393 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Do you know what I felt when I met the Catalyst for the first time: "Hell, Bioware dares tell me this would-be god determines what I can do or not? That not I, but this...thing...holds the solution in its hands? My Shepards are defiant in the presence of gods!" (I even posted the latter in one of my first ending complaints posts). So, I do have sympathy for the viewpoint, believe it or not. However, defiance is an empty gesture when it achieves nothing, and worse when there are alternatives which achieve something, as bad as that may make me feel. At least that's how I see it. 

Hmm.... I never saw the kid as any sort of god in the first place. The universe was trapped in a pointless cycle, and so was he. As a farming operation the cycles are inefficient, dangerous, and kind of stupid; ever since ME1 I was expecting that there would be some really bad AI calculations at the bottom of the whole mess. 

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

JasonShepard, I'm perfectly fine with Control. I'm not one of those saying "X is the only solution". And I agree with you about Refuse. I could never take it, and that's why I'm trying to understand why others can.

The reasons are based upon the version of the Shepard people thought they were playing-something BW ignored, the vast variety in personalities and realities.  Consider that Shepard has a real gut level reaction to thinking s/he might not be the real Shepard.  I can't reconcile that with any idea of choosing to have that question by injected into everyone in the galaxy-that they might wonder if they are really the same people they were before.  Nor can I see Shepard deciding to have that be his/her reality forever-being some semblance of the Shepard that was-s/he lives that nightmare in my game until and maybe even after Liara says Shepard is the real Shepard.

The other reasons have to do with human behavior that as much as it changes, remains the same.  People do want vengeance-not every person, but a number of them.  In Control this has some obvious problems.  In Synthesis, if people retain who they are essentially, they would still be haunted by the memories of what the reapers did and statistically there are many who would not be happy with this outcome-now my neighbor is a reaper variant.  This also is something Shepard found revolting in seeing Cerberus Husks and in having conversation with EDI about trans-humans. 

The other human behavior thought I have is that even things people create that are created for their own purpose (the A-bomb is an example Hackett uses) are mistrusted.  I can imagine a real level of mistrust that would exist (and does exist) within Shepard over some gigantic object that people did not create and were even mostly wrong about.  The explanation for what it does comes from the kid-he may not have made it but he knows of it, he says he knows what it will do.  He also says it solves his problem-the problem that he thought was brilliantly solved by sending monsters to turn people into goo.

In the face of this, picking up some object on the ground that you think is a magic wand that will create peace, end conflict, and being told it isn't what you think it is, would cause a person to rethink all things.  Soldiers thought while wanting big guns to come in and save the day, tend more to rely on the known and certain thing that usually never fails them.  There's even a great movie that shows a view of just what marines are supposedly trained to think.  James even says it.  This is my gun.  I have my gun.

It's the same reason that people convince themselves that driving a car is safer than flying, when it isn't.  People tend to fear and mistrust the unknown.  And people trained to fight tend to want to do just that when faced with an enemy that is killing their allies.  They are less trusting of super solutions and even in the case of the A-bomb, the reason it was used was to end a war that had already been won.  And it wasn't used on allies, but on an enemy that would keep fighting.  If anything the crucible is the kid's A bomb-his way of trying to get the galaxy to give up because it may never stop fighting.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Do you know what I felt when I met the Catalyst for the first time: "Hell, Bioware dares tell me this would-be god determines what I can do or not? That not I, but this...thing...holds the solution in its hands? My Shepards are defiant in the presence of gods!" (I even posted the latter in one of my first ending complaints posts). So, I do have sympathy for the viewpoint, believe it or not. However, defiance is an empty gesture when it achieves nothing, and worse when there are alternatives which achieve something, as bad as that may make me feel. At least that's how I see it. 

Hmm.... I never saw the kid as any sort of god in the first place. The universe was trapped in a pointless cycle, and so was he. As a farming operation the cycles are inefficient, dangerous, and kind of stupid; ever since ME1 I was expecting that there would be some really bad AI calculations at the bottom of the whole mess. 

He wasn't trapped in it, because that part of it makes no sense.  The reapers no longer work-that solution is no longer viable (if you believe what the kid says), so he would no longer use it.  Just as he and BW ignore solutions the galaxy has come up with to solve this supposed problem-the geth/quarian solution must not be a viable one to the kid because he doesn't ever discuss it, the so too the reapers become a non-solution.  He's tasked with finding one, it fails, yet again one of his solutions fail and he's had others or so he says, and he no longer uses them.  So if this one fails, he would not still use it.  He would stop what he's doing until a solution that works is found. 

And far from being trapped in some cycle, he is creating the cycle.  He seeds the galaxy with reaper tech to ensure that the cycles continue.  And to prove the point, he send killer synthetics that reaffirm the position that synthetics vs. organics is the only real problem that matters.  Trapped, my eye.

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Do you know what I felt when I met the Catalyst for the first time: "Hell, Bioware dares tell me this would-be god determines what I can do or not? That not I, but this...thing...holds the solution in its hands? My Shepards are defiant in the presence of gods!" (I even posted the latter in one of my first ending complaints posts). So, I do have sympathy for the viewpoint, believe it or not. However, defiance is an empty gesture when it achieves nothing, and worse when there are alternatives which achieve something, as bad as that may make me feel. At least that's how I see it. 

Hmm.... I never saw the kid as any sort of god in the first place. The universe was trapped in a pointless cycle, and so was he. As a farming operation the cycles are inefficient, dangerous, and kind of stupid; ever since ME1 I was expecting that there would be some really bad AI calculations at the bottom of the whole mess. 

The scene is evocative, though. "The hero has reached the end of the road and gained access to a solution to the problem. However, being only human, it's not in his power to implement it and he needs the help of a higher power" A rather common theme in The Hero's Journey, which Bioware has admitted was an influence on the writing. Note that I hate it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Also, as a corollary of Clarke's Third Law, any god would be indistinguishable from an entity with access to suffiently advanced technology on a large enough scale. This is a typical SF implementation of the concept of a god. The Catalyst fits right in. As does Control!Shep, btw..

[AngryFrozenWater]

I'll paste my response to another thread here as well, because it fits this thread too and makes my earlier replies here more consistent with their intentions.

In the EC the refuse option is clear. I know about Liara's device and when that is supposed to be used it means the cycle lost. I saw that with Vigil and I saw that with Vendetta. I also know that defeating the reapers cannot be done conventionally. Whether I like it or not, the game made that clear to me. Not only characters tell me that, I also saw that in ME1. One reaper was a challenge and required a huge fleet. Now a huge reaper fleet attacking on several fronts means a silly amount of casualties.

So, no. I don't think BW is using that to punish their fans and I also don't need meta gaming to understand that a conventional war means near annihilation. I also understand that the purpose of Liara's device is to inform the next cycle how to get ready and how to build another Crucible. In effect it will delay the decision to select one of the three main Crucible options to the next cycle. Again, no meta gaming required to get that idea.

All the above make refuse the worst option of the four. Any other option will result in lesser casualties. Principles are nice when Shepard's society has a future. Refuse means no future for them. As a Spectre Shepard's task is to destroy and/or defeat the reapers. It's Shepard's promise to his/her allies. In the three main options principles start to make sense again, because one of those allows Shepard to keep the promise and finish the task. Refuse doesn't do that. Any firm principles to select refuse result in a total destruction of the galactic civilization. The price is too high.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:51 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

I can understand picking refuse over low EMS destroy, but in any other case?

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
Refuse might be what you want to do, but it isn't what you can afford to do. You don't need the Catalyst to know you can't win without the Crucible. The story itself has told you that a thousand times. Even should you see a infinitely small chance and succeed, the death count can reasonably be believed to be several times higher than if you simply choose Destroy. Is it easier to push a button? Yes, but it absolutely doesn't matter if a choice is hard or easy. Being hard or easy says absolutely nothing about its merit, it only says something about you.

Defiance is an empty gesture if it doesn't achieve anything.

You apparently missed the fact that it wasn't about defiance in my opinion, but logic and the known vs the big unknown supported by the complete lack of logic.  The choices don't follow some rational thought-and none of them have enough proof to back them up to be able to say Shepard knows for a fact that x choice will do this.  But, also there's the fact that Shepard does not know that refusing to make a choice totally nullifies the use of the crucible as intended.

Meta-gaming it, I see the consequences, but I also see what the kid thinks of it.  In no other ending does he appear hostile regarding a choice.  He has been sending monsters to turn people into goo-what he thinks are great ideas are messed up and insane and inane.  So, seeing him unhappy with a decision and trying to encourage another in meta-gaming makes me think that refuse is at least finality.  It is not a happy decision because we see the outcome of it. 

But, just as those who have fought and died for ideals before have had to consider, no outcome is ever certain.  The possibility exists that the crucible will be usable.  The possibility also exists that some outlier could figure out a way within the time it takes to harvest the galaxy, to defeat or just plain hide from the reapers and save some.  I'm talking about the real calculations people do make.  Making a choice requires at least a modicum of trust in what the kid is saying.  Deciding to not make a choice requires trust in the known.  It is also at least in part bolstered by the crap shoot chance that the crucible will not just shut off and could be used even if to just weaken the reapers.  I've never believed it made much sense for the galaxy to put so much faith in the big unknown crucible, but they thought it to be a weapon.  Why couldn't Shepard think it's still possible it is?  The kid's version of it is that it might be a weapon in destroy, but it's something else entirely in synthesis and control.  And the kid is really a little bit less than believable, his motives and his reality somewhat transparent.

[Ieldra]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
JasonShepard, I'm perfectly fine with Control. I'm not one of those saying "X is the only solution". And I agree with you about Refuse. I could never take it, and that's why I'm trying to understand why others can.

The reasons are based upon the version of the Shepard people thought they were playing-something BW ignored, the vast variety in personalities and realities.  Consider that Shepard has a real gut level reaction to thinking s/he might not be the real Shepard. I can't reconcile that with any idea of choosing to have that question by injected into everyone in the galaxy-that they might wonder if they are really the same people they were before.  Nor can I see Shepard deciding to have that be his/her reality forever-being some semblance of the Shepard that was-s/he lives that nightmare in my game until and maybe even after Liara says Shepard is the real Shepard.

I had a different playing experience, and a different Shepard who'd be comfortable with choosing Synthesis or Control,  but even based on yours: I still don't see anything that would make you prefer Refuse over Destroy.

The other reasons have to do with human behavior that as much as it changes, remains the same.  People do want vengeance-not every person, but a number of them.  In Control this has some obvious problems.  In Synthesis, if people retain who they are essentially, they would still be haunted by the memories of what the reapers did and statistically there are many who would not be happy with this outcome-now my neighbor is a reaper variant.  This also is something Shepard found revolting in seeing Cerberus Husks and in having conversation with EDI about trans-humans.

That last reaction was so OOC for my Shepard as some of the other stuff was for yours. My main Shepard has been a transhumanist for 2 1/2 games - I even wrote a rather extensive character profile - and I won't let ME3 redefine him. This is one of the instances where I hate autodialogue.
Consequently, I understand that your Shepard would be OOC choosing Control or Synthesis, but yet again, I don't see anything that would prevent him (her?) from choosing Destroy over Refuse.  

The other human behavior thought I have is that even things people create that are created for their own purpose (the A-bomb is an example Hackett uses) are mistrusted.  I can imagine a real level of mistrust that would exist (and does exist) within Shepard over some gigantic object that people did not create and were even mostly wrong about.  The explanation for what it does comes from the kid-he may not have made it but he knows of it, he says he knows what it will do.  He also says it solves his problem-the problem that he thought was brilliantly solved by sending monsters to turn people into goo.

This I can understand, but there this is: faced with almost certain defeat, would you *really* refuse to use that unknown device? To take up your example: some of the scientists who designed the first a-bomb were concerned that it would make the atmosphere burn. Still, the device got used, and it wasn't even to prevent almost certain defeat but to save the two hundred thousand projected casualties an invasion would cost. I could understand Refusing if there was a reason to believe something could be achieved by it. But there wasn't. We were told that for three games, and - forgive me for being harsh but that's how it comes across to me - it would be delusional to assume that this suddenly changed just because it's what you would want.
All right, if you played a Shepard who's not quite rational about this - which would be completely understandable in this situation - then I'd accept Refuse as a valid in-character choice.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:29 .

[TheBlackBaron]

TheProtheans wrote...

That Catalyst saying the cycle continued while we were still alive implies nothing other than the war continued, this cycle is capable of great stuff and it would  not surprise me if the Reapers were defeated or trapped with low resoucres.

What evidence do you have for this suggestion? With the whole resources of the galaxy arrayed against the Reapers, they were not "defeated or trapped with low resources". With the great majority of ships and officers wiped out after failure at the Second Battle of Earth, what makes you believe that this is magically going to happen?

"The cycle is capable of great things"? In other words, because you know it's a game you think it's supposed to happen differently? Sorry, doesn't work like that. 

EDIT: You know what Refuse is? It's not using the a-bomb and gambling that Japan was on its knees and close enough to the end to make it not matter. In that case, it would probably have been a correct gamble. Unforunately for Refusers, the Reaper's strategic situation is pretty much the polar opposite of Japan's in August 1945. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:21 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
He wasn't trapped in it, because that part of it makes no sense.  The reapers no longer work-that solution is no longer viable (if you believe what the kid says), so he would no longer use it.  Just as he and BW ignore solutions the galaxy has come up with to solve this supposed problem-the geth/quarian solution must not be a viable one to the kid because he doesn't ever discuss it, the so too the reapers become a non-solution.  He's tasked with finding one, it fails, yet again one of his solutions fail and he's had others or so he says, and he no longer uses them.  So if this one fails, he would not still use it.  He would stop what he's doing until a solution that works is found. 

And far from being trapped in some cycle, he is creating the cycle.  He seeds the galaxy with reaper tech to ensure that the cycles continue.  And to prove the point, he send killer synthetics that reaffirm the position that synthetics vs. organics is the only real problem that matters.  Trapped, my eye.

Trapped by his own bad logic, I meant. I thought that was implicit.

Since your position here seems to be that the kid's behavior is non-rational, I don't see the substantive difference.

[Ieldra]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
Refuse might be what you want to do, but it isn't what you can afford to do. You don't need the Catalyst to know you can't win without the Crucible. The story itself has told you that a thousand times. Even should you see a infinitely small chance and succeed, the death count can reasonably be believed to be several times higher than if you simply choose Destroy. Is it easier to push a button? Yes, but it absolutely doesn't matter if a choice is hard or easy. Being hard or easy says absolutely nothing about its merit, it only says something about you.

Defiance is an empty gesture if it doesn't achieve anything.

You apparently missed the fact that it wasn't about defiance in my opinion, but logic and the known vs the big unknown supported by the complete lack of logic.  The choices don't follow some rational thought-and none of them have enough proof to back them up to be able to say Shepard knows for a fact that x choice will do this.  But, also there's the fact that Shepard does not know that refusing to make a choice totally nullifies the use of the crucible as intended.

Meta-gaming it, I see the consequences, but I also see what the kid thinks of it.  In no other ending does he appear hostile regarding a choice.  He has been sending monsters to turn people into goo-what he thinks are great ideas are messed up and insane and inane.  So, seeing him unhappy with a decision and trying to encourage another in meta-gaming makes me think that refuse is at least finality.  It is not a happy decision because we see the outcome of it. 

But, just as those who have fought and died for ideals before have had to consider, no outcome is ever certain.  The possibility exists that the crucible will be usable.  The possibility also exists that some outlier could figure out a way within the time it takes to harvest the galaxy, to defeat or just plain hide from the reapers and save some.  I'm talking about the real calculations people do make.  Making a choice requires at least a modicum of trust in what the kid is saying.  Deciding to not make a choice requires trust in the known.  It is also at least in part bolstered by the crap shoot chance that the crucible will not just shut off and could be used even if to just weaken the reapers.  I've never believed it made much sense for the galaxy to put so much faith in the big unknown crucible, but they thought it to be a weapon.  Why couldn't Shepard think it's still possible it is?  The kid's version of it is that it might be a weapon in destroy, but it's something else entirely in synthesis and control.  And the kid is really a little bit less than believable, his motives and his reality somewhat transparent.

I didn't miss anything, this wasn't written in answer to your post, and I wrote it before I read your long answer.

As for what you're saying, that is all true but it only explains why you would *want* to Refuse, not why you actually can go through with it after thinking all the variables through. Trust in the known, you say. Well, the known is that there is only an infinitesimal chance to win without the Crucible, if any. Or...is it that your Shepard just refuses to believe the chance is infinitesimal, or thinks he can win the lottery against those odds? 

[Ieldra]

TheBlackBaron wrote...
EDIT: You know what Refuse is? It's not using the a-bomb and gambling that Japan was on its knees and close enough to the end to make it not matter. In that case, it would probably have been a correct gamble. Unforunately for Refusers, the Reaper's strategic situation is pretty much the polar opposite of Japan's in August 1945.

A nice analogy. At least *my* Shepard is enough of a strategist to see this. 

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The scene is evocative, though. "The hero has reached the end of the road and gained access to a solution to the problem. However, being only human, it's not in his power to implement it and he needs the help of a higher power" A rather common theme in The Hero's Journey, which Bioware has admitted was an influence on the writing. Note that I hate it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I think I saw it as an insubversion of the trope. Turns out there's no higher anything in this universe. Easy enough for me to get there since that's pretty much how I see things ITRW.

Unless it's God is Inept instead.

Edit: "think" above because I'm not 100% confident that I'm not projecting a later read back onto my first impressions, though AFAIK my impressions of the ending never changed much.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[TheProtheans]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

"The cycle is capable of great things"? In other words, because you know it's a game you think it's supposed to happen differently? Sorry, doesn't work like that. 

That's exactly how it works.
The story is unbelievable , Shepard should have died on Eden Prime or on the countless other dangers after than when the were massively out numbered

It is what allows the story to be, if it was not like this then the game would not be made.
Movies follow a similar logic.

So ofcourse it happens differently, I learned to understand this when writing.

[dorktainian]

i still go with my proposition that actually refuse breaks the reapers 50,000 year cycle (the beam turns off - the mass relays are ok, the citadel is intact, the reapers power down). we don't see it - but it could well happen.

[AlanC9]

dorktainian wrote...

i still go with my proposition that actually refuse breaks the reapers 50,000 year cycle (the beam turns off - the mass relays are ok, the citadel is intact, the reapers power down). we don't see it - but it could well happen.

I always thought that Refuse needed more content -- showing the slaughter of all the races and squadmates, conculding with the final destruction of the Normandy.

[Jadebaby]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Refusers:
Had the ending explicitly said that the Crucible reprogrammed the Catalyst and that the solutions originated with the Crucible, would you then have chosen one of the other options?

I feel like no one read my OP,

It has nothing to do with spiting the Catalyst, it's simply choosing to fight for everyone.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The scene is evocative, though. "The hero has reached the end of the road and gained access to a solution to the problem. However, being only human, it's not in his power to implement it and he needs the help of a higher power" A rather common theme in The Hero's Journey, which Bioware has admitted was an influence on the writing. Note that I hate it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I think I saw it as an insubversion of the trope. Turns out there's no higher anything in this universe. Easy enough for me to get there since that's pretty much how I see things ITRW.

Unless it's God is Inept instead.

Edit: "think" above because I'm not 100% confident that I'm not projecting a later read back onto my first impressions, though AFAIK my impressions of the ending never changed much.

If it was a subversion, Refusing would have worked. Also, yes of course, there's no "higher" anything in the MEU either. There are, however, entities with almost infinitely more power and knowledge than you, and they fill the same role in SF universes as "gods" do in others.

And LOL about "God is Inept". Didn't know that trope existed. I do not think it applies here, since The Catalyst's Logic Is Right. The writers are inept to convey that, would be more to the point.

[dorktainian]

AlanC9 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

i still go with my proposition that actually refuse breaks the reapers 50,000 year cycle (the beam turns off - the mass relays are ok, the citadel is intact, the reapers power down). we don't see it - but it could well happen.

I always thought that Refuse needed more content -- showing the slaughter of all the races and squadmates, conculding with the final destruction of the Normandy.

but as i stated earlier today we are doomed if we use red/blue or green.  the crudible still fires.  the relays are still disabled. although those nice cut scenes show you what 'supposedly' happens after the decision something just doesnt feel right.  star brat wants us to choose one of 'his' choices.  i don't want to.  shepard would never choose something harbinger offered.

[David7204]

Well then "Shepard" is stupid. Disagreeing with your enemy just because he's your enemy gives him just as much control over you as if you obeyed his orders directly.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

And finally someone posted this. Finally after 5 years, at my request, someone posted this video. All other videos show Shepard being nice. Please watch this. This is the Shepard we remember. This is MY Shepard. This is the Shepard from Mass Effect 1. This is Shepard's confrontation with Saren in the Citadel the way it should have been shown. Shepard is mad as hell. This is the greatest boss conversation in the series. Listen to these words.

Shepard would definitely refuse The Catalyst.

[Cyberfrog81]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
Refuse might be what you want to do, but it isn't what you can afford to do. You don't need the Catalyst to know you can't win without the Crucible. The story itself has told you that a thousand times. Even should you see a infinitely small chance and succeed, the death count can reasonably be believed to be several times higher than if you simply choose Destroy.

 "Simply choose Destroy" doesn't work when you don't trust the solutions presented to you. Some people at least have the sense not to have complete faith in the Catalyst, but then they decide to have faith in the Crucible instead. You know, the device of unknown origin that even the smartest minds in the galaxy don't really understand.

I don't have a Refuse-Shepard at the moment, but when Refuse is viewed as a complete rejection of the Reapers and their suggestions on how to achieve "peace", I think it has some merit.

Defiance is an empty gesture if it doesn't achieve anything.

If you're given the order to commit an atrocity and you refuse, and all that act of defiance accomplishes is that you're shot dead by your superior... it still wasn't meaningless.

If the war claims your life (which, realistically, Shepard knows will happen) at least you died resisting the Reapers instead of succumbing to them.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 18 décembre 2012 - 07:24 .

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...
Well then "Shepard" is stupid. Disagreeing with your enemy just because he's your enemy gives him just as much control over you as if you obeyed his orders directly.

Disagreeing with your enemy is a pretty natural stance or your enemy wouldn't be your enemy.

Modifié par klarabella, 18 décembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[dorktainian]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

And finally someone posted this. Finally after 5 years, at my request, someone posted this video. All other videos show Shepard being nice. Please watch this. This is the Shepard we remember. This is MY Shepard. This is the Shepard from Mass Effect 1. This is Shepard's confrontation with Saren in the Citadel the way it should have been shown. Shepard is mad as hell. This is the greatest boss conversation in the series. Listen to these words.

Shepard would definitely refuse The Catalyst.

  

[TheBlackBaron]

TheProtheans wrote...

That's exactly how it works.
The story is unbelievable , Shepard should have died on Eden Prime or on the countless other dangers after than when the were massively out numbered

It is what allows the story to be, if it was not like this then the game would not be made.
Movies follow a similar logic.

So ofcourse it happens differently, I learned to understand this when writing.

Except it doesn't happen differently. Going through the Omega-4 Relay, we were told it was -supposed- be a suicide mission, but there was no real evidence of why. Exploring deeper into the problem reveals what we're told is not quite the case, and by taking certain actions (such as getting the IFF to allow a more accurate relay jump) the chances of survival and victory increase. 

Your problem arrives when you assume beating the Reapers follows the same trajectory, when in fact the mounting body of evidence over the course of the series (and ME3 specifically) confirms rather than contradicts the idea that beating the Reapers without the Crucible is impossible. 

Even the internal logic of the story does not have any support for what you claim. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 18 décembre 2012 - 07:37 .