You have not really defeated the enemy if you adopt their methods--Samara (ME2)
Control and synthesis are the Reaper's methods of solving this conflict.
That goes both ways. I saw plenty of destruction being wielded by the Reapers during the trilogy too, you know - it's not like they're averse to destroying stuff. Heck, as part of the cycle, they destroy entire civilisations to prevent us building AI.
Destroy is just as much a Reaper method as control or synthesis.
Guest_SIYWYMWBM_*
Destroy is just as much a Reaper method as control or synthesis.
Destroying the Reapers was your mission since the first game.
Destroying the Reapers was your mission since the first game.
People keep telling me that. It's odd, because for the first half of the first game, no-one even knew who the Reapers were, or that they were real. Once we did know, then our mission became stopping them from destroying us.
Our objective was never to destroy the Reapers. Destroying the Reapers is simply a means to an end. Tell me, if you had a choice between the following two options, which would you pick?
A. Destroy the Reapers, but in the process the universe is sterilised forever. No life, anywhere, ever.
B. The Reapers depart peacefully, and galactic civilisation continues.
You'd pick B. Anyone would. That's because your objective isn't to destroy the Reapers. Your objective is to save civilisation.
People keep telling me that. It's odd, because for the first half of the first game, no-one even knew who the Reapers were, or that they were real. Once we did know, then our mission became stopping them from destroying us.
Our objective was never to destroy the Reapers. Destroying the Reapers is simply a means to an end. Tell me, if you had a choice between the following two options, which would you pick?
A. Destroy the Reapers, but in the process the universe is sterilised forever. No life, anywhere, ever.
B. The Reapers depart peacefully, and galactic civilisation continues.
You'd pick B. Anyone would. That's because your objective isn't to destroy the Reapers. Your objective is to save civilisation.
Seems like you're promoting the control ending
I choose C. Destroy the reapers and have a future free from the threat of the reapers and civilization continues. Sounds like a plan to me
Guest_SIYWYMWBM_*
I destroyed the Reapers and saved the universe. I see nothing wrong with the ending.
Seems like your promoting the control ending
I choose C. Destroy the reapers and have a future free from the threat of the reapers and civilization continues. Sounds like a plan to me
Pfft! I Chose option D - the brown explosion
Seems like your promoting the control ending
I choose C. Destroy the reapers and have a future free from the threat of the reapers and civilization continues. Sounds like a plan to me
That wasn't my intention (though yes, I do advocate Control). If it works better, have B imprison the Reapers for eternity instead. The point is that Destroying the Reapers isn't the mission. Stopping them is. Picking Destroy does achieve that, but Destroy is not the mission itself.
The point is that Destroying the Reapers isn't the mission. Stopping them is. Picking Destroy does achieve that, but Destroy is not the mission itself.
^This. So many people don't get that.
That wasn't my intention (though yes, I do advocate Control). If it works better, have B imprison the Reapers for eternity instead. The point is that Destroying the Reapers isn't the mission. Stopping them is. Picking Destroy does achieve that, but Destroy is not the mission itself.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I agree that Destroying them isn't the exact mission.
These choices are more about Shepard than the Reapers. Or the player, for that matter. It says a lot about your own psychology and philosophy.
That said, I can be very destructive, with the proper target. To hell with any other kind of frame of thought. It's really at the point where I can't even bring myself to respect the other choices. on a player to player level. I think other people are out of their ****** minds. But I'm sure they feel the same on some level. In a certain light, Destroy appears to be the meatheaded decision.
I agree that Destroying them isn't the exact mission.
These choices are more about how Shepard than the Reapers. Or the player, for that matters. It says a lot about your own psychology and philosophy.
That said, I can be very destructive, with the proper target. To hell with any other kind of frame of thought. It's really at the point where I can't even bring myself to respect the other choices. on a player to player level. I think other people are out of their ****** minds. But I'm sure they feel the same on some level. In a certain light, Destroy appears to be the meatheaded decision.
I don't feel that people who pick Destroy are out of their mind. It solves the Reaper problem, after all. I just feel that Destroy has unacceptable casualties compared to Control.
I don't trust the Catalyst's opinion/definition of 'life' enough to pick Synthesis. Which is slightly ironic, considering that I apparently do trust its definition of 'self' enough to believe it when it says that the Control AI-upload of Shepard is still Shepard...
(Note - I don't believe that the Catalyst is actually lying to us, because if it is then there's no reason to trust any option, which leaves us unable to make a choice. However, I don't feel that its values necessarily match up to our own.)
Guest_SIYWYMWBM_*
However, I don't feel that its values necessarily match up to our own.)
It's more on the Reaper's side than Shepard's.
That goes both ways. I saw plenty of destruction being wielded by the Reapers during the trilogy too, you know - it's not like they're averse to destroying stuff. Heck, as part of the cycle, they destroy entire civilisations to prevent us building AI.
Destroy is just as much a Reaper method as control or synthesis.
I was going to say. The Reapers probably actually destroy even more than they control or synthesize anything. Have the Reapers not really been defeated in Destroy?? It's like saying killers with guns should not be killed with guns.
That logic is stupid. Check that, Samara is stupid. Virtually everything she says and believes is idiotic, people just are too distracted by her hotness to see her for the monster she is (which is ironic, since that is supposedly the deadly trait of her daughter).
I was going to say. The Reapers probably actually destroy even more than they control or synthesize anything. Have the Reapers not really been defeated in Destroy?? It's like saying killers with guns should not be killed with guns.
That logic is stupid. Check that, Samara is stupid. Virtually everything she says and believes is idiotic, people just are too distracted by her hotness to see her for the monster she is (which is ironic, since that is supposedly the deadly trait of her daughter).
While I do agree with you - very much - a sick part of me kinda likes the idea of no matter what - we adopt the villains methods or ideals to defeat them or stop them.
"Only our actions define us" - Samara
"War makes monsters of us all" - GRRM, "Feast for Crows"
I really do like having to - no matter what - accept the ideals or methods of the enemy to stop the enemy. It is like Batman having to accept the notions of the Joker (via murder or spreading chaos) to stop another Villain- this was in some ways touched on in The Dark Knight.
Personally, I wish more stories would do that. And was one of the things I really loved about the ending thematically.
Guest_SIYWYMWBM_*
While I do agree with you - very much - a sick part of me kinda likes the idea of no matter what - we adopt the villains methods or ideals to defeat them or stop them.
"Only our actions define us" - Samara
"War makes monsters of us all" - GRRM, "Feast for Crows"
I really do like having to - no matter what - accept the ideals or methods of the enemy to stop the enemy. It is like Batman having to accept the notions of the Joker (via murder or spreading chaos) to stop another Villain- this was in some ways touched on in The Dark Knight.
Personally, I wish more stories would do that. And was one of the things I really loved about the ending thematically.
Don't get me wrong, I agree.
I just dispute that the object of a conflict is about being like them or not. It's simply, your interests vs. theirs. In this case: they want to harvest our galaxy; we want to live. Our galaxy doing (arbitrarily) "Reaper-like things" towards our goal does not advance the enemy's interests nor change our interests into theirs.
It just does not make sense no matter how you slice it. And I am bothered by nonsense, if you could not tell. ![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Oh, even after having adopted their methods? Good. Glad to know we can put this lousy argument to rest, then.
Guest_SIYWYMWBM_*
I just dispute that the object of a conflict is about being like them or not. It's simply, your interests vs. theirs. In this case: they want to harvest our galaxy; we want to live.
Pretty sure this was covered in the beginning of the game with "they don't fear us, and they'll never take pity on us". Multiple times actually.
Harbinger during ME2 stated "but even now, your greatest civilizations are doomed to fall. Your leaders will beg to serve us (or to be harvested if you did it pre-end game)" or "know this as you die in vain, your time will come, your species will fall. Prepare yourselves for the Arrival".
A peace agreement was drawn during ME3, but it was a ploy by the Reapers to indoctrinate people. The Rannoch Reaper, despite what Shepard told it doesn't believe that organics and synthetics can get along. The Catalyst is no different.
Bottom line, Reapers don't care what Shepard thinks. They only are intersted in what they want. There is no compromising with them. The only option left is to kill them.
Destroying the Reapers is the moral equivalent of unplugging a toaster, then taking a sledgehammer to the parts. Trying to make it seem like some horrible genocidal decision is ridiculous on its face. Killing a chicken to eat is closer to morally repugnant than destroying a machine with delusions of grandeur.
This idea that control is not the completely evil choice is also ridiculous on its face. Destroying the reapers is the only sane choice available. You have zero ability to discern the reapers motives for a truce, zero ability to prevent them cheating any agreement at will and zero reason to trust anything they may say when faced with a choice of compromise or be destroyed. Even giving them the illusion of free will is too much credit for a machine. Wake up and smell the coffee.
They have invaded your home and when they start losing it's, " Oh. Sorry. My mistake. If you'll just let bygones be bygones we can coexist with you in charge."
You're damned right it was a mistake, but don't worry. It's a mistake you won't be repeating.
The same treatment goes for Cerberus, BTW.
^This. So many people don't get that.
Correct
If people critical of ME3 stopped complaining and started paying attention, they would be playing a much better game with their complaints resolved.
The point is that Destroying the Reapers isn't the mission. Stopping them is. Picking Destroy does achieve that, but Destroy is not the mission itself.
To be fair, there actually is a conversation between Hackett, Anderson and Shepard where Hackett mentions that their scientists believe the Crucible can generate enough energy to destroy the Reapers, and they play with that idea in this conversation, like finding out how to not wipe out everyone in the process and that the Catalyst might be the key to focus the energy on destroying the Reapers alone, to which Shepard replies he's working on that.
I'm not sure if from there on the mission is more focused on the Destroy thing, but I'll keep an eye out for this during my current playthrough.
Why else would I play a game except to be entertained? Your post makes no sense.
To have a new experience? To think a little? There are many other things. If you want only to be entertained, you should have played Call of duty, or gears of war. Mass Effect, from the beginning has some kind of ambition that you didn't see. And entertainment is not only piou piou, everything is entertaining, even philosophy. You didn't like the ending but that doesn't mean that Mass Effect is stupid (it's just the opposite), or not entertaining (if you think that the ending isn't entertaining because you couldn't shot and kill, you didn't get what Mass Effect was about).
Guest_SIYWYMWBM_*
The same treatment goes for Cerberus, BTW.
True. After what they did to Jack, her friends and countless others, I would never pick control.
They probably didn't bring it up because it was irrelevant and could have been easily dismissed. A likely temporary and one sided truce happening in a single 300 year long conflict does not throw billions of years of the same pattern out of the window.
You're right, of course, but the player is also justified in believing it's a much bigger deal than it is, given the time devoted to it in the ME trilogy. Gaider was right that given the ME3 endings, offering peace on Rannoch was a mistake. Of course, in this case ME2 was also a mistake.
True. After what they did to Jack and her friends, I would never pick control.
Retour en haut
