935 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

The Twilight God wrote...
If Shepard does synthesis or control and the Kid is lying, all hope is lost. If he shoots a power conduit and the Crucible still doesn't fire he is still standing to seek alternatives story wise. 

Such as?

[PirateMouse]

The Twilight God wrote...

If Shepard does synthesis or control and the Kid is lying, all hope is lost. If he shoots a power conduit and the Crucible still doesn't fire he is still standing to seek alternatives story wise. 

How do you know that? Because Starbrat told you?

For all you know, shooting the tubes blows up the Crucible (and instantly kills you) ... or is actually the secret real trigger for Synthesis (sucker!) ... or releases a super indoctrination virus ... and no, none of these things are implausible given you're occupying a super device no one even understands and discussing space magic with the apparent controller of a fleet/race of super space machines so far beyond you that you can't hope to defeat them conventionally.

The part about the Crucible simply blowing up and killing you is especially plausible and doesn't even really invoke space magic.

Everything you think you know about how safe it is to shoot the tubes, you got from Starbrat.  Same as the other options.  There is no more reason to believe you survive shooting the tubes than there is to believe you survive either of the other two options unless you believe Starbrat is telling you the truth.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 15 avril 2013 - 05:54 .

[The Twilight God]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
If Shepard does synthesis or control and the Kid is lying, all hope is lost. If he shoots a power conduit and the Crucible still doesn't fire he is still standing to seek alternatives story wise. 

Such as?

Call EDI and have her scan the place like she's done in other such situations. Example Then her death could be addressed on the stop instead of just having a nameplate on the wall. Main characters deserve better than to just die off screen and not even have the event properly addressed.

PirateMouse wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

If Shepard does synthesis or control and the Kid is lying, all hope is lost. If he shoots a power conduit and the Crucible still doesn't fire he is still standing to seek alternatives story wise. 

How do you know that? Because Starbrat told you?

It never tells you anything really. It just directs your attention to the power conduit that has the words "power conduit" pop up if the camera faces it (like every other interactable object). Not really sure if it is beaming the images into Shepard's head or if that stuff is just there for the player to understand what will play out. In either case, there is no reason to assume shooting something will somehow cause Shepard to die. It isn't suicide, implied or otherwise. If we're just going to assume each and every thing possible could possibly kill Shepard "just because" then maybe using the conduit to get to the Citadel would have killed him, or hacking any random door or firing a heavy weapon he picked up off the battlefield. Why stop at the power conduit?

PirateMouse wrote...

For all you know, shooting the tubes blows up the Crucible (and instantly kills you) ... or is actually the secret real trigger for Synthesis (sucker!) ... or releases a super indoctrination virus ... and no, none of these things are implausible given you're occupying a super device no one even understands and discussing space magic with the apparent controller of a fleet/race of super space machines so far beyond you that you can't hope to defeat them conventionally.

It's a power conduit. Literally, just some power cables. Cables running through whatever that contraption is the Reapers set up on the Citadel. How do you imagine destroying power lines running through the Citadel is going to destroy the Crucible or start synthesis? That doesn't make any sense. Here is another off the wall idea: What if talking to the Kid powers up the Control? Huh? You're grasping at straws.

PirateMouse wrote...

The part about the Crucible simply blowing up and killing you is especially plausible and doesn't even really invoke space magic.

Not plausible at all. You're not even shooting the Crucible. You're shooting something on the Citadel. Now shooting the Crucible WOULD be stupid and make no sense. It is implied by Hackett that the Crucible should have fired automatically, but something was stopping it.

I understand you like the rainbows and butterflies endings, but pretending like they can be construed as rational decisions in light of everything we know about the Reapers is kind of childish. Basically, because the ending you like requires an irrational choice you need to paint Destroy as somehow irrational too to essential derive a situation in which all choices are bad. Thus removing the notion of rational choice from the equation. I get it. It annoys you that people bring up the fact that they make no sense, but ultimately it's Bioware's fault that they make no sense thematically and contradict everything Shepard has said and done leading up to not more than 5 minutes prior. Not your fault or mine.

PirateMouse wrote...

Everything you think you know about how safe it is to shoot the tubes, you got from Starbrat.  Same as the other options.  There is no more reason to believe you survive shooting the tubes than there is to believe you survive either of the other two options unless you believe Starbrat is telling you the truth.

Well, no. Actually the Kid makes it out to be not safe claiming Shepard is partly synthetic and the Crucible, if started, would target his synthetics. But that's IF the Crucible fires. If you shoot some power cables running through the Citadel and the Crucible doesn't fire, you're still around to call the Kid out on a lie and look into alternatives. I don't need the Kid to tell me it's safe. There no reason to believe it would hurt Shepard. It's a power conduit. You shoot objects like that throughout the series all the time. 

And now you've comparing disintegration with shooting something yards away? Come on now They are nowhere near the same. Like I said above... "I get it". You need destroy to seem as reckless as antagonist directed suicide in order to make your preferred choice seem less silly.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 15 avril 2013 - 07:43 .

[Fade9wayz]

remydat wrote...

Fade9wayz

Well yes of course it is an opinion.  All of this is our interpretation of events unless it is clearly stated.  Over the lifetime of a universe ie billions of years our decisions made are largely insignificant.  Hell this is only a single galaxy and there are hundreds of millions of galaxies.

I think the game makes pretty clear they are hybrids.  They are each a nation of their own a Sovereign states.  Further, in synthesis, EDI says the Reapers pass on all the knowledge and culture of the prior races to the rest of the galaxy.  So as perverse as it is that knowledge and culture is there although yes there.  And while in Reaper form they do not produce art they built the relays, they engage in manipulation, install puppets, have a network of workers like the Collectors, they taunt you ie they exhibit all sorts of characteristics of organics.  The Geth don't go around trolling you like Harby likes to do.  That dude has personaility that is pretty distinct from Sovereign for example.

And this is where you lose me.  If you think they are dumb synthetics then they can't be guilt of a crime.  A computer is not guilty of a crime when it has no free will.  So really you need to decide which argument you want to make.  Either they are restricted by their programming in which case as the Catalyst says Fire is not in conflict when it burns you or they are in which case the organic side of them is present.  Personally I think it is both.  They have elements of synthetic behavior and elements of organic behavior.  Harby might be restricted by his programming but he sure seems to enjoy what he does regardless.  He also seems to have a personal interest in Shep as the Reaper on Rannoch notes.  And no one said we shouldn't stop the Reapers so I don't get that point.



And again, you are free to make your choice.  All I noted is Destroy makes a choice by eliminated one party to the conflict.  So you have not given everyone a chance to decide for themsleves.  You have given organics that choice by robbing said choice from synthetics.  That is a price you might be willing to pay but continuing to say it gives people a choice is misleading if you don't mention you have robbed that choice from synthetics.

Choosing it if it annihlated all organics makes no sense.  The Reapers leave primitive organics alone. You might as well choose refuse since it allows those primitives 50 thousand years of life until the next cycle.  That is why I say I think people just say that to say it.  Plus, there are planets that are still at say the non-sentient life stage.  They die too.  So basically you would kill the Reapers and in doing so basically ensure it will be millions if not billions of years before organics can evolve again to sentience.  So I don't see how that makes any sense.

The point about the Geth was that if they don't upload the Code they die so they wouldn't be around for destroy anyways.  When Gherel is not informed of the RC, he either kills the Geth or the Geth kill him.  The only time peace is achieved is because Gherel is told of the RC in both paragon and renegade options so he stands down because he knows he can't win.  He has no other choice if he he wants to live. 

It doesn't make it that clear at all. Yes, they say they are a nation and they are, in the sense they store all that was particular to this nation and are all that is left of it. DNA, culture, what have you. However, we are not talking about a living civilisation here. We can access knowledge from our own past DEAD civilisations through their writings and monuments. It's not different except Reapers have sentience, but everything I see of it points to a synthetic one with clear-cut objectives and no room for alternatives. The fact that they have a form of sentience, and even different personalities doesn't make them smart though. EDI has an individual personality, but she can think for herself and redefine parameters to achieve a given task and she's all Synthetic. She can tease and joke too, again no organic part is involved in that feat. Hell, even Legion had an individual personality in the end . You seem to consider that such behavior are only achievable if organic components are involved. EDI and Legion are clear proof of the contrary. Shepard has extensive synthetic implants, but none of them interfer wtih his/her cognitive pathways.
So yes, they build things, so will any mindless robot set on a task with the right blueprints. I have yet to see any proof that their organic goo has sentience. So not a proof of being a living civilisation. Living individual synthetic beings yes, maybe, living civilisation, no.

Maybe I didn't make things very clear. I was hungover out of my mind when I posted my previous reply and I see I have to go into more depth. The problem with Reapers is that you can either consider they do have a personality and as such, be held accountable for their crimes, regardless of who their creators were and how badly they programmed them, or you don't and consider them as some pandemia. Is the AIDS virus responsible for it's programming that leads it to duplicate its own RNA in our cells? No. Is it even responsibe for passing on from apes to humans? No again. Should we eradicate it if given the chance? Yes. The fact that they might be something in-between fully sentient being and mindless robot is irrelevant. As I said, they are a universal threat that needs to be adressed. Their nature or origin is of no concern to me. You were implying I had a bias against Reapers because they are synthetics and I'm organic and that sacrificing Geth and EDI was done lightly because of this. My goal was simply to show that it isn't the case. I chose Destroy because that is the least abhorrent choice in my eyes. I'm well aware other people might put survival of the greatest numbers above free evolution and self-determination, but I won't. 

I'm not metagaming and I'm not basing my choice on what some hypothetical super future AI might or might not think.

Edit: I still don't see why you brought it up. I know that. I was just raising a point I thought was very ironical had things turn out differently with Geth surviving without uploading that code. After all, all tech didn't disappear with the Destroy beam or the whole fleet would have blown up too and the galaxy would have been sent back to middle-age.  I thought the way I presented things was clear, blame it on my pounding headache.

Modifié par Fade9wayz, 15 avril 2013 - 01:30 .

[Dendio1]

Destroy would be interesting if it simply destroyed everything in order to leave room for the next cycle to exist without reapers

[AchesOfDoom]

All rEApers

[robertthebard]

Fade9wayz wrote...

It doesn't make it that clear at all. Yes, they say they are a nation and they are, in the sense they store all that was particular to this nation and are all that is left of it. DNA, culture, what have you. However, we are not talking about a living civilisation here. We can access knowledge from our own past DEAD civilisations through their writings and monuments. It's not different except Reapers have sentience, but everything I see of it points to a synthetic one with clear-cut objectives and no room for alternatives. The fact that they have a form of sentience, and even different personalities doesn't make them smart though. EDI has an individual personality, but she can think for herself and redefine parameters to achieve a given task and she's all Synthetic. She can tease and joke too, again no organic part is involved in that feat. Hell, even Legion had an individual personality in the end . You seem to consider that such behavior are only achievable if organic components are involved. EDI and Legion are clear proof of the contrary. Shepard has extensive synthetic implants, but none of them interfer wtih his/her cognitive pathways.
So yes, they build things, so will any mindless robot set on a task with the right blueprints. I have yet to see any proof that their organic goo has sentience. So not a proof of being a living civilisation. Living individual synthetic beings yes, maybe, living civilisation, no.

Maybe I didn't make things very clear. I was hungover out of my mind when I posted my previous reply and I see I have to go into more depth. The problem with Reapers is that you can either consider they do have a personality and as such, be held accountable for their crimes, regardless of who their creators were and how badly they programmed them, or you don't and consider them as some pandemia. Is the AIDS virus responsible for it's programming that leads it to duplicate its own RNA in our cells? No. Is it even responsibe for passing on from apes to humans? No again. Should we eradicate it if given the chance? Yes. The fact that they might be something in-between fully sentient being and mindless robot is irrelevant. As I said, they are a universal threat that needs to be adressed. Their nature or origin is of no concern to me. You were implying I had a bias against Reapers because they are synthetics and I'm organic and that sacrificing Geth and EDI was done lightly because of this. My goal was simply to show that it isn't the case. I chose Destroy because that is the least abhorrent choice in my eyes. I'm well aware other people might put survival of the greatest numbers above free evolution and self-determination, but I won't. 

I'm not metagaming and I'm not basing my choice on what some hypothetical super future AI might or might not think.

Edit: I still don't see why you brought it up. I know that. I was just raising a point I thought was very ironical had things turn out differently with Geth surviving without uploading that code. After all, all tech didn't disappear with the Destroy beam or the whole fleet would have blown up too and the galaxy would have been sent back to middle-age.  I thought the way I presented things was clear, but apparently not.

I'm starting to really love that "future AI" argument.  If you point out that ShepAI could eventually restart the harvests, it's "that'll never happen in my games", but choose Destroy, and some AI that isn't even a sparkle in the eye of a scientist that isn't even a sparkle in their great 10x removed grandparent's eye is a really important detail.

[fchopin]

I would have picked destroy even if all races died.
The important thing is for the reapers to die so the next developed race can be free to shape their own future.

[Fade9wayz]

robertthebard wrote...
I'm starting to really love that "future AI" argument.  If you point out that ShepAI could eventually restart the harvests, it's "that'll never happen in my games", but choose Destroy, and some AI that isn't even a sparkle in the eye of a scientist that isn't even a sparkle in their great 10x removed grandparent's eye is a really important detail.

Yep, don't you love double-standards? Even if the harvest wasn't restarted, the mere passive threat of this would be enough to skew any political endeavour. You'd basically have to be sure any plan is in accordance with Sheplyst views or risk angering it with all consequences associated.

[Afroninja367]

Dendio1 wrote...

Destroy would be interesting if it simply destroyed everything in order to leave room for the next cycle to exist without reapers

Man, imagine the hate for THAT ending! But that would be interesting, though

Modifié par Afroninja367, 15 avril 2013 - 05:46 .

[Killdren88]

Why not Elcore or Vorcha? Or volous? Or was this to trip up those people who value their LIs greatly?

[Fade9wayz]

Killdren88 wrote...

Why not Elcore or Vorcha? Or volous? Or was this to trip up those people who value their LIs greatly?

No! Not Volus! They are way too cute. They will survive any armaggeddonn by way of sheer cuteness. I can't get enough of watching them roll down ramps. Volus must roll forever while shouting "PAYDAY!" or the universe will collapse. 

[robertthebard]

Fade9wayz wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

Why not Elcore or Vorcha? Or volous? Or was this to trip up those people who value their LIs greatly?

No! Not Volus! They are way too cute. They will survive any armaggeddonn by way of sheer cuteness. I can't get enough of watching them roll down ramps. Volus must roll forever while shouting "PAYDAY!" or the universe will collapse. 

Not only that, but hasn't it been established that, since we have no real dwarves, the game is now "Toss a Volus"?

[Fade9wayz]

robertthebard wrote...

Fade9wayz wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

Why not Elcore or Vorcha? Or volous? Or was this to trip up those people who value their LIs greatly?

No! Not Volus! They are way too cute. They will survive any armaggeddonn by way of sheer cuteness. I can't get enough of watching them roll down ramps. Volus must roll forever while shouting "PAYDAY!" or the universe will collapse. 

Not only that, but hasn't it been established that, since we have no real dwarves, the game is now "Toss a Volus"?

Very popular game on Tuchanka!

[knightnblu]

PirateMouse wrote...

Here's a question for those who picked Destroy ...

Would you still pick Destroy if it required you to kill all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

All humans?

All organics?

How far are you really prepared to go? How far does the end justify the means for you?

The ends justify the means? Like when you pick synthesis and rape all life in the galaxy? You mean like that? Or how about when you pick control and assume the mantle of deity while denying justice to trillions and perhaps even quadrillions of people? As far as "all organics," isn't that what the OE did essentially?

The sacrifice of an entire race or races is no small thing, but to be rid of an existential threat to all? To do so without raping the galaxy? Without assuming the mantle of deity and sacrificing your own humanity and providing no guarantee that you won't resort to genocide in the future? Yes, that is pretty much worth it. In fact, it is the only just path to take.

[Xilizhra]

The ends justify the means? Like when you pick synthesis and rape all life in the galaxy? You mean like that? Or how about when you pick control and assume the mantle of deity while denying justice to trillions and perhaps even quadrillions of people? As far as "all organics," isn't that what the OE did essentially?

Death, in and of itself, is never justice. Also, if even the original Catalyst wanted to stop genocide because it had stopped working, why do you think Shepard would ever start again?

[remydat]

The Twilight God wrote...

Although I agree with you to a point, I don't think it's rational to just assume ANYTHING can happen. It's a power conduit and it is labeled as such. Therefore it removes power from something on the Citadel as neither it nor any of the machinery are part of the Crucible. Due to the nature of what is actions are taken in Destroy, it ultimately comes down to game mechanics. You have no alternative but the 3 options or give up entirely and let the Reapers continue. Of the three options (to which the game design leaves no alternative) Destroy does not require the protagonist to commit suicide on the word of the antagonist. If Shepard does synthesis or control and the Kid is lying, all hope is lost. If he shoots a power conduit and the Crucible still doesn't fire he is still standing to seek alternatives story wise. 

For trust factor it would have made more sense for Bioware to have the Reapers cease fire AND have a brute in the room and have the Kid's image project out of the husk the circular area husk variants have on their stomach regions. That way it would have the means to stop Shepard and its lack of aggressive action would give the player some reason to trust it. The entire scene is poorly done if the intent was not for Control and Synthesis to be indoctrinated endings.

Sorry, maybe I missed it but there was labeling in the game?  When does shooting something activate it?  I can't shoot my computer and it turns on.  If he shoots the power conduit and the **** breaks then the galaxy burns.  Sorry, Shep has no damn clue.  This dude was sitting with Anderson reminiscing and sh*t before Hackett tells him the sh*t aint firing.  He has no clue how any of this stuff works.

The scene is fine to me.  You have three choices and you choose based on your own ideals.  I don't see a problem.  There is nothing wrong with control or synthesis to me.  Life is not so simplistic that oh because TIM advocated control that must mean it is bad.  People of things in life depend on the individual.  A gun in the hand of a criminal a bad.  A gun in the hand of a good cop is good.

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

I'm starting to really love that "future AI" argument.  If you point out that ShepAI could eventually restart the harvests, it's "that'll never happen in my games", but choose Destroy, and some AI that isn't even a sparkle in the eye of a scientist that isn't even a sparkle in their great 10x removed grandparent's eye is a really important detail.

Of course there is risk with Shep in control.  However, that does not mean the risk of destroy doesn't exist.  A Super AI has been harvesting organics for billions of years because of this risk so I think just pretending like he has just been harvesting for billions of years for no real threat or reason is just silly.

[Aaleel]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I'm starting to really love that "future AI" argument.  If you point out that ShepAI could eventually restart the harvests, it's "that'll never happen in my games", but choose Destroy, and some AI that isn't even a sparkle in the eye of a scientist that isn't even a sparkle in their great 10x removed grandparent's eye is a really important detail.

Of course there is risk with Shep in control.  However, that does not mean the risk of destroy doesn't exist.  A Super AI has been harvesting organics for billions of years because of this risk so I think just pretending like he has just been harvesting for billions of years for no real threat or reason is just silly.

I don't agree with that at all because it eliminates the possibilty that the Catalyst's entire premise was illogical and ill conceived from the very start.  Let's think about this for a second, the solution is to kill every single being you say you're trying to save.  The reapers have killed every single organic species for billions of years in the name of saving them.  I'm just supposed to accept this came about by sound logic?

That's one of the reason I can't pick Control.  Shepard is no longer human, it's now an AI operating on nothing but statistics, probabilites, and numbers just like the original Catalyst, and there's no guarantee that it won't come up with something as equally *** backwards or worse that looks good on paper but doesn't make a lick of sense.

[remydat]

Fade9wayz
 
Put it like this, Frankenstein was still organic.  He was created from organic material.  The Reapers are created from organic material.  That is made perfectly clear in the game.  They don't just store data and memories.  They are literally made from turning organics into mash potatoes.  Without organic material from Leviathan, Harbinger could not be born.  So not sure your point about living civilisation.  I said they were synthetic organics because they are.  You need both materials to create a reaper.

And I think you missed my point.  My point was whether you like it or not, the Reapers are synthetic and organic.  My point was the threat is to both synthetics and organics.  So if the solution to an entity that is made of both and that threatens both is a machine that kills all of synthetics then that is an inherently biased solution.  That was me saying that is how a synthetic would likely see it.  Organics created a weapon to deal with an entity of synthetic organic origins that threated both synthetics and organics which prejudiciously kills all synthetics.

And I was just saying your point about the Geth is metagaming.  The Geth in the story need the RC to either kill the Quarians or to convince the Quarians to stand down.  So I was just pointing out they have no basis not to upload the code in the story.  Doesn't mean you can't mention it but it is a point that not all people agree with so wasn't sure where you stood on the matter.

[remydat]

Aaleel wrote...

I don't agree with that at all because it eliminates the possibilty that the Catalyst's entire premise was illogical and ill conceived from the very start.  Let's think about this for a second, the solution is to kill every single being you say you're trying to save.  The reapers have killed every single organic species for billions of years in the name of saving them.  I'm just supposed to accept this came about by sound logic?

That's one of the reason I can't pick Control.  Shepard is no longer human, it's now an AI operating on nothing but statistics, probabilites, and numbers just like the original Catalyst, and there's no guarantee that it won't come up with something as equally *** backwards or worse that looks good on paper but doesn't make a lick of sense.

He saw it happen though over thousands if not millions of years.  That doesn't mean his solution was right as there were any number of ways to deal with it but Leviathan makes clear he studied the problem for a long time so the problem clearly appeared to exist.  So you seem to oppose his solutions which I do as well but that doesn't mean the problem is not real.  Leviathan had no reason to lie and they told us the problem was real.

And that is fine regarding control but then you are making the same mistake the Catalyst did.  Either we reject the Catalyst's idea that certain things are inevitable or we don't.  Seems odd to claim his idea that this problem is inevitable is wrong when you haven't seen his evidence then turn around and decide that Shep AI becoming like it is inevitable based on one example.

[fizzypop]

PirateMouse wrote...

Zazzerka wrote...

It would be kind of redundant if it killed all organics.

Here's a question for those who picked Control ...

Would you still pick Control if it required you to enslave all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

etc.

Of course not ... but "enslaving" all Reapers is hardly equivalent as it only acts against an enemy force (the most terrible enemy force in the history of the galaxy, in fact).  By contrast, killing all synthetics means murdering friendlies and allies.  Your question and attempted analogy would make sense in this context if the Control ending already required you to "enslave" all synthetics.

That said, if you still want to pursue that, make your own thread about it.

You do realize there are many times in the series where you have to kill someone for a greater good? I mean shep had to murder 300k batarians in arrival and kill indoctrinated people....it's war people die sometimes even innocent people die. As far as killing all organics? No because it doesn't make any damn sense. We both know that.

Modifié par fizzypop, 16 avril 2013 - 12:36 .

[Aaleel]

remydat wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I don't agree with that at all because it eliminates the possibilty that the Catalyst's entire premise was illogical and ill conceived from the very start.  Let's think about this for a second, the solution is to kill every single being you say you're trying to save.  The reapers have killed every single organic species for billions of years in the name of saving them.  I'm just supposed to accept this came about by sound logic?

That's one of the reason I can't pick Control.  Shepard is no longer human, it's now an AI operating on nothing but statistics, probabilites, and numbers just like the original Catalyst, and there's no guarantee that it won't come up with something as equally *** backwards or worse that looks good on paper but doesn't make a lick of sense.

He saw it happen though over thousands if not millions of years.  That doesn't mean his solution was right as there were any number of ways to deal with it but Leviathan makes clear he studied the problem for a long time so the problem clearly appeared to exist.  So you seem to oppose his solutions which I do as well but that doesn't mean the problem is not real.  Leviathan had no reason to lie and they told us the problem was real.

And that is fine regarding control but then you are making the same mistake the Catalyst did.  Either we reject the Catalyst's idea that certain things are inevitable or we don't.  Seems odd to claim his idea that this problem is inevitable is wrong when you haven't seen his evidence then turn around and decide that Shep AI becoming like it is inevitable based on one example.

Shepard hasn't seen anything to support this is the game just from a role playing standpoint.  The Catalyst solution is illogical and stupid so why would you just accept the reasoning that brought it about?  There is absolutely no reason too, none at all.

There's a thread going around about where you would like to insert dialogue, and I would right here.  I would have told the Catalyst that organics and synthetics are working together as we speak to stop you because there is no synthetics vs organics problem there is only a reapers vs the galaxy problem from where I stand, stopping which has been my goal has been from day one.  Now i'm going to do it by shooting this tube and making sure a reaper never kills anyone ever again.

Also show me where I said the Catalyst Shepard going bad was inevitable.  I said they're no guarantees it won't, which is something completely different, don't put words in my mouth. 

But my post sums up why I chose destroy.  In my Shepard's eyes the problem is reapers vs the galaxy, and that stopping the reapers from ever killing anyone again was the goal from the start.  Only one of the options does that definitively, and for certain, the others involve far too much crossing fingers and hoping for the best.

Modifié par Aaleel, 16 avril 2013 - 12:39 .

[Tron Mega]

endings i thought would be included:

shepard, LI, buddies excape to live as long as they can on the run, or in a good enough hiding spot. i know theres plenty considering the leviathons, the plans to the crucible, location where crucible was built, or javik, those all had great hiding places! living on the run ending is more for people who didnt play the whole trilogy or made too many wrong moves. yeah, you arent beating the reapers or saving the galaxy, but your still getting citadel DLC ending, which people seem to like.

sacrificing an overwhelming choice in order to save a LI or the members of the normandy. kill the geth/save the normandy? cure the krogan/not bang miranda? the ending for people who say "id do anything for the people i love." well, i would make them answer, would you commit genocide for them or not?

destroying the reapers via galactic unity. i dont know why anyone here would say the reapers were too powerfull for conventional victory. shepards been doing the god damned inpossible for 2.9 games but nope, cant beat the game like everyone thought we would. ME3 is literally nothing more then recruiting the galaxy to become a big enough meat shield to protect the crucible(who no one knows WTF is anyways!). the reapers are tactical boneheads. shepard in control ending can do so much more damage while controlling the reapers then starchild ever thoughy possible. imagin how much more dominant the reapers would be with a competent braintrust!!!

...im i in the right topic?

Modifié par Tron Mega, 16 avril 2013 - 12:50 .

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I'm starting to really love that "future AI" argument.  If you point out that ShepAI could eventually restart the harvests, it's "that'll never happen in my games", but choose Destroy, and some AI that isn't even a sparkle in the eye of a scientist that isn't even a sparkle in their great 10x removed grandparent's eye is a really important detail.

Of course there is risk with Shep in control.  However, that does not mean the risk of destroy doesn't exist.  A Super AI has been harvesting organics for billions of years because of this risk so I think just pretending like he has just been harvesting for billions of years for no real threat or reason is just silly.

Yeah, and here's a shocker for you, if you kill them, they can never do it again.  The clear and present danger has been removed, and they can't be a threat again.  It's simple, really.  Something I noticed in that vid I linked last night:

Shepard:  ...and there will be peace?

Catalyst:  The harvest will stop.  There's more to it, but the rest is about how the Reapers will be one with everyone else.  Nowhere does it say there will be peace, just that the harvest will stop.