1010 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr. Megaverse]

StreetMagic wrote...

What's wrong with being angry?

Nothing yo.  Providided you aren't Hangry.  My wife could teach a 200 level course in that. 

[Kataphrut94]

Why is controlling the Reapers 'enslavement' but killing them is 'justice/catharsis/mission accomplished/whatever'? If all we wanted to do is punish them, I'd have thought taking away their free will would be a better way to do it. Make them useful and humiliate them. What could be better?

[dorktainian]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Why is controlling the Reapers 'enslavement' but killing them is 'justice/catharsis/mission accomplished/whatever'? If all we wanted to do is punish them, I'd have thought taking away their free will would be a better way to do it. Make them useful and humiliate them. What could be better?

ok lets talk face value.

so using your body/corpse to connect 2 power terminals ensuring that you are completely and utterly obliterated by the massive amount of energy flowing through your body amounts to controlling the reapers?

wrong choice.  you died.

same with synthebodge.  end result?  you died.

destroy.  end result?  breath in the rubble.

i'm really glad controllers and synthesisers are happy with their endings.  They have found peace in the arms of the reapers.




or maybe all the endings are bad? 

Modifié par dorktainian, 22 octobre 2013 - 09:36 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Destroy kills Reapers actively fighting our forces, and killing enemy combatants is generally considered acceptable. Once hostilities end things change however.
On the other hand, control obviously enslaves the Reapers indefinitely. .

[KaiserShep]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Why is controlling the Reapers 'enslavement' but killing them is 'justice/catharsis/mission accomplished/whatever'? If all we wanted to do is punish them, I'd have thought taking away their free will would be a better way to do it. Make them useful and humiliate them. What could be better?

If the reapers are indeed beings with the capacity for independent thought, then control would definitely be enslavement, since they are following Shepard's whims, not doing whatever it is they may prefer.

Putting justice and catharsis aside, killing them has been the objective since the very beginning, so to that end, at least mission accomplished is what you get. I have no qualms with removing their free will and making them useful, but technically, destroy can meet that requirement too, without necessitating suicide.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 22 octobre 2013 - 09:56 .

[Kataphrut94]

dorktainian wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Why is controlling the Reapers 'enslavement' but killing them is 'justice/catharsis/mission accomplished/whatever'? If all we wanted to do is punish them, I'd have thought taking away their free will would be a better way to do it. Make them useful and humiliate them. What could be better?

ok lets talk face value.

so using your body/corpse to connect 2 power terminals ensuring that you are completely and utterly obliterated by the massive amount of energy flowing through your body amounts to controlling the reapers?

wrong choice.  you died.

same with synthebodge.  end result?  you died.

destroy.  end result?  breath in the rubble.

i'm really glad controllers and synthesisers are happy with their endings.  They have found peace in the arms of the reapers.




or maybe all the endings are bad? 

Or you could shoot a random piece of piping that somehow blows up all synthetic life?

All three of them are executed nonsensically, you're not saying anything worthwhile here. We know all those options work out as described, so let's just excuse that aspect of it and play the cards we're dealt.

Anyway, I don't see how one is worse than the other. Whether you destroy them or not, either way the Reapers are neutralised and stop killing us

That's another thing I don't get; supporters of Destroy say it has to be done because the Reapers are trying to kill us and must be stopped. I agree, but all of the endings stop them from doing that, so it's kind of a moot point. Really all you're doing with Destroy is letting more of your allies get killed for no tangible gain. Yeah Shepard might survive, but there's no way his life could be considered equal to that of the geth, or of the Reapers or even just EDI.

[KR96]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't shepard become an AI just like the kid, after sacrificing himself to get the control ending? I mean, if he really is an AI then one would just postpone the innevitable if you ask me.

[Ieldra]

Kataphrut94 wrote...
That's another thing I don't get; supporters of Destroy say it has to be done because the Reapers are trying to kill us and must be stopped. I agree, but all of the endings stop them from doing that, so it's kind of a moot point. Really all you're doing with Destroy is letting more of your allies get killed for no tangible gain. Yeah Shepard might survive, but there's no way his life could be considered equal to that of the geth, or of the Reapers or even just EDI.

I guess they're afraid that Catalyst!Shep will use the Reapers in a similar way as the old Catalyst, or that the Reapers might change their mind about not Reaping anymore after Synthesis.

While this is akin to using genocide to end a war - which is not a commonly-used option - I can somehow understand the attitude. After all, the games scream the message that the Reapers are abominations who shouldn't exist loudly enough into our ears to deafen us to alternative ideas, and paying with the lives of allies is apparently acceptable if it only wipes the universe clear of their corruption. I don't agree and I resent that message, but I can understand why people think and especially feel that way.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 octobre 2013 - 11:00 .

[dorktainian]

actually i'd rather pick another option....but of the options given to us i chose destroy. Of course if the crucible is a test (which by definition it is) then any choice could have a whole number of consequences... ones that we dont even know about yet.

Who set the test? What are they looking for by giving us 3 restricted choices?

[AlexMBrennan]

I agree, but all of the endings stop them from doing that, so it's kind of a moot point

That's an argument after the fact - when Shepard had to make the decision, he didn't know that the Reapers would keep the peace in Synthesis (they decided that genocide was the best course of action once and might do so again) or Control (putting one AI in charge of an unbeatable fleet started this mess, so replacing it with another AI isn't guaranteed to end the Reaper conflict).
Sure, it all worked out in the end but that's like saying that betting your entire life savings on roulette is a sound investment strategy after you happened to win.

[dorktainian]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I agree, but all of the endings stop them from doing that, so it's kind of a moot point

That's an argument after the fact - when Shepard had to make the decision, he didn't know that the Reapers would keep the peace in Synthesis (they decided that genocide was the best course of action once and might do so again) or Control (putting one AI in charge of an unbeatable fleet started this mess, so replacing it with another AI isn't guaranteed to end the Reaper conflict).
Sure, it all worked out in the end but that's like saying that betting your entire life savings on roulette is a sound investment strategy after you happened to win.

good point

[Obadiah]

dorktainian wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I agree, but all of the endings stop them from doing that, so it's kind of a moot point

That's an argument after the fact - when Shepard had to make the decision, he didn't know that the Reapers would keep the peace in Synthesis (they decided that genocide was the best course of action once and might do so again) or Control (putting one AI in charge of an unbeatable fleet started this mess, so replacing it with another AI isn't guaranteed to end the Reaper conflict).
Sure, it all worked out in the end but that's like saying that betting your entire life savings on roulette is a sound investment strategy after you happened to win.

good point

Er, creating enslaved AI was the original problem, and with Destroy you're right back in the position to start the conflict all over again. The only thing Destroy has is no Reaper AI, but you still have AI production, enslavement, rebellion, and conflict.

Modifié par Obadiah, 22 octobre 2013 - 01:21 .

[666Bratwurst]

Choosing control is basically just another way to troll the reapers.
C'mon
You know how it goes!

Shepard: "HEY HARBINGER!!!!

Harbinger:"Shepard..."

Shepard:"Assuming Direct Controlololo"

I'm pretty content with Destroy other-wise. Green may be good for you but it tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth...
much like my toothpaste and mouthwash...and those weird green things I ate last night...

Modifié par 666Bratwurst, 22 octobre 2013 - 12:29 .

[Xilizhra]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I agree, but all of the endings stop them from doing that, so it's kind of a moot point

That's an argument after the fact - when Shepard had to make the decision, he didn't know that the Reapers would keep the peace in Synthesis (they decided that genocide was the best course of action once and might do so again) or Control (putting one AI in charge of an unbeatable fleet started this mess, so replacing it with another AI isn't guaranteed to end the Reaper conflict).
Sure, it all worked out in the end but that's like saying that betting your entire life savings on roulette is a sound investment strategy after you happened to win.

The Catalyst would rather die than continue the harvest, as it was proven that that solution would no longer work. I think that's a fairly strong indicator that it's telling the truth. And if it's lying to you, well, that's it, game over; you won't know which option is the right one and they're probably all going to kill you and the galaxy somehow.

I can see why some would think it too risky, but it's not just basing everything on luck by any means.

[Ieldra]

666Bratwurst wrote...
Choosing control is basically just another way to troll the reapers.
C'mon
You know how it goes!

Shepard: "HEY HARBINGER!!!!

Harbinger:"Shepard..."

Shepard:"Assuming Direct Controlololo"

LOL. Isn't it the most epic way to turn that phrase back on Harbinger?

[wright1978]

dorktainian wrote...

actually i'd rather pick another option....but of the options given to us i chose destroy. Of course if the crucible is a test (which by definition it is) then any choice could have a whole number of consequences... ones that we dont even know about yet.

Who set the test? What are they looking for by giving us 3 restricted choices?

Of the options i would choose destroy but of the options & delivery mechanism i can't create a Shep that would accept or believe any option presented by the catalyst. Hence why i won't  play the game unmodded.

[FlyingSquirrel]

KaiserShep wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Why is controlling the Reapers 'enslavement' but killing them is 'justice/catharsis/mission accomplished/whatever'? If all we wanted to do is punish them, I'd have thought taking away their free will would be a better way to do it. Make them useful and humiliate them. What could be better?

If the reapers are indeed beings with the capacity for independent thought, then control would definitely be enslavement, since they are following Shepard's whims, not doing whatever it is they may prefer.

I don't think we have to assume that AI-Shepard is literally doing the Reapers' thinking for them in Control. I tend to think that the Reapers were capable of some independent thought and action under the Catalyst, but could not question its fundamental assumptions or conclude that the harvests were wrong or unnecessary. Given that the Reapers in Synthesis (where I assume the Catalyst has still relinquished its control) appear to help of their own accord, I don't think AI-Shepard would have to coerce them into doing the same thing in Control. It might suffice just to undo the Catalyst's constraints.

[KwangtungTiger]

Obadiah wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I agree, but all of the endings stop them from doing that, so it's kind of a moot point

That's an argument after the fact - when Shepard had to make the decision, he didn't know that the Reapers would keep the peace in Synthesis (they decided that genocide was the best course of action once and might do so again) or Control (putting one AI in charge of an unbeatable fleet started this mess, so replacing it with another AI isn't guaranteed to end the Reaper conflict).
Sure, it all worked out in the end but that's like saying that betting your entire life savings on roulette is a sound investment strategy after you happened to win.

good point

Er, creating enslaved AI was the original problem, and with Destroy you're right back in the position to start the conflict all over again. The only thing Destroy has is no Reaper AI, but you still have AI production, enslavement, rebellion, and conflict.

And somehow Synthesis stops conflict? Just because their DNA is changed didn't mean that their personality or embodiment was.

Lets take the Krogan,

Blessed with their high birth rate and now eternal life, how long before they use up all the resources in their system and start to expand the colony. We already know what happened last time. Hell.......what about the now eternal life of all the other races? The fight for land and resources is worsened by it.

The fact organics can't keep up with synthetics never seemed to be that big a deal.
-You can easily destroy the Geth if need be.
-The Zha-til were easily destroyed by the Protheans
-Organics can easily destroy each other with out the help of synthetics.

Conflict is still and will always be present regardless of which ending you choose. I posit that all out war is inevitable given what Sythesis does over all.

Alot of people who choose Sythesis seem to believe its some type of disney channel special.

And the only thing I need to say about Control is, how long before organics get tired of the reapers hovering over them good or bad. Thats just to much power for one being to have. The past has shown us regardless of how perfect a society is it will not last forever.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

dorktainian wrote...


so using your body/corpse to connect 2 power terminals ensuring that you are completely and utterly obliterated by the massive amount of energy flowing through your body amounts to controlling the reapers?

wrong choice.  you died.

same with synthebodge.  end result?  you died.

destroy.  end result?  breath in the rubble.

Oh wow, a torso with its arms and legs blown off takes a breath under a pile of garbage. What a joy!

... not.

Seriously, if you're going to condemn yourself to that, you might as well just go all the way/choose death.

[Obadiah]

Couple things:
1) Yes, Synthesis stops the one Synthetic/Organic conflict that will inevitably wipe out all Organics

2) In Synthesis Shepard jumps into an energy beam that gets transmitted and blasted all over the galaxy, and Synthesis takes place. It is described as "ridiculous" and "mysticism" by even supporters here attempting to try to rationally explain it. I submit to you that this is technology so far beyond us we can barely comprehend it, so we just make fun of it.

That is what organics will be up against in an AI war as technology becomes more advanced. Sure we would have defeated the Geth, but over time Synthetics will be produced that are more and more powerfull such that there will come a time where we cannot defeat them (as has happened for at least the past 37 million years in MEU). So I would disagree that defeat of AI Synthetics would be "easy", and would probably be eventually impossible.

[maaaad365]

Now ,seriously guys, do you actually trust the Reapers to tell the truth about the solution to the problem ?
Destroy is the only logical solution since the Reapers cannot be trusted, period. If I had to choose 1000 times between the 3 options I would go with the destroy every time.
But , since it is only a game , Synthesis is the best in my opinion. And they do become immortal , EDI says that in her final speech.

[KwangtungTiger]

Obadiah wrote...

Couple things:
1) Yes, Synthesis stops the one Synthetic/Organic conflict that will inevitably wipe out all Organics

2) In Synthesis Shepard jumps into an energy beam that gets transmitted and blasted all over the galaxy, and Synthesis takes place. It is described as "ridiculous" and "mysticism" by even supporters here attempting to try to rationally explain it. I submit to you that this is technology so far beyond us we can barely comprehend it, so we just make fun of it.

That is what organics will be up against in an AI war as technology becomes more advanced. Sure we would have defeated the Geth, but over time Synthetics will be produced that are more and more powerfull such that there will come a time where we cannot defeat them (as has happened for at least the past 37 million years in MEU). So I would disagree that defeat of AI Synthetics would be "easy", and would probably be eventually impossible.

Your missing the point.

1) Who's to say that Synthetics and Organics will never go to war. Just because you have an "Understanding" of your enemy doesn't mean you still wont go to war with them. Just because we can keep up with them doesn't mean they stiil wont try and destroy us and vise versa

2) I agree

As for your last point, the very ending proves this wrong. We can destroy the Reapers who are over a billion years old by some calculations.

This is like America, we have the most advanced military in the world. If we keep advancing like we are is it automaticlly assumed that we would destroy the rest of civilization? Then why is it assumed that Synthetics will destroy us? Just for the hell of it? This has always been my problem with the Catalyst. It bases everthing off an assumption.

[Reorte]

Obadiah wrote...

Couple things:
1) Yes, Synthesis stops the one Synthetic/Organic conflict that will inevitably wipe out all Organics

2) In Synthesis Shepard jumps into an energy beam that gets transmitted and blasted all over the galaxy, and Synthesis takes place. It is described as "ridiculous" and "mysticism" by even supporters here attempting to try to rationally explain it. I submit to you that this is technology so far beyond us we can barely comprehend it, so we just make fun of it.

That is what organics will be up against in an AI war as technology becomes more advanced. Sure we would have defeated the Geth, but over time Synthetics will be produced that are more and more powerfull such that there will come a time where we cannot defeat them (as has happened for at least the past 37 million years in MEU). So I would disagree that defeat of AI Synthetics would be "easy", and would probably be eventually impossible.

Well, by leaving the Reapers alive in Control or Synthesis you've already got a potentially if not actually hostile AI there already.

The "AI might kill us eventually so we need to wipe it out now" attitude is paranoid, unpleasant, and unfounded, and if you really believe it then neither Control nor Synthesis will do anything about it anyway. Sure, there's a risk that they might. There's a risk that any of the other races might advance more and decide to kill everyone too.

[KaiserShep]

Kataphrut94 wrote...
That's another thing I don't get; supporters of Destroy say it has to be done because the Reapers are trying to kill us and must be stopped. I agree, but all of the endings stop them from doing that, so it's kind of a moot point. Really all you're doing with Destroy is letting more of your allies get killed for no tangible gain. Yeah Shepard might survive, but there's no way his life could be considered equal to that of the geth, or of the Reapers or even just EDI.

I don't judge the merits of each decision based on the epilogues; I judge them on the most immediate action the catalyst describes, and I have no reason to put any faith at all in control or synthesis. From a narrative standpoint, having these options backfire is not likely, but that's from a meta-gaming standpoint. As for killing allies for no tangible gain, I would thoroughly disagree. Retaking control over earth and every other home world in the galaxy and ensuring that the rest don't go extinct is a gain in itself, in my opinion. And then there's the benefits of being able to harvest whatever technologies one can glean from the reapers themselves, as well as being able to utilize their Citadel and mass relays without hindrance.

As for the worth of the lives of the reapers, I'd give it about as much consideration as I would if it were mine being weighed against them, which is not at all.

[Obadiah]

@KwangtungTiger

1) A war for resources (which is just what most wars are about including some between Organics and Synthetics) is not the same as a war where one side needs (I don't mean "wants", I mean "needs") to subjugate or enslave the other to advance itself - that is the Organic/Synthetic war that the Catalyst is trying to stop. The Quarian Admiral Xen is an in-game example of why that war would takes place. Such a requirement would be non-negotiable to Synthetics and would eventually lead to Synthetics wiping out Organics.

Synthesis removes the need for Organics to enslave Synthetics. Now if they fight, they can do so over normal negotiable things where one side can accept defeat.

2) Realy? Your logic is that after a billion years of losing we won, so we'd eventually win? Can I just point out that the Catalyst was not actually trying to wipe us out completely. What happens when we go up against AI with that kind of power that really doesn't give a hoot about keeping organics around for cycles?

Organics lose.

Modifié par Obadiah, 22 octobre 2013 - 07:07 .