435 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

grey_wind wrote...

The problem with the Battle of Cronos is that it's all or nothing. No matter what happens after that battle, Hackett tells you they HAVE to attack Earth immediately because they've given their position away (or some other reason I can't remember). So if the Catalyst is something that has to be built, or TIM destroyed Vendetta, then they are screwed unless they believe they have a chance conventionally.

Oh, I see. This is just confusing metagame issues with actual strategy. Hitting Cronos means you have to hit Earth because Bio wanted to lock down the EMS values before Cronos.

[Foxhound2121]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Foxhound2121 wrote...

And you're not staking humanities existence once again on your hunch about control?

On the contrary. You're "hedging your bets" in a way. If RGB don't work, you fall back on Plan-B.

OTOH, Refuse is staking everything on Plan B.

A refusing shepard obviously thought that it would be as simple as walking in a flipping an on switch. Instead, he was greeted with an entity he doesn't know anything about with logic that the reapers coveted, and then given three options he knows nothing about. A refusal shepard doesn't believe such a choice should be made with a hunch, and leaves it up to the next cycle.

Then said Shepard is quite ignorant of synthetics too. Synthetics have never been a great source of philosophy or morality, but they're quite reliable in figuring out how tech/machinery work. That's basically all the catalyst is doing by telling you the Crucible options Destroy/Control/Synthesis.

Plan-B won't work with synthesis. He knows that much. The next cycle has no chance in synthesis since the next cycle is already synthesised. Refusal shepard can easily assume it's the same for the rest.

[jojon2se]

Why?

As far as I am concerened; Contrary to what others will say, refuse is the only way that Shepard keeps fighting at all - in the other three (s)he adopts an element of Reaper doctrine and unwittingly hands her/himself over to become their tool -- /hands/ them their victory.
(Yes, I'm an IT-ist. Others of my ilk will have destroy and refuse swapped in the argument - they are as entitled to their interpretation as I am to mine, as are you to yours.)

"...and IF I die.."

Conditional, future tense -- this is not somebody who is giving up - it is someone who stays committed to the fight they're already in, although yes - they do resign to conduct that fight the hard way, if the magical technicolour off button they were promised turns out a wild goose chase.

We do our best, we try to find another way and if we can't find one, we at least make victory for the reapers as costly as possible and otherwise do what we can to prep the next cycle. The options proffered are no-starters.

[grey_wind]

AlanC9 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

The problem with the Battle of Cronos is that it's all or nothing. No matter what happens after that battle, Hackett tells you they HAVE to attack Earth immediately because they've given their position away (or some other reason I can't remember). So if the Catalyst is something that has to be built, or TIM destroyed Vendetta, then they are screwed unless they believe they have a chance conventionally.

Oh, I see. This is just confusing metagame issues with actual strategy. Hitting Cronos means you have to hit Earth because Bio wanted to lock down the EMS values before Cronos.

Ah well, I'm just ranting.

I really can't stand ME3 Hackett.

[Foxhound2121]

AlanC9 wrote...

Foxhound2121 wrote...


And you're not staking humanities existence once again on your hunch about control?

No, he isn't. If the Crucible isn't a viable option then humanity is doomed anyway. (Unless you want to go IT-Con here, where some of the Crucible options are real and some aren't)

If it isn't a viable option, then why would you then choose one of those unviable options. 

Modifié par Foxhound2121, 17 octobre 2012 - 06:49 .

[Xilizhra]

Foxhound2121 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Foxhound2121 wrote...

Trying with those options are a trick to a refuser. If you watch the refusal ending, Liara makes it clear that they built the curcible, but it didn't work. Hence to assume that it is pointless to make and to try something else perhaps or warn them.

Pretty ironic argument. Para!Shep guilt trips TIM about staking humanity's existence on Control working as he thinks.

But apparently, same rules don't apply the other way around. 

Who is calling who ironic here? If you wanted to choose control, then why didn't you help TIM from the very beginning?
Plus, refusing to choose is obviously not staking humanities existence on anything but fate. When you choose, you obviously created that irony you just stated.

I didn't help TIM from the beginning because he tried to kill me the instant we talked for the first time in ME3. I tried talking to him and trying to work something out with him, but he was never receptive. This mess is entirely on him.

And the rachni were all extinct and no one ever returns from beyond the Omega IV Relay...

And Control is impossible without being indoctrinated. Oh, wait, the "do-the-impossible" people always ignore that supposed impossibility being proven wrong and claim that the fact that other people saying it's impossible prove that it's impossible, exactly the opposite of every other claim of impossibility made. Go figure.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 17 octobre 2012 - 06:49 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Foxhound2121 wrote...

Plan-B won't work with synthesis. He knows that much. The next cycle has no chance in synthesis since the next cycle is already synthesised. Refusal shepard can easily assume it's the same for the rest.

Synthesized cycles has got nothing to do with it. Any of three choices is supposed to stop the Reapers. If they don't, then (and only then) do you fall back on your last resort option.

Speaking of last resorts...




"Have you ever had to be in a fight? I've been in ton of fights. That's why I learned to stay the heck out of a fight!"

See, even Dr. Steve Brule knows Refuse is a turrible option.

For your health!

[Demon560]

What's it really matter the reapers are stopped in the end, no matter what you do, either in this cycle or the next.

[The Spamming Troll]

Demon560 wrote...

What's it really matter the reapers are stopped in the end, no matter what you do, either in this cycle or the next.

I didnt expect the ending i expected to be had off screen. 

Might as well just put the conclusion to the series on twitter. 

[Foxhound2121]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Foxhound2121 wrote...

Plan-B won't work with synthesis. He knows that much. The next cycle has no chance in synthesis since the next cycle is already synthesised. Refusal shepard can easily assume it's the same for the rest.

Synthesized cycles has got nothing to do with it. Any of three choices is supposed to stop the Reapers. If they don't, then (and only then) do you fall back on your last resort option.

Can't fall back on your last resort if it's not there anymore.

[Demon560]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Demon560 wrote...

What's it really matter the reapers are stopped in the end, no matter what you do, either in this cycle or the next.

I didnt expect the ending i expected to be had off screen. 

Might as well just put the conclusion to the series on twitter. 

The stargazer scene pretty much states victory in every ending, refuse changes the stargazer character to a somewhat asari type of character that's interesting, and really what's the difference between them dying now or them being dead anyways after the end credits, yeah I get it may sound like a d*ck move, but you arrive at the same destination. Refuse is the worse choice i can pick i get it, but the lack of consequence being shown in scenes and the next cycles succeeding, make it feel less like a failure and more of a well it's still gonna happen the reapers will still die.  Not too mention pissing off casper is fun as hell, what's a few slides and a breathe scene, when headcanon is the ultimate ending tool that they wanted us to use, you know what refuse now lead to the reapers defeat in this cycle no matter what, thnx headcanon/imagination.

[DrGunjah]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
What's the worst case scenario, everyone dies? Doesn't stop Refuse anyway, so...

No the worst case scenario is something like synthesis and since we don't know if holoboy tells the truth about what which option does it's probably better to do nothing and let everyone die. There are worse things than death.

[MB957]

in my headcannon...when shep refuses...its actually a win against the reapers...since it was so obvious that the catalyst is trying to trick shep with all three choices..

my shep..refuses...and then goes behind the curtain...and throws the real switch..that blasts those reaper fools into oblivion...

and liaras message instead goes ..."we won! we won!!"

and the stargazer says.."that shepard..pretty sharp..knew that catalyst was lying..good thing didnt choose any of those 3 choices...we would all be dead!!"

[AlanC9]

grey_wind wrote...

Ah well, I'm just ranting.

I really can't stand ME3 Hackett.

I can see why. Hackett's carrying the plot ball for Bio, and if you don't like the play they called, it's natural to dislike him too.

It occurs to me that Bio really had to lock up the game after Cronos. 2/3 of the side missions still available at that time involve Cerberus, so they'd have to be cancelled anyway.

[Argolas]

AlanC9 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

Ah well, I'm just ranting.

I really can't stand ME3 Hackett.

I can see why. Hackett's carrying the plot ball for Bio, and if you don't like the play they called, it's natural to dislike him too.

It occurs to me that Bio really had to lock up the game after Cronos. 2/3 of the side missions still available at that time involve Cerberus, so they'd have to be cancelled anyway.

Hackett´s a good man and the best Admiral out there. He´s alwayst honest towards Shepard, always keeps calm and always does anything that needs to be done.

The only reason not to like him IMO is really this one issue that Hackett is the one who has to explain the storyline.

[m2iCodeJockey]

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??

This is a prime example of meta-gaming.

At the point where one is originally listening to Ghostie, there is no reason to believe it's telling you the truth.
1) It pulls Shepard away from a control panel in order to
2) have Shepard perform one of three actions, each of which are destructive to the mechanism.
3) Its self description conflicts with what the audience knew of Sovereign.
4) Its described motive conflicts with what the audience knew of the Reapers.

With so many problems in its dialog, why did you believe taking its suggestion to kill yourself would result in anything other than your own death?

Modifié par m2iCodeJockey, 17 octobre 2012 - 03:01 .

[m2iCodeJockey]

Argolas wrote...
Hackett´s a good man and the best Admiral out there. He´s alwayst honest towards Shepard...

You must not have done all of the side missions in ME1.
One or more times, he sends Shepard into a situation where he KNOWS Shepard's mere presence will most likely result in the entire area being gunned down.
Hackett: "You didn't think you were the only one willing to bend the rules to get thing done, did you?"

[AlanC9]

m2iCodeJockey wrote...
At the point where one is originally listening to Ghostie, there is no reason to believe it's telling you the truth.
1) It pulls Shepard away from a control panel in order to
2) have Shepard perform one of three actions, each of which are destructive to the mechanism.
3) Its self description conflicts with what the audience knew of Sovereign.
4) Its described motive conflicts with what the audience knew of the Reapers.

With so many problems in its dialog, why did you believe taking its suggestion to kill yourself would result in anything other than your own death?

Well, there are two possibililities in play.

1). The Catalyst's just toying with Shepard for it's own.... amusement? Can it feel amusement? The whole sequence with Shepard doesn't advance any rational goal otherwise. ( If the Crucible is a Reaper trap from the get-go, they wouldn't be stupid enough to make it require an organic operator.)

2). It's telling the truth when it say that docking the Crucible changed it.

And if case 1 is true, what Shepard does just doesn't matter.

[Ticonderoga117]

Because Control is stupid. Touch those two electrodes, get vaporized, and hope that my copy will do what I want? Yeah, no. How about I just tell GlowBoy what to do, like shutdown. But no, can't do that. If you control them, you gotta use them!

[Xilizhra]

m2iCodeJockey 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??

This is a prime example of meta-gaming.

At the point where one is originally listening to Ghostie, there is no reason to believe it's telling you the truth.
1) It pulls Shepard away from a control panel in order to
2) have Shepard perform one of three actions, each of which are destructive to the mechanism.
3) Its self description conflicts with what the audience knew of Sovereign.
4) Its described motive conflicts with what the audience knew of the Reapers.

With so many problems in its dialog, why did you believe taking its suggestion to kill yourself would result in anything other than your own death?

Because if it's lying, I'm totally screwed no matter what I do. Even if I refuse... what then? I can't do anything about anything where I am, and we'll lose the fight. Additionally, I don't believe it would have brought the elevator up to it if it just wanted me dead; hell, if it wants that, it could just turn off the mass effect fields surrounding the area and vent me into space. Ultimately, I have nothing to lose by trying one of the solutions, because the worst-case scenario is the same result that I"d get if I didn't.

[Argolas]

m2iCodeJockey wrote...

Argolas wrote...
Hackett´s a good man and the best Admiral out there. He´s alwayst honest towards Shepard...

You must not have done all of the side missions in ME1.
One or more times, he sends Shepard into a situation where he KNOWS Shepard's mere presence will most likely result in the entire area being gunned down.
Hackett: "You didn't think you were the only one willing to bend the rules to get thing done, did you?"

Forgot about that, thanks for reminding me. I honestly forgot about ME1 Hackett completely.

[MegaSovereign]

You don't have to metagame to know that if the Crucible works then you will be saving most amount of lives. And that's even if Refusal results in a conventional victory.

[Yate]

because they are moronic hipsters who only play for the romances and think they can actually get the crappy ending they want

MB957 wrote...

in my headcannon...when shep refuses...its actually a win against the reapers...since it was so obvious that the catalyst is trying to trick shep with all three choices..

my shep..refuses...and then goes behind the curtain...and throws the real switch..that blasts those reaper fools into oblivion...

and liaras message instead goes ..."we won! we won!!"

and the stargazer says.."that shepard..pretty sharp..knew that catalyst was lying..good thing didnt choose any of those 3 choices...we would all be dead!!"

god you're a moron

[Yate]

Xilizhra wrote...

m2iCodeJockey 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??

This is a prime example of meta-gaming.

At the point where one is originally listening to Ghostie, there is no reason to believe it's telling you the truth.
1) It pulls Shepard away from a control panel in order to
2) have Shepard perform one of three actions, each of which are destructive to the mechanism.
3) Its self description conflicts with what the audience knew of Sovereign.
4) Its described motive conflicts with what the audience knew of the Reapers.

With so many problems in its dialog, why did you believe taking its suggestion to kill yourself would result in anything other than your own death?

Because if it's lying, I'm totally screwed no matter what I do. Even if I refuse... what then? I can't do anything about anything where I am, and we'll lose the fight. Additionally, I don't believe it would have brought the elevator up to it if it just wanted me dead; hell, if it wants that, it could just turn off the mass effect fields surrounding the area and vent me into space. Ultimately, I have nothing to lose by trying one of the solutions, because the worst-case scenario is the same result that I"d get if I didn't.

this


I don't know why everyone is like DON'T TRUST CATALYST, guys, he invited you to his room and told you everything about his plans. Why would he do that?

[Ticonderoga117]

Yate wrote...
I don't know why everyone is like DON'T TRUST CATALYST, guys, he invited you to his room and told you everything about his plans. Why would he do that?

Because he's insane, incompetent, or part of his plan.

He's the over-arching directing intelligence of the foe we have been opposing since Day 1. There is no reason why he would do this unless the above is true.