422 réponses à ce sujet

[Zazzerka]

You were supposed to be Liara's shield, OP.
I trusted you. >.<

[CommanderVyse]

The Twilight God wrote...

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.

The female stargazer (which looks like an asari) says we fought a terrible battle so they did not have to. She does not say Shepard looses.

[The Twilight God]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

I never threatened you.

And you are a coward. You KNOW you are wrong and you're avoiding addressing the points made as not to openly admit it. Coward.

[wantedman dan]

The Twilight God wrote...

I never threatened you.

And you are a coward. You KNOW you are wrong and you're avoiding addressing the points made as not to openly admit it. Coward.

Ethuggery has various definitions; threatening someone is merely one facet of such.

Petulance reveals itself in a myriad of ways; yours evidences at least one reason I'm not going to go point-by-point as to why I disagree with you. Another is that I've already fleshed this debate out multiple times. I'm not going to have the same debate, over and over, and expect people to act rationally. That's insanity, as Einstein has been so entheusiastically attributed to define it.

Contine on, wayward son. The only one looking foolish here is you.

[Vargeisa]

www.youtube.com/watch

[The Twilight God]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

It's logical and makes sense, but that sounds like that it's going deeper than the writers intent.  You're applying real life principles to sci-fi, right? I understand that they need to accomodate a reasonable suspension of disbelief without forcing you to stretch too far in the overall context of things.

You could go a few steps further and say that there is no such thing as biotics or eezo, for example.  The way that I see it is that the only truth is what you're shown.  Of course not everything that we're shown is consistent.  There are contradictions.  Otherwise everything else is left up to the individual player to deduce.

Or am I misinterpreting your post? To your credit, I would say that it looks like that you've given it as much thought as the writers, or at least been more consistent.

I'm playing within the rules established. MEU is not high fantasy. For the most part it operates on the same principles as modern science. There is no magic sentient waves of energy.

Eezo are an established reality of the mass effect universe. The mass effect exists and otherwise works within the framework of modern physics. Although Biotics are space magic they are magic that is directed by conscious thought. The Biotic attacks themselves aren't alive. You can't create a singularity and then have it take on a life of its own after the caster has left the room. It can't pick out only people with wedding ringsd or blue underwear. 

If you say the Geth all die, you are cherry picking. Plain and simple. Either ALL the implicates must turn out to be true or none. You can't just pick AI annihilation and ignore all the rest. If the other stuff do not occur on what basis can you say the AI part occurs? The Kid didn't lie, per say, as it was only an implication (an indirect one at that). But the fact remains, it did not say anything to the effect of all AI's dying. That would be your chosen headcanon and you would be welcome to believe it. But don't flaunt it around as established fact. There is just as much evidence that the Geth all die as there is that the turians on Palaven and Menae die in Destroy and Control. Just as much evidence tha the Asari on Thessia all die in Synthesis.

[Davik Kang]

The Twilight God wrote...
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.

In all honesty I agree, just didn't want to get into a massive argument at the time.  Instinctively many players will lean towards Refuse, but give it some thought and you can accept the situation.

The Twilight God wrote...
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.

The posts of the Kid dialogie were very interesting.  About this list, I agree that if #1 is implied then #2 is implied, because the augmentations will fail, but death results only in reference to those dependent on augmentation.  Are Shepard, Kasumi and the Quarians really dependent on their augmentations?  The Quarians for example rely on their augmentation to avoid sickness, but that sickness can presumably be treated, like for example when they get a tear in their suit while in a non-sterilised place.  But would they necessarily all die?  Would Shepard and Kasumi necessarily die if their augmentations failed?  I'm not convinced that this follows from #1.  It's possible but not necessary.  

Also, about #4, we are told that repairs to the destroyed machinery will be possible, and the extent of damage isn't reaslly covered.  So while it's possible that ships, buildings, electrical grids, computer systems, etc. etc. will require months or even years to fix, it's also possible that the repairs to a spaceship, for example, could be done from within the ship itself.  Not useful if that ship is being pulled quickly into a nearby gravitational orbit, but no so bad for those further out into space.

What I'm saying is, I agree with your cherry-picking argument, but the severity of effects on non-living synthetic material isn't really implied.  So a kind of second-tier cherry picking is possible without being silly.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 14 octobre 2012 - 04:14 .

[The Twilight God]

wwinters99 wrote...

The female stargazer (which looks like an asari) says we fought a terrible battle so they did not have to. She does not say Shepard looses.

Wrong.

Liara: We fouhgt the Reapers, but we FAILED TO STOP THEM. We did everything we could. We built the Crucible, but it didn't work. We fought as a united Galaxy, but IT WASN'T ENOUGH. I only hope the information in this capsule is enough to help you before it's too late.

1. Liara straight up states they failed.
2. She says the Crucible didn't work which means it was post-Earth and Shepard never told anyone that he betrayed them all and left them out to dry (was probably killed on the Citadel). So the battle over Earth was a defeat and the Normandy escaped, presumably after the Crucible was blown away(probably how Shep died). If the Crucible was blown away then the fleets were decimated.
3. The entire might of the galaxy was not enough. They were all at Earth. They lost. That was the greatest force we could assemble and they lost against a mere fraction of reaper forces.
4. The capsule is undergorund on an undeveloped world in hopes that it will be discovered before it's too late.

Stargazer: They fought a terrible war so that we wouldn't have to.
Child: And that's why we have peace?
Stargazer: Yes. Without everything they accomplished, without the information they passed down, we too would be threatened.

The Stargazer's people never had to fight. They did not have to fight based on what was in Liara's archive. Why would they need Liara's archive if history continued unbroken? How is it that they were never threatened as a direct result of Liara's archive if we won the war and they are our decendents? Wouldn't they not be threatened because their ancestors won? Given what we know the only rational explaination is that they built the Crucible prior to the Reaper's return and sprung it on them when they first showed up or fired it into darkspace (via the Citadel) while they hibernated.

Liara and the Stagazer are a testment to the fact that everyone dies in refuse. There is no way around it. No interpretation. Just hard cold facts.

[The Twilight God]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

@The Twilight God

Just to clarify.  If you do dig deeper and present the facts as you see them, then more power to you.  I read some of your post (s).  You obviously have an interest in it.  I wasn't trying to disparage you.  I like sci-fi too.

I was only trying to point out that all we have for certain is what's shown to us in the game.  The topics here can only be debated so far, once they go outside the confines of that, then the battle gets a little foggy.  I'm guilty of doing it myself.

And what is shown to us in the game? Definitely not the geth all dying. It's not even so much as stated that such a thing would happen. Yet, people insist on claiming otherwise when they know - THEY KNOW - they are full of it.

[The Twilight God]

wantedman dan wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

I never threatened you.

And you are a coward. You KNOW you are wrong and you're avoiding addressing the points made as not to openly admit it. Coward.

Ethuggery has various definitions; threatening someone is merely one facet of such.

Petulance reveals itself in a myriad of ways; yours evidences at least one reason I'm not going to go point-by-point as to why I disagree with you. Another is that I've already fleshed this debate out multiple times. I'm not going to have the same debate, over and over, and expect people to act rationally. That's insanity, as Einstein has been so entheusiastically attributed to define it.

Contine on, wayward son. The only one looking foolish here is you.

Fact: Nobody ever says that all synthetic life will be annihilated.
Fact: It is never shown that all synthetic life is annihilated
Fact: You cherry picked the belief that all AI's were annihilated out of a group of other indirectly implied possibilities which you choose to ignore despite the fact that they clearly do not occur.

If all AI are destroyed based on an indirect implication then so is all technology and all people with cybernetics based on that very same implication. You're a cherry picker who WANTS all synthetic life to be destroyed because you think it will justify your decision to kill EVERYONE, synthetic and organic.

You're not going point by point becuase you have no point. I'm right. You're wrong. You KNOW you're wrong and your inability to demonstrate otherwise demonstrates your de facto agreement. Don't ****** in my ear and tell me it's raining. You can emotionally reject facts and choose to be willfully ignorant, but intectually you have no choice but to agree with facts. You could not, cannot and will not dispute the indisputable.

[frostajulie]

The Twilight God wrote...



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.

People who say this are either stupid or have not played the previous 2 installments in the trilogy or video games since their inception.  Every video game that has ever been made has ended with victory.  it is the standard expectation that if you push on to the end of a ideo game that you will beat it as in win.

ME1 and ME2 BOTH said you were up against impossible odds and in both games you win.ME3 should have been NO different.  Yeah characters tell you conventional victory is not a possibility its called story, ambience, mood and tone.  But I again will say look at the previous games they said the same mother****ing thing and both times Shepard kicks ass.

Every game from Super mario bothers to Diablo and ME1 and 2 ends with winning the game if you play it write.  Refuse could have and should have been a potential victory because the precedent had been set and no one sets out to play 30 hours of video game just to feel like an utter failure at the end because in the end nothing even matterred.

[frostajulie]

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?

  Its not a victory when the choice is becoming the enemy absolute power corrupts absolutely, genetically raping all galactic civilization by turnng them into species that suspiciously resemble mini reapers synthetic organic hybrids alterred at the genetic level without consent, or genocide against an entire synthetic species based on the flawed premise of an AI that may or may not be telling the truth.

Add to the fact that when Shepard chooses Refuse she is putting her faith and fate as well as the fate of the galaxy into the hands of a galaxy she believes can win and even if they don't at least retain the thing that makes them different from the reapers, their humanity.  And yes that is worth galactic extinction, if it was no we would have played the part of Saren in Mass effect 1 but my Shepard believes in the united forces of the Galaxy Strength through diversity, victory through unity and the unyeilding will to live life and die on their terms not the dictated demands of a broken AI.

When victory feels like failure its not victory.  My Shepard would rather die free than live as a slave.  The rest of the galaxy supports these ideas fo the most part or else Saren would have been the hero of this adventure.

[MegaSovereign]

GT Zazzerka wrote...

You were supposed to be Liara's shield, OP.
I trusted you. >.<

This. If you choose Refusal then you hate Liara.

[Red Panda]

lostmercenary99 wrote...

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

Nope, just the galaxy by BLACK SCREEN™!!!

War assets don't compare to the BLACK SCREEN™.

[Red Panda]

frostajulie wrote...

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?

  Its not a victory when the choice is becoming the enemy absolute power corrupts absolutely, genetically raping all galactic civilization by turnng them into species that suspiciously resemble mini reapers synthetic organic hybrids alterred at the genetic level without consent, or genocide against an entire synthetic species based on the flawed premise of an AI that may or may not be telling the truth.

Add to the fact that when Shepard chooses Refuse she is putting her faith and fate as well as the fate of the galaxy into the hands of a galaxy she believes can win and even if they don't at least retain the thing that makes them different from the reapers, their humanity.  And yes that is worth galactic extinction, if it was no we would have played the part of Saren in Mass effect 1 but my Shepard believes in the united forces of the Galaxy Strength through diversity, victory through unity and the unyeilding will to live life and die on their terms not the dictated demands of a broken AI.

When victory feels like failure its not victory.  My Shepard would rather die free than live as a slave.  The rest of the galaxy supports these ideas fo the most part or else Saren would have been the hero of this adventure.

But in the end, this cycle survives.

Victory no matter the cost? Or is the cost to high for you?

Figures that a worthless N7 and subpar spectre would choke on the hard decisions.

[Gemini1179]

silentassassin264 wrote...

So you are spoiled and didn't get what you wanted so you doomed your entire cycle who was counting on you using the Crucible to save them? Okay.

I'm actually really suprised that this lasted 9 posts before the first of these popped up...

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I chose refuse because I didn't feel the EC would be worth the HD space.

[The Twilight God]

Davik Kang wrote...

In all honesty I agree, just didn't want to get into a massive argument at the time.  Instinctively many players will lean towards Refuse, but give it some thought and you can accept the situation.

For me it was always Destroy. The idea that because you don't like what has to be done excuses you from doing what has to be done is childish. Tough. You have no choice. You either destroy them, thinking you will kill the Geth, or the Geth all die anyway along with everyone else. Or worst, become a  brainwashed reaper themselves and end up doing the exact same thing to the next cycle. There is no rationalizing Refuse.

If Shepard utilizes the Crucible to destroy the Reapers the collateral damage is as follows in their eyes:

1. The Geth perish (maybe) - There is no evidence to support this claim, but there is evidence to refute it.

If Shepard chooses "freedom" the devastation is as follows:

1. The Geth perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
2. Humanity perishes or is enslaved in reaper form.
3. The Asari perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
4. The Turians perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
5. The Salarians perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
6. The Quarians perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
7. The Krogan perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
8. The Volus perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
9. The Elcor perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
10. The Hanar perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
11. The Drell perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
12. The Batarians perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
13. The Rachni perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
14. The Vorcha perish or are enslaved in reaper form.
15. Not to mention any other space-faring species who aren't shown in game.

Davik Kang wrote...

The posts of the Kid dialogie were very interesting.  About this list, I agree that if #1 is implied then #2 is implied, because the augmentations will fail, but death results only in reference to those dependent on augmentation.  Are Shepard, Kasumi and the Quarians really dependent on their augmentations?  The Quarians for example rely on their augmentation to avoid sickness, but that sickness can presumably be treated, like for example when they get a tear in their suit while in a non-sterilised place.  But would they necessarily all die?  Would Shepard and Kasumi necessarily die if their augmentations failed?  I'm not convinced that this follows from #1.  It's possible but not necessary.  

Shepard and Kasumi? Yes. A grey box cannot ever be removed. If it fails she is braindead. Shepard has an synthetic spine in three places. One of which is at the neck (looked like c3 or c4 vertebrae). He would not be able to breathe on his own if that piece failed. If the Quarian ships fail all their food dies so they all starve (if the liveships weren't already destroyed, the air filters on the suits fail, their antibiotic injectors fail. It will cause epidemics for sure.

Davik Kang wrote...

Also, about #4, we are told that repairs to the destroyed machinery will be possible, and the extent of damage isn't reaslly covered.  So while it's possible that ships, buildings, electrical grids, computer systems, etc. etc. will require months or even years to fix, it's also possible that the repairs to a spaceship, for example, could be done from within the ship itself.  Not useful if that ship is being pulled quickly into a nearby gravitational orbit, but no so bad for those further out into space.

What I'm saying is, I agree with your cherry-picking argument, but the severity of effects on non-living synthetic material isn't really implied.  So a kind of second-tier cherry picking is possible without being silly.

I agree to an extent. However, you're taking it out of the context of this discussion. The destruction of all synthetic life implies the destruction of everything else. Now I'm not saying that's what happens or what's implied, but that's what is being claimed by people saying the Geth all die. Even now you say "the severity of effects on non-living synthetic material isn't really implied." Davik, the effects on so-called "living synthetic material" isn't really implied. There is no such thing as living synthetiic material other than maybe synthesized material (i.e. husks and reaper "terminators"). Geth are software only. At no point is "synthetic life" ever mentioned. "Synthetics" are defined by the Kid itself as "technology you rely on" within the context of the conversation it is having with Shepard. I cannot reiterate enough that there is never a distinction made between "synthetic life" and "technology". It says nothing about AI's being wiped out. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

So, if someone is gonna jump the gun and cherry pick out AI's as totally destroyed then you have to point out everything else as totally destroyed as they all have the same level of implication. You can't just pick and choose random consequencies that aren't supported by the narrative. The only reason these people insist that the Geth die is because the Geth being alive makes Refuse even dumber. This is them trying to legitimize refuse as a morale choice. Thing is, even if Destroy killed every single space-faring civilization it would still be objectively superior than refuse. On an emotional level I could see Shepard picking Control and Synthesis if that were the case. In that scenario I could understand the psycho-emotional hope and need to trust the reapers as Shepard has no real connection to any hypothetical future cycle who would pay the price.  

[The Twilight God]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Maybe so.  Synthesis instantly hybridizing all life in the galaxy sounds pretty close to high fantasy. 

Actually, it doesn't really hybridize anything. That is physically impossible without a massive transformation (which could occur off scene after the credits, but then it wouldn;t be instant). All synthesis is is typical reaper nanite tech super charged with the Crucible. Pay attention to what is happening in synthesis. What the CGI actually shows.

If you're intersted I go into detail here:  http://social.biowar...4701/1#14384701

It's alot of stuff and can't be properly covered in a short post. Put short and simply: Self replicating naites don't require much to spread and transfrom a person over time. Synthesis either turns people into husk-like creatures with sentients or it just indoctrinates everyone, but the stuff shown in the ending (in and of itself) cannot solve the problem the Kid asserts. In the link above I explain why.

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

I remembered what the Catalyst said, but that was the original ending.  At most all you can say now is that some synthetics may or most likely will perish.  If those quotes you gave are accurate, then anything beyond that is speculation.

Most likely will perish? There is no distinction made between AI and any other technology. If you're going to say some AI or most will perish the same has to apply to ALL OTHER TECHNOLOGY because no distinction is made. You cannot cherry pick one particular subset and say that group will perish, but all the others who are ALL included in "technology you rely on" are exempt. Geth don't even really fit that description.

[Vicious]

I picked the ending because the game hammers you over the head and shoulders over how screwed you are and how you have no chance no matter how hard you fight. The galaxy was simply not ready. Thematically, losing the fight fit the overall tragic tone of the game better than deus ex machina.


I used to go destroy, destroy, destroy and hope that things would work out. But now I get the extended cut ending where even though i get post-endgame slides and my funeral held by my companions, I STILL see Shepard intake breath at the end... Yeah, that just made the whole thing stupid.


But then, i'm the guy who would have accepted if Shepard was flash fried by Harbinger in the final charge and the whole ending sequence was a death induced fever dream. Because again, the game beat me over the head and shoulders that Shepard, for all that he had done, was still just one man/woman with mortal limits. The battle could be won by someone else, Shepard had gotten them all together, maybe that was enough.

But that was my view on vanilla ending. Now it's pretty obvious that I was horribly wrong and Shepard is indeed a unique and uberlicious snowflake.

Modifié par Vicious, 14 octobre 2012 - 06:16 .

[teamamerica2]

I choose refuse because its the only ending that fits the theme of the game (determinism vs self determinism not that terminator crap)

[ediskrad327]

LiarasShield wrote...

Because I still saw it as shepard fighting against the reapers and not siding with them to find a solution that they wanted to have happended or offered

so it's better to just let them walk away and exterminate the cycle?