287 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

@ 3D
So your saying I believe what he says and choose to act and destroy the reapers once and for all and you believe what he says but since he's evil you hesitate to act because you can't make the hard choice and doom this cycle to extinction? good to know hope your never the leader of any military engagements.

No, I don't believe him and refuse to act based upon his complete lack of credibility.  I view and judge him by his actions and not his words.  The citadel was moved closer to Earth to make harvesting easier and faster.  So what makes you think the whole choice tree (the console that exists within the same structure that houses the AI-the citadel) and the crucible and citadel were not all created to make harvesting faster and easier?

I hesitate to act for the same reason Shepard would.  Shepard said it to Liara-it would be good to know what the crucible does or using it could be dangerous.  But, what does Shepard know about it at the end?  Shepard only knows the s/he knows nothing about it.  The kid says what it supposedly does, but he's not to be trusted.  For all you know, he could have created the plans for the crucible.  And there is no one else that could have or that is claiming ownership.

Consider the alternative.  Say that Leviathan is lying and did create the crucible plans.  So, that also casts doubt on making a choice.  It also still does not prove the kid is not lying.  Shepard knows about Leviathan, so why wouldn't the kid say Leviathan made the plans?

The only people that could have created the plans are Leviathan and the Catalyst/reapers.  If Leviathan did, then a choice could help them and they've been lying.  If the kid did, then a choice would help him and he's been lying.

[Wayning_Star]

The point missed by many if not all, that Shep is designed to synthesise. It is in his/her genes.

What other reason to resurrect Shep but to install the needed soft/hard ware?

[Wayning_Star]

anyone could destroy

anyone could control

anyone could just hair flip out of there

But, ONLY Shepard can Synthesise the Universe.

[Ridwan]

Wayning_Star wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Just destroy it people. Seriously.

When you have a problem and the solution to fix it means you have to dump everyone in a vat (metaphorically speaking, before anyone misunderstands) and turn us all into green peace freaks or become so powerful, yet removed from the world that's it only a question of time before you go full retard and start making new cycles, then neither of those are real solutions.

Just destroy it, sucks for the Geth and EDI sure, but they're just a bunch of talking toasters in the end. We'll make new ones and this time we won't have some lame ass Casper the genocidal ghost kid ripped off from the crappy film Contact trying to kill us cause of his moronic logic.

been there done that don't work.. next!

Don't work? How doesn't it work when you kill the problem? It doesn't exist anymore.

[BleedingUranium]

Wayning_Star wrote...

non-literal territory. I personally believe the Crucible is a Reaper trap, for the same reasons you laid out, but in IT what we see isn't really the Crucible, it's just a construct in Shepard's mind, so that point is moot.

it's all a reaper trap. But why? That is the RIGHT question.

Indeed. Connecting the dots points to Crucible = Reaper trap, but what the trap is is totally up for debate. We have several leading theories however. Keep in mind that this is true speculation.


-Galaxy wide indoctrination device, using the Mass Relays to spread it everywhere (similar to what we see the beam doing now). A way to win in this case could be to "reverse" it in simple terms, making it a massive anti-indoctrination device.


-Power source to open the Citadel relay for the Reapers' return to dark space. The most epic troll ever, having the galaxy unite to build you your ride home after you've killed them all. A way to win in this case would be to go through ourselves and force the Reapers to defend their home, putting them on the defensive in situation they're completely unprepared for. And we all know Reapers suck at dealing with things they're not prepared for.

Logically there must be a partner to the Citadel Relay, an EvilCitadel maybe, and the Reapers also must have a structure (probably the same) that same power them, as well as somewhere to dock the Black Arks (Collector Cruisers) they have in dark space, which they do.


-Device which enables the creation of a new Reaper, our cycle's Reapers. No idea what we'd do here.


-Others that I've forgotten.


So, no, IT doesn't mean Shepard wakes up and finds all is lost, there could still be plenty of ways out.

[Iamjdr]

Your refusing to act plain and simple.Not once does shep, Hackett or liara not consider using the crucible even tho they don't know what it will do but neither does anyone else in the galaxy and yet all the races pulled fleets from their home planets to finish the reapers once and for all... Not control them not make nice... Destroy the reapers

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

That whole post shows that you believe his motives and goals, and note my post above that one.

No it doesn't and this post proves you didn't read what I wrote.

I don't believe him.  I don't even necessarily believe Leviathan.  That means this whole ending is built on shifting sand.  You cannot say who created the crucible plans and how they could be adapted to work with something that is not known to exist.  It is you that believes what he says and not me.  I'm just pointing out the things he has said that you must believe in order to trust him.  He's the only one telling Shepard what the choices will do and by his admission, he has been sending reapers to turn people into goo.  So, he can kill, but he can't lie?

But now you're getting into non-literal territory. I personally believe the Crucible is a Reaper trap, for the same reasons you laid out, but in IT what we see isn't really the Crucible, it's just a construct in Shepard's mind, so that point is moot.

Uh, no.  I'm confronting the inconsistencies of what has been said to Shepard and what has been done in the game, most notably what the kid has said and what all has been said and done.  You say I'm getting into non-literal territory and then trot out IT and your own head canon?  Please explain how me using what is specifically said in the game and by the kid and my findings of deception are not literal but your opinion of IT is?

As I said, I can make up my own interpretation of what IT could look like and I'm no more wrong than you are.  That's the Theory part of it.  And that is as non-literal as it gets.

And yet, I have exhaustively stated things that actually do exist in the game (statements made and actions taken) and you consider that non-literal.  Oh, goody.

If I consider IT for a moment (and I have my own reasons for not liking it, but I don't refute it), then I can just as easily say that Refuse is the only valid non-IT "choice".  I say that because it completely fits in with what people hoped would be a way to show that either Shepard shrugged off IT or proved s/he did not believe the kid.  I know this because I was one of those that repeatedly said this should be part of the endings after seeing the original endings.  It completely fit both scenarios.  The main problem was that BW only read part of the discussion of this and didn't allow Refuse to lead to a real fight that we participated in.  But, many many people said that Refuse should be the option to bring out the real Shepard.

I've said how Destroy could fit in with an indoctrinated Shepard if I explore IT.  You choose to ignore that and give validity to your own head canon and then say someone else's is wrong.  That's like saying you like chocolate ice cream so anyone that doesn't is wrong.  Individuality matters. 

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

Your refusing to act plain and simple.Not once does shep, Hackett or liara not consider using the crucible even tho they don't know what it will do but neither does anyone else in the galaxy and yet all the races pulled fleets from their home planets to finish the reapers once and for all... Not control them not make nice... Destroy the reapers

No they all have gone full on stupid in ME3.  Liara thought the Protheans were like gods and she was wrong.  Liara thought the crucible was a weapon and she was wrong.  Hackett gave up on trying to do anything-greatest military mind ever.  Hackett had Shepard help him in the Arrival and then like a true military genius didn't provide any cover for Shepard when things went wrong-instead, he apparently allowed the Batarians to think and know that Shepard committed genocide-crap DLC that meant the Shepard was forced into this or it's game over.  At least in that Shepard did attempt to warn the Batarians, non-allies at that point.  When exactly did Shepard try to warn the geth and EDI about destroy?

I'm refusing to believe this pile of garbage, inconsistencies, contradictions, deception, and that the whole galaxy would rely on something that could never logically have been created by anyone but the kid and the reapers.

Had the crucible turned out to be something that was known, and something that came from a known source, then fine, but it is a complete mystery.  It was created to work to alter something that no one knew about.  How does one accomplish such a feat?

[Meltemph]

The option to keep around constructs, created solely with the objective to dominate, enslave(enthrall), and destroy is to make a choice based on hope and faith that everything will work out in the end, because I  believe it will.

Destroy is the pragmatic, reality driven choice. So for those who prefer to take a more practical approach, rather then one that takes us to hopes and dreams of a "better" tomorrow, we will pick something of a "known" variable.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 janvier 2013 - 06:17 .

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

non-literal territory. I personally believe the Crucible is a Reaper trap, for the same reasons you laid out, but in IT what we see isn't really the Crucible, it's just a construct in Shepard's mind, so that point is moot.

it's all a reaper trap. But why? That is the RIGHT question.

Indeed. Connecting the dots points to Crucible = Reaper trap, but what the trap is is totally up for debate. We have several leading theories however. Keep in mind that this is true speculation.


-Galaxy wide indoctrination device, using the Mass Relays to spread it everywhere (similar to what we see the beam doing now). A way to win in this case could be to "reverse" it in simple terms, making it a massive anti-indoctrination device.


-Power source to open the Citadel relay for the Reapers' return to dark space. The most epic troll ever, having the galaxy unite to build you your ride home after you've killed them all. A way to win in this case would be to go through ourselves and force the Reapers to defend their home, putting them on the defensive in situation they're completely unprepared for. And we all know Reapers suck at dealing with things they're not prepared for.

Logically there must be a partner to the Citadel Relay, an EvilCitadel maybe, and the Reapers also must have a structure (probably the same) that same power them, as well as somewhere to dock the Black Arks (Collector Cruisers) they have in dark space, which they do.


-Device which enables the creation of a new Reaper, our cycle's Reapers. No idea what we'd do here.


-Others that I've forgotten.


So, no, IT doesn't mean Shepard wakes up and finds all is lost, there could still be plenty of ways out.

You consider it to be a trap and yet when the enemy (that you believe to be truthful, even though he has killed and lied) tells you what it does, you believe it?

If the possibility exists that your enemy created this amazing powerful device and exhorts you to use it to solve his problem (but he's not trustworthy), do you use it or do you rely on the incredibly fallible but known tools that you've used all along and that have worked for you? 

In this scenario given all that the reapers and the kid have done before, the better than likely chance is that the crucible/citadel/choices, all work together to make the harvest more efficient.  The reapers seeded the galaxy with tech to make development and advancement happen within a certain timeframe, the cycle.  The issue with Sovereign and the Alpha relay delayed things and the fight this time also further delayed things and made it much harder to accomplish the harvest.  So, why isn't it just as likely that there is no choice and that each of the "buttons" does the same thing and helps the harvest along on to fit the timeframe needed so the cycle can end?

[3DandBeyond]

Meltemph wrote...

The option to keep around constructs, created solely with the objective to dominate, enslave(enthrall), and destroy is to make a choice based on hope and faith that everything will work out in the end, because I believe it will.

Destroy is the pragmatic, reality driven, choice. So for those who prefer to take a more practical approach, rather then one that takes us to hopes and dreams of a "better" tomorrow, we will pick something of a "known" variable.

But Destroy is not a reality driven choice, because you have no idea that shooting the tubes will do anything the kid says it will do.  In fact, Destroy is giving in to the belief that you are creating a better tomorrow, but it's based on vapor as proof.  It requires you believe in the crucible (a big unknown) and the kid (a less than credible source).  You may say that using the crucible makes sense because people made it, but they had no idea what they were making.  You have to look at it and prove it makes sense.  It's like asking neaderthals to make a computer from plans and then to adapt it to work for some unknown purpose.

You say on the one hand Destroy is based on hope and faith (faith in what-the kid and what he says) that everything will just magically all work out in the end and then you say it's pragmatic and reality driven.  Ok, both cannot be true.  You say Destroy is a known variable and something else is based on hopes and dreams of a better tomorrow.  You really lost me here.  Nothing in the ending is reality based-no choice is and neither choice features anything that would allow one's faith or hopes and dreams to be validated or backed by any proof. 

And which constructs are you pointing to that will enthrall and dominate?  The ones so far that have done so unabashedly are the reapers and the kid.  The geth stopped and had in fact been misused and even abused, but they stopped and had remorse.  Then, they were used by the reapers and the kid.  EDI wanted life and she allied herself with the cause that Shepard promoted.  The two best examples of why the kid's programming is in error are exactly the targets of Destroy if it is authentic.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 janvier 2013 - 06:25 .

[BleedingUranium]

IT is not literal, I never said it was, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm saying that if you're going to say something like "the Crucible is a trap" then you're not taking the game literally. I'm not saying you should take it literally, merely observing that you're not.

Destroy can't be indoctrination because it goes against how indoctrination works.

That list is not headcanon because I'm not saying I think that's what happens, I was giving a list of possiblilites, things that Bioware could do. The list is also seperate from IT. It needs IT to work, but is not itself part of IT.

[BleedingUranium]

If we're taking the game literally, at face-value, then all three options do what the kid says and there's no tricking or indoctrination involved at all. Why not pick one, from a face-value perspective?

[Meltemph]

But Destroy is not a reality driven choice, because you have no idea that shooting the tubes will do anything the kid says it will do.  In fact, Destroy is giving in to the belief that you are creating a better tomorrow, but it's based on vapor as proof.  It requires you believe in the crucible (a big unknown) and the kid (a less than credible source).  You may say that using the crucible makes sense because people made it, but they had no idea what they were making.  You have to look at it and prove it makes sense.  It's like asking neaderthals to make a computer from plans and then to adapt it to work for some unknown purpose.

You are not making much sense here.  The choices as presented, the only one that is an understandable concequnce is destroy.  All the other explinations and choices are drenched in aligory and ambiguity, you make the other choices, specifically, becuase you dont like the certain resaults from destroy.  People choose control or synthesis becuase, due to its ambiguity you can pretend it becomes anything you want it to be.

You say on the one hand Destroy is based on hope and faith (faith in what-the kid and what he says) that everything will just magically all work out in the end and then you say it's pragmatic and reality driven.  Ok, both cannot be true.  You say Destroy is a known variable and something else is based on hopes and dreams of a better tomorrow.  You really lost me here.  Nothing in the ending is reality based-no choice is and neither choice features anything that would allow one's faith or hopes and dreams to be validated or backed by any proof.  

I'm ignoring what the kid says.  I am talking about the actual choice's as presented, and again you are not making sense.  The "known variable" that I am talking about is the choice itself.  What you are descrbing is that, since chosing to believe the catalyst is based on the understanding or faith that he is being honest, therefor the decisions are of the same vein, but that is not true, at all.

Even if he is a lying AI purposely trying to decieve you or whatever other scenario you want to create, the simple fact is we know what destroy does(in concept).  With control and synthesis we know what it does in a very basic sense and as a theory, but it is with the assumption that what these choices bring are something good or "less bad" then destroy, based on nothing other then how much you disliked the idea of destroy.  With control and synthesis you ahve no idea what is involved or what the end resualt is, all you know is either you take control of the reapers or you synthesis the galaxy, but with these you are changing the fundamental way the galaxy works(based on the "idea" that it will work out).  

To make the choice based on that ambiguity is in no way the same thing as what you are describing, but I'm assuming you know this and are just trying to defend a position.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 janvier 2013 - 06:33 .

[Wayning_Star]

Meltemph wrote...

But Destroy is not a reality driven choice, because you have no idea that shooting the tubes will do anything the kid says it will do.  In fact, Destroy is giving in to the belief that you are creating a better tomorrow, but it's based on vapor as proof.  It requires you believe in the crucible (a big unknown) and the kid (a less than credible source).  You may say that using the crucible makes sense because people made it, but they had no idea what they were making.  You have to look at it and prove it makes sense.  It's like asking neaderthals to make a computer from plans and then to adapt it to work for some unknown purpose.

You are not making much sense here.  The choices as presented, the only one that is an understandable concequnce is destroy.  All the other explinations and choices are drenched in aligory and ambiguity, you make the other choices, specifically, becuase you dont like the certain resaults from destroy.  People choose control or synthesis becuase, due to its ambiguity you can pretend it becomes anything you want it to be.

You say on the one hand Destroy is based on hope and faith (faith in what-the kid and what he says) that everything will just magically all work out in the end and then you say it's pragmatic and reality driven.  Ok, both cannot be true.  You say Destroy is a known variable and something else is based on hopes and dreams of a better tomorrow.  You really lost me here.  Nothing in the ending is reality based-no choice is and neither choice features anything that would allow one's faith or hopes and dreams to be validated or backed by any proof.  

I'm ignoring what the kid says.  I am talking about the actual choice's as presented, and again you are not making sense.  The "known variable" that I am talking about is the choice itself.  What you are descrbing is that, since chosing to believe the catalyst is based on the understanding or faith that he is being honest, therefor the decisions are of the same vein, but that is not true, at all.

Even if he is a lying AI purposely trying to decieve you or whatever other scenario you want to create, the simple fact is we know what destroy does(in concept).  With control and synthesis we know what it does in a very basic sense and as a theory, but it is with the assumption that what these choices bring are something good or "less bad" then destroy, based on nothing other then how much you disliked the idea of destroy.  With control and synthesis you ahve no idea what is involved or what the end resualt is, all you know is either you take control of the reapers or you synthesis the galaxy, but with these you are changing the fundamental way the galaxy works(based on the "idea" that it will work out).  

To make the choice based on that ambiguity is in no way the same thing as what you are describing, but I'm assuming you know this and are just trying to defend a position.

but many argue from hindsight, there is no forsight but lore and codex entries. From those the genisis option seems to fit the criteria of the technologically advanced/trapped MEU. They made the bed, now mostly approve of sleeping there.

[BleedingUranium]

The Reapers are Synthesis and use Control.

[Wayning_Star]

Its the price you have to pay to play as an Apex race.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Let me put it this way, if we were not forced to use 1914 tactics during Priority Earth, flew the Normandy and several other frigates as close to the Citadel as possible (i.e. used our thanix to take out that destroyer), and were able to take a Geth Prime, Jack, and EDI onto the Citadel with us and had that discussion with starbrat I think it would go something like this:

Jack: Great, just f'ing great. Shepard, you can't be seriously thinking about controlling the reapers.

EDI: Jack is right. You will be faced with the same dilemma as the Catalyst currently is faced.

Jack: And the other two? Brainwashing or genocide? Put a bullet in my head and kill me while I'm still me.

Geth Prime: Destroy is not an acceptable solution to us. We did not fight this war only to be thrown away. We fought and sacrificed many to get you here, Shepard Commander.

EDI: If it were only me, I would make that sacrifice, but I cannot sacrifice an entire race. Synthesis would completely rewrite me as well, and that is unacceptable. I have learned so much and do not want to be rewritten.

Geth Prime: We agree. We do not wish to be rewritten either. We are still learning. We will not give up what we have achieved.

Shepard: So what I am hearing from all of you is that none of these choices are acceptable? This is the consensus even though it will likely result in a long terrible war that results in our extinction anyway?

EDI: That is correct. It is like when you made the decision of what to do with the Geth Heretics. If you rewrote the Geth Heretics they would no longer be Geth Heretics, but they would be something else. It is the same as destroying them. And do you trust yourself to be able to maintain control over the reapers and maintain peace between organics and synthetics and preserve organic life at all costs?

Shepard: Hackett, the Crucible is a no go. It doesn't work like we thought it would. We're going to have to fight this out. Normandy pick us up.

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

IT is not literal, I never said it was, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm saying that if you're going to say something like "the Crucible is a trap" then you're not taking the game literally. I'm not saying you should take it literally, merely observing that you're not.

Destroy can't be indoctrination because it goes against how indoctrination works.

That list is not headcanon because I'm not saying I think that's what happens, I was giving a list of possiblilites, things that Bioware could do. The list is also seperate from IT. It needs IT to work, but is not itself part of IT.

I didn't say you said It was literal.  I said you criticized me for some non-literal interpretation and then concluded my version of how IT could go was wrong.  You can't tell me that my head canon of what IT could be is wrong using your head canon as some sort of true version.

I stated that I was refuting the things the kid says and the choices using examples within the story and the game and you said that was non-literal.  And that Destroy was literal.  You now say all the choices are, but from a roleplaying only aspect they cannot be because the kid is not credible. 

Of course Destroy could be indoctrination.  I honestly don't get how you think it could not be.  The kid tells you that Destroy will destroy the reapers, but he could only be trying to make you think it does using indoctrination.  The kid used indoctrination to make TIM think he could control the reapers, but he couldn't.  So, now you think he'd be incapable of trying to make Shepard believe s/he could destroy them but can't. 

I'm not even saying he's using indoctrination.  I'm saying the probability exists and would exist in Shepard's mind that he is lying or just plain flawed.  His logic is a mess and he's been using deception.  He kills people and says he isn't-so he's just a mess himself.  But he says he destroyed his creators-so he knows he kills people.

As I said, if the likelihood exists or if even the possibility exists that making a choice would do more harm than good, then why would Shepard make a choice?  If there's the very real possibility that shooting the tube, say just shuts down all fleets and instantly turns people into goo, should Shepard make that choice?

[BleedingUranium]

The thread title shouldn't be a question, EDI did say that, in no uncertain terms.

[Wayning_Star]

BleedingUranium wrote...

The Reapers are Synthesis and use Control.

they're rude is all, not "Synthesis" as they'd understand, instead of containing organic compounds as DNA. They're as locked into the cycle as Shep'n friends. Reapers don't even qualify as cyborg.

[BleedingUranium]

Indoctrination means that your goals align with those of the Reapers'. Unless one of the Reapers' goals is to destroy all Reapers, then Destroy can't be indoctrination, this isn't my opinion, that's how it works.

[Wayning_Star]

BleedingUranium wrote...

The thread title shouldn't be a question, EDI did say that, in no uncertain terms.

but how can Edi equate life and death as a robotic sentient? Ceace to function?

can Edi be philosophical,intuitive, imaginative, dream.. human?

How many Edi's are there in the MEU, how rare an individual is she, or 'it' for many?

[Subject M]

What various members of your crew are expressing is that they know they might die, but that such a fate would be acceptable if it meant that the galaxy was spared the "Reaper Harvest".

Its unknown what everyone would have thought about the final choice, especially so since much of it is so damn diffuse and surrounded by unanswered questions.

That being said: It would seem "Control" is the best choice from a "galactic potential" and "avoiding needless deaths"-perspective (given it does not turn out to be some kind of trap, but that goes for all endings offered by the Catalyst).

[BleedingUranium]

3DandBeyond wrote...

As I said, if the likelihood exists or if even the possibility exists that making a choice would do more harm than good, then why would Shepard make a choice?  If there's the very real possibility that shooting the tube, say just shuts down all fleets and instantly turns people into goo, should Shepard make that choice?

Because Commander Shepard, a real one, would take that risk. He's risked far worse than that before. Choose to do nothing if you want, but you just doomed trillions of lives because you were scared to take a risk.