422 réponses à ce sujet

[T-Raks]

inversevideo wrote...

I hear you. I do. But I wonder, if Shepard's attempt had been successful, and her reasoning accepted by Starkid, and it left or self terminated, would you feel the same way?

The only reason you feel that refuse is wrong, is because it failed.
Had refuse succeeded you would be wondering why anyone would make another choice.

Essentially, it is not possible to condemn refuse, as a choice, unless you know where that choice will lead.
If you do not use foreknowledge then refuse is valid. You cannot know that reasoning with it will have disastrous results.

You have been fighting Reapers, in one form or another, for three years.
Suddenly, you are introduced to an AI that tells you it controls the Reapers and it pwns you.
Period. All your fussing, with the Crucible did was present it with new possibilities, but pwns the Crucible as well. About these new possibilities, you can choose to destroy Reapers, but genocide the Geth, you can Infect organic life with Reaper nanites, or you can die, but you knowledge will be passed to a new AI, a new Catalyst that will lead the Reapers. But you have more hope than you know.

Okay, say I believe Starkid, it can see new possibilities, and I have more hope than I know.
So, why would I not believe it and try to reason with it? I've known this Starkid, for all of 5 minutes?
I would not take the opportunity to try and communicate? To reason with it? No?
Based on a 5-10 minute conversation, with the harvester, I would just close my eyes and use the force?

I have to add: I get your reasoning. I just see the situation totally different. To me, we have put the gun on the artificial head of the starbrat with the crucible and it tries to talk me out of our goal of destroying them. So I don't see a point to argue with it more, because there is no justifying of its actions and no point to bargain with the Reapers. Once I know that there is (might be) a way to destroy them, I have heard everything I need to know. 

[TheFinalDoctor]

T-Raks wrote...

I have to add: I get your reasoning. I just see the situation totally different. To me, we have put the gun on the artificial head of the starbrat with the crucible and it tries to talk me out of our goal of destroying them. So I don't see a point to argue with it more, because there is no justifying of its actions and no point to bargain with the Reapers. Once I know that there is (might be) a way to destroy them, I have heard everything I need to know. 

Yeah but its like you have a gun on strchild, but starchild still has a gun in the geth, Why wouldn't at least a pure paragon shep try to talk the catalyst down,

[Maxster_]

T-Raks wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

I hear you. I do. But I wonder, if Shepard's attempt had been successful, and her reasoning accepted by Starkid, and it left or self terminated, would you feel the same way?

The only reason you feel that refuse is wrong, is because it failed.
Had refuse succeeded you would be wondering why anyone would make another choice.

Essentially, it is not possible to condemn refuse, as a choice, unless you know where that choice will lead.
If you do not use foreknowledge then refuse is valid. You cannot know that reasoning with it will have disastrous results.

You have been fighting Reapers, in one form or another, for three years.
Suddenly, you are introduced to an AI that tells you it controls the Reapers and it pwns you.
Period. All your fussing, with the Crucible did was present it with new possibilities, but pwns the Crucible as well. About these new possibilities, you can choose to destroy Reapers, but genocide the Geth, you can Infect organic life with Reaper nanites, or you can die, but you knowledge will be passed to a new AI, a new Catalyst that will lead the Reapers. But you have more hope than you know.

Okay, say I believe Starkid, it can see new possibilities, and I have more hope than I know.
So, why would I not believe it and try to reason with it? I've known this Starkid, for all of 5 minutes?
I would not take the opportunity to try and communicate? To reason with it? No?
Based on a 5-10 minute conversation, with the harvester, I would just close my eyes and use the force?

I have to add: I get your reasoning. I just see the situation totally different. To me, we have put the gun on the artificial head of the starbrat with the crucible and it tries to talk me out of our goal of destroying them. So I don't see a point to argue with it more, because there is no justifying of its actions and no point to bargain with the Reapers. Once I know that there is (might be) a way to destroy them, I have heard everything I need to know. 

You forgot, that the only reason Shepard was not left dying on floor, was because Catalyst sent magic elevator.
Not exactly "gun on the head", i'd say completely opposite.

[AlanC9]

fiendishchicken wrote...

I would've chosen refuse if Bioware didn't troll us.

How is it "trolling" for Bio to give you the choice but refuse to retcon the entire game to turn that choice into a winning option?

[T-Raks]

TheFinalDoctor wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

I have to add: I get your reasoning. I just see the situation totally different. To me, we have put the gun on the artificial head of the starbrat with the crucible and it tries to talk me out of our goal of destroying them. So I don't see a point to argue with it more, because there is no justifying of its actions and no point to bargain with the Reapers. Once I know that there is (might be) a way to destroy them, I have heard everything I need to know. 

Yeah but its like you have a gun on strchild, but starchild still has a gun in the geth, Why wouldn't at least a pure paragon shep try to talk the catalyst down,

The question is: talk down to what? We build the crucible to destroy the Reapers and how that works is on us/previous cycle's organics and not the catalyst. (I still imagine it as some kind of an EMP weapon, just far more advanced, to tackle something specific to an AIs system - that it also tackles the Geth and EDI is a result of them having something in common with the Reapers, not the catalyst trying to do it.) Again: I don't see that sequence as the catalyst offering us to defeat them, but offering us control or synthesis to not use it how we want to (which doesn't mean that they can't be the right choices for some Shepards, though I have a hard time with synthesis)..

Anything that bargaining could bring is more risky than sticking to the plan in my book, but I will say: I listened to some refusal arguments in this thread and I'll concede, that some of those are noble. And I'll add that I hope one of the next single player DLCs will focus on how the crucible was supposed to work, because there is still too much left to speculate/imagine about. I also still don't have good feeling running at the beam without excatly knowing what am I supposed to do once I reach the Citadel. Shouldn't I know where to search for the control panel? Shouldn't there be a working control panel in the first place?

Modifié par T-Raks, 13 octobre 2012 - 10:46 .

[T-Raks]

Maxster_ wrote...

T-Raks wrote...


I have to add: I get your reasoning. I just see the situation totally different. To me, we have put the gun on the artificial head of the starbrat with the crucible and it tries to talk me out of our goal of destroying them. So I don't see a point to argue with it more, because there is no justifying of its actions and no point to bargain with the Reapers. Once I know that there is (might be) a way to destroy them, I have heard everything I need to know. 

You forgot, that the only reason Shepard was not left dying on floor, was because Catalyst sent magic elevator.
Not exactly "gun on the head", i'd say completely opposite.

Hey, I didn't say that the presentation of that ending sequence makes sense.  Far from it. Actually it doesn't make any sense so far. That's why I hope that Omega or the rumored Citadel DLC has something to do with the Crucible. Ah, why did you remind me of that elevator scene... the worst part. Didn't want to think of that right now. You are cruel. 

Modifié par T-Raks, 13 octobre 2012 - 10:40 .

[The Twilight God]

LiarasShield wrote...

Why Did I Choose Refuse You Say?

Destroy: All reapers gone, Intelligence may or may not be dead, everyone can self-determinate
Refuse: Everyone dies pointlessly making Shepard an accomplice to galactic genocide. (depraved indifference)

Psychologist all across the planet are still trying to figure that out why you picked Refuse. currently, no one has any idea. But you're being kept under observation.

[Davik Kang]

inversevideo wrote...
I hear you. I do. But I wonder, if Shepard's attempt had been successful, and her reasoning accepted by Starkid, and it left or self terminated, would you feel the same way?

The only reason you feel that refuse is wrong, is because it failed.
Had refuse succeeded you would be wondering why anyone would make another choice.

I do agree somewhat with this.  It is very easy to bash Refuse by pointing to the consequences.  But you can't criticise a choice for the consequences, only for what the chooser thought the consequences would be.  So if it wasn't clear that Refuse meant certain death for everyone, then a lot of the criticism levelled at Refuse is unjustified.  Whether or not it was clear is another matter (and something I'd prefer not to get into for now, but maybe another time).

Maxster_ wrote...
You forgot, that the only reason Shepard was not left dying on floor, was because Catalyst sent magic elevator.
Not exactly "gun on the head", i'd say completely opposite.

Ok but the 'Magic Elevator' is so called because it's kind of surreal.  I don't think that the StarKid sent the elevator at all.  You could see it as either the Crucible / Citadel connection sending someone up to make the choice after detecting a human presence at the control panel, or you could see it as a metaphor for Shepard's consciousness ascending to a dream like, or hallucinatory, state, depending on how you view the decsion chamber (as real, a hallucination, a dream, etc. etc.).  Either way, I think that it is still Shepard in control of the situation.  The Kid is a passive observer trying to make his logic appeal to Shepard.  So it is more like Shepard holding the gun.

[wantedman dan]

The Twilight God wrote...

Destroy: All reapers gone, Intelligence may or may not be dead, everyone can self-determinate
Refuse: Everyone dies pointlessly making Shepard an accomplice to galactic genocide. (depraved indifference)

Psychologist all across the planet are still trying to figure that out why you picked Refuse. currently, no one has any idea. But you're being kept under observation.

1) In destroy, Shepard commits genocide.
2) How is he an accomplice to galactic genocide?
3) Seeing as how you so happily gloss over your own faults, how about you go seek the assistance of a psychiatrist before prescribing that necessity to others?

[Maxster_]

Davik Kang wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
You forgot, that the only reason Shepard was not left dying on floor, was because Catalyst sent magic elevator.
Not exactly "gun on the head", i'd say completely opposite.

Ok but the 'Magic Elevator' is so called because it's kind of surreal.  I don't think that the StarKid sent the elevator at all.  You could see it as either the Crucible / Citadel connection sending someone up to make the choice after detecting a human presence at the control panel, or you could see it as a metaphor for Shepard's consciousness ascending to a dream like, or hallucinatory, state, depending on how you view the decsion chamber (as real, a hallucination, a dream, etc. etc.). Either way, I think that it is still Shepard in control of the situation.  The Kid is a passive observer trying to make his logic appeal to Shepard.  So it is more like Shepard holding the gun.

Please, don't eat my brain. I need it.

[The Twilight God]

wantedman dan wrote...

1) In destroy, Shepard commits genocide.
2) How is he an accomplice to galactic genocide?
3) Seeing as how you so happily gloss over your own faults, how about you go seek the assistance of a psychiatrist before prescribing that necessity to others?

1. Genocide against the Reapers. Oh, no! Can't have that.
2. Depraved indifference. Look it up.
3. I wouldn't doom the entire galaxy to death because I don't want to commit genocide against the Reapers.

[wantedman dan]

The Twilight God wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

1) In destroy, Shepard commits genocide.
2) How is he an accomplice to galactic genocide?
3) Seeing as how you so happily gloss over your own faults, how about you go seek the assistance of a psychiatrist before prescribing that necessity to others?

1. Genocide against the Reapers. Oh, no! Can't have that.
2. Depraved indifference. Look it up.
3. I wouldn't doom the entire galaxy to death because I don't want to commit genocide against the Reapers.

1) No, against all synthetics. I'm sorry that inconveniences your narrow viewpoint.
2) And how would you prove that?
3) Then you're a fool who can neither judge the intentions of others nor the weight of your own actions.

[The Twilight God]

Davik Kang wrote...

I do agree somewhat with this. It is very easy to bash Refuse by pointing to the consequences. But you can't criticise a choice for the consequences, only for what the chooser thought the consequences would be. So if it wasn't clear that Refuse meant certain death for everyone, then a lot of the criticism levelled at Refuse is unjustified. Whether or not it was clear is another matter (and something I'd prefer not to get into for now, but maybe another time).

It was crystal clear.

It was known going in that conventional victory was not a possibility. Refuse could only end in total defeat. Claiming ignorance of the outcime is a load of horse sh*t.

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...".

On the Normandy after the Mars Archives Liara states, "What are our options? You know we can't win this conventionally." Shepard does not disagree.

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".

On Menae Garrus says, "We both know conventional strategy won't beat the Reapers." Shepard does not dispute this.

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."

Vendetta states, "Resistance is not enough. Conventional means will not defeat the Reapers."

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."

Shepard KNOWS the result. Players can cook up whatever BS reason they want to think otherwise, but the narrative dictates that Shepard KNOWS refuse will end in defeat. Even that silly nonsensical refuse speech says as much.

Trying to rationalize Refuse is like trying to rationalize not shooting TIM on the Citadel. "You only think it's bad because he kills you. But you didn't know he'd actually pull the trigger." Give me a break. 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 14 octobre 2012 - 12:24 .

[The Twilight God]

wantedman dan wrote...

1. Genocide against the Reapers. Oh, no! Can't have that.
2. Depraved indifference. Look it up.
3. I wouldn't doom the entire galaxy to death because I don't want to commit genocide against the Reapers.

1) No, against all synthetics. I'm sorry that inconveniences your narrow viewpoint.
2) And how would you prove that?
3) Then you're a fool who can neither judge the intentions of others nor the weight of your own actions.

1.) Where did you get that idea from? Now you're just making stuff up.
2.) Shepard knowingly stood by and allowed the Reapers to kill everyone when he could have stopped it. It's depraved indifference.
3.) We'll see about that.  

Modifié par The Twilight God, 14 octobre 2012 - 12:19 .

[CommanderVyse]

I choose Refuse because I head canon Shepard winning the war afterwards. Only Liara's hologram says we lost, and that was pre-recorded.

And before anyone tries to refute me with evidence from Twitter.
If Bioware wanted to make something canon they should have put it in the game.

[The Twilight God]

wwinters99 wrote...

I choose Refuse because I head canon Shepard winning the war afterwards. Only Liara's hologram says we lost, and that was pre-recorded.

And before anyone tries to refute me with evidence from Twitter.
If Bioware wanted to make something canon they should have put it in the game.

They could refute you with proof from the game. The Liara message and the words of the female stargazer prove our cycle lost.

[wantedman dan]

The Twilight God wrote...

1.) Where did you get that idea from? Now you're just making stuff up.
2.) Shepard knowingly stood by and allowed the Reapers to kill everyone when he could have stopped it. It's depraved indifference.
3.) We'll see about that.  

Going with the "because I will it, it is so" approach. I see. Good for you and have a nice night.

[frostajulie]

lostmercenary99 wrote...

I chose Refuse because it's the only ending where my Shepard doesn't get character assassinated.

Yep
QFT

[The Twilight God]

wantedman dan wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

1.) Where did you get that idea from? Now you're just making stuff up.
2.) Shepard knowingly stood by and allowed the Reapers to kill everyone when he could have stopped it. It's depraved indifference.
3.) We'll see about that.  

Going with the "because I will it, it is so" approach. I see. Good for you and have a nice night.

Answer the question, coward. Where did you get the idea that all synthetic life is wiped out in Destroy?

You know this is never stated. You know you are about to get your ass handed to you so you tuck tail and run away. "Because I say the Geth die, it is so" is your approach as neither the Kid nor Hackett state any such thing. Hypocrite.

[The Twilight God]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

@The Twilight God
Doesn't the catalyst state "you can destroy all synthetic life if you want to", or something close to that when it mentions the destroy option? What am I missing here? It's been a while since I finished the game.

No, it DID before the EC. That was reconned along with alot of stuff. Furthermore, "the Kid says so" does not prove anything. Some of the stuff it says is disproven in the endings itself and even prior to the ending.

The Twilight God wrote...

The Kid says, "But be warned: others will be destroyed as well. The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic..."

At no point does it ever say the Geth will be eradicated along with the Reapers. It heavily implies it. Just as it never says Shepard will be killed by the Crucible. It heavily implies it. At the end of the day, the only thing it actually says is "all synthetics will be targeted". Not that all synthetics will be destroyed.

When asked for details the Kid goes on to state that, "the effects of the blast will not be constrained to the Reapers. Technology you rely on will be effected, but those who survive should have little difficulty repairing the damage."

So now all we really know is that all synthetics (i.e. technology) will be targeted and affected. The affect on non-reaper synthetics is never elaborated upon.

It ends by saying, "There will still be losses, but no more than what has already been lost."

Once again it is ambiguous. I would personally consider the loss of an entire species to be more than what has already been lost. But that's just me.

It's all in the link on my sig.

Targeting a particular program is impossible.

The Twilight God wrote...

Regardless, a string of code is not something that a blast of energy can defect as it will vary based on the affiliated hardware/storage medium. A program is representation of ones and zeros (or twos, threes. fours, etc. in the future) within a medium. No standard configuration, no standard hardware and no standard matter. There is no way to isolate such a general concept as it has no definitive qualities even on an atomic level. It would have to attack either all technology or a specific hardware configuration. Otherwise, the energy blast itself would require the inteligence, the speed of discernment and conscious awareness to be able to point out and disciminate in real-time on a case by case basis. That would be reaching and downright ridiculous.

If we are going to make assumptions based on its IMPLICATIONS then you have to also include: 

1. The destruction of synthetic life (including EDI)
2. The deaths of those dependent on cybernetic augmentation (which includes all Quarians, Shepard and Kasumi),
3. A technological apocalypse (i.e. no ship flying around afterwards) 
4. The collapse of galactic civilization as we know it. Everyone is back to the stone age.
How people get off cherry picking which implications to believe in and which ones to ignore is beyond me.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 14 octobre 2012 - 02:06 .

[AlanC9]

frostajulie wrote...

lostmercenary99 wrote...

I chose Refuse because it's the only ending where my Shepard doesn't get character assassinated.

Yep
QFT

So your Shepards' characters would lead them to let the whole galaxy be destroyed rather than accept the victory sitting right in front of them?

[Aaleel]

AlanC9 wrote...

frostajulie wrote...

lostmercenary99 wrote...

I chose Refuse because it's the only ending where my Shepard doesn't get character assassinated.

Yep
QFT

So your Shepards' characters would lead them to let the whole galaxy be destroyed rather than accept the victory sitting right in front of them?

I guess the reasoning is that they can say I didn't cause these peoples' deaths the reapers killed them.  So their hands are clean, even though the really aren't.

Modifié par Aaleel, 14 octobre 2012 - 02:06 .

[wantedman dan]

The Twilight God wrote...

Answer the question, coward. Where did you get the idea that all synthetic life is wiped out in Destroy?

You know this is never stated. You know you are about to get your ass handed to you so you tuck tail and run away. "Because I say the Geth die, it is so" is your approach as neither the Kid nor Hackett state any such thing. Hypocrite.

Ooh, e-thuggery. Because I care to argue with that.