393 réponses à ce sujet

[Dysjong]

Edit: double post<_<

Modifié par Dysjong, 18 décembre 2012 - 12:32 .

[M Hedonist]

I see, but I wrote Crucible, you wrote Catalyst. Or was that a mistake?
What I meant was that people shouldn't have relied on the Crucible alone to save them and destroy the Reapers, without having any idea how it works or what it does. It has nothing to do with the Catalyst.

[Dysjong]

Ah, my bad.

[The Spamming Troll]

Steelcan wrote...

Refuse is the epitome of honorable stupid. Just shoot the tube and be done with it.

only because you now know the outcomes and made your decision based on what you found out. you most likely knew going into the EC trying to shoot the catalyst in the face isnt fun and games anymore.

with destroy are you picking your ending because shepard wakes up in rubble or because you so called "destroy" the reapers? would you still pick destroy if destroy if destroy still annihilated the relays, or put us back in the stone age, or glitched and only destroyed your LI and it rained when you had your squad reunion?

for me, i used to pick destroy, because it was what i planned all along. im gonna destroy the reapers, probably with some casualties and thats what i got. now what i tell people i pick is refuse. i shoot the catalyst in the face, then i turn off console, head cannon an epic showdown of harbinger, watch my war assets and the reapers go to battle and win because my trilogy playthrough was the BEST, bang my LI, chill out with wrex, garrus, and niftu cal, probably do alot of red sand.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 18 décembre 2012 - 12:52 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

@Jade

The reason why you don't win in refuse is pretty straightforward IMO.

The premise of the story is that, as a military leader, you sometimes need to make the hard choice, and sacrifice the few to save the many.

Refuse is a moral victory, but moral victories don't always win wars.

As Javik puts it: "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead and ask their souls if honour matters. The silence will be your answer."

You can't always win and save everyone at the same time. It. is. not. possible.

You could argue that this is a game, and that this is how you would want to win the game, but it is clearly not the intent of the writers.

Victories come at a price. If you aren't prepared to pay that price, then you can't have a victory.

I'm not just pulling this out of my behind, your conversations with your crewmates tell you these things.

Garrus: "If just one survivor is left standing at the end of the war, then the fight was worth it. But humans want to save everyone. In this war, that's not going to happen."

Even Shepard knows this:

Shepard: If you'd saved them all, would things have worked out better?
Vega: I... I don't know. I don't think so.
Shepard: The right choice is usually not the easy one.


Also:

Salarian councilor: "Sometimes Spectres have to make sacrifices. I hope you're ready to do that when the time comes."

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 18 décembre 2012 - 12:54 .

[The Spamming Troll]

vigil said a united galaxy can beat the reapers.

so why loose hope because udina, or some idiot NPC says we cant beat the reapers.

ive said this a million times, and ill say it again. who doesnt love an underdog story???

[Rip504]

No the entire game states we can NOT win this war w/o the Crucible. You are not uniting the galaxy "just cuz" they are uniting to build and use the Crucible. It is the plot in ME3. They are sending resources to help this cause. Wether you trust the Catalyst is not the question. You are going against the entire galaxy's wishes to use the crucible so you can decide their fate. They have decided to build and USE the Crucible. As they feel they have no chance at defeating the Reapers conventionally. Now you walk away from a chance to defeat the Reapers and acknowledge the Crucible failed. Delivering another devastating blow to the United Galaxy and their moral.

Yea I killed the Geth. That is not the point. You show 1 Prothean left in stasis for 50,000 years and expect that to back your claim that our people survive?

Deny that trillions die in pain and misery because of a single individuals choice. Prove anybody lives. I can prove people die.

Now picture your family and friends(Real Life) and for the next 2 days every person that you see,I would like you to stop and think that you are allowing these people to die over and only your personal beliefs.

Also it is stated throughout the three games,not just wiki. You killed trillions vs 1 species in the Geth. I also feel as if the Geth decided not to Keep the Reaper upgrades they may have survived. So If I want I can justify that the Geth killed themselves. As CPU equipment and Mech still exist. Even the Relays are not completely destroyed. So some could say the Geth did it to themselves.

Although I fully take responsibility for my choice. Something you seem to be unwilling to do.

I can prove things,back them up with both In-game sources and out of game sources. I have yet to see you do the same.

Edit: If Shepard is/was going to only accept one way to defeat the Reapers,why ever partake in the Construction of the Crucible? It obviously is not conventional means. So Shepard will only defeat the Reapers in one certain way. So Shepard is lying and being a fraud throughout ME3. Hence making ME3 entirely pointless.

Modifié par Rip504, 18 décembre 2012 - 01:10 .

[DeinonSlayer]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

@Jade

The reason why you don't win in refuse is pretty straightforward IMO.

The premise of the story is that, as a military leader, you sometimes need to make the hard choice, and sacrifice the few to save the many.

Refuse is a moral victory, but moral victories don't always win wars.

As Javik puts it: "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead and ask their souls if honour matters. The silence will be your answer."

You can't always win and save everyone at the same time. It. is. not. possible.

You could argue that this is a game, and that this is how you would want to win the game, but it is clearly not the intent of the writers.

Victories come at a price. If you aren't prepared to pay that price, then you can't have a victory.

I'm not just pulling this out of my behind, your conversations with your crewmates tell you these things.

Garrus: "If just one survivor is left standing at the end of the war, then the fight was worth it. But humans want to save everyone. In this war, that's not going to happen."

Even Shepard knows this:

Shepard: If you'd saved them all, would things have worked out better?
Vega: I... I don't know. I don't think so.
Shepard: The right choice is usually not the easy one.


Also:

Salarian councilor: "Sometimes Spectres have to make sacrifices. I hope you're ready to do that when the time comes."

This. All of this. Pretending that refuse can lead to an actual victory (instead of a short-lived "moral" one followed by centuries of screaming... then silence...) is like Gerrel thinking he can out-gun the upgraded Geth. You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 18 décembre 2012 - 12:58 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Welcome to the fold Jade

[spirosz]

I wanted to choose an option reflecting what my Shepard has done in the war, but nope.  As much as I liked to call bull**** and refuse, I care about Shepard's time, not the future, call my selfish or whatever, I don't want to see the people that Shepard cared for greatly, go down like that.  

I respect your mindset towards it though, but I'll take the burden of the Geth and EDI and headcannon that Shepard doesn't go towards an exploding tube and lives on. 

Modifié par spirosz, 18 décembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

spirosz wrote...

I wanted to choose an option reflecting what my Shepard has done in the war, but nope.

Refuse is the closest I can get to that sadly.

[M Hedonist]

Rip504 wrote...

No the entire game states we can NOT win this war w/o the Crucible. You are not uniting the galaxy "just cuz" they are uniting to build and use the Crucible. It is the plot in ME3. They are sending resources to help this cause. Wether you trust the Catalyst is not the question. You are going against the entire galaxy's wishes to use the crucible so you can decide their fate. They have decided to build and USE the Crucible. As they feel they have no chance at defeating the Reapers conventionally. Now you walk away from a chance to defeat the Reapers and acknowledge the Crucible failed. Delivering another devastating blow to the United Galaxy and their moral.

Yea I killed the Geth. That is not the point. You show 1 Prothean left in stasis for 50,000 years and expect that to back your claim that our people survive?

Deny that trillions die in pain and misery because of a single individuals choice. Prove anybody lives. I can prove people die.

Now picture your family and friends(Real Life) and for the next 2 days every person that you see,I would like you to stop and think that you are allowing these people to die over and only your personal beliefs.

Also it is stated throughout the three games,not just wiki. You killed trillions vs 1 species in the Geth. I also feel as if the Geth decided not to Keep the Reaper upgrades they may have survived. So If I want I can justify that the Geth killed themselves. As CPU equipment and Mech still exist. Even the Relays are not completely destroyed. So some could say the Geth did it to themselves.

You're getting very riled up about fictitious things, don't you?
Yes, I back my claims by the fact that the Protheans managed to survive into the next cycle and the fact that this cycle has managed to do what no previous cycle has achieved before. And I trust them to achieve more than building something we found the blueprints for.
But where I see hope you choose to see nothing but death and misery. It's your choice, but don't force your depressing view onto others.

Although I fully take responsibility for my choice. Something you seem to be unwilling to do

Oh, now I'm actually taking offense to that. I have never escaped responsibility. I am simply dismissing the notion that Refuse kills everyone. Because, frankly, I find that to be ridiculous.

[mass perfection]

You guys aren't very good at this.Geth and Quarian peace is pretty much temporary.Out of the five admirals that pretty much lead the Quarian people,one wants to destroy the Geth,another wants to control them,two want peace,and the other is undecided.Synthetics see us as a threat because we either:
A.Fear them and want to destroy every last one of them.
B.Feel that as our creators,we should control them.

Quarians were almost wiped out because they feared the Geth and tried to destroy them.If the Quarians let the Geth advance to the point where they can make independent decisions then the Geth would rebel because they wouldn't like to be slaves.

[spirosz]

Sauruz wrote...
I am simply dismissing the notion that Refuse kills everyone. Because, frankly, I find that to be ridiculous.

Refuse does kill everyone in Shepard's time.  Advanced races at least. 

[spirosz]

mass perfection wrote...

You guys aren't very good at this.Geth and Quarian peace is pretty much temporary.Out of the five admirals that pretty much lead the Quarian people,one wants to destroy the Geth,another wants to control them,two want peace,and the other is undecided.Synthetics see us as a threat because we either:
A.Fear them and want to destroy every last one of them.
B.Feel that as our creators,we should control them.

Quarians were almost wiped out because they feared the Geth and tried to destroy them.If the Quarians let the Geth advance to the point where they can make independent decisions then the Geth would rebel because they wouldn't like to be slaves.

Subjectiveeeeeeeeeeeeeee, come at me. 

[Galbrant]

Eh... I pretty much chose refuse for the same reason OP. Along with the fact the Catalyst has no evidence to back up its asinine claims and there is the issue of trust. Because he is the freaking Reaper creator. Which makes me to take anything it says with a grain of salt. The only reason people chose the other three options because they knew the results beforehand. Any person with an ounce of logic would refuse the catalyst every time.

It's unfortunate that the result is a case of bad writing with a middle finger..

[Nimrodell]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I respect your choice, J. But the cost of that principle is too high. Too many die and the next cycle has to make a choice or the same thing happens again. So why delay that and let all those die? Better to do it now and get it over with.

My question would be this; Why does the cost of that principle have to be more severe than those of any other ending?

Jade, first of all, every choice is the right one at the end - for your Shepard, it's the right call, and never let anyone tell you differently. In your Shepard's universe, you were the one to make a call, you were the one responsible and you took that responsibility because you had to... it's like the idea of Apocalypse, people think of Second Coming, or  even Mayan Calendar, but the apocalypse happens on daily basis for each living being that is ceasing to be, and no one is even considerning that fact, until their own apocalypse comes and knocks on the door. It's easy to be a smartarse after the outcome is seen... but before that, one can only decide what one thinks is the right thing. Even the so called pragmatic thinking can fail.

You ask why the principle has to have more severe punishment... It has to have more severe punishment in the eyes of others if we want semblence of reality, because that's how in human eyes and understanding things go. We all know huge paroles, statements and documents about heroism, liberty, rights, etc. but also, those are dead letters for most of the time. Unfortunately, this world, this existence we're live in is too grim, always was... and that's why principles suffer, always have and will continue to suffer until human race evolves, or there is indeed some higher entity that actually is benevolent and gives purpose to our morality. You gambled, lost your own cycle but won the battle for the next one, still you made your choice, the one you wanted .

[DeinonSlayer]

Galbrant wrote...

Eh... I pretty much chose refuse for the same reason OP. Along with the fact the Catalyst has no evidence to back up its asinine claims and there is the issue of trust. Because he is the freaking Reaper creator. Which makes me to take anything it says with a grain of salt. The only reason people chose the other three options because they knew the results beforehand. Any person with an ounce of logic would refuse the catalyst every time.

It's unfortunate that the result is a case of bad writing with a middle finger..

Well, when your choice comes down to "will lose" or "might win," you go with "might win."

I shoot the tube.

[spirosz]

Nimrodell wrote...

the one you wanted .

That's what should truly matter to the player. 

Before metagaming of course and role-playing in a sense.

Modifié par spirosz, 18 décembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Nimrodell wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I respect your choice, J. But the cost of that principle is too high. Too many die and the next cycle has to make a choice or the same thing happens again. So why delay that and let all those die? Better to do it now and get it over with.

My question would be this; Why does the cost of that principle have to be more severe than those of any other ending?

Jade, first of all, every choice is the right one at the end - for your Shepard, it's the right call, and never let anyone tell you differently. In your Shepard's universe, you were the one to make a call, you were the one responsible and you took that responsibility because you had to... it's like the idea of Apocalypse, people think of Second Coming, or  even Mayan Calendar, but the apocalypse happens on daily basis for each living being that is ceasing to be, and no one is even considerning that fact, until their own apocalypse comes and knocks on the door. It's easy to be a smartarse after the outcome is seen... but before that, one can only decide what one thinks is the right thing. Even the so called pragmatic thinking can fail.

You ask why the principle has to have more severe punishment... It has to have more severe punishment in the eyes of others if we want semblence of reality, because that's how in human eyes and understanding things go. We all know huge paroles, statements and documents about heroism, liberty, rights, etc. but also, those are dead letters for most of the time. Unfortunately, this world, this existence we're live in is too grim, always was... and that's why principles suffer, always have and will continue to suffer until human race evolves, or there is indeed some higher entity that actually is benevolent and gives purpose to our morality. You gambled, lost your own cycle but won the battle for the next one, still you made your choice, the one you wanted .

Better that one's code adapt to reality, making the best of what is, than watch the world fall apart, lamenting that reality won't adapt to one's code.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 18 décembre 2012 - 01:23 .

[Galbrant]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Galbrant wrote...

Eh... I pretty much chose refuse for the same reason OP. Along with the fact the Catalyst has no evidence to back up its asinine claims and there is the issue of trust. Because he is the freaking Reaper creator. Which makes me to take anything it says with a grain of salt. The only reason people chose the other three options because they knew the results beforehand. Any person with an ounce of logic would refuse the catalyst every time.

It's unfortunate that the result is a case of bad writing with a middle finger..

Well, when your choice comes down to "will lose" or "might win," you go with "might win."

I shoot the tube.

Again you chose this because you knew the result. 

[Clayless]

So you chose to do nothing and everyone died.

Failure in other words.

[Applepie_Svk]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

So you chose to do nothing and everyone died.

Failure in other words.

DO NOTHING or FLIP OF THE COIN WITH MAD AI...

[Bill Casey]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

This. All of this. Pretending that refuse can lead to an actual victory (instead of a short-lived "moral" one followed by centuries of screaming... then silence...)

If you view the stargazer scene literally, it's not a short lived moral victory...
It's a moral victory that lives on ten thousand years later...

[Clayless]

Bill Casey wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

This. All of this. Pretending that refuse can lead to an actual victory (instead of a short-lived "moral" one followed by centuries of screaming... then silence...)

If you view the stargazer scene literally, it's not a short lived moral victory...
It's a moral victory that lives on ten thousand years later...

Too bad everyones dead and trilions of people don't get to appreaciate the morals of it.

Not really a victory.