264 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Xilizhra wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Argolas wrote...

We are offered to strike a deal with the Reapers- and Shepard listens and considers it.

Must this falsehood continue to be perpetrated?

Synthesis and Control are not "deals." They are not compromises. They have inherent value, both for the state of the galaxy at that immediate moment, and for its long-term future.

Deals are exactly what those two options are, for one simple reason: the hellish, sapient constructs get to contuinue existence. Its not just about stopping the harvest, for the same reason I wouldnt preserve the collector base despite having the option to just kill the collectors with a timed radiation pulse. Id destroy it even if TIM just wanted to put a gift shop in it. Lets be honest. If players were able to destroy the reapers and keep EDI and the geth intact, the other options would be completely defunct, because it would mean that the reapers were wrong and synthetic life can live well enough alongside organics without nanny robo squids of death. 

Speak for yourself. I haven't taken MEHEM because I don't want the Reapers destroyed; they're both too useful and I want to see if they can live free within this galaxy.

I didn't even know MEHEM existed before joining this forum, though it doesn't do me much good since I'm on PS3. 

As for the usefulness of the reapers themselves, it stands to reason that their corpses are viable for studying, even if their "essence" is wiped. 

[TheAdventurer29]

One of the most reasonable posts I have seen in a while!

[AresKeith]

@KaiserShep its a good thing they don't blow up in Destroy lol

[KaiserShep]

Yeah, that would've been embarrassing.

[TheRealJayDee]

Nice thread, OP!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Auld Wulf wrote...

I don't like the way the OP pushes his limited perception of the ending as fact

The ending, ultimately, is fine. Or the ending is rather fantastic, if you prefer

Auld Wulf wrote...

I've met many of those on this forum, who have to resort to character assassination and even name-calling just because you don't want to be a part of their herd

a pseudo-intellectual Hulk, slamming his fists around in blind anger whilst screaming ten dollar words

seethingly angry little troll

There simply are no hypocrites more entertaining than you on the BSN! By now I actually kinda hope none of the moderators ever makes the connection between the site rules we're all supposed to adhere to and the fact that 50%-90% of your posts contain personal attacks against other BSNers...

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 29 avril 2013 - 03:36 .

[Kel Riever]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I don't like the way the OP pushes his limited perception of the ending as fact, and that he has to tell us why it is so. It can't possibly be that the ending is good, and that he's simply too bitter to see it as any other way than the distorted perceptions he has of it. I've seen Argolas post, and it's angry, bitter stuff. This just comes over as a pseudo-intellectual Hulk, slamming his fists around in blind anger whilst screaming ten dollar words. Ultimately it signifies nothing, and he's hoping he'll hit on something that'll actually destroy the foundations of that which he hates so much. But it's still just blind flailing at the end of the day.

The ending, ultimately, is fine. Or the ending is rather fantastic, if you prefer. I suppose you can be angry and bitter at a videogame because it ruined your life (and you have to spend a year posting about how it ruined your life on the BSN), but that doesn't actually mean that the ending is bad. All it means is that someone is a seethingly angry little troll. I've met many of those on this forum, who have to resort to character assassination and even name-calling just because you don't want to be a part of their herd.

But that herd/mob mentality eschews intellectuality in favour of brute force. Scream all you want, but you're not actually going to change the opinion of anyone who actually thinks the ending is good. And if the ending really ruined your life to the point where you have to spend a year on a forum telling us why it ruined your life, then you might want to seek help.

TL;DR: Let it go.

This post is hilarious.  I think Auld Wulf should stay just to make everyone laugh.

Note to Auld:  The only bitterness I see in the above post is yours.  Just so-ing you know!

Modifié par Kel Riever, 29 avril 2013 - 04:03 .

[Bizinha]

Ever time i read this nickname like 'awful' D: D: D:

[Mr.House]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Synthesis is the ultimate goal of the Reapers. It's what he wants.

Of course it's what the Catalyst wants. That doesn't make it bad. Hitler Ate Sugar.

Mr.House wrote...
If he get's this, he will stop the harvest.

All uses of the Crucible stop the harvest, not just Synthesis. What's your point?

Control is very debateable. You don't know what Shepardlist will do in the future. She/he could very well continue a new harvest. Destroy though is gstopping the harvest by dstroying the Reapers thus starbrat does not get what he wants, fails and his creations are destoreyed. Only in synthesis does Shepard compromise and give what starbrat wants. You are given the villian what he wants and making deals. I don't give a rats crap that EDIs monologe is rainbows and butterflies that would make even Disney puke, it does not hide the fact you had to compromise with a war criminal.

Modifié par Mr.House, 29 avril 2013 - 06:05 .

[PsyrenY]

KaiserShep wrote...

Deals are exactly what those two options are, for one simple reason: the hellish, sapient constructs get to contuinue existence.

They are only "hellish" because of the slavemaster Catalyst, who is removed from power in both Synthesis and Control. No deal.

KaiserShep wrote...

Its not just about stopping the harvest, for the same reason I wouldnt preserve the collector base despite having the option to just kill the collectors with a timed radiation pulse.

The main reason I didn't preserve the collector base is because our favorite megalomaniac TIM gets dibs on ransacking it. It's not about the technology itself, it's about who gets control of it. By your logic, you should have put a bullet in David Archer's head instead of sending him to Grissom Academy because keeping him alive is too dangerous, right? No, because the person in charge of him matters.

KaiserShep wrote...

Lets be honest. If players were able to destroy the reapers and keep EDI and the geth intact, the other options would be completely defunct, because it would mean that the reapers were wrong and synthetic life can live well enough alongside organics without nanny robo squids of death. 

Your piddly 300 years of Geth existence doesn't prove the Reapers wrong. Think cosmically.

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Lets be honest. If players were able to destroy the reapers and keep EDI and the geth intact, the other options would be completely defunct, because it would mean that the reapers were wrong and synthetic life can live well enough alongside organics without nanny robo squids of death. 

Your piddly 300 years of Geth existence doesn't prove the Reapers wrong. Think cosmically.

Think cosmically, the entire cycle is literally based on an assumption by a stupid AI

[PsyrenY]

Argolas wrote...

@Optimystic_X: Yes they are "deals". We sacrifice our lives and allow the Reapers to continue, in return they stop killing. And all of the terms, even Destroy, are set by the Catalyst.

Wrong on both counts. (1) The beings known as Reapers can't really be called that anymore since there is no more "reaping" going on, so in point of fact the "Reapers" do not actually continue. (2) The Catalyst does not set the terms, the Crucible does. The Catalyst tells you this himself - the Crucible created the possibilities. The Catalyst can't even make them happen without you, not even if his preferred option. And if you choose nothing, it can't do anything on its own with the Crucible, even when its golden solution is staring it in the face.

Mr.House wrote...

Control is very debateable. You don't know what Shepardlist will do in the future. She/he could very well continue a new harvest. Destroy though is gstopping the harvest by dstroying the Reapers thus starbrat does not get what he wants, fails and his creations are destoreyed. Only in synthesis does Shepard compromise and give what starbrat wants. You are given the villian what he wants and making deals. I don't give a rats crap that EDIs monologe is rainbows and butterflies that would make even Disney puke, it does not hide the fact you had to compromise with a war criminal. 

You keep saying "but he gets what he wants! Therefore we should do the opposite!" This is childish reasoning. Maybe you don't give a rat's ass about EDI and the Geth - well, I do. And furthermore, you're even wrong about "what the Catalyst wants" - you seem to believe that survival is its main priority. If this were true, it wouldn't even tell you about Destroy - it would say "Thank you organic for building the Synthesizer! Please walk straight forward." And if you showed up with low EMS it wouldn't have even bothered raising the elevator. The fact that it shows you how to Destroy no matter what your EMS is, proves that it doesn't give a damn whether it lives or not.

[Mr.House]

Optimystic_X wrote...



You keep saying "but he gets what he wants! Therefore we should do the opposite!" This is childish reasoning. Maybe you don't give a rat's ass about EDI and the Geth - well, I do. And furthermore, you're even wrong about "what the Catalyst wants" - you seem to believe that survival is its main priority. If this were true, it wouldn't even tell you about Destroy - it would say "Thank you organic for building the Synthesizer! Please walk straight forward." And if you showed up with low EMS it wouldn't have even bothered raising the elevator. The fact that it shows you how to Destroy no matter what your EMS is, proves that it doesn't give a damn whether it lives or not.

Um, what? Where did I say that? Point to me where I said I don't care about the geth and EDI? FFS I'm a goddam geth defender for crying outloud.

Also starbrats goal is not survivng, his goal is synth, WHICH IS WHAT HE WANTS. Giving a war criminal his desire has no appeal to me. You want to give a war criminal his desires? Go ahead, it's your choice after all. Just don't accept peopel to not care and find it disturbing that you can compromise with a war crminal and Bioware tries to paint it as butterflies and rainbows that would give Disney a run for it's money in terms of happy endings.

Modifié par Mr.House, 29 avril 2013 - 06:44 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The ending was bad. Very bad. I was looking forward to an epic ending and the only real difference between them was the color of the explosions on my screen. Nice job Mac.

Who the hell thought that was a good idea? A conversation with a child who was using the galaxy as a lab experiment? WTF?

I'm sorry, but that entire scene has to go. It just plain sucks. MEHEM doesn't really solve the problem. It ignores the problem, but it's better than nothing which is what Bioware did with the EC.

[PsyrenY]

Mr.House wrote...

Um, what? Where did I say that? Point to me where I said I don't care about the geth and EDI? FFS I'm a goddam geth defender for crying outloud.

Both of the endings that save them also keep the Reapers around. If you're so opposed to the latter that you'll destroy them at any cost, then yes, you don't care.

Mr.House wrote...

Also starbrats goal is not survivng, his goal is synth, WHICH IS WHAT HE WANTS.

Look deeper. Use your brain. Why does he want it? 

Answer: because it's the ideal solution. Therefore, I want it too. I'm not "giving him" jack; I'm choosing it for me.

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Um, what? Where did I say that? Point to me where I said I don't care about the geth and EDI? FFS I'm a goddam geth defender for crying outloud.

Both of the endings that save them also keep the Reapers around. If you're so opposed to the latter that you'll destroy them at any cost, then yes, you don't care.

Mr.House wrote...

Also starbrats goal is not survivng, his goal is synth, WHICH IS WHAT HE WANTS.

Look deeper. Use your brain. Why does he want it? 

Answer: because it's the ideal solution. Therefore, I want it too. I'm not "giving him" jack; I'm choosing it for me.

1. That's a very narrow-mind view to accuse someone of not caring because they didn't choose Control or Synthesis

2. The ideal solution? Because the Starbrat said so, sorry but that's not a good enough reason for me

[Mr.House]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Um, what? Where did I say that? Point to me where I said I don't care about the geth and EDI? FFS I'm a goddam geth defender for crying outloud.

Both of the endings that save them also keep the Reapers around. If you're so opposed to the latter that you'll destroy them at any cost, then yes, you don't care.

How does me hating the Reapers and wanting to rid the galaxy of them mean I don't care about the geth and EDI? Stop being so narrow minded.

[PsyrenY]

Mr.House wrote...

How does me hating the Reapers and wanting to rid the galaxy of them mean I don't care about the geth and EDI? Stop being so narrow minded.

AresKeith wrote...

1. That's a very narrow-mind view to accuse someone of not caring because they didn't choose Control or Synthesis

> Have choices that can save them
> Blow them up anyway

What would you call it?

AresKeith wrote...

2. The ideal solution? Because the Starbrat said so, sorry but that's not a good enough reason for me

Not because he said so - because of the real problem.

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

How does me hating the Reapers and wanting to rid the galaxy of them mean I don't care about the geth and EDI? Stop being so narrow minded.

AresKeith wrote...

1. That's a very narrow-mind view to accuse someone of not caring because they didn't choose Control or Synthesis

> Have choices that can save them
> Blow them up anyway

What would you call it?

AresKeith wrote...

2. The ideal solution? Because the Starbrat said so, sorry but that's not a good enough reason for me

Not because he said so - because of the real problem.

And the real problem would be?

[rapscallioness]

Enjoyed reading your post, OP.

I liked your examples of Shep and heroism...together w/the crew. This is an idea I wanted to see expanded into the races of the galaxy. Shep as leader, but not being able to do it w/out the other races all standing together...and then kicking Reaper booty.

I would have liked to see something like that as opposed to the encounter w/the Catalyst.

[bleetman]

Optimystic_X wrote...

> Have choices that can save them
> Blow them up anyway

What would you call it?

Sacrifice. Not letting everything they fought for be for nothing.

Modifié par bleetman, 29 avril 2013 - 07:56 .

[Mr.House]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

How does me hating the Reapers and wanting to rid the galaxy of them mean I don't care about the geth and EDI? Stop being so narrow minded.

AresKeith wrote...

1. That's a very narrow-mind view to accuse someone of not caring because they didn't choose Control or Synthesis

> Have choices that can save them
> Blow them up anyway

Are the Reapers destoryed thus truly stopped and will no longer have any influnce on the galaxy in those endings they survive? No, to even beleive I don't care is just stupid as hell. Typical synth pickers to believe that bs.

[Mr.House]

bleetman wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

> Have choices that can save them
> Blow them up anyway

What would you call it?

Sacrifice.

Sacerfice is not arty enough.

[PsyrenY]

AresKeith wrote...

And the real problem would be?

Organic obsolescence.

bleetman wrote...

Sacrifice. Not letting everything they fought for be for nothing.

"In the darkest hour, there is always a way out." -Urdnot Bakara.

Sacrificing others when you don't have to is murder.

Mr.House wrote...

Are the Reapers destoryed thus truly stopped and will no longer have any influnce on the galaxy in those endings they survive? No, to even beleive I don't care is just stupid as hell. Typical synth pickers to believe that bs.

All influence is bad regardless of context, stupid as hell. Typical destroy picker BS.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 29 avril 2013 - 08:07 .

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

And the real problem would be?

Organic obsolescence.

So like I said, the problem is based on an assumption

Optimystic_X wrote...
All influence is bad regardless of context, stupid as hell. Typical destroy picker BS.

Its not typical destroy picker BS, its stating the fact that you have a narrow-minded view