711 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

I tend to think the destroyer mindset is based on logic

If we were to say the Catalyst is a tool which continuously made repeated mistakes, then how do we accept any solution offered by it are NOT mistakes? (Not a very good point but u can see the fallacy of accepting anything from the Catalyst, that and many holes in its reasonings)

From observation and the Catalyst's own admission, it was capable of creating and controlling the reapers ONLY, the logical deduction from this is that the Crucible would only influence the fate of the reapers. The Crucible simply does not do anything else because its makers would never allow it (they didn't have the time nor heart whilst fighting off reapers in their own backyard) unless they were indoctrinated or actually held opinions regarding the synthetic/organic conflict in agreement with the Catalyst. The other possibility is that the Crucible really is a reaper device designed specifically to achieve synthesis, I mean why not? Is it really that hard to believe the Crucible is designed by the reapers?

Yes, you might argue that the EC slides in control and synthesis beg to differ but its all bulls**t patch-up anyway and u know it . Sure some people want to do some extra "good" to the world, but the world does not want it so deal with itB)

[voteDC]

I simply can't bring myself to trust a word that comes out of the Catalyst's mouth.

Why would Shepard, any Shepard, trust the word of the thing that has just told you that it created and controls the Reapers.

Right up until the end I expected Shepard to get the option to say "hell to this! Where's your blue-box? Lets fry your ass instead of mine."

Destroying the Catalyst would then have a similar effect as destroying Saren did to Sovereign, shocking the Reapers and making them vulnerable.

Then your War Assets would come into play as to whether you'd be able to win, at what cost and if at all.

Modifié par voteDC, 12 décembre 2013 - 05:39 .

[Michotic]

jtav wrote...

As the thread title says, I'm seemingly incapable of destroying the Reapers, or rather, creating a Shep who wants to destroy them.

"But it was our job to destroy the Reapers" you say? First it's been expected Shepard will do lots of things she doesn't necessarily do. Secondly, we (or I at least) don't want the destruction of the Reapers for its own sake. My Shepards want various things depending on their backstory, but their usual overarching goal is either the preservation of galactic civilization  as such or the desire to "add something good to the world." Control does a much better job preserving the infrastructure of Citadel space. Synthesis provides goodies like maskless quarians and futuristic cities for those that want to improve the galaxy. I find "freedom" a rather nebulous and hollow concept, especially given that ME characters seem to use that freedom to be jerks and morons. I've had too much experience with a medical condition nearly as limiting as a quarian suit to think too much of standing on my own two feet. My Shepards will always take concrete benefits over defending ideals I don't even believe in.

The way I see it, as long as the Reapers are there, they present a threat (at least until galactic civilization surpasses them). That's usually how I look at it. I do have some Shepard's that pick Control. I have yet to be able to justify Synthesis.

My main issue is throughout the trilogy, destroying them is what we're being geared towards. When Control is presented, it is seen as the 'bad' choice (what TIM was trying to do). Also, as far as how successful the Shep-Catalyst would be, check out NWN2. Very similar in many aspects, and it turned out very, very bad.

Then I think of the aftermath. Just what is the Shep-lyst and Reapers going to do now? Enforce galactic stability? That's just another form of subjugation. Even if the Shep-lyst is based on Shepard, it's not Shepard. Who can say just what it will end up doing hundreds/thousands of years from now.

I kind of like that a lot of infrastructure was destroyed in the war. This forces the current civilization to rebuild it. That's something they accomplished. They aren't just using what the Reapers left. The civilizations are proving they can do things themselves. That's very important.

[KaiserShep]

Another thing always in the back of my mind about this is indoctrination. It's like super-ultra-galactic space herpes that infects everything. I would rather totally obliterate anything capable of exerting control through a weird mind-warping signal. The Leviathan would be on thin ice too.

[Stalker]

1. I don't trust the faulty AI, creator and master of the Reapers, to guide Shepard in his decision. Agreeing to any idea of it to essentially spare the Reapers seems like a bad choice. And I am not even saying it's deliberately trying to trick Shepard: even if it's presenting these solutions with honesty and the will to protect as many as possible, it's still a malfunctioning AI we are talking about. After all, it has believed that the harvesting of everyone would be the best way to safe everyone. I wouldn't trust another "solution" of that thing.

2. Any other option than destroy would mean they get to walk among the current civilizations and that's incredibly dangerous no matter how you choose: in control you have slaves that are technologically far more advanced than its' slavers, even to the point that they could crush their slavers if it weren't for their shackles. That's just crying to backfire at some point. Synthesis with those who are "each a nation" and are famous for mind-controlling is even worse.

3. No matter how you twist it, Synthesis is preventing free thinking by forcing eternal life, peace and understanding on everyone in the galaxy.
Imagine it: someone from the Andromeda galaxy is coming over at some point and they are greeted by nothing but cultists with glowing green eyes who tell you the story of how they ended a war by melting their consciousness with their god-like enemies and now life in a perfect world. It's abhorrent and wrong.

4. **** the Reapers. We don't need their influence.


I'm not destroying them solely for the sake of it, for some heroic ideal or because I am "supposed to". I destroy them because in my eyes they are a danger to the current civilizations otherwise.

Modifié par Mr Massakka, 12 décembre 2013 - 06:15 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Neither can I, OP.


I actually chose it the first time and it just didn't feel right, like role-playing a Neanderthal (sp?) man -- LOL!

[Barquiel]

Maskless quarians and futuristic cities are great (London and Thessia don't look too bad either in the destroy epilogue), but Shepard can't possibly know what Synthesis and Control do when she/he makes the decision (without using your own headcanon ofc).

"The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework, a new DNA."...that could mean anything. What about diversity of life? Will the krogan still be krogan? Does the asari culture remain intact? etc. The catalyst doesn't answer these questions. Oh, and you unleash the reapers (uncontrolled and unchecked) on the galaxy. What are their intentions now? We don't know. Control is not less vague. We know Shepard dies and there will be an AI with Shepard's memories, but none of his or her humanity ("You will lose everything you have"). Even the epilogue is fairly vague with regards to what the Shepalyst actually intends to do with the reapers. The loss of EDI and the geth is tragic, but at least I know what I get in Destroy. It allows for a return to the status quo (minus AIs).

Modifié par Barquiel, 12 décembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[Anubis722]

General TSAR wrote...

Gee....why would anyone want to destroy genocidal sentient machines that have a body count in the hundreds of trillions?


Deal with it OP.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The idea originally was this game was the end of the series. The "not the end of mass effect" was the DLC. There were three choices. Forget leaving your PC or 360 on and walking away for an hour and getting the Critical Mission Failure screen because it timed out. Pick one to end the game.

They used this horror aesthetic. Zombies! Some of them shot at you, but other than that it was like playing Left for Dead at times with fewer zombies. Really. I guess glowboy was having fun playing with his toys. Squishing people into gore to go into reapers wasn't enough. They had to do this to horrify us. But it's for mooks.

1) control - and in a particular circumstance this was your only choice
2) synthesis - horribly written and horribly presented. This was also the Disney happy ending. The hero died, but there will be peace in the galaxy now.
3) destroy - The original ending was clearer than the EC. The EC was less harshly worded.

Control was supposed to be the "good" ending because it was the only one that didn't destroy reaper tech and didn't show the relays blowing apart.

Synthesis was the golden ending because there would be peace, everyone understood each other because of a new DNA, but the relays were destroyed.

Destroy, eliminated reaper tech and all synthetics including the Geth, destroyed the relays, and the peace wouldn't last. -- but there could be a sequel here because you need struggle and conflict for stories.

Refuse? You sanctimonious ........ Shepard, you let everyone die.

This was all clarified in the EC - do any of you actually argue with the little brat after the first time? Or do you keep it high level after that?

If there is to be a sequel the default canon has to be destroy because of conflict and struggle. They aren't present in Control and Synthesis because of Big Brother and Peace respectively. You can't have conflict when everyone understands everyone else. Playing in a dystopia (Control) and rebelling against a reaper dominated galaxy could be fun if you like playing small scale oppressed resistance pockets against loyalist forces.

What really sucks about the destroy ending is that it kills technology, and not just reaper tech. They didn't say how far back it takes it. But, from what I've heard, through the magic of twitter, comicons, deficit spending, and space magic it appears that everything is back to normal in a few years (5-10 years) now, so what the f***. Peace is nice, but I want a sequel. Shoot the tube.

The endings are virtually identical anyway except for the color of the explosions on your TV: you die, the relays are damaged, and the Normandy crashes.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 12 décembre 2013 - 06:41 .

[KaiserShep]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Refuse? You sanctimonious ........ Shepard, you let everyone die.

You'll never be a pure paragon until you refuse

[JasonShepard]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@ElSuperGecko:
Your reasoning would be sound, wouldn't Destroy be just as suspect for the same reasons the other two are. If I believe the Catalyst about Destroy, then I have no reason to not also believe it about Control and Synthesis, and if I don't believe it about the latter, I have no reason to believe it about the former.

No, because the intent with which the Crucible was built matters here.  The Catalyst doesn't "offer" us Destroy - it simply admits that it is possible.

The Crucible might be reasonably expected to have Destroy as a function. However, the Catalyst is still the one that tells you how to activate Destroy.
Which means that in activating Destroy, there is still a level of trusting what the Catalyst tells you. If you don't trust the Catalyst, how do you know that shooting a tube on the Crucible will activate it as opposed to breaking it?

Unless you want to believe that those visions of TIM and Anderson are coming from somewhere else? If so, I'm all ears.

[Reorte]

Synthesis is out for reasons all too often discussed.

Control would be the preferable choice if it could be at all trusted. Whilst the game somewhat tries to give you the impression it can be (although I find the EC Control epilogue downright creepy, even the Paragon one - which I also think fits it perfectly) it simply doesn't make sense to me that it would work.

Refuse is just letting everyone die. I don't even see that as "standing up for your principles" - if they get everyone killed then they aren't really worth standing up for.

So Destroy it has to be.

[Reorte]

JasonShepard wrote...

The Crucible might be reasonably expected to have Destroy as a function. However, the Catalyst is still the one that tells you how to activate Destroy.
Which means that in activating Destroy, there is still a level of trusting what the Catalyst tells you. If you don't trust the Catalyst, how do you know that shooting a tube on the Crucible will activate it as opposed to breaking it?

Unless you want to believe that those visions of TIM and Anderson are coming from somewhere else? If so, I'm all ears.

The alternative is to do nothing, which can hardly be any better, or picking at random. However since there's no information to the contrary picking at random isn't any more likely to give you the choice you want than taking things at face value, so you may as well go with that.

As for the visions they could be somehow put there by the Catalyst, or they could simply be illustrative and not part of what Shepard sees, like the music throughout most of the game.

[AlexMBrennan]

You cannot imagine a Shepard who joined the Alliance military to protect the Alliance? This isn't starfleet where everyone is really a scientist who likes to dress in red shirts.

Also, there is a place for your fanfiction.

However since there's no information to the contrary picking at random isn't any more likely to give you the choice you want than taking things at face value, so you may as well go with that.

Actually, there is - Reapers are masters at manipulation so it is conceivable that Shepard might fall into their trap trying to outwit Catalyst, which throwing a coin would avert (unless Catalyst can control gravity, and thus the result of the coin toss:ph34r:)

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 12 décembre 2013 - 07:22 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

As a destroyer I pick the least awful of 3 choices, simples.

[wright1978]

JasonShepard wrote...

The Crucible might be reasonably expected to have Destroy as a function. However, the Catalyst is still the one that tells you how to activate Destroy.
Which means that in activating Destroy, there is still a level of trusting what the Catalyst tells you. If you don't trust the Catalyst, how do you know that shooting a tube on the Crucible will activate it as opposed to breaking it?

Unless you want to believe that those visions of TIM and Anderson are coming from somewhere else? If so, I'm all ears.

Which is why refuse is a perfectly acceptable choice as when faced with a clearly hostile untrustworthy entity where every action it proposes can be seen as suspect and potentially detrimental. I just about rationalise shooting the tube in the hope even if it doesn't destroy the reapers it might damage the catalyst.

[Daemul]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Would any of this matter if the geth and EDI survived it?

Humans want to save everyone.  In this war, that's not going to happen.

Luckily for us Humans, we get given options to save everyone, we dodged a bullet there.:innocent:

[Reorte]

wright1978 wrote...

Which is why refuse is a perfectly acceptable choice as when faced with a clearly hostile untrustworthy entity where every action it proposes can be seen as suspect and potentially detrimental. I just about rationalise shooting the tube in the hope even if it doesn't destroy the reapers it might damage the catalyst.

How can it make things worse?

[Iakus]

KaiserShep wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Refuse? You sanctimonious ........ Shepard, you let everyone die.

You'll never be a pure paragon until you refuse

I refuse to play any of Bioware's endings, I'm more paragon than paragon

[teh DRUMPf!!]

JasonShepard wrote...

Unless you want to believe that those visions of TIM and Anderson are coming from somewhere else? If so, I'm all ears.

Regardless where they're coming from, there's no rhyme or reason behind shooting the tube triggering Destroy, whether it's Shepard's imagination or some Reaper-imbued vision. It's bogus to claim to know it will work 'til after the fact.

[wright1978]

Reorte wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Which is why refuse is a perfectly acceptable choice as when faced with a clearly hostile untrustworthy entity where every action it proposes can be seen as suspect and potentially detrimental. I just about rationalise shooting the tube in the hope even if it doesn't destroy the reapers it might damage the catalyst.

How can it make things worse?

Maybe the crucible takes time to build up to fire or a simple switch needs to be flicked & any action the catalyst proposes is a means of  sabotaging its activation.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Daemul wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Would any of this matter if the geth and EDI survived it?

Humans want to save everyone.  In this war, that's not going to happen.

Luckily for us Humans, we get given options to save everyone, we dodged a bullet there.:innocent:

Lets be clear you are given 1 option to save everyone (if subjugation can be called saving), synthesis saves no one.

[Reorte]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

However since there's no information to the contrary picking at random isn't any more likely to give you the choice you want than taking things at face value, so you may as well go with that.

Actually, there is - Reapers are masters at manipulation so it is conceivable that Shepard might fall into their trap trying to outwit Catalyst, which throwing a coin would avert (unless Catalyst can control gravity, and thus the result of the coin toss:ph34r:)

Accepting a coin toss (assuming for the sake of argument a three-headed coin!) means accepting that every outcome is equally plausible, and hence no different from picking one. If you truly believe that the Catalyst is misleading you then that would make your preferred choice less likely, and you'd need to somehow bias your coin toss against it. However that's back to second-guessing.

[JasonShepard]

Reorte wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

The Crucible might be reasonably expected to have Destroy as a function. However, the Catalyst is still the one that tells you how to activate Destroy.
Which means that in activating Destroy, there is still a level of trusting what the Catalyst tells you. If you don't trust the Catalyst, how do you know that shooting a tube on the Crucible will activate it as opposed to breaking it?

Unless you want to believe that those visions of TIM and Anderson are coming from somewhere else? If so, I'm all ears.

The alternative is to do nothing, which can hardly be any better, or picking at random. However since there's no information to the contrary picking at random isn't any more likely to give you the choice you want than taking things at face value, so you may as well go with that.

Exactly. Which I why I believe it's logical to take the Catalyst at face value - doing otherwise leaves you with no information to act on. I don't have to agree with it - I do, however, have to assume that it isn't lying.

As for the visions they could be somehow put there by the Catalyst, or they could simply be illustrative and not part of what Shepard sees, like the music throughout most of the game.

Yeah... Except that the visions are the only reason Shepard has for shooting the tube or grabbing the pylons. If the visions didn't happen to Shepard, then all Shepard has is the Catalyst's descriptions of what the various options do, with no information on how to activate them.

Then again, there's no vision for Synthesis. So I do wonder how Shepard knows that jumping into the beam is the way to activate Synthesis...

[Reorte]

iakus wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Refuse? You sanctimonious ........ Shepard, you let everyone die.

You'll never be a pure paragon until you refuse

I refuse to play any of Bioware's endings, I'm more paragon than paragon

That's a refuse stance I can respect