what he thinks anyway? The important thing was stopping him, and that was accomplished. Ditto for the Catalyst. What the Catalyst thinks is irrelevant to me, whether it approves of my solution or not. The important thing is stopping the Reapers in the best manner possible.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Again (and I cannot stress this enough) all three choices solve its problem. It says this itself.

Why do you feel like the Catalyst has to lose for you to win?

The only problem I've got that needs solving is the one that the Catalyst is creating and convincing it of that doesn't appear to be possible.

It's a shackled AI...Your not going to change it's mind.

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.The reason why it's actioning is not racist.
2. It's programed to think there is a problem.
3.You have admit, we had a lot of conflic with AI's inthe series. ME1, points out the conflict. ME2, show the synthetics poitn and organics has balame in the conflict as well. And ME3 shows all the flaws of both synthetic and organic life.
The conflict with organic and synthetic life happens.

4.Lastly, the catalyst has not control over what destroy and control does. This is premade into th crucible. Itonly control synthesis.

Ifyou want someone to blame for the horrors of destory and control, look at the past racesthat designed it.

1. It is a racist premise that it is serving: two forms of life cannot peacefully coexist because they are different.

2. ...Yes?

3.  Really?  After EDI?  After Legion?  After the Geth?  The narrative has organically grown well beyond this.  Indeed, pretending that it hasn't is precisely what is wrong with the Catalyst's faulty programming.

4. This is all headcanon.  You have no way of knowing what it can and cannot control in the Crucible - and the fact that it directly states that all three options will solve it's problem totally refutes your argument.

[dreman9999]

inversevideo wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

drayfish wrote...
Choosing to genocide a race of legitimate lifeforms in order to 'protect' life is a pretty extreme repudiation of a theme.  As is celebrating autonomy and freedom by using mind control to become the most powerful dictator in the universe.  And eugenically mutating every being in the universe in order to celebrate diversity likewise entirely undermines what the game up to that point had been about...

To me every one of the endings is an extraordinary and absolute reversal of the themes in the game.

Refusal seems to be the only one that lets you remain faithful to your ethics, and to keep faith in the tenacity of your friends - and that one gets you wiped out. 

Sucks to you for believing in stuff.

Agree about Control and Synthesis so don't want to go into those.

But about Destroy v Refuse: I agree that Refuse is appealing on moral grounds.  It is the ethically right thing to do.  But the consequences are, everybody dies.  So the game asks you to decide, what are you prepared to do?  It's a disgusting choice, morally repugnant, no doubt about it, but it is preferable to letting everybody die.

In other words, choosing refuse is quite arrogant in my opinion, because you are letting everybody die so that you can stick to your moral code.

It goes against a theme of the game, but it was clearly intended to.  This isn't some unintended mistake by the writers.  It's asking you if you're prepared to go to these lengths to save the galaxy.  If you're willing to let 5 trillion die for the sake of saving 10 trillion.  This was also a big theme of the ME games.  It's a disgustig choice, but one you're asked to make.  And different players will have different views on it.  

My point being, I agree with your views on the choices, but I think this final choice is at the core of the ME narrative, not contrary to it.

I follow your reasoning up to a point.

You lost me with choosing refuse is arrogant.

If you are playing the game as a shooter, then you are justified in meta-gaming, no problem.
You see the future outcome of each choice, then based on how each choice plays out , you go back and select the choice that best fits, that has the best outcome. I have no quarrel with anyone playing this way.

However, another style of play is to simply role-play. To make your choices based solely on the information you have available, up to the moment you are presented with the choice. This style of play requires that you do not accept any information from YouTube or the future. You ignore or do not consider information that your character cannot know, prior to making the decision with which you are confronted.

I see both styles of play as being equally valid. As such I try not to label a players style as 'bad', simply because it is different from my own.

Of course Refuse  is arragant...Your picking you morals over everyones lives. You going to tell  me people are going to be happy to learn you refuse to stick to your moral and not stop the reaper as the reaper kill them off?

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 octobre 2012 - 03:57 .

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Again (and I cannot stress this enough) all three choices solve its problem. It says this itself.

Why do you feel like the Catalyst has to lose for you to win?

The only problem I've got that needs solving is the one that the Catalyst is creating and convincing it of that doesn't appear to be possible.

It's a shackled AI...Your not going to change it's mind.

You're probably right but I'd have liked the option to at least try.

[3DandBeyond]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't care what control does or doesn't show-I'm talking about logic and the use of real,not fabricated logic and how people really react to things. No one except some crazy person in the game, would be happy to see reapers flying around fixing things and acting as galactic guardians. A) they would be afraid of them, they would think they had gone crazy, C) they would not like them existing after killing trillions of people, D) they would not know Shepard controls them, D) they would want revenge-this at the very least is Human nature if not the nature of other races in the galaxy, E) the Shepard AI has no feelings anymore.

EDI possessed emotions of a sort. The Shepard-Catalyst could easily do the same. And they actually do seem fairly happy to see the Reapers giving up the war; certainly there may be some unrest afterwards, but it's better than Destroy's genocide, and I suspect that Shepard would, at some point, be able to make it clear more or less what had happened.

EDI did but she created them in part.  The kid says the Shepard AI would have thoughts and memories and hardware may well limit that.  The kid himself seems to have none.  As well the narration within it is very non-paragon and is ominous sounding with the music and combined voices (that's not just Shepard in there).  The infrastructure in which the Shepard data will exist was created apparently by those who created the very flawed kid (and thus allowed the reapers to be created also).  That is predictive of what the Shepard data would reside within.

And there are other things such as the idea that if you took EDI's data and moved that to another blue box, that would no longer be EDI-this was said in the game.  If you move the intelligence to another blue box you get a different personality.  So, you're taking human "data" and moving it into a blue box and you expect the same person to be there?  Not likely.  This is the same thing basically done with all the different cycles that came before, put into reapers.  Do they seem like friendly beings?  Did Harbinger seem to be nice when he said he wanted to hurt people and cause Shepard pain?  This is the indicator of what a Shepard AI will become.

And again, I don't care what the slides show-they are not realistic.  People do not act all happy over having mass murderers suddenly be given community service.  Especially when they don't know why or what happened and the darn murderers are the size of sky scrapers. 

[Lenimph]

Uhhhh like it would be the first time Paragon shep killed something? This is a war... there is always casualties. I actually see it as the most morally correct choice since it's the what everyone wanted. No one said "lets end this by becoming synthetic or turning Shep into a reaper" no, they wanted them GONE, DEAD AND DESTROYED.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.The reason why it's actioning is not racist.
2. It's programed to think there is a problem.
3.You have admit, we had a lot of conflic with AI's inthe series. ME1, points out the conflict. ME2, show the synthetics poitn and organics has balame in the conflict as well. And ME3 shows all the flaws of both synthetic and organic life.
The conflict with organic and synthetic life happens.

4.Lastly, the catalyst has not control over what destroy and control does. This is premade into th crucible. Itonly control synthesis.

Ifyou want someone to blame for the horrors of destory and control, look at the past racesthat designed it.

1. It is a racist premise that it is serving: two forms of life cannot peacefully coexist because they are different.

2. ...Yes?

3.  Really?  After EDI?  After Legion?  After the Geth?  The narrative has organically grown well beyond this.  Indeed, pretending that it hasn't is precisely what is wrong with the Catalyst's faulty programming.

4. This is all headcanon.  You have no way of knowing what it can and cannot control in the Crucible - and the fact that it directly states that all three options will solve it's problem totally refutes your argument.

1.The action is doing is forcing them to coexsist. The reaper solutio forces them to coexist.

2.That means it the fault of the programer.

3.Do you even not why we don't have conflict with them? Tell be the difference to how we treat EDI and how the quarians treated the geth after they became aware. You'll see way conflict with organic and synthetic happen once you do.

4.That not head cannon at all. EMS controls the results of the ending and that control by how damaged the crucible it when it's parked.

Why doyou thing we have so many versions of the destroy and control ending. The crucible controls that , not the catalyst.

[Xilizhra]

EDI did but she created them in part. The kid says the Shepard AI would have thoughts and memories and hardware may well limit that. The kid himself seems to have none. As well the narration within it is very non-paragon and is ominous sounding with the music and combined voices (that's not just Shepard in there). The infrastructure in which the Shepard data will exist was created apparently by those who created the very flawed kid (and thus allowed the reapers to be created also). That is predictive of what the Shepard data would reside within.

Your opinion about the narrative is rather subjective. And just because the Catalyst wasn't designed with emotions doesn't mean it can't have them. EDI wasn't initially designed with them either, but grew beyond that.

And there are other things such as the idea that if you took EDI's data and moved that to another blue box, that would no longer be EDI-this was said in the game. If you move the intelligence to another blue box you get a different personality. So, you're taking human "data" and moving it into a blue box and you expect the same person to be there? Not likely. This is the same thing basically done with all the different cycles that came before, put into reapers. Do they seem like friendly beings? Did Harbinger seem to be nice when he said he wanted to hurt people and cause Shepard pain? This is the indicator of what a Shepard AI will become.

Harbinger was based on the Leviathans, who seem to be... not nice people. Sovereign's species is unknown, but could well also be itself not nice. The Rannoch Reaper didn't display much of anything resembling personality, but was also dying at the time. Ultimately, there's no way to predict exactly what a Shepard Catalyst would become, except for the ending itself.

And again, I don't care what the slides show-they are not realistic. People do not act all happy over having mass murderers suddenly be given community service. Especially when they don't know why or what happened and the darn murderers are the size of sky scrapers.

Whether or not you care about the slides is irrelevant. They're canon.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't care what control does or doesn't show-I'm talking about logic and the use of real,not fabricated logic and how people really react to things. No one except some crazy person in the game, would be happy to see reapers flying around fixing things and acting as galactic guardians. A) they would be afraid of them, they would think they had gone crazy, C) they would not like them existing after killing trillions of people, D) they would not know Shepard controls them, D) they would want revenge-this at the very least is Human nature if not the nature of other races in the galaxy, E) the Shepard AI has no feelings anymore.

EDI possessed emotions of a sort. The Shepard-Catalyst could easily do the same. And they actually do seem fairly happy to see the Reapers giving up the war; certainly there may be some unrest afterwards, but it's better than Destroy's genocide, and I suspect that Shepard would, at some point, be able to make it clear more or less what had happened.

EDI did but she created them in part.  The kid says the Shepard AI would have thoughts and memories and hardware may well limit that.  The kid himself seems to have none.  As well the narration within it is very non-paragon and is ominous sounding with the music and combined voices (that's not just Shepard in there).  The infrastructure in which the Shepard data will exist was created apparently by those who created the very flawed kid (and thus allowed the reapers to be created also).  That is predictive of what the Shepard data would reside within.

And there are other things such as the idea that if you took EDI's data and moved that to another blue box, that would no longer be EDI-this was said in the game.  If you move the intelligence to another blue box you get a different personality.  So, you're taking human "data" and moving it into a blue box and you expect the same person to be there?  Not likely.  This is the same thing basically done with all the different cycles that came before, put into reapers.  Do they seem like friendly beings?  Did Harbinger seem to be nice when he said he wanted to hurt people and cause Shepard pain?  This is the indicator of what a Shepard AI will become.

And again, I don't care what the slides show-they are not realistic.  People do not act all happy over having mass murderers suddenly be given community service.  Especially when they don't know why or what happened and the darn murderers are the size of sky scrapers. 

You do realise the Shepard Ai is shown to feelsad for everyone that lose Shepard..Right?

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Firstly I don't want him to 'win' because my Shepard would never mutate, massacre, or dominate the rest of the galaxy against their will. Secondly, I don't want him to 'win' because everything that he advocates is sick and intollerant and ignorant. I do not want him to 'win' by being proven right.

Brad Pitt guns that serial killer down. It is not a victory. He has sacrificed his morality, and proved a lunatic correct about the darkness in the human soul.

Maybe it's not an optimal victory, but the serial killer is no longer a threat, and who cares about what he thinks anyway? The important thing was stopping him, and that was accomplished. Ditto for the Catalyst. What the Catalyst thinks is irrelevant to me, whether it approves of my solution or not. The important thing is stopping the Reapers in the best manner possible.

And if we have sarcificed all of our morality and our ideals then what were we fighting for all along?  Just survival?  Just the right to keep breathing?

Wow, that's bleak.

If that were true than none of the moral choices we've made up to that point would be relevant at all.  We would be living in an existential vacuum in which life would be utterly devalued.  If we aren't living for anything, then what does any of it matter?  We may as well let the Reapers win, because all that would ultimately separates us is self-interest.

I prefer to believe that there was a point to all that inclusivity and hope - beyond just climbing over their corpses to save ourselves.

[Davik Kang]

inversevideo wrote...
I follow your reasoning up to a point.

You lost me with choosing refuse is arrogant.

If you are playing the game as a shooter, then you are justified in meta-gaming, no problem.
You see the future outcome of each choice, then based on how each choice plays out , you go back and select the choice that best fits, that has the best outcome. I have no quarrel with anyone playing this way.

However, another style of play is to simply role-play. To make your choices based solely on the information you have available, up to the moment you are presented with the choice. This style of play requires that you do not accept any information from YouTube or the future. You ignore or do not consider information that your character cannot know, prior to making the decision with which you are confronted.

I see both styles of play as being equally valid. As such I try not to label a players style as 'bad', simply because it is different from my own.

Good point sorry.  You're completely right.  I was trying to explain why I don't agree with Refuse.  Using the same kind of wording that other posters have used to refute the other choices.  But the implication that players who pick Refuse are arrogant was wrong.  Agree on all your points.