219 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mangalores wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

...
It also says that it embodies the collective intelligence of the Reapers, making it sound rather more passive. The Catalyst is full of contradictions.

So it's bull****ting you which is why we kill it.

Sorry, but that's grasping at straws. Being the collective intelligence is not a statement that invalidates the control claim, particularly when it makes clear it predates and created the Reapers. And the point is: It should show it does control stuff. If it can't or won't, negotiations are over and shoot it.

However, the fact that the Reapers are attacking the Crucible, which the Catalyst wants to keep around because it's required for a new solution, does invalidate that. In addition to the fact that the Crucible is necessary for Control at all, because if the Catalyst was already controlling everything, Shepard could just grab the console and upload without needing the blue beam.

Stop trying to make sense of the writing. I doubt W&H bothered to even reread what they´d written.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

This is about me and Destroy. Can we please stay on Topic?

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 22 avril 2013 - 06:40 .

[Xilizhra]

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

This is about me and Destroy. Can we please stay on Topic?

Choose MEHEM or choose Control.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Firstly: the council itself is the cooperative, democratic process. Maybe these races don't play that nice on their own turf, but they still necessarily engage in the process. Your argument isn't even nitpicking, it's just contrdictory.

Democratic on what level? Only the asari Councilor shows any signs of being possibly elected.

Secondly: you're not quite grasping the fundamental hypocrisy in claiming democratic autonomy for everyone, while you have just become the universe's unquestionable totalitarian overlord. The all-powerful dictator who claims he's a great guy is still an all-powerful dictator.

Just because, say, the United States could flex its military might and become totalitarian warlord of Mexico if it wanted to doesn't mean that it will. Similarly, just because I could become the totalitarian overlord of any galactic race doesn't mean that I will.

Nothing I'm saying seems to be making a dent, but yet again: the council itself is a democratic cooperative.

The asari, the turians, the salarians, they all gather together to discuss the issues of the galaxy together, and come to an agreement on their courses of action.  You know how they repeatedly say things like 'The council has discussed this and they will not help...' and 'The council has voted but it won't help...'?

I keep saying 'won't help' because that's all they ever do, but it's that voting process that I am pointing out to you.  However their invividual leaders got to the position of the council doesn't matter.  On the grand galactic stage they acknowledge that debate and democracy (however inept it proves to be in their case) must be respected.

...But, you know what makes democracy at that level impossible?  Having a giant living God floating in the corner warning you that it will not let the universe 'get out of line'.  ...What ever it thinks that means.

You may just want to be the helper monkey of space, and abide by the rules of the democratically governed galaxy, but having the power to crush any opposition or dissent (and the stated willingness to do it) immediately tips the scales in a very uncomfortable way.  It becomes, by necessity, a dictatorship - with everyone aware at every moment that it is ultimately to the sentient unstoppable armada that they must ultimately bend.

Indeed, as I keep saying: that is precisely what the Catalyst thought he was doing with all that power too.  'Just helping'.

Modifié par drayfish, 22 avril 2013 - 08:00 .

[Jukaga]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

Remember all those speeches about HARD choices throughout the Trilogy? This is finally one where you can't have your cake and eat it too. Precious few of those in the game if you went full Paragon like it sounds like you did.

As an added question, what did your Shepard tell Vega about his promotion after getting his squad killed?  The same principles apply to the ending.

I fully agree. I'm tired of the pouting around the bittersweet endings. Come on people, against all odds, Shepard has defeated the Reapers, did you really expect to be able to do it with clean hands?

[Xilizhra]

Nothing I'm saying seems to be making a dent, but yet again: the council itself is a democratic cooperative.

The asari, the turians, the salarians, they all gather together to discuss the issues of the galaxy together, and come to an agreement on their courses of action. you know how they repeatedly say things like 'The council has discussed this and they will not help...' and 'The council has voted but it won't help...'?

I keep saying 'won't help' because that's all they ever do, but it's that voting process that I am pointing out to you. However their invividual leaders got to the position of the council doesn't matter. On the grand galactic stage they acknowledge that debate and democracy (how ever inept it proves to be in their case) must be respected.

So... wait, your definition of democracy here is rule by four people who mostly agree on things? They're representatives of the governments, not the people.

You may just want to be the helper monkey of space, and abide by the rules of the democratically governed galaxy, but having the power to crush any opposition or dissent (and the stated willingness to do it) immediately tips the scales in a very uncomfortable way. It becomes, by necessity, a dictatorship - with everyone aware at every moment that it is ultimately to the sentient unstoppable armada that they must ultimately bend.

Unfortunate that people may think that way, but of the options I'm presented, it's the best I can do. That sort of discomfort seems far less of a problem than the vast amounts of death presented elsewhere.

[Reorte]

Jukaga wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...

Remember all those speeches about HARD choices throughout the Trilogy? This is finally one where you can't have your cake and eat it too. Precious few of those in the game if you went full Paragon like it sounds like you did.

As an added question, what did your Shepard tell Vega about his promotion after getting his squad killed?  The same principles apply to the ending.

I fully agree. I'm tired of the pouting around the bittersweet endings. Come on people, against all odds, Shepard has defeated the Reapers, did you really expect to be able to do it with clean hands?

If there were any negative consequences I expected them to flow as a natural result of the story and not simply get arbitrarily tacked on just to make it not seem too clean and easy. Because the losses in Destroy were so arbitrary I felt more pissed off at the writing than guilty about anything.

[Seival]

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

I Love Destroy. I have nothing but anger for the Reapers. They have been harvesting, indoctrinating, and murdering for quite possibly millions of years, maybe longer. More than I can count. I stand there on the Citadel at the final moment. I got the Reapers by the balls, so there's no doubt that the Catalyst became desperate at this moment in time. I like to think that the Catalyst took the form of the Child I saw die on Earth as a way of compassion and persuasion. I didn't fall for it. I'm not going to listen to the head honcho of the Reapers at the very last minute, wounded or not.

I just don't want to feel guilty about the loss of EDI and the Geth. I'm trying to explain this without sounded like an a-hole, without people believing that I thought of them as a "necessary" sacrifice/loss. Because I don't. EDI and the Geth were friends. They fought to free the Galaxy from the Reapers and to get rid of the Reapers forever. I hate it when people use them against my opinion for choosing Destroy. I don't hate EDI and the Geth. I like them. I just don't like the Reapers. I hate the Reapers. How does one deal with this?

The Catalyst is the only reason why Shepard is still alive in the end. And the Catalyst keeps situation under its full control. It just needs Shepard's cooperation to apply a new solution. You are on the Catalyst's mercy, and got no one "by the balls". Deal with it.

If you don't want to feel guilty about loss of EDI and the Geth, then don't choose Destroy or Refusal. It's as simple as that.

If you think that Destroy may harm Reaper solution, then please remember derelict Reaper from ME2, and imagine how many Reapers in the same state galaxy will get on each and every world. Also, please do not forget about Leviathans, who will step forward to apply new solution soon enough, and pray it will be Synthesis, not Reapers MKII.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Nothing I'm saying seems to be making a dent, but yet again: the council itself is a democratic cooperative.

The asari, the turians, the salarians, they all gather together to discuss the issues of the galaxy together, and come to an agreement on their courses of action. you know how they repeatedly say things like 'The council has discussed this and they will not help...' and 'The council has voted but it won't help...'?

I keep saying 'won't help' because that's all they ever do, but it's that voting process that I am pointing out to you. However their invividual leaders got to the position of the council doesn't matter. On the grand galactic stage they acknowledge that debate and democracy (how ever inept it proves to be in their case) must be respected.

So... wait, your definition of democracy here is rule by four people who mostly agree on things? They're representatives of the governments, not the people.

You may just want to be the helper monkey of space, and abide by the rules of the democratically governed galaxy, but having the power to crush any opposition or dissent (and the stated willingness to do it) immediately tips the scales in a very uncomfortable way. It becomes, by necessity, a dictatorship - with everyone aware at every moment that it is ultimately to the sentient unstoppable armada that they must ultimately bend.

Unfortunate that people may think that way, but of the options I'm presented, it's the best I can do. That sort of discomfort seems far less of a problem than the vast amounts of death presented elsewhere.

No, my definition of democracy in this context is governmental representatives gathering to discuss issues together and coming to a communally beneficial agreement.  Kind of the - you know - literal meaning.

At this point I don't even understand what you are trying to nitpick here - unless you don't like the idea of them agreeing on things you might not like... which is kind of the problem I've been pointing out to you if you plan on being the new galactic overlord.  Sometimes people are going to want to do things you may not personally like, and if this is your response - democracy is a sham anyway - it doesn't speak well for your capacity to foster a non-dictatorial leadership.

Indeed, the fact that you are happy having already bargained away responsibility for your ascendency - well, if I wasn't the supreme leader of all, someone else would be - kind of suggests that too.

Good luck, my Catalyst.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

Xilizhra wrote...

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

This is about me and Destroy. Can we please stay on Topic?

Choose MEHEM or choose Control.

No.

[AlanC9]

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

This is about me and Destroy. Can we please stay on Topic?

What other answers are you looking for? Your Shepard either picks Destroy and lives with the guilt, or doesn't.

There's nothing else to tell you.

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

I Love Destroy. I have nothing but anger for the Reapers. They have been harvesting, indoctrinating, and murdering for quite possibly millions of years, maybe longer. More than I can count. I stand there on the Citadel at the final moment. I got the Reapers by the balls, so there's no doubt that the Catalyst became desperate at this moment in time. I like to think that the Catalyst took the form of the Child I saw die on Earth as a way of compassion and persuasion. I didn't fall for it. I'm not going to listen to the head honcho of the Reapers at the very last minute, wounded or not.

I just don't want to feel guilty about the loss of EDI and the Geth. I'm trying to explain this without sounded like an a-hole, without people believing that I thought of them as a "necessary" sacrifice/loss. Because I don't. EDI and the Geth were friends. They fought to free the Galaxy from the Reapers and to get rid of the Reapers forever. I hate it when people use them against my opinion for choosing Destroy. I don't hate EDI and the Geth. I like them. I just don't like the Reapers. I hate the Reapers. How does one deal with this?

The Catalyst is the only reason why Shepard is still alive in the end.

The Catalyst repeatedly tries to kill Shepard. The Catalyst does kill Shepard. The only reason Shepard is still alive is because she's good at killing Reapers, and the Illusive Man was loaded. 

And the Catalyst keeps situation under its full control.

Really? This cycle has just built the weapon of its demise despite its repeated attempts to prevent that, and Shepard is quite capable of just telling it to screw itself. 

But if the Catalyst is in control, then it's not Shepard's choice at all then, is it? It's the Catalyst's, and that's simply frightening. 

It just needs Shepard's cooperation to apply a new solution. You are on the Catalyst's mercy, and got no one "by the balls". Deal with it.

I think I'll choose Destroy then, bye bye Catalyst. Deal with that. 

If you think that Destroy may harm Reaper solution, then please remember derelict Reaper from ME2, and imagine how many Reapers in the same state galaxy will get on each and every world. Also, please do not forget about Leviathans, who will step forward to apply new solution soon enough, and pray it will be Synthesis, not Reapers MKII.

Not if they're dead. 

Anyone for some Leviathan Calamari? 

[Xilizhra]

No, my definition of democracy in this context is governmental representatives gathering to discuss issues together and coming to a communally beneficial agreement. Kind of the - you know - literal meaning.

But only one, if any, is elected. Without that, all you really have is oligarchy.

Indeed, the fact that you are happy having already bargained away responsibility for your ascendency - well, if I wasn't the supreme leader of all, someone else would be - kind of suggests that too.

My responsibility is to stop the cycle, which I have done.

[dreamgazer]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Anyone for some Leviathan Calamari? 

There's a seafood place on Silversun Strip that'll be in need of some fresh stock once it reopens.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ah, everyone wins and the cycle continues.

[Samtheman63]

JDee3 wrote...

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

I'm not metagaming. What the hell is metagaming precisely?

when you base your decision in the game on the resulst of the decisions which you're not even suppose to know yet. That's my understanding of the word at least lol kinda takes away the role playing part of it for me personally

why?  is your character psychic?

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

No, my definition of democracy in this context is governmental representatives gathering to discuss issues together and coming to a communally beneficial agreement. Kind of the - you know - literal meaning.

But only one, if any, is elected. Without that, all you really have is oligarchy.

Indeed, the fact that you are happy having already bargained away responsibility for your ascendency - well, if I wasn't the supreme leader of all, someone else would be - kind of suggests that too.

My responsibility is to stop the cycle, which I have done.

So the UN is utterly meaningless because it has representatives from countries that do not have democratic elections?



...Actually, no.  I give up.  I honestly don't care enough to continue this.

Your decision is great, Xilizhra.  Extraordinarily, you - unlike everyone else who played the game and had to sacrifice their principles - managed to outwit the Catalyst at his own game.

Even though he asked you to do him a favour and become the new guardian police force in his stead, you tricked him by... doing exactly what he wanted in the way that he wanted you to. 

That'll show him.

And yep, you proved that there is absolutely no contradiction in fighting for three games to stop the domination of all species by one singular dictatorial voice... by deciding to become that dictatorial voice yourself.

Victory.

And I am likewise positive that scoffing at the whole notion of democracy, and deriding the posibility of a future without the need for shows of force to compel peace, will go splendidly for you.  Indeed, it in no way makes a lie of the whole purpose of destroying the Catalyst in the first place.  Because being unable to see the fundamental hypocrisy in one's own stance is a perfect way in which to start a totalitarian leadership.  (And after all, it's not like the last guy who had the job was convinced he was doing what was best, right?)

So, you win.  Best of luck.

Modifié par drayfish, 22 avril 2013 - 09:32 .

[BINO973]

If one chose control couldn't Shepard just command all the Reapers to self destruct in dark space or something? That way the Reapers are destroyed and the Geth and EDI survive.

[Xilizhra]

So the UN is utterly meaningless because it has representatives from countries that do not have democratic elections?

For practical purposes, it doesn't mean very much. It's certainly not democratically deciding the fates of nations.

Your decision is great, Xilizhra. Extraordinarily, you - unlike everyone else who played the game and had to sacrifice their principles - managed to outwit the Catalyst at his own game.

No circumstance can force anyone to sacrifice their principles. All anyone can ever do is the best they can with what they have available.

Your decision is great, Xilizhra. Extraordinarily, you - unlike everyone else who played the game and had to sacrifice their principles - managed to outwit the Catalyst at his own game.

Even though he asked you to do him a favour and become the new guardian police force in his stead, you showed him by... doing exactly what he wanted in the way that he wanted you to.

That'll show him.

How is any of this important? I couldn't care less what the Catalyst wants; my mission, as ever, is to stop the Reapers from killing everyone.

And yep, you proved that there is absolutely no contradiction in fighting for three games to stop the domination of all species by one singular dictatorial voice... by deciding to become that dictatorial voice yourself.

But... I wasn't even fighting for that, I was fighting to keep everyone from dying. The Reapers aren't dictators, they only use control as a means of destruction.

And I am likewise positive that scoffing at the whole notion of democracy, and deriding the posibility of a future without the need for shows of force to compell peace, will go splendidly for you. Indeed, it in no way makes a lie of the whole purpose of destroying the Catalyst in the first place. Because being unable to see the fundamental hypocrisy in one's own stance is a perfect way in which to start a totalitarian leadership. (And after all, it's not like the last guy who had the job was convinced he was doing what was best, right?)

It's not the best possible outcome, but nothing has been thus far. I still don't see how this is terribly different from being forced into a suboptimal outcome at Aratoht.

[Mangalores]

BINO973 wrote...

If one chose control couldn't Shepard just command all the Reapers to self destruct in dark space or something? That way the Reapers are destroyed and the Geth and EDI survive.

Would have elevated the Control option. The entire problem remains in believing those options. I could get behind Control, if it were better told.

Modifié par Mangalores, 22 avril 2013 - 09:58 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Auld Wulf wrote...

One deals with this by realising three simple things;

A.) The Reapers are slaves to the will of the Catalyst, it controls their minds;
B.) Two of the four endings free the Reapers from enslavement (one through death);
C.) Three of the four endings remove the Catalyst from power.

There's no reason to hate the Reapers. I ran a poll on this a while back and thankfully it did open a few eyes, at least. The Reapers are victims -- victims of what's basically mind rape. They deserve to die for that? Do they? You answer that. I've gone past expecting people to think less two dimensionally, or to set aside their black & white binary thinking, but... you asked.

You don't have to kill the Geth, or EDI. That's a choice. You kill the Geth and EDI because you want to. To choose Destroy is to say that you want them dead, because there's always another choice. A better choice.

But this isn't the Deus Ex community. So erudite, enlightened, intellectual discussion isn't too common. It's more "RAR. LOOK AT THE SIZE OF MY NUTS. I R KILL REAPERS, RAR!"

Even the Catalyst DLC makes fun of that. (Yes, I went there.)

Catalyst DLC? So you're making up DLC to suit your headcanon now?
Good times

[AlanC9]

Xilizhra wrote...

No circumstance can force anyone to sacrifice their principles. All anyone can ever do is the best they can with what they have available.

But a situation can force someone to realize that what he thinks are his principles actually aren't principles; they're just guidelines that he'll abandon depending on the consequences for doing so. I suppose that's a kind of sacrificing your principles.

[Papa John0]

If you choose destroy, Shepard's favourite store on the Citadel closes forever.

Think carefully about this.



Note: The Catalyst only mentions this if you have a 7800+ EMS.

Modifié par Papa John0, 22 avril 2013 - 11:40 .

[AlanC9]

What's baffling about it?

I can see how an incoherent set of principles could result in someone not being able to honor all of them simultaneously, but that's a problem with the principles themselves.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 avril 2013 - 03:00 .