435 réponses à ce sujet

[Shinnyshin]

drayfish wrote...
Making a deal with the genocidal monster that is proudly declaring he wants to wipe you and everyone you care for out of existence, the guy who is asking you to mutate, massacre or potentially dominate your own people in order to serve his will...?  

Yes, I thought it was worth the risk to believe that the fleet of people I care for (and do not want to harm) may have a fighting chance over giving up and buying into this guy's hopeless racist screed.

Not to mention that you walked through a corridor of corpses to get to him.   The walkway there was cluttered with human bodies EVERYWHERE.  Forboding much?  The AI happens to take a form that plays on Shep's somehow-known weakness to make itself more sympathetic.  If my Shep ran into that "kid", my first thought would be the entire conversation is a trap and the thing is stalling for time while it disables the Catalyst or preps a battle plan.

And once it opens its mouth, it seems very likely that this...entity is a rogue AI that waged--maybe even lead--a war against organics.  Which it won and has turned into dozens--maybe hundreds--of consecutive genocides.  I, the gamer, know that Refuse has terrible consequences and Control/Synth are the magical happy options.  But my Shepard would be treating this entity as hostile.  The only reason I wasn't shooting it after the first sentence is that the developers wouldn't let me--plus I'd have to use that god-awful limp-aiming stuff.  And given the cinematic leading into these scenes, the allied fleets were actually doing very well.

Let me put it this way.  Without MY knowledge, would a Shepard of that disposition leap to trust the insane, deluded, poorly programmed, biggest mass murderer in the history of history whose main tool is deception and manipulation?  Some might.  But you can certainly understand some not doing that.

My interpretation of "Refuse", when making it, wasn't that I gave up.  It wasn't that I ceded the battle and everything was lost, time for everyone to die.  It was that we might have a chance, an actual chance, and suddenly the master manipulator organic-killer shows up in front of me and starts telling me what my options are and that I have to play by its rules and do what it wants.  Why on EARTH would I listen to it?  Isn't that basically surrender?  I have NO way of wondering what the catch is, what the real meaning of each option is.  So why would I listen to the single most dangerous, hostile enemy in the history of the universe whose primary modus operandi involve tricking organics?

That was my refuse Shep, at least.  My Synth Shep also had perfectly good, in-character reasons for doing so.

Modifié par Shinnyshin, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:22 .

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...I don't care what the Catalyst's nature is, all I want to do is stop the harvest. If I die from one of those choices, the result is the same as me dying from not making a choice: the galaxy is doomed. I have nothing to lose anymore.

Good grief - why would you be willing to wager the future of the galaxy without first understanding the Catalyst or its solutions?

Because refuse absolutely would mean losing. It better to try something with the chance of stopping the reapers then trying it in away that has no way of doing so.

[xxskyshadowxx]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 This is a rule that you can't live without if you want to stay in school...

D'you ever try and stop the Reapers? Make them just stop what they're doing instead of Destroying/Synthesizing with them? Just pick Control ya dummy! Why didn't you think of that??

Cuz Shepard has refused that option since the first game, and shouldn't be pigeon-holed into accepting ANY option offered by the Reaper Overlord.

[dreman9999]

Shinnyshin wrote...

drayfish wrote...
Making a deal with the genocidal monster that is proudly declaring he wants to wipe you and everyone you care for out of existence, the guy who is asking you to mutate, massacre or potentially dominate your own people in order to serve his will...?  

Yes, I thought it was worth the risk to believe that the fleet of people I care for (and do not want to harm) may have a fighting chance over giving up and buying into this guy's hopeless racist screed.

Not to mention that you walked through a corridor of corpses to get to him.   The walkway there was cluttered with human bodies EVERYWHERE.  Forboding much?  The AI happens to take a form that plays on Shep's somehow-known weakness to make itself more sympathetic.  If my Shep ran into that "kid", my first thought would be the entire conversation is a trap and the thing is stalling for time while it disables the Catalyst or preps a battle plan.

And once it opens its mouth, it seems very likely that this...entity is a rogue AI that waged--maybe even lead--a war against organics.  Which it won and has turned into dozens--maybe hundreds--of consecutive genocides.  I, the gamer, know that Refuse has terrible consequences and Control/Synth are the magical happy options.  But my Shepard would be treating this entity as hostile.  The only reason I wasn't shooting it after the first sentence is that the developers wouldn't let me--plus I'd have to use that god-awful limp-aiming stuff.  And given the cinematic leading into these scenes, the allied fleets were actually doing very well.

Let me put it this way.  Without MY knowledge, would a Shepard of that disposition leap to trust the insane, deluded, poorly programmed, biggest mass murderer in the history of history whose main tool is deception and manipulation?  Some might.  But you can certainly understand some not doing that.

But your missing on key thing, you already know refuse it means losing.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Making a deal with the genocidal monster that is proudly declaring he wants to wipe you and everyone you care for out of existence, the guy who is asking you to mutate, massacre or potentially dominate your own people in order to serve his will...? 

Yes, I thought it was worth the risk to believe that the fleet of people I care for (and do not want to harm) may have a fighting chance over giving up and buying into this guy's hopeless racist screed.

I don't care what the Catalyst's nature is, all I want to do is stop the harvest. If I die from one of those choices, the result is the same as me dying from not making a choice: the galaxy is doomed. I have nothing to lose anymore.

For me it was in no way about Shepard. She was already dead - bleeding out, she'd given her all. It wasn't her sacrifice I (or she) was concerned with. At that point it was the spirit of the universe.

Shepard had gathered the largest force in the galaxy, a unified armada, fighting for its very survival, for the right to live, to prove themselves worthy of the gift of existence. For her to then throw that away for them - to homogenise them into a dreary genetic blah; or to take their freedom away by dominating them as an uber-being (no matter how noble her intentions); or to weigh up the value of lives like some sociopathic statistician (Geths do not equal Organics, so they can die) - she would do more than just throw herself on the fire, or even sacrifice some of her own men, she would have killed the spirit of communion and faith that had gathered them all together in the first place.

She would have become a Reaper herself, judgementally imposing her will on everyone, and devaluing the sanctity of life that everyone thought they were fighting for.

By Refusing she was holding firm to her faith in that conflagration of noble spirits, the belief that unified they could do mighty things because they held respect for others most sacred.

And again, just because the writers wanted to belittle her for holding firm to that belief is on them, and their vile cynicism.  Not her.

[dreman9999]

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 This is a rule that you can't live without if you want to stay in school...

D'you ever try and stop the Reapers? Make them just stop what they're doing instead of Destroying/Synthesizing with them? Just pick Control ya dummy! Why didn't you think of that??

Cuz Shepard has refused that option since the first game, and shouldn't be pigeon-holed into accepting ANY option offered by the Reaper Overlord.

1. Shepard did not refuse control since ME1.

2.The grand question of ME is what are you willing to do  and sacrifice to stop an unstoppable force. Being pigeon-holed into making choice is what the series is about.

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...I don't care what the Catalyst's nature is, all I want to do is stop the harvest. If I die from one of those choices, the result is the same as me dying from not making a choice: the galaxy is doomed. I have nothing to lose anymore.

Good grief - why would you be willing to wager the future of the galaxy without first understanding the Catalyst or its solutions?

I'll do my best in the extremely limited time that I have, and from that, I decided that Control was the best option.

And this last throw of the dice to make the very best case for Contol?

It's the best throw of the dice we have without changing ever thing or cummiting genocide. It 's the lease immoral choice on hand.

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:25 .

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Making a deal with the genocidal monster that is proudly declaring he wants to wipe you and everyone you care for out of existence, the guy who is asking you to mutate, massacre or potentially dominate your own people in order to serve his will...? 

Yes, I thought it was worth the risk to believe that the fleet of people I care for (and do not want to harm) may have a fighting chance over giving up and buying into this guy's hopeless racist screed.

I don't care what the Catalyst's nature is, all I want to do is stop the harvest. If I die from one of those choices, the result is the same as me dying from not making a choice: the galaxy is doomed. I have nothing to lose anymore.

For me it was in no way about Shepard. She was already dead - bleeding out, she'd given her all. It wasn't her sacrifice I (or she) was concerned with. At that point it was the spirit of the universe.

Shepard had gathered the largest force in the galaxy, a unified armada, fighting for its very survival, for the right to live, to prove themselves worthy of the gift of existence. For her to then throw that away for them - to homogenise them into a dreary genetic blah; or to take their freedom away by dominating them as an uber-being (no matter how noble her intentions); or to weigh up the value of lives like some sociopathic statistician (Geths do not equal Organics, so they can die) - she would do more than just throw herself on the fire, or even sacrifice some of her own men, she would have killed the spirit of communion and faith that had gathered them all together in the first place.

She would have become a Reaper herself, judgementally imposing her will on everyone, and devaluing the sanctity of life that everyone thought they were fighting for.

By Refusing she was holding firm to her faith in that conflagration of noble spirits, the belief that unified they could do mighty things because they held respect for others most sacred.

And again, just because the writers wanted to belittle her for holding firm to that belief is on them, and their vile cynicism.  Not her.

Then TIM was right about your Shepard: idealism did doom the galaxy in that case. When you break away from seeking the best possible outcome into doing things for the sake of the ideals themselves instead of the life they're supposed to serve, then they become weights dragging you and everyone around you down. The "spirit of communion and faith" will be just as killed if everyone who was feeling it is dead, plus every other possible spirit and life that may have come out of them.

And this last throw of the dice to make the very best case for Contol?

Wait, what are you asking?

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...I don't care what the Catalyst's nature is, all I want to do is stop the harvest. If I die from one of those choices, the result is the same as me dying from not making a choice: the galaxy is doomed. I have nothing to lose anymore.

Good grief - why would you be willing to wager the future of the galaxy without first understanding the Catalyst or its solutions?

Because refuse absolutely would mean losing. It better to try something with the chance of stopping the reapers then trying it in away that has no way of doing so.

Yeah, you're metagaming again Dreman. If you have no case to make beyond 'it was worth a try', don't bother.

No , i'm not. Even with out metagaming we know that we can't beat the reaper conventinally. It we list everything in the ccodex and inthe last 2 games, it clear we can't.

If we refuse we will lose.

[Shinnyshin]

dreman9999 wrote...
]But your missing on key thing, you already know refuse it means losing.

No, I don't.  Or rather, my Shepard doesn't--the game's messages are mixed.  I do know that.  And that's why it hurts when I click the button.  Because to do what my Shepard would do, I have to (as a player) do what I know won't end well.

A mass-murdering master-manipulator is telling me I have to play by his rules or I lose.  Why is not believing him any more risky, from my character's perspective, than taking his word as gospel?  Also, the side-effects of what I'm being manipulated into choosing might be FAR worse than losing.

From my character's perspective, it's MORE likely that this insane AI will trick me into choosing something that will stop the catalyst from working and that on its own it would naturally kick in soon.

Modifié par Shinnyshin, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:28 .

[Noelemahc]

Davik Kang wrote...

But about the Refuse justification.  I think it does set Shepard above and apart from everybody.  Because I think it is Shepard saving herself for the sake of her morals.  It is the only ending where she doesn't physically kill herself, but instead just lets herself die, and others around her.  And the only person she protects in doing this is herself.  Note that I'm not supporting suicide, but more pointing out that Refuse is not just a refusal to sacrifice herself, but a refusal to sacrifice her principles.

Again, you seem to exist in a perpetual conviction that Shepard drops dead the moment Starchild says "SO BE IT", and so does everybody else. The Prothean cycle was the least prepared to deal with the Reaper threat well and it fought back for centuries.

In short, I think the dialogue at the end makes it clear that Refuse means refusing to use the Crucible.  But we already knew that the Crucible was the only thing that could stop the Reapers.  That's why we committed so much of the war effort into building it, at the expense of protecting other worlds and fighting the Reapers.

So by picking Refuse, you're putting down your gun; you're saying, I give up, I won't make this kind of choice; you're saying, we'll all lose this together.  You'd rather die than do something terrible.  But you have to do somehting terrible.  Even picking up a gun and shooting at enemies is terrible.  Fighting someone is terrible, but you have to do it, otherwise you just let them beat you up. 

Good point, but it has one flaw. All of this hinges on the fact that Shepard can't say, way back on Mars, "Can we please not use this Aperture Science We-Don't-Know-What-It-Does Device and instead go ask the Quarians what was that fancy thing they used to disablerize the Geth to mess them up so bad the Geth went running scared to the Reapers for help? Maybe we can bootstrap that thing to a bigger battery?"

He can't say "Remember that one time, we discovered the Citadel is the centerpoint of Reaper plans of galactic domination? Let's booby-trap the gorram thing, and use a squad of drell suicide fighters to blowerize it up when they arrive to take it? We have this dude's research into what makes the Citadel tick, we still have time to find a way to decentralize the Reaper war effort. Or, failing that, the Citadel has this thing I found way back four years ago, you know, that lets us turn Mass Relays on and off at will? Let's seal off the Batarian sector, it's lost anyway, we'll see how the Reapers enjoy having to spend 25 years to leave it."

ET CETERA.

[DrGunjah]

Davik Kang wrote...
About your first point, I know you've posted in my interpretation thread, and there are a number of other interpretations too, including TTG's Deception theory, that argue that the Kid does not offer you Destroy at all.  He tells you about it because he cannot conceal it.  

Different players have different interpretations of why that is exactly, but the point remains, the Kid doesn't offer you Derstroy.  He just tries to dissuade you from picking it.  You already know the Crucible can Destroy the Reapers, and if you decide otherwise, that is 100% because of the Kid.  Everything up until that scene had told you the Crucible will destroy them.  So why refuse it based on a conversation with that Kid?

We can nitpick about what "offer" means, but the fact is he says something like "you can destroy us now, go down there and shoot the tube, but...".
Not offering to me means rather something like "oh uhm don't care about that tube dude, that's just power cable for my tv.."
And yes, we always assume the crucible will destroy them. But do we really know it? IIRC when finding the plans you tell the council "we think it can destroy them", later hackett tells you something like "it seems like it has enough energy to destroy the reapers, but we still have to find out how to release that energy". And that is even before we reach the catalyst to notice they have obviously prepared for a scenario where the crucible gets attached. Unless I'm missing something (which is possible) nobody except for holokid really states "yes, if you push this button, you will destroy us"

Remember, your option isn't to say "I don't believe you".  Your option is to say "Then I won;t use the Crucible... I can't/won't make that choice".  So in Refuse you are clearly stating you won;t use the Crucible.  And why not?  Because of what the kid said?  That makes no sense.

But using an ancient superweapon without having a clue what exactly happens makes sense? Imagine you kill all life all over the galaxy by using the crucible. Every civilization, every primitive species, every animal, every plant, etc. And even if you prefer this scenario then you still had no evidence it would actually kill the reapers for all times since no one ever tried it.

Onto your second point, you didn't actually say what you thought would happen.  So I still don't understand your argument.  To say Bioware didn't give Refuse what it "deserves", when Bioware were the ones who wrote it and decided what happens, seems bizarre.  It's like saying they didn't give your story the credit it deserves, as if you wrote it.  But they wrote it.  The option, the dialogue and what happens afterwards is entirely theirs.  You just pick between it and the others.

Well, basically, we keep fighting and probably lose. Maybe this is what happens but is not shown. It's frustrating because shepard does nothing, he doesn't try to radio hackett or EDI or whatever. It indeed looks like giving up. But well, isn't it ironic? shepard makes that speech about doing everything he could and then gives up. Seems legit...
Honestly, I think none of the endings had the presentation they deserved, so what are my options now? alt + f4 ? None of the endings really makes sense or makes me feel good unless I ignore all the flaws in their logic.

Oh and everyone has the right to play the game the way he wants. My approach is roleplaying so I don't make the final choice depending on my knowledge as the player. Honestly, I don't get the whole point of choices when metagaming.

[Xilizhra]

He can't say "Remember that one time, we discovered the Citadel is the centerpoint of Reaper plans of galactic domination? Let's booby-trap the gorram thing, and use a squad of drell suicide fighters to blowerize it up when they arrive to take it? We have this dude's research into what makes the Citadel tick, we still have time to find a way to decentralize the Reaper war effort. Or, failing that, the Citadel has this thing I found way back four years ago, you know, that lets us turn Mass Relays on and off at will? Let's seal off the Batarian sector, it's lost anyway, we'll see how the Reapers enjoy having to spend 25 years to leave it."

Erm, it didn't take 25 years to fly all the way from dark space; why do you think it'd take longer to leave one small corner of the galaxy?

[dreman9999]

Shinnyshin wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
]But your missing on key thing, you already know refuse it means losing.

No, I don't.  Or rather, my Shepard doesn't--the game's messages are mixed.  I do know that.  And that's why it hurts when I click the button.  Because to do what my Shepard would do, I have to (as a player) do what I know won't end well.

A mass-murdering master-manipulator is telling me I have to play by his rules or I lose.  Why is not believing him any more risky, from my character's perspective, than taking his word as gospel?

The game message is not mixed on the force of the reapers. The reaper as a fleet have always been stated as an unstoppable force. Every leader you met tells you you can't beat them convetionally. Everybit ifinfo in the codex tell of their massive numbers and power.
Sorry, we know refusing means losing because we have no other way to beat the reapers out side of the crucible.

[dreman9999]

Noelemahc wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

But about the Refuse justification.  I think it does set Shepard above and apart from everybody.  Because I think it is Shepard saving herself for the sake of her morals.  It is the only ending where she doesn't physically kill herself, but instead just lets herself die, and others around her.  And the only person she protects in doing this is herself.  Note that I'm not supporting suicide, but more pointing out that Refuse is not just a refusal to sacrifice herself, but a refusal to sacrifice her principles.

Again, you seem to exist in a perpetual conviction that Shepard drops dead the moment Starchild says "SO BE IT", and so does everybody else. The Prothean cycle was the least prepared to deal with the Reaper threat well and it fought back for centuries.

In short, I think the dialogue at the end makes it clear that Refuse means refusing to use the Crucible.  But we already knew that the Crucible was the only thing that could stop the Reapers.  That's why we committed so much of the war effort into building it, at the expense of protecting other worlds and fighting the Reapers.

So by picking Refuse, you're putting down your gun; you're saying, I give up, I won't make this kind of choice; you're saying, we'll all lose this together.  You'd rather die than do something terrible.  But you have to do somehting terrible.  Even picking up a gun and shooting at enemies is terrible.  Fighting someone is terrible, but you have to do it, otherwise you just let them beat you up. 

Good point, but it has one flaw. All of this hinges on the fact that Shepard can't say, way back on Mars, "Can we please not use this Aperture Science We-Don't-Know-What-It-Does Device and instead go ask the Quarians what was that fancy thing they used to disablerize the Geth to mess them up so bad the Geth went running scared to the Reapers for help? Maybe we can bootstrap that thing to a bigger battery?"

He can't say "Remember that one time, we discovered the Citadel is the centerpoint of Reaper plans of galactic domination? Let's booby-trap the gorram thing, and use a squad of drell suicide fighters to blowerize it up when they arrive to take it? We have this dude's research into what makes the Citadel tick, we still have time to find a way to decentralize the Reaper war effort. Or, failing that, the Citadel has this thing I found way back four years ago, you know, that lets us turn Mass Relays on and off at will? Let's seal off the Batarian sector, it's lost anyway, we'll see how the Reapers enjoy having to spend 25 years to leave it."

ET CETERA.

But you missing with out the crucible we would have no other way to beat the reapers. Even not using the crucible plan means losing.
You have to understand that the reaper are not even using their full power in the war....The can mass over planets and destroy them if they want.

http://masseffect.wi...kenstein#Trivia
In Mass Effect 3, Diana Allers mentions that Bekenstein is attacked and destroyed by Reaper forces because of its industrial infrastructure, even though the factories there only produce commercial items such as binoculars. Instead of landing ground forces to harvest Bekenstein's organic population, the Reapers choose to bombard it from orbit.

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:34 .

[Noelemahc]

Xilizhra wrote...

He can't say "Remember that one time, we discovered the Citadel is the centerpoint of Reaper plans of galactic domination? Let's booby-trap the gorram thing, and use a squad of drell suicide fighters to blowerize it up when they arrive to take it? We have this dude's research into what makes the Citadel tick, we still have time to find a way to decentralize the Reaper war effort. Or, failing that, the Citadel has this thing I found way back four years ago, you know, that lets us turn Mass Relays on and off at will? Let's seal off the Batarian sector, it's lost anyway, we'll see how the Reapers enjoy having to spend 25 years to leave it."

Erm, it didn't take 25 years to fly all the way from dark space; why do you think it'd take longer to leave one small corner of the galaxy?

The game is unclear about their arrival into the galaxy AFAIK. "Dark Space" is absurdly vast, and depending on interpretations, the Rachni Wars seemed to have been the Reapers'  earliest attempt at subverting our cycle's ability to defend itself, and that was more than a thousand years ago. We don't rightly know when they started and where exactly they're traveling from.

What we DO know is that without relays, Reapers follow the exact same rules about interstellar travel as everyone else (except having to enter planetary atmospheres for static discharge), and aren't particularly faster than the Normandy, which means they would have to conquer the galaxy in a linear fashion instead of establishing forces of attrition and siege like they do in the actual game.

But you missing with out the crucible we would have no other way to beat
the reapers. Even not using the crucible plan means losing.

Um. No. It buys us time to research what the Crucible does. To annihilate Cerberus with a concentrated joint effort. To unite the races, build a januwine superweapon of doom and use that instead. Use what the Protheans did not have. TIME.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:35 .

[Xilizhra]

The game is unclear about their arrival into the galaxy AFAIK. "Dark Space" is absurdly vast, and depending on interpretations, the Rachni Wars seemed to have been the Reapers' earliest attempt at subverting our cycle's ability to defend itself, and that was more than a thousand years ago. We don't rightly know when they started and where exactly they're traveling from.

The rachni never showed signs of Reaper influence; it's been hypothesized more strongly that the Leviathans were responsible.

What we DO know is that without relays, Reapers follow the exact same rules about interstellar travel as everyone else (except having to enter planetary atmospheres for static discharge), and aren't particularly faster than the Normandy, which means they would have to conquer the galaxy in a linear fashion instead of establishing forces of attrition and siege like they do in the actual game.

IIRC, their lightspeed travel is extremely fast, far moreso than ours.

[dreman9999]

Noelemahc wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He can't say "Remember that one time, we discovered the Citadel is the centerpoint of Reaper plans of galactic domination? Let's booby-trap the gorram thing, and use a squad of drell suicide fighters to blowerize it up when they arrive to take it? We have this dude's research into what makes the Citadel tick, we still have time to find a way to decentralize the Reaper war effort. Or, failing that, the Citadel has this thing I found way back four years ago, you know, that lets us turn Mass Relays on and off at will? Let's seal off the Batarian sector, it's lost anyway, we'll see how the Reapers enjoy having to spend 25 years to leave it."

Erm, it didn't take 25 years to fly all the way from dark space; why do you think it'd take longer to leave one small corner of the galaxy?

The game is unclear about their arrival into the galaxy AFAIK. "Dark Space" is absurdly vast, and depending on interpretations, the Rachni Wars seemed to have been the Reapers'  earliest attempt at subverting our cycle's ability to defend itself, and that was more than a thousand years ago. We don't rightly know when they started and where exactly they're traveling from.

What we DO know is that without relays, Reapers follow the exact same rules about interstellar travel as everyone else (except having to enter planetary atmospheres for static discharge), and aren't particularly faster than the Normandy, which means they would have to conquer the galaxy in a linear fashion instead of establishing forces of attrition and siege like they do in the actual game.

but the reaper would be no less in power despite that. It just means the harvest will take longer.

[Shinnyshin]

dreman9999 wrote...
The game message is not mixed on the force of the reapers. The reaper as a fleet have always been stated as an unstoppable force. Every leader you met tells you you can't beat them convetionally. Everybit ifinfo in the codex tell of their massive numbers and power.
Sorry, we know refusing means losing because we have no other way to beat the reapers out side of the crucible.

And yet we're taking out Reapers and learning more about them daily.  We're finding lost superweapons that have destroyed them.  Hell, the space fight scene makes it look like you're kicking major ass.  Pre-EC, Hackett estimates are chances at good--though that's changed during the EC.  That dialogue the first time around, though, was what convinced me to reroll a Refuse Shep when I learned it was an option.  

Also, how do you know the crucible ISN'T working?  How do you know that "Destroy" hasn't been calibrated to all organics?  You're taking the word of (according to him) the biggest mass-murderer in the history of history who uses lies and deception to set everything up.  Each and every cycle?

My character thinks everything the AI (it's not a kid, it just looks like it to tug at your sympathy, play on emotional weakness--that alone speaks to manipulation from the start of the interaction) says is poison.  Toxic.  If it's engaging in long conversations, it's probably stalling for time.  If it's telling me what I can do and essentially limiting my options, then it's actively steering me towards one of those, meaning that it wants me to take those.  Would that kind of Shep do what a mass-murdering manipulator wants?  Probably not, 'cause it'd be even WORSE for organic life everywhere.

There are fates worse than losing.  Though in my Shep's opinion, the assault on Earth was the stupidest thing our forces could possibly have done.

Modifié par Shinnyshin, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:37 .

[Noelemahc]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No , i'm not. Even with out metagaming we know that we can't beat the reaper conventinally. It we list everything in the ccodex and inthe last 2 games, it clear we can't.

If we refuse we will lose.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a conventional victory was any less likely that what we got? To be clear, the only reason a conventional victory isn’t possible is because Mac and Casey insisted on taking the trilogy off on some bizarre, transcendental, morally repugnant, tangent at the 11th hour. You see, if our not so dynamic duo decided to scribble some different words on the piece of toilet paper that detailed our extended endings, we would have got a different one.

Which is to say nothing of the bizarre justifications being put forward for Control in this thread.

QFT. ME2 contains five distinct ways to kill a Reaper. ME3 introduced three more. All of them are ignored in the Battle for Earth because KREWSIBUL.

Oh, and of course, don't forget.

Submission is NOT preferrable to extinction. For all we know, the moment you turn the Crucible on, it also sterilizes every organic being in the galaxy. If it can turn them all into techno-organic constructs at a molecular level without a single transcendent error, it might also do that or worse. Did everyone forget how Vendetta does a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" routine when it mentions the Crucible did not originally require the Citadel for activation?

Modifié par Noelemahc, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:38 .

[Xilizhra]

There are fates worse than losing.

No, really, there aren't. Not here. Even if it's a trick, the result will be the same no matter what I do, so I really don't have anything to lose. And no, I never bought that conventional victory was possible.