Control - shepard dies, reapers have an easier time to win.
synthesis- reapers have what they want, leave organics alone since they are no longer organics
Refuse - Shepard is alive and Fights to the last. Reapers as a slighter chance to win.
Now i know what some of you are thinking.
You are thinking, wait!
In the cutscenes i saw the reapers destroyed in destroy and i saw shepard becoming the new overlord in control.
Well, thats meta-gaming. since your character is dead. you cannot know what will really happen, everything from that point is open to interpretation.
Most of the time, when you shoot a tube which is responsible for leading liquids inside a machine you destroy the machine in the process, meaning whatever it was meant to be doing. it will no longer be able to do.
Control - Its quite arrogant to think that shepard will be able to control the reapers, its more naive to take the reapers overlord word for it... and the idea of shepard having to melt down in order to control them. its sound rather ridiculous, if it was really about control the catalyst would offer your shep to put an helmet on.
More on controlling giant flying jellyfish here http://whatsnext.blo...with-your-mind/\\
synthesis - its what the reapers wanted all along, this is why they left the crucible building prints for every cycle to follow, this is why they allowed the galaxy to build it in the first place on every cycle. this is why they allow shepard to enter the citadel, they is why they bring shepard up in the elevator when hes almost dead. this is why its explained as the best solution all around. because from where you are standing. it is the greatest win for the reapers, and one of the lesser evils for the galaxy.
Refuse - In refuse shepard has a chance to fight another day, he doesnt become an indoctirnated husk like in control or dies like in destroy(or close death) stil many more die in refuse but the galaxy still have a chance to survive the reapers holocaust. the galaxy is a large place and all they need is a place to hide.
Im not pro synthesis or pro refuse, this is just a logical analysis deprived of wishful thinking.
At desperate times people will believe what they want to believe even if all evidence show them otherwise.
If the catalyst was really pro shepard- it and the reapers would have just take a hike out of the galaxy.
In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon.[/list]
Kamfrenchie wrote...
Refuse is logical from shepard point of view (not meta gaming)
Why would the boss of your ennemies reveal his weakness and allow you to destroy them ? hy wouldn't the star child chose himself what he thinks is the best solution? Why won't his solution work anymore? He could just push back the crucible and let the reapers win, then harvest earlier in the next cycle.
Shepard has no reason to believe the star child, especially given his insane trol logic. Again, the three choices are to
-electrocute yourself
-jump into a giant beam
-explode a random tube and die in the explosion
That doesn't smell like a trap to you ?
"jump into that giant blender and you can join a super advanced collective intelligence"
Ieldra2 wrote...
There are two levels to metagaming:
First-level metagaming is when you make a decision because you know how things work in stories, even if it's opposed to what pure in-world reasoning would suggest. This happens rather often in my games. Examples: saving the Council in ME1, curing the genophage depending on who's alive, making any ending choice with insufficient information etc. etc.. You just know things will work out well in the end, so you make the decision accordingly. The difference to second-level metagaming is that the story gives you hints, even if it's not in a form you'd accept in a "pure roleplaying" mindset. This can occasionally lead you astray when the writers are particularly devious (see below) since it's not based on advance knowledge but it works most of the time.
Second-level metagaming is when you make a decision based on advance knowledge, where there is no story hint you could use as a rationalization. I would like more situations that require this kind of metagaming to get "right" (right meaning the outcome you want) but it never happens in the ME games. They really never surprise you in any significant outcome. The only time I metagame like this in a significant decision in a Bioware game is when I choose Bhelen for king of Orzammar in DAO.
After a long discussion, i no longer follow this thread.
you have to decide if
1) do trust the catalyst?
2) do see no alternatives?
3) is submission better than extinction
if you answered yes to 1+2 then you will never understand refuse
if you answered yes to 3, you are better off picking synthesis.
Modifié par erezike, 24 juillet 2013 - 01:13 .
Retour en haut
