865 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

dreamgazer wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

True, but we also have no knowledge of the circumstances, whether that Crucible could discriminate between synthetic beings in that destroy or whether they set the thing off before the Reapers had even arrived.  It only urinates on the choice to refuse if you assume the situation in the next cycle will be exactly the same as the current cycle: the same ignorant council, the same abrupt discovery of the plans, the same limited tech. 

It doesn't matter.  The entire point of refusing the Catalyst is not only to show that you don't trust the Reaper Intelligence, but also that eventually life will find a way to win without sacrificing it's collective soul to do so.  By telling us the next cycle used the crucible anyway, this DOES urinate on the last choice your Shepard made, and IMHO it was deliberate.

-Polaris

It does matter, because you're making assumptions based on this cycle's experience with the Crucible.

Things change. The Protheans' experience was different than this one. The next cycle will be different than that. 

Liara says the Crucible didn't work. Why would the next cycle be stupid enough to waste time on it? Also them using it defeats the purpose of Refuse, hence why many think it's Bioware being a dick.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

It does matter, because you're making assumptions based on this cycle's experience with the Crucible.

Things change. The Protheans' experience was different than this one. The next cycle will be different than that. 

Actually, I think we're making assumptions based on what Bioware has let us do for the rest of the trilogy.  

There's a reason why they were accused of pulling the rug out from under the player.  Consistency is important.

[111987]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

So it basically ruins the whole point of picking Refuse in the first place. Oh well, I'll just ignore it since it's just Gamble and his twitter word isn't lore.

Picking Refuse has a point? A point that can be ruined by something someone else does?

Yes.  It's a point you may not agree with (and if you, you don't pick refuse), but the entire point of refuse was the unwillingless to accept the Catalyst's solution as the "only" solution, a refusal to "pick your war-crime", and thus a leap of faith that even if we went down swinging, we might at least give the next cycle (or cycles) a chance to defeat the Reapers the right way, without sacrificing it's collective soul on the alter of the Crucible.

That is the point that Bioware completely (and IMHO deliberately) ruined.  I consider it "trolling", i.e. "it's our way or go away".  I also think it's childish at this point.

-Polaris

It's been established, over three games, that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. Call it bad writing or whatever else, but that's the way the Reapers have been presented.

Chooisng Refuse is choosing to undue all the work you did in ME3. All the alliances you build are for the express purpose of using the Crucible. Thus it is fitting that in Refuse, you lose everything if you do not use the Crucible.

See, this is a valid interpretation, and is just as likely that this is what Bioware had in mind when creating Refuse than your interpretation.

[dreamgazer]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Liara says the Crucible didn't work. Why would the next cycle be stupid enough to waste time on it? Also them using it defeats the purpose of Refuse, hence why many think it's Bioware being a dick.

Because that cycle's scientists might actually look at the plans and think: "Hey, we can actually do this, and better?"

[FlamingBoy]

I was always under the impression the reapers were tough but could be defeated in the first 2 games.

Also vigil implied that the protheans lost because of a surprise attack, and severed the use of Mass Relays effectively stagnating communication and supplies. Would the war have been so decisive if that didn't happen? Who knows.

[KiwiQuiche]

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Liara says the Crucible didn't work. Why would the next cycle be stupid enough to waste time on it? Also them using it defeats the purpose of Refuse, hence why many think it's Bioware being a dick.

Because that cycle's scientists might actually look at the plans and think: "Hey, we can actually do this, and better?"

What's the bet they still have no idea what it actually does and only win because the Reaper Overlord allows them to win?

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 25 juin 2013 - 04:19 .

[111987]

FlamingBoy wrote...

I was always under the impression the reapers were tough but could be defeated in the first 2 games.

Also vigil implied that the protheans lost because of a surprise attack, and severed the use of Mass Relays effectively stagnating communication and supplies. Would the war have been so decisive if that didn't happen? Who knows.

I can't remember at any point, in any of the games, the characters saying they believed they could defeat the Reapers conventionally. Not after Sovereign took on a fleet by itself and likely would have won were it not for Saren's death.

[dreamgazer]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Liara says the Crucible didn't work. Why would the next cycle be stupid enough to waste time on it? Also them using it defeats the purpose of Refuse, hence why many think it's Bioware being a dick.

Because that cycle's scientists might actually look at the plans and think: "Hey, we can actually do this, and better?"

What's the bet they still have no idea what it's done and only win because the Reaper Overlord allows them to win?

(shrugs)

What's the bet that the next cycle will do things differently based on Liara's historical data? 

[KiwiQuiche]

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

I was always under the impression the reapers were tough but could be defeated in the first 2 games.

Also vigil implied that the protheans lost because of a surprise attack, and severed the use of Mass Relays effectively stagnating communication and supplies. Would the war have been so decisive if that didn't happen? Who knows.

I can't remember at any point, in any of the games, the characters saying they believed they could defeat the Reapers conventionally. Not after Sovereign took on a fleet by itself and likely would have won were it not for Saren's death.

Hackett doesn't help with that, he's a fairly lousy leader.

[Maxster_]

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

So it basically ruins the whole point of picking Refuse in the first place. Oh well, I'll just ignore it since it's just Gamble and his twitter word isn't lore.

Picking Refuse has a point? A point that can be ruined by something someone else does?

Yes.  It's a point you may not agree with (and if you, you don't pick refuse), but the entire point of refuse was the unwillingless to accept the Catalyst's solution as the "only" solution, a refusal to "pick your war-crime", and thus a leap of faith that even if we went down swinging, we might at least give the next cycle (or cycles) a chance to defeat the Reapers the right way, without sacrificing it's collective soul on the alter of the Crucible.

That is the point that Bioware completely (and IMHO deliberately) ruined.  I consider it "trolling", i.e. "it's our way or go away".  I also think it's childish at this point.

-Polaris

It's been established, over three games, that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. Call it bad writing or whatever else, but that's the way the Reapers have been presented.

No, it wasn't.
It is established in ME1, that reapers is a very dangerous enemy, but they can be defeated with enough firepower and use of strategy and tactics.
This is exactly why Sovereign was scheming for thousands of years, instead of attacking Citadel directly. It is even stated in the codex.

Chooisng Refuse is choosing to undue all the work you did in ME3. All the alliances you build are for the express purpose of using the Crucible. Thus it is fitting that in Refuse, you lose everything if you do not use the Crucible.

Not joining Saren(Sovereign) is choosing to undue all the work you did in ME1. Because reapers can't be defeated, and submission is preferable to extinction . 

[KiwiQuiche]

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Liara says the Crucible didn't work. Why would the next cycle be stupid enough to waste time on it? Also them using it defeats the purpose of Refuse, hence why many think it's Bioware being a dick.

Because that cycle's scientists might actually look at the plans and think: "Hey, we can actually do this, and better?"

What's the bet they still have no idea what it's done and only win because the Reaper Overlord allows them to win?

(shrugs)

What's the bet that the next cycle will do things differently based on Liara's historical data? 

Considering they aren't all dead and aren't glowing with circuit lines of world peace...

But regardless, them using it defeats the whole purpose of Refuse. So I'm just ignoring Gamble.

[IanPolaris]

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

So it basically ruins the whole point of picking Refuse in the first place. Oh well, I'll just ignore it since it's just Gamble and his twitter word isn't lore.

Picking Refuse has a point? A point that can be ruined by something someone else does?

Yes.  It's a point you may not agree with (and if you, you don't pick refuse), but the entire point of refuse was the unwillingless to accept the Catalyst's solution as the "only" solution, a refusal to "pick your war-crime", and thus a leap of faith that even if we went down swinging, we might at least give the next cycle (or cycles) a chance to defeat the Reapers the right way, without sacrificing it's collective soul on the alter of the Crucible.

That is the point that Bioware completely (and IMHO deliberately) ruined.  I consider it "trolling", i.e. "it's our way or go away".  I also think it's childish at this point.

-Polaris

It's been established, over three games, that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. Call it bad writing or whatever else, but that's the way the Reapers have been presented.

Actually no.  It was only established that the Reapers can not be defeated "conventionally" (by which I mean without a Reaper Off Button) at the start of ME3.  In ME2 there were a number of hints that the Reapers could be sucessfully fought and Vigil seems to imply this as well in ME1 (see Klengendan Cannon as just one example).

In *this* cycle we frittered away our advantages and at the very end of the game, it's crucible or nothing, but it didn't have to be that way.

Chooisng Refuse is choosing to undue all the work you did in ME3. All the alliances you build are for the express purpose of using the Crucible. Thus it is fitting that in Refuse, you lose everything if you do not use the Crucible.

The price is too high.  You are essentially trusting that your number one enemy is telling the truth, and that you have to pick some horrific warcrime and hope that the Catalyst isn't lying (and it's most certainly able to lie).  Now you personally might not agree that the price is too high, but if you pick REFUSE as a player, this is the choice that you are making in character, and Bioware needs  to honor that choice.

See, this is a valid interpretation, and is just as likely that this is what Bioware had in mind when creating Refuse than your interpretation.

No it's not a valid interpretation because it doesn't HONOR the choice the player made.  That's ultimately the bottom line.

-Polaris

[FlamingBoy]

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

I was always under the impression the reapers were tough but could be defeated in the first 2 games.

Also vigil implied that the protheans lost because of a surprise attack, and severed the use of Mass Relays effectively stagnating communication and supplies. Would the war have been so decisive if that didn't happen? Who knows.

I can't remember at any point, in any of the games, the characters saying they believed they could defeat the Reapers conventionally. Not after Sovereign took on a fleet by itself and likely would have won were it not for Saren's death.

Well yeah they didn't spell it out, the simple fact that they can be destroyed as individual entities implies that they can be defeated.
They didn't say it, but the reapers are not gods regardless of the ending. They are flawed with pride and arrogance, and their "vanguard plan" failed. The Reapers are fighting a universe that is connected  where people can send supplies to one solar system to another.

In military theory, that is a game changer.

[KiwiQuiche]

I dunno why Shepard couldn't have comm'd Hackett and said "Hey the Citadel is the Reaper God, nuke it" or something.

[IanPolaris]

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Liara says the Crucible didn't work. Why would the next cycle be stupid enough to waste time on it? Also them using it defeats the purpose of Refuse, hence why many think it's Bioware being a dick.

Because that cycle's scientists might actually look at the plans and think: "Hey, we can actually do this, and better?"

What's the bet they still have no idea what it's done and only win because the Reaper Overlord allows them to win?

(shrugs)

What's the bet that the next cycle will do things differently based on Liara's historical data? 

Not doubting the Reaper's existance until it's too late would be an awfully good start.  Also getting a strong head start on military buildups and R+D over the span of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years can make a real difference especially if Liara's time capsule allows the future cycle to start nearly at where our cycle is now.

Remember that the Reapers can not replace losses and they are technologically stagnant.  Given Liara's information in sufficient time, I can easily see a fleet being able to jump in and wipe out the Reapers in Darkspace where they are most vulnerable before the Reapers even realize that something has gone wrong.

-Polaris

[111987]

Maxster_ wrote...

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

So it basically ruins the whole point of picking Refuse in the first place. Oh well, I'll just ignore it since it's just Gamble and his twitter word isn't lore.

Picking Refuse has a point? A point that can be ruined by something someone else does?

Yes.  It's a point you may not agree with (and if you, you don't pick refuse), but the entire point of refuse was the unwillingless to accept the Catalyst's solution as the "only" solution, a refusal to "pick your war-crime", and thus a leap of faith that even if we went down swinging, we might at least give the next cycle (or cycles) a chance to defeat the Reapers the right way, without sacrificing it's collective soul on the alter of the Crucible.

That is the point that Bioware completely (and IMHO deliberately) ruined.  I consider it "trolling", i.e. "it's our way or go away".  I also think it's childish at this point.

-Polaris

It's been established, over three games, that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. Call it bad writing or whatever else, but that's the way the Reapers have been presented.

No, it wasn't.
It is established in ME1, that reapers is a very dangerous enemy, but they can be defeated with enough firepower and use of strategy and tactics.
This is exactly why Sovereign was scheming for thousands of years, instead of attacking Citadel directly. It is even stated in the codex.

Chooisng Refuse is choosing to undue all the work you did in ME3. All the alliances you build are for the express purpose of using the Crucible. Thus it is fitting that in Refuse, you lose everything if you do not use the Crucible.

Not joining Saren(Sovereign) is choosing to undue all the work you did in ME1. Because reapers can't be defeated, and submission is preferable to extinction . 

The Reapers aren't invincible. Sovereign couldn't have just charged in and taken on the entire Citadel fleet. But in ME1 it was shown to be vastly more powerful than anything the Citadel races had.

Sovereign was only defeated because of Saren's death. The devs have stated that if the Saren death did not occur, Sovereign may have been defeated, but with MUCH higher casualties. And Sovereign was already carving through the fleet like butter when they engaged it.

I disagree with the idea that what Saren wanted=Synthesis, but that's a different discussion. And I know we won't achieve anything on that front.

[IanPolaris]

111987 wrote...

The Reapers aren't invincible. Sovereign couldn't have just charged in and taken on the entire Citadel fleet. But in ME1 it was shown to be vastly more powerful than anything the Citadel races had.

Sovereign was only defeated because of Saren's death. The devs have stated that if the Saren death did not occur, Sovereign may have been defeated, but with MUCH higher casualties. And Sovereign was already carving through the fleet like butter when they engaged it.

The point being is that the Reapers are vincible and with the proper technology, and preperations then (hypothetically at least) could be defeated.  Of course there was a horrid Retcon on the part of Bioware's Writers that enabled the Reapers to make it to our galaxy from Dark Space in only three years......and another horrible retcon that essentially said the Reapers could do this without discharging their drive cores.  That retcon (and it was a retcon after ME1) really harmed the series IMO.

I disagree with the idea that what Saren wanted=Synthesis, but that's a different discussion. And I know we won't achieve anything on that front.

I don't see how you can.  Sarenly openly preaches the union of man and machine with the strengths of both and the weaknesses of neither.  How is that not synethesis?

-Polaris

[111987]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no.  It was only established that the Reapers can not be defeated "conventionally" (by which I mean without a Reaper Off Button) at the start of ME3.  In ME2 there were a number of hints that the Reapers could be sucessfully fought and Vigil seems to imply this as well in ME1 (see Klengendan Cannon as just one example).

In *this* cycle we frittered away our advantages and at the very end of the game, it's crucible or nothing, but it didn't have to be that way.

The Illusive Man even says that the Klendagon Cannon was likely a last 'FU' to the Reapers before they were annihilated. In any case, one dead Reaper isn't saying much when there are hundreds, if not thousands of them. That cannon was a one trick pony.

In ME2, during that same mission, EDI actually says Reaper shields are impervious to dreadnaught fire. So actually, ME3 made the Reapers more beatable by having the 4:1 ratio.

The price is too high.  You are essentially trusting that your number one enemy is telling the truth, and that you have to pick some horrific warcrime and hope that the Catalyst isn't lying (and it's most certainly able to lie).  Now you personally might not agree that the price is too high, but if you pick REFUSE as a player, this is the choice that you are making in character, and Bioware needs  to honor that choice.

How would you have them honor that choice? As stated, the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. As antagonists, that is how they are written. Anything other than Shepard's cycle being wiped out would be ridiculous in my opinion.

No it's not a valid interpretation because it doesn't HONOR the choice the player made.  That's ultimately the bottom line.

-Polaris

But see, that's just your interpretation of it. You say it doesn't honor the choice. I say it does.

These are all opinions. I say that your interpretation is valid. Why can't more than one be valid?

[dreamgazer]

IanPolaris wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Liara says the Crucible didn't work. Why would the next cycle be stupid enough to waste time on it? Also them using it defeats the purpose of Refuse, hence why many think it's Bioware being a dick.

Because that cycle's scientists might actually look at the plans and think: "Hey, we can actually do this, and better?"

What's the bet they still have no idea what it's done and only win because the Reaper Overlord allows them to win?

(shrugs)

What's the bet that the next cycle will do things differently based on Liara's historical data? 

Not doubting the Reaper's existance until it's too late would be an awfully good start.  Also getting a strong head start on military buildups and R+D over the span of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years can make a real difference especially if Liara's time capsule allows the future cycle to start nearly at where our cycle is now.

Remember that the Reapers can not replace losses and they are technologically stagnant.  Given Liara's information in sufficient time, I can easily see a fleet being able to jump in and wipe out the Reapers in Darkspace where they are most vulnerable before the Reapers even realize that something has gone wrong.

-Polaris

That works too.  The "official" canon allows for either option to be a possibility, I guess.

I'd personally choose to fire off a quick, easy overload beam instead of nickle-and-diming them in hopes that they don't "realize" what's going on, but to each his or her own. 

[FlamingBoy]

bloody hell, the subjective lecture again....

[111987]

IanPolaris wrote...

111987 wrote...

The Reapers aren't invincible. Sovereign couldn't have just charged in and taken on the entire Citadel fleet. But in ME1 it was shown to be vastly more powerful than anything the Citadel races had.

Sovereign was only defeated because of Saren's death. The devs have stated that if the Saren death did not occur, Sovereign may have been defeated, but with MUCH higher casualties. And Sovereign was already carving through the fleet like butter when they engaged it.

The point being is that the Reapers are vincible and with the proper technology, and preperations then (hypothetically at least) could be defeated.  Of course there was a horrid Retcon on the part of Bioware's Writers that enabled the Reapers to make it to our galaxy from Dark Space in only three years......and another horrible retcon that essentially said the Reapers could do this without discharging their drive cores.  That retcon (and it was a retcon after ME1) really harmed the series IMO.

I disagree with the idea that what Saren wanted=Synthesis, but that's a different discussion. And I know we won't achieve anything on that front.

I don't see how you can.  Sarenly openly preaches the union of man and machine with the strengths of both and the weaknesses of neither.  How is that not synethesis?

-Polaris

They key difference is that Saren was obviously indoctrinated, and wanted to implant everything with Reaper tech and thus all be slaves to the Reapers. Synthesis is not Reaper technology, but even if it was, it is obviously not the same type of implants that was used on Saren.

[111987]

FlamingBoy wrote...

bloody hell, the subjective lecture again....

Because only one perspective is the true perspective, right?

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

bloody hell, the subjective lecture again....

Well, yeah. People see this story in different ways. That ain't changing. 

[Iakus]

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

bloody hell, the subjective lecture again....

Because only one perspective is the true perspective, right?

Have you spoken with some of the pro-ending crowd?