My Paragon Shepards won't do unnecessary "ruthless calculus" and save as many as possible. So I pick Control. No additional mass slaughter, the Reapers are no longer hostile, rebuilding takes significantly less time, etc. No harm there.
My Renegade Shepards don't lose sleep over an extra race or two dying if it stops the reapers, so he takes the simplest way out: Destroy
Which one?
Which one do I try to justify by twisting logic.
Specific enough?
Well common set up seems to be Destroy = good. Control/Synthesis= bad. Refuse= neutral.
The catalyst wouldn´t need to, if it left you downstairs to bleed out.
Ah, but he needs you to complete his little plan. So he lets you upstairs. He wants you to pick synthesis and control, not destroy. His dialogue makes this pretty obvious.
The Reapers, especially Harbinger, have had this obsessive interest in wanting Shepard.
For what? Harbinger foretold that the Reapers are Shepard's genetic destiny and they are Shepard's salvation through destruction and rebirth as a Reaper (control EC). His species will be razed to a new existence. You know all that talk Harbinger spouted in the second game? Well that's where all this comes in. All the pieces are falling into place.
They won't let you bleed out, until you become a Reaper under their control, or organic tissue infused with Reaper tech (synthesis).
That, and the game doesn't finish when you are next to Anderson. It finishes when they complete their plan, or you say no and destroy them. Only then is the conflict resolved.
Ah, but he needs you to complete his little plan. So he lets you upstairs. He wants you to pick synthesis and control, not destroy. His dialogue makes this pretty obvious.
That was my speculation as well, that it´s willing to risk destroy or control for the only chance to reach synthesis. Throw in some mumblejumble about "synthesis needs a free willed decision to initiate, so there have to be alternatives the catalyst doesn´t agree with" and so on.
But well there is Low EMS Destroy. So it let´s you upstairs, is annoyed with you and then tells you, crucible changed me, created new possibilities but it can´t and won´t make them happen. Then it says, there is only one path ahead, raises the walkway to destroy and well, off you go. BOOM.
So the idea is quite nice but doesn´t fit, when it gets you to the room, tells you where the red button is and then clears the path ahead, when there is only the red button to push.
Ok the Catalyst is an intelligence which doesn´t follow human logic of course. But well, bringing the human upstairs to blow up the Reapers and the Catalyst itself, destroying the species it preserved to execute a solution which solves nothing and will result in the scenario it was dedicated to prevent makes no sense. if that oly happens when synthesis is on the table, ok, so it´s willing to risk its own existence for the jackpot, risk death by monkey to have a shot at achieving its final goal. But without it? Is it tired of existing and suicidal.
Well common set up seems to be Destroy = good. Control/Synthesis= bad. Refuse= neutral.
So lemme see. I said:
The only explanation which makes a bit of sense is that the Catalyst is not in control of itself. As the Crucible is the only thing that did anything it must be some function of the Crucible using the AI as an some kind of weird instruction manual. This would actually make the other options a bit more viable for everyone but a machine worshipper who thinks the Catalyst has the keys to cosmic truths.
Or at least it´s pretty neutral.
The other thing I said, snip the whole sequence out with a mod.
Most people would have said, "oh you got an ending mod?"
You picked "destroy obviously."
Let me look, nope the crowd is right.
I looked at all three endings, laughed, then threw the whole thing out.
listen to yourselves, we are being indoctrinated by the Reapers to have conflict with each other. Follow me and together we can overcome Indoctrination and the Reapers.
That was my speculation as well, that it´s willing to risk destroy or control for the only chance to reach synthesis. Throw in some mumblejumble about "synthesis needs a free willed decision to initiate, so there have to be alternatives the catalyst doesn´t agree with" and so on.
But well there is Low EMS Destroy. So it let´s you upstairs, is annoyed with you and then tells you, crucible changed me, created new possibilities but it can´t and won´t make them happen. Then it says, there is only one path ahead, raises the walkway to destroy and well, off you go. BOOM.
So the idea is quite nice but doesn´t fit, when it gets you to the room, tells you where the red button is and then clears the path ahead, when there is only the red button to push.
Ok the Catalyst is an intelligence which doesn´t follow human logic of course. But well, letting the human upstairs to blow up the Reapers and the Catalyst itself, destroying the species it preserved to execute a solution which solves nothing and will result in the scenario it was dedicated to prevent makes no sense. if that oly happens when synthesis is on the table, ok, so it´s willing to risk its own existence for the jackpot, risk death by monkey to have a shot at achieving its final goal. But without it? Is it tired of existing and suicidal.
So lemme see. I said:
The only explanation which makes a bit of sense is that the Catalyst is not in control of itself. As the Crucible is the only thing that did anything it must be some function of the Crucible using the AI as an some kind of weird instruction manual. This would actually make the other options a bit more viable for everyone but a machine worshipper who thinks the Catalyst has the keys to cosmic truths.
Or at least it´s pretty neutral.
The other thing I said, snip the whole sequence out with a mod.
Most people would have said, "oh you got an ending mod?"
You picked "destroy obviously."
Let me look, nope the crowd is right.
Lemme see, if I can hide my next guess what you will answer in plain sight, as it seems you skim the posts you answer too.
Your next answer will be something like "You modded the ending because you couldn´t stand losing your precious Shepard."
Still trying to follow the logic you are using.
Are you arguing that I am correct that people pick destroy then try to create their own head cannon to claim that is the only possible correct choice. While demonizing the other 2/3?
Or are you trying to create an entire new head cannon logic to support your idea that the ending doesn't make sense because you are altering everything in your own mind to support that?
Ah really.
No. People state their reasons why they picked whatever choice they made and state their arguments. We bicker a bit and that´s it. I don´t think that anyone will actually be swayed to choose something else if they actually replay.
That´s cute. There´s no need for elaborate headcanon to turn the ending into something that doesn´t make sense, the ending manages that all by its own.
Ah, but he needs you to complete his little plan. So he lets you upstairs.
It let Shepard go upstairs? That's hard to do since Shepard is passed out and unable to go up the stairs. It raised the platform that brings Shepard to lala land
Speaking of upstairs. Was the Citadel built to have that platform lift an organic to lala land? I guess the thing knew that one day an organic would come by and pay it a visit
He wants you to pick synthesis and control, not destroy. His dialogue makes this pretty obvious.
I would say it wants Shepard to pick synthesis. It doesn't want Shepard to pick control, but it would be forced to accept
You don't have enough information to make the call about Destroy either. You have no idea what it would actually do. Frankly the only choice you have that you have any valid amount of information about is the Refuse option. All others are based on assumptions or that the AI is telling the truth. Since you claim the AI isn't telling the truth. Then if you still choose destroy then you are using the same uninformed decision you claim is being used for Synthesis.
I do believe the term for someone who calls someone out on not have enough information to make an informed decision. Then makes a choice without enough information to make an informed decision is a hypocrite.
Synthesis is rather clear cut. It is only strange and unknown because you want it to be strange and unknown. You create all these head cannon ideas to vilify it without any actual information to back it up. Yet you use the same head cannon set up to glorify and push your ideal ending is the best.
If the Reapers are manipulators then why would they manipulate you into destroying them? Or giving them complete control over them? The logic you use doesn't add up in the slightest. No matter how much you want 2+2 = 8 that isn't how it works. You also again overly simplify the actions of the AI and Reapers. Which is rather funny to me. Because it shows a desperate attempt to push your own ideology rather then the real one. Much like how US schools tend to gloss over a lot of things that happened in the Revolutionary War. To push the ideology of America is great look at how we threw off the shackles of oppression. Requiring you to either be a history buff and look up information yourself or take a class in College to get the real picture of what happened. Which really alters the picture of what happened.
But lets put this another way...
Fact 1 Shepard was going to die regardless of AI's interaction
Fact 2 The Reapers were capable of defeating and harvesting the Cycle regardless of Shepard's choice
Fact 3 Because the Reapers could defeat and harvest the galaxy there was no reason for the AI to even interact with Shep.
Fact 4 Both Control and Destroy do exactly as AI said would happen
So why would the AI even give Shep the choice? Why would it tell the truth about Destroy and Control but some how make a massive lie up about Synthesis? How do you know the Crusible would effect effect Reapers only?
The only information you have is a Prothean VI who admits it was never even tested and sheer optimism from current cycle races. How is that an informed choice when for all you know it could avoid all Reapers and hit only non Reapers. Making it even easier to finish everyone off?
You call it semantics but it is rather important when talking about genetic diversity.
It's not hypocrisy. I said I can't make an informed choice, which is correct. Unfortunately, I do have to make a choice and based on what little I know, Destroy is best. There are two different things we are talking about here. The first is that we don't know if the Catalyst is telling the truth, but the second is that if it is, we can't really understand what Synthesis actually is. So while I don't know that shooting tube will destroy the Reapers, I know what Destroying the Reapers means. What I don't know about it is what the collateral damage will be.
Your comments on Synthesis have no basis in reality so I'm just going to skip them. If you've decided that making everyone glow green makes perfect sense, then there's no shaking that. You say I have no information when my whole point is that there is a lack of information.
The Catalyst wants Shepard to pick Synthesis. Why Control and Destroy are options is strange, but it must tie into that idea that Synthesis can not be forced, or at least not on the person jumping into the beam since Shepard forces it on everyone else.
I haven't used any head canon but have extrapolated where what we know stops. You gave an accurate, if simplified, account of the American Revolution. I notice you didn't detail how that's supposedly wrong or what important things were left out. I'd love to get into that but I'd probably get another stupid warning for politics because I was making comments about governing philosophy...
"Fact" 1: So what about the "breath" scene? Does Shepard bleed out and die there?
2) Yeah that's how the game was written. So?
3) So why did it?
4) Except that in Destroy the peace lasts as far as we are allowed to see. However, that's an argument after the fact and unknown at the time you make the choice.
The Catalyst specifically says the Crucible won't affect only the Reapers. It could have and they didn't do a great job of saying why it doesn't.
It will change it if the issue is conflict between Organic and Synthetic life. He never claimed world peace. Only that the conflict between organic and synthetic wouldn't happen.
Which exposes that the conflict between Organic and Synthetic is not special.
Agreed, but all are questionable. As Synthesis is a new option, and am opposed to the others, the information at hand was worth the sacrifice. And it apparently works rather well.
Destroy leaves the least amount of questions. Like I said, you were roped in by how happy and nice the Catalyst made Synthesis sound. Yes, it turn out great because it was written to be the best ending by the writers. We're talking about the implications. Seeing that it works out great is an argument after the fact.
Ah really.
No. People state their reasons why they picked whatever choice they made and state their arguments. We bicker a bit and that´s it. I don´t think that anyone will actually be swayed to choose something else if they actually replay.
That´s cute. There´s no need for elaborate headcanon to turn the ending into something that doesn´t make sense, the ending manages that all by its own.
Really so people don't make claims like "Removes all genetic diversity" or "tyrannical unstoppable overloard" for the other 2 options. While stating nothing but good about their choice of destroy?
Because I feel like there is about 3 maybe 4 pages of that from this point backwards. Maybe even further.
Also weren't you just stating that the AI wasn't in control anymore there for X and Y happened?
Yep and for all that and more, all that stuff makes no sense. The only half way sensible conclusion which isnt supported at all, is that Catakid is not in control anymore for some time at least.
Or snip out the whole end and mod it with something else.
Yep is exactly what you said creating a head cannon explanation for yourself.
It's not hypocrisy. I said I can't make an informed choice, which is correct. Unfortunately, I do have to make a choice and based on what little I know, Destroy is best. There are two different things we are talking about here. The first is that we don't know if the Catalyst is telling the truth, but the second is that if it is, we can't really understand what Synthesis actually is. So while I don't know that shooting tube will destroy the Reapers, I know what Destroying the Reapers means. What I don't know about it is what the collateral damage will be.
Your comments on Synthesis have no basis in reality so I'm just going to skip them. If you've decided that making everyone glow green makes perfect sense, then there's no shaking that. You say I have no information when my whole point is that there is a lack of information.
The Catalyst wants Shepard to pick Synthesis. Why Control and Destroy are options is strange, but it must tie into that idea that Synthesis can not be forced, or at least not on the person jumping into the beam since Shepard forces it on everyone else.
I haven't used any head canon but have extrapolated where what we know stops. You gave an accurate, if simplified, account of the American Revolution. I notice you didn't detail how that's supposedly wrong or what important things were left out. I'd love to get into that but I'd probably get another stupid warning for politics because I was making comments about governing philosophy...
"Fact" 1: So what about the "breath" scene? Does Shepard bleed out and die there?
2) Yeah that's how the game was written. So?
3) So why did it?
4) Except that in Destroy the peace lasts as far as we are allowed to see. However, that's an argument after the fact and unknown at the time you make the choice.
The Catalyst specifically says the Crucible won't affect only the Reapers. It could have and they didn't do a great job of saying why it doesn't.
Which exposes that the conflict between Organic and Synthetic is not special.
Destroy leaves the least amount of questions. Like I said, you were roped in by how happy and nice the Catalyst made Synthesis sound. Yes, it turn out great because it was written to be the best ending by the writers. We're talking about the implications. Seeing that it works out great is an argument after the fact.
You fail to see your own hypocrisy. You have not 1 valid scrap of data that states the Crucible is capable of destroying the Reapers. Everything is based on an: I think it will destroy them. I hope it will destroy them. We never got to test it to see if it would destroy them.
Then by choosing to shoot the power cable you are making a judgement based on ignorance. Taking what the AI said at face value before making your choice. You then in your own logic despite already making a judgement based on ignorance then claim anyone making any other choice is making a decision based on ignorance. Because you only have the AI's word to confirm it will happen.
Which is exactly how Destroy option works.
Mmm those details that are rather important are facts like Colonies expanding west ward beyond the agreed on boarder between GB and France. This lead to the little issue in the Ohio River Valley were France were trying to keep their claim. Blah blah blah French Indian War. GB sends troops to colonies to protect them. Wages a costly war that ultimately wins a major victory for the colonies as they get to expand. GB got a small side portion of reward. Mostly a bit more timber, minerals, etc. Now as anyone would know waging a war. Particularly one that takes months just to get troops to the general area across an ocean isn't very cheap. Parliament then decided though a democratic set up to impose new taxes on the colonies so they can help pay for the war that was waged to their benefit. Since it was only a colony completely dependent on the Crown this is a lot like a parent decided to cut back on a kid's allowance because they just got them a PS4. And they are kind of short on money.
Well you should know history about how they reacted to that. Which is to say badly. Oh and extra fun fact Boston Massacre. No one actually knows what caused it. The only known fact is that people were killed. That didn't stop Paul Revere from propagandizing it for all he was worth.
During the war the US relied almost entirely on the French for weapons, gun powder, cannons and ships. George Washington was selected as leader of the forces not because of his military record which was pretty shite but because of his political ability. Which is why almost all but a few of his battles end in defeat.
And do I really honestly need to bring up the whole complains about the tyranny of the king. Sign a document that states all men are created equal. Yet they all own slaves. And starts to kick Native American's off their land they have had for centuries and selling it as a way to pay for the war. Kept women out of politics for usual asinine reasoning of the time. Oh and only people who owned land could vote. So much for all men are created equal.
Now back to topic.
Control and Synthesis peace lasts as long as we can see as well. But I've seen time and time again that people make large leaps of logic to demonize those two. Even bypassing the questions I ask in terms of Control. Were I set up very simple examples of when Control Shep would act and how different it would be from the Council or similar set up. And was twice by two different people side stepped claiming that isn't the point. So yea....
Depends on where you stand on the geth are people, too issue.
I said it´s an explanation that would make a bit of sense. the thing is, that besides some circumstantial stuff, there is nothing. It seems to me that it was really the writers intention that what we saw was what they intended. The Catalyst tells you everything, pick one of three, done.
Which is a bunch of crap
So in your opinion I made up headcanon to tell myself "this ending is crap and makes no sense", so I could install a mod? This makes no sense.
I am aware that we are debating the canon endings and not modified ones in this thread. I can keep that separate, thanks a lot.
Destroy leaves the least amount of questions. Like I said, you were roped in by how happy and nice the Catalyst made Synthesis sound. Yes, it turn out great because it was written to be the best ending by the writers. We're talking about the implications. Seeing that it works out great is an argument after the fact.
Sorry; cannot toss the actual story. Destroy recycles the entire problem for future descendants; Synthesis fixes it.
"Tech fixes everything."
And history has shown this to be true.
Advancing in medical technology has saved countless lives.
Depends on where you stand on the geth are people, too issue.
I said it´s an explanation that would make a bit of sense. the thing is, that besides some circumstantial stuff, there is nothing. It seems to me that it was really the writers intention that what we saw was what they intended. The Catalyst tells you everything, pick one of three, done.
Which is a bunch of crap
So in your opinion I made up headcanon to tell myself "this ending is crap and makes no sense", so I could install a mod? This makes no sense.
I am aware that we are debating the canon endings and not modified ones in this thread. I can keep that separate, thanks a lot.
Your statements are stating one thing. Now you claim another? Seems a bit off.
Geth are people to. They display self awareness, intelligence and consciousness. How they were created and if they are organic or not is irrelevant.
There is pleny of evidence for a video game to support claims. One of the I dare say running jokes is the Council is to blame for 90% of the problems in game because they refuse to listen to Shepard. Stubborn, pig headed, arrogant, stupid are some of the few words to describe them. Yet they have even less information then Shepard is given by the AI to make their choices by. And players laugh at and scorn them for it.
It is an odd contradiction.
But the over all logic of the AI is sound. Events changed the alternative solution it had been using is no longer as valid as it was before. The system it put in place is breaking down. Shepard was the catalyst of that change. Because of his/her actions the AI gives Shep the choice. To provide a new path for the galaxy either by:
A) Destroying the Reapers leaving the galaxy open to the possibility of synthetic conflict again.
B ) Controlling the Reapers and giving them a new direction and function to act as peace keepers. To fight the synthetic conflict head on if it happens.
C) Synthesis by advancing all organic life it bypasses the part of natural development that would lead to the synthetic conflict. Bringing about what could and most likely would have happened anyways if the synthetic organic conflict never happened.
Sorry; cannot toss the actual story. Destroy recycles the entire problem for future descendants;
You don't know that. You will never know that. Why? If the problem hasn't returned in your lifetime, the problem is solved. You will never know if the problem returns, if it does, after your death.
I believe there will be chaos, but that's more organics vs organics than organics vs machines
Synthesis fixes it.
Yeah. I got a fix for the green. Its called shooting the tube
Your statements are stating one thing. Now you claim another? Seems a bit off.
No.
You said, people in favor of destroy only say good things about destroy.
I said that depends on where you stand on the geth are people issue.
I meant where the particular poster stands on the geth issue. I saw quite a lot of posts about the destruction of the geth being a problem for this particular poster. Some don´t care though.
I haven´t said anything about my position on the geth in this post.
You don't know that. You will never know that. Why? If the problem hasn't returned in your lifetime, the problem is solved. You will never know if the problem returns, if it does, after your death.
I believe there will be chaos, but that's more organics vs organics than organics vs machines
Yeah. I got a fix for the green. Its called shooting the tube
No.
You said, people in favor of destroy only say good things about destroy.
I said that depends on where you stand on the geth are people issue.
I meant where the particular poster stands on the geth issue. I saw quite a lot of posts about the destruction of the geth being a problem for this particular poster. Some don´t care though.
I haven´t said anything about my position on the geth in this post.
And my statement is backed up by post after post, page after page of people saying Destroy is the only good option because X, Y, and Z. And Control/Synthesis is bad because A, B and C.
I make the claim that all endings are equally valid. And I'm told I'm wrong because all these head cannon logic reasons why Control or Synthesis really just end in a dystopian future.
TIM should have beaten Shepard to the Control handles. He choked. The guy is like Space!Romney, really, even in looks!
That's okay, I did his job for him and the ShReapers made the Milky Way great again.
It will change it if the issue is conflict between Organic and Synthetic life. He never claimed world peace. Only that the conflict between organic and synthetic wouldn't happen.
LOL Then Synthesis REALLY doesn't make sense. 'There will be no peace. There will still be war. Species will still be eradicated. But, you should choose synthesis anyway because at least the synthetics won't kill the organics, it will be synth-organics who kill other synth-organics instead.'
LOL Then Synthesis REALLY doesn't make sense. 'There will be no peace. There will still be war. Species will still be eradicated. But, you should choose synthesis anyway because at least the synthetics won't kill the organics, it will be synth-organics who kill other synth-organics instead.'
What?
I really don't understand what you are babbling about. All choices can still have war take place after it. Destroy, control and refuse as well as synthesis all have the potential for war.
Of all the things I've seen on this forum your post makes the least amount of sense.
Retour en haut
