748 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexMBrennan]

The reapers had no warning and would never have known what hit them.

Reapers in Sol, maybe. Reapers elsewhere (as shown) would have known in advance since the Reapers use instantaneous QEC communication (as established in Retribution iirc)

[KaiserShep]

Even if they hightailed it off of each world the moment the reapers in Sol started going dark, they would not have been able to escape in time, judging by how quickly and expansively the wave travels across the relay network.

[David7204]

It is not metha-gaming, because the Catalyst has no reason to lie to you when he presents the three choices.

[Reorte]

erezike wrote...

I agree that reuse is hardly better, the only advantage in refuse is that you take control.
All of the other three choices are the choices the catalyst-walters offer you.
You can take them or refuse them.

Out of these options the most favorable by the reapers is synthesis which is why it is most likely to succeed.
Out of the three options its the one with the highest price to pay, turning all organics into cyborgs.
They all require a leap of faith. it just that synthesis make most sense out of the optons you are given.

No, Refuse you don't take control, you just sit back and let the enemy kill you. Any of the other choices are better than that because if they don't work then you're back in the same boat as Refuse anyway. The only exception to that is Synthesis which, if you take the very long view, is actually worse than letting the Reapers win. At least a Reaper victory this cycle will give future ones a chance but with Synthesis you've changed all life, forever (and it requires a massive leap of faith and suspension of disbelief to assume that what it's shown to do could achieve anything useful). It also requires real twisting of words and claims that boil down to "it does what I want, not what's said" for it to not eventually be environmentally disastrous. In other words that whilst there might be a greater chance of it working there's nothing to suggest that it would be to anyone's benefit except the Catalyst, which is a pretty good reason to reject it.

Edit to add:
Going back to the position of being suspicious about choices that kill you, whilst walking towards an explosion is plain stupid the other two choices seem purposely designed to kill.

Modifié par Reorte, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:07 .

[AsheraII]

Why destroy is the only logical option:
Shepard is under orders by Anderson to do just that.

Shepard has NO reason to believe anything starchild tells him/her. That is one of the things you as a player have to decide for yourself: will my Shepard trust the Starchild (to some degree) or not, and how will that affect my decision.

There is no "decision X is better than decision Y"!
Play your character as you like, shape your characters personality and characteristics as you see fit. Mass Effect is more than just a shoot em up. You get to use your imagination and shape your own Shepard, unlike about any other shooter.

Mass Effect has a very big RPG component. It touches the core of true RPGs in the ability to shape your own personality. Many games on the market are miscategorized as RPG yet do not offer this depth of roleplay. Mass Effect does. This is what makes Mass Effect stand out from almost every other game.

Modifié par AsheraII, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:06 .

[Reorte]

KaiserShep wrote...

There's no way anything would outrun the blast. Just look at the scale in proportion to the size of the galaxy as it jumps from relay to relay.

That's how quickly it spreads from relay to relay, we don't know how quickly it spreads to worlds off the relay network.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Who cares what the Catalyst thinks. I ignore the Catalyst. I will ignore Walters and the creators of the original ending. I will pay them the greatest insult.

The reapers no longer exist.

Shepard just went to her apartment. She just went AWOL. Kai Lame took off for Sanctuary. Shepard is chasing the clone. We'll get done with that and it's time to party down while the galaxy burns. It doesn't get better than that. Screw the ending because partying is the best. The Original Ending ending sucks the life out of you. It's so freaking depressing. Once it has been see it cannot be unseen. The Citadel DLC rocks.

You have to suffer through Leaving Earth > Coup. Then you can play Omega > go directly to The Citadel DLC (because Wrex) and put the game away. That's about the only part of ME3 that's worth playing. The Grand Admiral Cheesecake woke me up today. I will not be finishing this play through.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:18 .

[KaiserShep]

There IS a discrepancy in the speed of the wave in these scenes, as we see the wave spread slowly from the perspective of the people on a planet's surface for dramatic effect, but we get a view of the entire galaxy as the wave hits, which, given the speed over this scale, would have the wave travel at an order of magitude above the speed of light.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:18 .

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

It is not metha-gaming, because the Catalyst has no reason to lie to you when he presents the three choices.

The catalyst and the reapers have been harvesting and wiping all organic life for the last millions years, they have murdered and liquefied billions of humans. they are your enemies.

Lets take a quick look at what enemies do in warfare.

Reapers tactics.
7) Transform Your War into a Crusade: Morale Strategies.[/b][1] Create an atmosphere of fighting for something noble—a cause or a need. Respect your troops.- an agenda, protect organics from synthethics.

8) Pick Your Battles: The Perfect Economy Strategy.[/b][1] Fight economically, conserving all your assets. Know your strengths and play to them. War consists of weakening the other side—militarily, financially and morally. - The old crucible move, limited time. the reapers need a fast war since they are low on energy.

10) Create a Threatening Presence: Deterrence Strategies.[/b][1] Make people think they will lose, bluff if needed. People want an easy victory and will not attack if they think they will lose.. Reverse Intimidation. 1) Make bold maneuvers and bluff wisely, 2) be a threat, make sudden moves, imply aggression, 3) move irrationally, create unpredictability, act crazy, 4) Feed your opponent's paranoia by indicating capabilities that they are afraid of, 5) maintain a bad reputation, mean, nasty and non-negotiable.[/list]  - make shepard-player think the galaxy have no chance of conventional victory, increases chances of choosing one of the three choices.

12) Lose The Battles But Win The War: Grand Strategy.[/b][1] Have a bigger plan. - the crucible. make the galaxy think it has a chance. but it truth it all works by the reapers grand strategy.

13) Know Your Enemy: The Intelligence Strategy.[/b][1] Know your opponent's moves and do not let your motives be known. Understand their way of thinking - indoctirnated agents, supporting the citadel- a reaper device as your enemies place of operations. countless intel on your enemies. 

14) Overwhelm Resistance With Speed and Suddenness: The Blitzkrieg Strategy.[/b][1] Slow methodical start with a well-planned attack, move fast and sure. - there is not warning when the reapers attack.

15) Control the Dynamic: Forcing Strategies.[/b][1] Be in control. Be assertive. Control your opponent's mind. Move them into your territory.

21) Negotiate While Advancing: The Diplomatic-War Strategy.[/b][1] When negotiating a settlement you should not let up on the pressure to advance. This provides you more to negotiate with and does not give your opponent time to regroup. - reaper forces continue to destroy the galactic fleets while the catalyst opens a diplomatic window..


Most important-

23) Weave a Seamless Blend of Fact and Fiction: Misperception Strategies.[/b][1] Deception is an ancient art and invaluable when throwing people off your track. Misinformation and decoys can consume your opponent. - Lie.
  Yes Lie.

The real question is. Why would the catalyst tell you the truth if it is your enemy???
Answer- only if it serve its intrests.

[David7204]

How exactly is any of this nonsense the slightest bit relevant?

The Catalyst has no reason to lie. Telling the truth indeed serves its interests.

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:27 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

No one here is metha-gaming, at least no one I know.

[Erez Kristal]

Reorte wrote...

. In other words that whilst there might be a greater chance of it working there's nothing to suggest that it would be to anyone's benefit except the Catalyst, which is a pretty good reason to reject it.

Edit to add:
Going back to the position of being suspicious about choices that kill you, whilst walking towards an explosion is plain stupid the other two choices seem purposely designed to kill.

Retorte, you understand.
Yes there is nothing to suggest it would be of anyone benefit except for the catalyst.
Which makes refuse to even a more viable choice.
The reason synthesis is the most logical of the three choices the catalyst offers you, is because it is the one where it is most pleased. if it is most pleased the chances of it taking pity on you is greater. you have shown your will to work with the reapers instead of fighting them .. you are still at their mercy. 
The 3 choices are all the catalyst choices. he offers shepard these choices, they are his solutions.

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

How exactly is any of this nonsense the slightest bit relevant?

The Catalyst has no reason to lie. Telling the truth indeed serves its interests.

Why would it tell the truth?

[David7204]

Why would it lie?

[KiwiQuiche]

Why would it tell the truth?

[David7204]

The burden of proof is on you. I don't need to prove that someone is telling the truth. It's assumed by default. You need to prove why someone has compelling reason to lie.

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:40 .

[KaiserShep]

"It's not a lie, if you believe it." ~George Costanza

[Erez Kristal]

AsheraII wrote...

Why destroy is the only logical option:
Shepard is under orders by Anderson to do just that.

Shepard has NO reason to believe anything starchild tells him/her. That is one of the things you as a player have to decide for yourself: will my Shepard trust the Starchild (to some degree) or not, and how will that affect my decision.

There is no "decision X is better than decision Y"!
Play your character as you like, shape your characters personality and characteristics as you see fit. Mass Effect is more than just a shoot em up. You get to use your imagination and shape your own Shepard, unlike about any other shooter.

Mass Effect has a very big RPG component. It touches the core of true RPGs in the ability to shape your own personality. Many games on the market are miscategorized as RPG yet do not offer this depth of roleplay. Mass Effect does. This is what makes Mass Effect stand out from almost every other game.

Yes destroy would be the best option, anderson has nothing to do with it.
But there is no reason why would destroy be on the table in one of the catalyst three choices.

i know that is hard to accept and digest, but there is absolutely no reason that the catalyst will tell shepard how to destroy and that it would happen due to shooting the tube. it goes against basic logic.

I only wrote which decisions make senes. i myself hate both of them. but they are the lesser evils you have when facing the catalyst.
Submit or fight to the last.

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

The burden of proof is on you. I don't need to prove that someone is telling the truth. It's assumed by default. You need to prove why someone has compelling reason to lie.

David, david...
I posted the proof in my post above about military tactics.
the catalyst is your enemy. therefor lying is a viable tactic.
Now please debunk my claim.

Modifié par erezike, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:46 .

[AlexMBrennan]

The burden of proof is on you. I don't need to prove that someone is telling the truth

An enemy who is about to be killed may very well decide to lie (e.g. Inventing a "bigger fish" like "synthetics will wipe out all life") to save their skin; your assertion that a cornered villain facing death can be assumed to be telling the truth is absurd.

You need to prove why someone has compelling reason to lie.

I'd argue that certain death unless you lie is a pretty compelling reason to lie.

I'll admit that it doesn't quite the situation in Me3 since Catalyst isn't exactly cornered but you made general claims which are incorrect.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:48 .

[David7204]

Not good enough. Enemies can absolutely be honest with one another.

What does the Catalyst stand to gain by lying?

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

Not good enough. Enemies can absolutely be honest with one another.

What does the Catalyst stand to gain by lying?

 
23) Weave a Seamless Blend of Fact and Fiction: Misperception Strategies.[1] Deception is an ancient art and invaluable when throwing people off your track. Misinformation and decoys can consume your opponent.The False Mirror. During preparation for the invasion at Normandy in World War II, the allies developed a significant number of deceptive plans. These included a fake army in England (FUSAG) and a look alike of General Montgomery in the Mediterranean theater. A wealth of misinformation, paralyzedHitler's decision making capabilities when the actual invasion started, slowed his reaction.[/list]Keys to Warfare[/list]Make a strong front look weak.[/list]Make a weak front look strong and attack from another direction.[/list]Feed your opponent with misinformation.[/list]Maintain a pattern with the intent of changing it for surprise.[/list]Use imaginative and complete camouflage.[/list]Make the real look false and the false look real to create complete ambiguity.[/list]

25) Occupy the Moral High Ground: The Righteous Strategy.[1] Justify your cause as the correct and moral way. Show your opponent's self-serving side. Show yourself as the underdog.The Moral Offensive. Pope Leo X wanted to complete construction of St. Peter's Basilica. To raise the funds for the church, he started the practice of sellingindulgences. A German theologian and Priest named Martin Luther challenged the practices in the 95 Theses saying that only God could forgive one's sins. He argued his stand based solely on the Bible systematically refuting each of the Pope's retorts. This effort by Martin Luther was the genesis of the Lutheranand Protestant traditions.Keys to Warfare[/list]Reveal the hypocrisy of your opponent.[/list]Justify your actions based on morality.[/list]Represent yourself as "good", your opponent as "bad".[/list]An immoral act will ruin your reputation.[/list]Make your opponent start the actual "fight".[/list]Wars of self-interest are short and defined.[/list]Wars on moral grounds are long and protracted, attempting to annihilate the roots of the immoral.[/list]


28) Give Your Rivals Enough Rope To Hang Themselves: The One-Upmanship Strategy.[/b][1] Give your opponents the space to make mistakes, provide them with assignments they cannot complete and damage their reputation. Hide your involvement and maintain your innocent.

Modifié par erezike, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:51 .

[David7204]

Knock that off. A quote from Wikipedia is not an argument.

What. Specifically. Does. The. Catalyst. Stand. To. Gain. By. Lying?

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

Knock that off. A quote from Wikipedia is not an argument.

What. Specifically. Does. The. Catalyst. Stand. To. Gain. By. Lying?

I hate repeating things i already wrote in the first post... and in many others.
Short answer- Easy victory.
Long Answer - destroy - crucible destroyed, shepard is dead. hope shattered. allies cant find a way to use the crucible to their advantage.
Control - Shepard is dead, information on shepard is absorbed into the reapers data, harbinger plan in me2
Synthesis - Reapers absorb shepard information in the best way, they feel more alive. enough data to turn possibily turn the galaxy into cyborgs, we do not know what happen after shepard does this. but it seems to be the most favorable for the catalyst.

Modifié par erezike, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:55 .

[KiwiQuiche]

David7204 wrote...

The burden of proof is on you. I don't need to prove that someone is telling the truth. It's assumed by default. You need to prove why someone has compelling reason to lie.

You assume an insane A.I, who seems to think that slolving problems via committing galactic wide genocide is a good thing to do and carries on doing it even after admitting its a stupid solution, is telling the truth because you assume it's telling the truth by default?

Nice argument.