inherit
22
0
Member is Online
May 16, 2024 21:33:10 GMT
4,007
Blast Processor
"Why are you telling me this? I can read and draw my own conclusions." - Roach
1,441
August 2016
slotts
|
Post by Blast Processor on Oct 21, 2019 0:07:52 GMT
The endings are all pretty horrific from a moral standpoint.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
May 15, 2024 16:43:45 GMT
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Oct 21, 2019 2:31:52 GMT
The problem with the destroy ending is NOT that the Reapers can't with stopped without collateral damage... The problem with it is that the Reapers CAN absolutely be stopped without ANY collateral damage (via the control ending). After they are stopped, they can be destroyed or liberated or controlled by a more benevolent master. Agreed. However, a Shepard can reasonably believe that handing over that much power to an AI based on his own personality risks collateral damage of another sort. it's not like Control is a slam-dunk over other endings in the moment that Shepard is choosing it. Sort of cognate to the DR choice from DA:O -- a Warden can reasonably believe that the DR is horribly dangerous and should be avoided, even though this turns out not to be the case.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
May 15, 2024 16:43:45 GMT
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Oct 21, 2019 2:45:40 GMT
The endings are all pretty horrific from a moral standpoint. Depends on your moral system, doesn't it? From where I sit it's an ugly situation, but it's not like Shepard's responsible for that. She didn't design the Crucible, after all. While it's sad that it cause a fair amount of collateral damage in one application, and the other applications have a hypothetical risk problem and a moral problem, respectively, that isn't a moral problem for Shepard.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
May 16, 2024 20:17:05 GMT
30,284
Hanako Ikezawa
22,377
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Oct 21, 2019 2:58:00 GMT
The endings are all pretty horrific from a moral standpoint. Depends on your moral system, doesn't it? From where I sit it's an ugly situation, but it's not like Shepard's responsible for that. She didn't design the Crucible, after all. While it's sad that it cause a fair amount of collateral damage in one application, and the other applications have a hypothetical risk problem and a moral problem, respectively, that isn't a moral problem for Shepard. ”I didn’t kill those people because I didn’t make the gun. I just fired it.” :rolleyes:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 16, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
Deleted
0
May 16, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 8:46:02 GMT
The problem with the destroy ending is NOT that the Reapers can't with stopped without collateral damage... The problem with it is that the Reapers CAN absolutely be stopped without ANY collateral damage (via the control ending). After they are stopped, they can be destroyed or liberated or controlled by a more benevolent master. Agreed. However, a Shepard can reasonably believe that handing over that much power to an AI based on his own personality risks collateral damage of another sort. it's not like Control is a slam-dunk over other endings in the moment that Shepard is choosing it. Sort of cognate to the DR choice from DA:O -- a Warden can reasonably believe that the DR is horribly dangerous and should be avoided, even though this turns out not to be the case. Yes, the player is free to interpret it that way as well. Unlike the other endings, though, the game does adjust the ending a little bit depending on whether Shepard was mostly paragon or mostly renegade and changes Shepard's motivation for choosing control accordingly, the Paragon ending being more clearly a selfless choice on Shepard's part and acknowledges a desire to "ensure that ALL have a voice in their future." The first thing the player has to decide, is whether or not they believe that the Catalyst has control in the first place... since the Catalyst cannnot relinquish control that he himself does not actually possess.
However, it doesn't change what Bioware represents as happening afterwards,
There are two ways to interpret what the blue ray does. The Renegade tells us that The Shepard orders the Reapers to cease fire and then later orders them to help rebuild (i.e. the Reapers become The Shepard's minions): "To lead an army none will dare oppose. I will protect, defend. I will destroy those who threaten the future of the many." However, The Paragon indicates clearly that The Shepard's purpose is more selfless: "To give the many hope for a future. To ensure that all have a voice in their future. The man I was knew that he could only achieve this by becoming something greater. There is power in control, there is wisdom in harnessing the strengths of your enemy. I will rebuild what the many have lost. I will create a future with limitless possibilities. I will protect and sustain. I will act as guardian for the many."
In the slides, there is no evidence that The Shepard orders the Reapers themselves to do anything, so it's likely that, in the Paragon case, the blue light liberates the Reapers who truly did not wish to be at war with organics and that the Reapers decide for themselves to cease fire and then later to help rebuild... The Paragon control ending, therefore, can become not about seizing control, but removing abusive control from power and replacing it with a form of democracy.
As I've said, I believe the game is written so that players can interpret it in many different ways. This is merely how I interpret it. For me, a Paragon Control ending is the slam dunk. My wishes, however, are that all the endings remain as canon for all players to interpret for themselves in as many ways as they can possibly imagine.
|
|
74hc14
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR
Posts: 16 Likes: 78
inherit
1357
0
Aug 30, 2016 11:15:46 GMT
78
74hc14
16
Aug 30, 2016 11:10:48 GMT
August 2016
74hc14
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR
|
Post by 74hc14 on Oct 21, 2019 9:35:18 GMT
Genocide? What's this genocide that is being posted? Ah, I see. Because my Shepard doesn't choose the green or blue, and get peace between the geth and quarians, my Shepard is now a mass murderer. But it's ok to leave the reapers around for harvesting countless civilizations before this cycle by choosing the blue and green. Ok. I'll stick with destroying the reapers. ikr unlike the other choches of control or synthesis that leave out a lot of ambiguity about what they're about and all the moral problems associated with them, like for example leaving a renegade Shepard in charge of the reapers or the green tech rape that destroys all the living alien races in a fashion not too dissimilar from what the kett do, the destroy option instead has the clearly stated goal of simply wiping out all reaper tech which just so happens to include "friendly" casualties with EDI and the geth. If the geth weren't so obsessed with upgrading themselves with reaper AIDS they would't be a casualty at all and they in fact could have avoided the conflict with the quarians if they rejected reaper aid from the start or ya know if they stopped being savage murderbots whose sole purpose for most of the trilogy was going around the galaxy killing countless organics, turning people into zombies, launching terrorist attacks against colonies and generally helping the reapers at every given chanche they get. As far as my personal opinion goes the geth get exactly what they deserve: they genocided the quarians, stole their homeworld and refused to give it back to their rightful owners without even a valid reason since they could literally fuck off anywhere else in the galaxy and live on asteroids in the middle of nowhere without any problem whatsoever, they instead have chosen to hang around quarian space for centuries whilst murdering anyone that even tried to parley with them, this is why i usually just let quarians deal with them by force and wipe them out completely as soon as i get the chanche to do so, there is no place in this galaxy for murderous toasters and there is even less space for reaper collaborazionists. Now for EDI she was always reaper tech and therefore bound to be destroyed either way anyway, the only bad thing about it is that you don't get a chanche to do so sooner, i for one would have loved to trow her out of the airlock like Javik proposed to do but alas biower didn't give us the option, getting rid of her with the destroy ending is a nice solution albeit a late one, afterall we can't let a reaper AI run rampant in the galaxy doing God's knows what and destroying her is even more imperative now that she has aquired a sexbot body to fornicate with organics, degenerate sexual acts such as the one Jeff proposes can't be allowed to exist. The destroy ending is truly the best one and all people that refute this are just butthurt about their favorite pinocchio toys and sexbots being wiped out for the good of all organic species, swallow biotard writing and kneejerk appeal to emotions don't change what is the right thing do to: reapers, their geth servants and all their other indoctrinated allies pose a risk to all life in the galaxy and the only reasonable response to this threat is to wipe it out completely before it has a chanche to reapper again, if this means sending a few billions toasters into the trash compactor then so be it it is a price well worth paying.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
May 16, 2024 21:20:17 GMT
24,300
themikefest
14,830
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Oct 21, 2019 11:32:02 GMT
Because my Shepard doesn't choose the green or blue, and get peace between the geth and quarians, my Shepard is now a mass murderer. Yes. Really? Why should my Shepard allow the geth to upload the reaper code? The only reason there's a chance for peace is because of reaper interference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 16, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
Deleted
0
May 16, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 12:16:30 GMT
It definitely turns on EDI, an ally. So what? Why is destroying a thing a bad thing when destroying the reapers? The geth knew the risks. Since I let the quarians wipe them out, it's of no concern to me. Does it? In ME4, Shepard could find all the information about the civilizations that the reapers harvested when in darkspace. Are sure about that? With high ems, the galaxy suffers the same amount of damage. The only difference is the time it takes to rebuild. What about low ems control? Earth is messed up, as seen by big ben being destroyed. Only difference is the time it takes to rebuild The difference, as you admit, is the time it takes to rebuild. When someone is abandoned after a disaster, they don't necessarily crumble. Some do eventually rebuild their lives in spite of being abandoned... but it takes them longer than it would have if they had help. Destroy leaves the world decimated by the war.. I'm very sure about that.
As for Item 3 - what proof do you have that there is anything left in darkspace after you destroy the Reapers? Why would you go hunting in darkspace for remnants of civilizations that did not exist in darkspace, but rather existed within the galaxy itself? If you expect that destroying the Reapers completely removes the Reaper threat (your stated reason for supporting it), why would you go looking for more Reapers in darkspace to begin with? Seems to me like you're admitting that destroy isn't at all likely to destroy all of them. And, if it doesn't destroy all of them, then you haven't secured the situation.
Furthermore, the game (via the Catalyst) tells you outright that you haven't solved anything with destroy. He says more synthetics will eventually be created. Certainly, you haven't even destroyed the creators of the origianl Catalyst. They could easily make another because there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Then consider what it is that that Leviathan wants. They want all races to bow to them and provide tribute. They let Shepard go to eliminate their rebellious creation so they could build another AI... a better designed and programmed one that would instead get that tribute from the Milky Way species in the current cycle.
Also, I find it odd that you go on about how great Cerberus is... yet, one of the reasons you gave for not choosing Control is just because it's what TIM wanted to do.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Oct 21, 2019 14:15:13 GMT
There is a fundamental problem with the premise of the endings that is, first and foremost, immersion breaking. It all rests on our ability to believe that an AI that has created the Reapers, wiped more civilizations than we can probably count and has no reason to work with us, is telling the one person that's done the most of the war effort, to kill himself. We are expected to trust this genocidal AI in good faith that it has in its best interest the salvation of the organics of the galaxy, without any similar display from its part to justify said trust. Do the Reapers initiatite a cease fire, perhaps? No. Do they simply give up the fight and withdraw? No. Do they continue the fight just as relentlessly as before? Yes. So, without prior knowledge that any of the actions we are about to take, in this machine that we don't know or understand how it works, or why it hasn't fired, with an AI that appears to be hell bent in eradicating yet another organic civilization, what do we do? Proceed one of three possible ways to commit suicide and no guarantees of whether anything we do, while committing suicide, will in fact do jack shit to stop the ongoing onslaught and no way to to make sure that it does, after the fact.
Unlike the end of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, where no matter the ending, we were figuratively already dead and out last action could influence the world in a specific manner that was, first of all, understandable and secondly predictable. In Avengers Endgame, Tony Stark sacrifices himself and sees the direct aftermath of his actions, as well as the well being of his friends, before passing away. It is important, because, were Tony to die instantly, having used an artifact that he's unfamiliar with, for the first time, with no guarantees of what its effects would be and how that would all materialize, so he can be granted peace in his last moments. Shepard gets neither of that. Instead, we are left with this Komm, süßer Tod type of moment that didn't work well the first time we got it and I don't understand why am I expected to think it will work better here.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
May 15, 2024 16:43:45 GMT
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Oct 21, 2019 14:17:02 GMT
Depends on your moral system, doesn't it? From where I sit it's an ugly situation, but it's not like Shepard's responsible for that. She didn't design the Crucible, after all. While it's sad that it cause a fair amount of collateral damage in one application, and the other applications have a hypothetical risk problem and a moral problem, respectively, that isn't a moral problem for Shepard. ”I didn’t kill those people because I didn’t make the gun. I just fired it.” :rolleyes: That's pretty much the opposite of my point, as I suspect you know quite well. But I suppose I should unpack it a bit. Shepard is responsible only for the things Shepard can control, not the things she can't. Shepard is responsible for the differences between Destroy, Control, Synthesis, and Refuse (assuming all choices are available), but not for any difference between those states and some fantasy situation where none of them have to happen. Reasonable people are going to disagree about which of these states are morally preferable to each other, and Shepard doesn't have great information about any of them. I'm actually with you on Control being preferable for at least some Shepards. But a Shepard who didn't think a version of herself could be trusted with such power would have nothing to feel guilty about over choosing Destroy (assuming Synthesis has already been ruled out as immoral, and I can see the case for that.)
|
|
inherit
3439
0
May 15, 2024 16:43:45 GMT
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Oct 21, 2019 14:26:21 GMT
There is a fundamental problem with the premise of the endings that is, first and foremost, immersion breaking. It all rests on our ability to believe that an AI that has created the Reapers, wiped more civilizations than we can probably count and has no reason to work with us, is telling the one person that's done the most of the war effort, to kill himself. We are expected to trust this genocidal AI in good faith that it has in its best interest the salvation of the organics of the galaxy, without any similar display from its part to justify said trust. Do the Reapers initiatite a cease fire, perhaps? No. Do they simply give up the fight and withdraw? No. Do they continue the fight just as relentlessly as before? Yes. So, without prior knowledge that any of the actions we are about to take, in this machine that we don't know or understand how it works, or why it hasn't fired, with an AI that appears to be hell bent in eradicating yet another organic civilization, what do we do? Proceed one of three possible ways to commit suicide and no guarantees of whether anything we do, while committing suicide, will in fact do jack shit to stop the ongoing onslaught and no way to to make sure that it does, after the fact. The problem with this line of argument is that it doesn't ever go anywhere. If the Catalyst is lying, why tell these lies? Why tell Shepard anything at all? What's it trying to accomplish?
|
|
inherit
3439
0
May 15, 2024 16:43:45 GMT
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Oct 21, 2019 14:28:20 GMT
As for Item 3 - what proof do you have that there is anything left in darkspace after you destroy the Reapers? Why would you go hunting in darkspace for remnants of civilizations that did not exist in darkspace, but rather existed within the galaxy itself? If you expect that destroying the Reapers completely removes the Reaper threat (your stated reason for supporting it), why would you go looking for more Reapers in darkspace to begin with? Seems to me like you're admitting that destroy isn't at all likely to destroy all of them. And, if it doesn't destroy all of them, then you haven't secured the situation. I think this has more to do with a proposed sequel hook than any rational analysis of the situation.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
May 15, 2024 16:43:45 GMT
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Oct 21, 2019 14:31:16 GMT
Really? Why should my Shepard allow the geth to upload the reaper code? The only reason there's a chance for peace is because of reaper interference.
OK, we get it -- you're pro-genocide because you're an anti-AI racist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 16, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
Deleted
0
May 16, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 14:41:50 GMT
As for Item 3 - what proof do you have that there is anything left in darkspace after you destroy the Reapers? Why would you go hunting in darkspace for remnants of civilizations that did not exist in darkspace, but rather existed within the galaxy itself? If you expect that destroying the Reapers completely removes the Reaper threat (your stated reason for supporting it), why would you go looking for more Reapers in darkspace to begin with? Seems to me like you're admitting that destroy isn't at all likely to destroy all of them. And, if it doesn't destroy all of them, then you haven't secured the situation. I think this has more to do with a proposed sequel hook than any rational analysis of the situation. You'll need to explain that further.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
May 16, 2024 21:20:17 GMT
24,300
themikefest
14,830
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Oct 21, 2019 14:43:02 GMT
Really? Why should my Shepard allow the geth to upload the reaper code? The only reason there's a chance for peace is because of reaper interference.
OK, we get it -- you're pro-genocide because you're an anti-AI racist. There's that racist crap again. How is one a racist to a fictional thing?
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Oct 21, 2019 14:46:45 GMT
The problem with this line of argument is that it doesn't ever go anywhere. If the Catalyst is lying, why tell these lies? Why tell Shepard anything at all? What's it trying to accomplish? It accomplishes in killing Shepard. Something that neither Sovereign, nor the Collectors, nor Harbinger, nor any other member of the Reaper forces has succeeded in. At least not in the extent Starkid is about to. From then on, the Reapers are left unmatched in their effort to eradicate the organic based civilizations of the galaxy.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
May 16, 2024 20:17:05 GMT
30,284
Hanako Ikezawa
22,377
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Oct 21, 2019 14:55:53 GMT
The problem with this line of argument is that it doesn't ever go anywhere. If the Catalyst is lying, why tell these lies? Why tell Shepard anything at all? What's it trying to accomplish? It accomplishes in killing Shepard. Something that neither Sovereign, nor the Collectors, nor Harbinger, nor any other member of the Reaper forces has succeeded in. At least not in the extent Starkid is about to. From then on, the Reapers are left unmatched in their effort to eradicate the organic based civilizations of the galaxy. Then why offer Destroy?
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
May 16, 2024 21:20:17 GMT
24,300
themikefest
14,830
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Oct 21, 2019 15:04:20 GMT
]The difference, as you admit, is the time it takes to rebuild. When someone is abandoned after a disaster, they don't necessarily crumble. Some do eventually rebuild their lives in spite of being abandoned... but it takes them longer than it would have if they had help. Who says any would not have any help if the reapers are destroyed? Shuttles can fly to areas bringing supplies for people. Even today when a natural disaster happens, countries from all over the world send help. So does the green and blue No one knows what is out in darkspace except there's another relay that the reapers use to enter the galaxy. Shepard and others don't know if the beam of red reached that far. That is one of the reasons why Shepard would travel to darkspace. Another is while exploring whatever they find, Shepard comes across information about previous civilizations, the plans for how the reapers are able to travel as fast as they do and how powerful their weapons are. The same can be said about control. What proof do you have the beam reached that far. How does it know more synthetics will be built? Because the thing has seen them built in all the previous cycles? How many of those cycles had the reapers destroyed for it to say what it did? I'm not worried about them. I'm sure Hackett and the council will come up with a way to deal with them. Yet you have no problem choosing the blue that TIM wanted to choose. Just because I like Cerberus and TIM doesn't mean I agree with everything they do or say.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
May 16, 2024 20:17:05 GMT
30,284
Hanako Ikezawa
22,377
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Oct 21, 2019 15:09:58 GMT
Also, I find it odd that you go on about how great Cerberus is... yet, one of the reasons you gave for not choosing Control is just because it's what TIM wanted to do. Yet you have no problem choosing the blue that TIM wanted to choose. Just because I like Cerberus and TIM doesn't mean I agree with everything they do or say. Offtopic but this made me curious: what else do you disagree with Cerberus about in words or deeds?
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Oct 21, 2019 15:30:39 GMT
It's still suicide. Remember, at that point we have no guarantee the Starkid is being honest with us at any capacity. We are supposed to take, in good faith, that our 100% guaranteed suicide course of action will somehow work, on a gizmo that has failed to activate, for reasons unknown to us and that we couldn't hope to comprehend in a timely manner. But it will save everybody, if we just kill ourselves. We just have to pick our preferred method of self check out.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
May 16, 2024 20:17:05 GMT
30,284
Hanako Ikezawa
22,377
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Oct 21, 2019 15:36:36 GMT
It's still suicide. Remember, at that point we have no guarantee the Starkid is being honest with us at any capacity. We are supposed to take, in good faith, that our 100% guaranteed suicide course of action will somehow work, on a gizmo that has failed to activate, for reasons unknown to us and that we couldn't hope to comprehend in a timely manner. But it will save everybody, if we just kill ourselves. We just have to pick our preferred method of self check out. You misunderstand. I’m asking that if the Catalyst gave these options only to kill Shepard allowing them to continue the cycle like you said, then why would it offer Destroy? That goes against the intentions you are suggesting. It could simply have remained mum of that option if it was just a trick.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,887 Likes: 49,356
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,356
Iakus
20,887
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Oct 21, 2019 15:36:36 GMT
There is a fundamental problem with the premise of the endings that is, first and foremost, immersion breaking. It all rests on our ability to believe that an AI that has created the Reapers, wiped more civilizations than we can probably count and has no reason to work with us, is telling the one person that's done the most of the war effort, to kill himself. We are expected to trust this genocidal AI in good faith that it has in its best interest the salvation of the organics of the galaxy, without any similar display from its part to justify said trust. Do the Reapers initiatite a cease fire, perhaps? No. Do they simply give up the fight and withdraw? No. Do they continue the fight just as relentlessly as before? Yes. So, without prior knowledge that any of the actions we are about to take, in this machine that we don't know or understand how it works, or why it hasn't fired, with an AI that appears to be hell bent in eradicating yet another organic civilization, what do we do? Proceed one of three possible ways to commit suicide and no guarantees of whether anything we do, while committing suicide, will in fact do jack shit to stop the ongoing onslaught and no way to to make sure that it does, after the fact. The problem with this line of argument is that it doesn't ever go anywhere. If the Catalyst is lying, why tell these lies? Why tell Shepard anything at all? What's it trying to accomplish? Mac and Casey were just trying to end the game while promoting their SYNTHESIS IS AWESOME!!! narrative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 16, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
Deleted
0
May 16, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 15:40:36 GMT
]The difference, as you admit, is the time it takes to rebuild. When someone is abandoned after a disaster, they don't necessarily crumble. Some do eventually rebuild their lives in spite of being abandoned... but it takes them longer than it would have if they had help. Who says any would not have any help if the reapers are destroyed? Shuttles can fly to areas bringing supplies for people. Even today when a natural disaster happens, countries from all over the world send help. So does the green and blue No one knows what is out in darkspace except there's another relay that the reapers use to enter the galaxy. Shepard and others don't know if the beam of red reached that far. That is one of the reasons why Shepard would travel to darkspace. Another is while exploring whatever they find, Shepard comes across information about previous civilizations, the plans for how the reapers are able to travel as fast as they do and how powerful their weapons are. The same can be said about control. What proof do you have the beam reached that far. How does it know more synthetics will be built? Because the thing has seen them built in all the previous cycles? How many of those cycles had the reapers destroyed for it to say what it did? I'm not worried about them. I'm sure Hackett and the council will come up with a way to deal with them. Yet you have no problem choosing the blue that TIM wanted to choose. Just because I like Cerberus and TIM doesn't mean I agree with everything they do or say. 1) The entire galaxy is destroyed, so where are those resources coming from? Darkspace? Who knows darkspace? The Reapers. The "earth" example you gave involves only a portion of earth being affected, not all of it. You already admitted in your previous post, it would take longer to rebuild without the help of the Reapers and I already admitted that rebuilding could be done without the Reapers and it would just take longer. So, I don't see a point here. It's a circular argument.
2) The Catalyst says he controls "The Reapers," He does not say he controls only some of them. The Shepard takes over control from the Catalyst, so he assumes whatever amount of control the Catalyst has over them. The Catalyst clearly relinquishes all the control he has and then dissolves. It's not contingent on the beam reaching all of them. It's only contingent on whatever degree of power the Catalyst held. We are told that the Crucible has failed in the past because it was never completed to a point where it incorporated the Catalyst in the design. Therefore, if you don't believe the Catalyst controls the Reapers, then you have no explanation for why incorporation of the Catalyst was crucial to the design of the Crucible... and Shepard then should have extreme doubts about firing the Crucible at all... It's a device that has failed over and over and over again resulting in the harvest/demise of untold species. So why does your Shepard have such faith that it will destroy the Reapers this time around?
3) & 4) The Catalyst has at least past history to go on. How does Shepard know that Leviathan won't build another AI? You're not worried about them even though you have no idea how many of them are left or how widespread they are throughout "the darkness." - which might actually be and have shown themselves to be equally capable of controlling minds and resilient enough that they have survived as a species through untold cycles that have seen the elimination of every other advanced species in the galaxy... and you've been told directly that they fight for themselves and not for you.
5) I have no problem choosing a path that minimizes collateral damage and my Paragon Shepard has faith in himself to lead (take control) humanely, using that power responsibly and for the greater good... regardless of whether or not TIM wanted to do something different with that power. By extension, he also has faith that any AI utilizing his thoughts and memories would be inclined to do the same things he would. The influence my Shepard had on EDI over the course of the game and he crediting it all to his influence in the end, proved it to him even before he met the Catalyst. Shepard saw that TIM was "power hungry;" per Shepard's paragon speech, being hungry for power is clearly NOT his motivation. Renegade Shepard is a different matter. Just because TIM was an evil individual who had already crossed over to the dark side long before he became indoctrinated doesn't' mean that I assume all leaders are similarly inclined.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,887 Likes: 49,356
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,356
Iakus
20,887
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Oct 21, 2019 15:43:27 GMT
It's still suicide. Remember, at that point we have no guarantee the Starkid is being honest with us at any capacity. We are supposed to take, in good faith, that our 100% guaranteed suicide course of action will somehow work, on a gizmo that has failed to activate, for reasons unknown to us and that we couldn't hope to comprehend in a timely manner. But it will save everybody, if we just kill ourselves. We just have to pick our preferred method of self check out. You misunderstand. I’m asking that if the Catalyst gave these options only to kill Shepard allowing them to continue the cycle like you said, then why would it offer Destroy? That goes against the intentions you are suggesting. It could simply have remained mum of that option if it was just a trick. Why does the Catalyst offer anything? It won. Nothing Shepard did mattered. All it had to do was let Shep bleed out and the harvest could continue unabated. Even with its brainless Leeeroy Jenkins style of harvesting this time, which is totally at odds with the Reapers' usual method. Te ending is nonsense. The options are nonsense. It's like that old SNL Sketch "Theodoric of York: Medieval Barber" where Jane Curtin is yelling at Steve martin "Why don’t you admit it! You don’t know what you’re doing!" Except, you know, to Bioware.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Oct 21, 2019 15:51:09 GMT
You misunderstand. I’m asking that if the Catalyst gave these options only to kill Shepard allowing them to continue the cycle like you said, then why would it offer Destroy? That goes against the intentions you are suggesting. It could simply have remained mum of that option if it was just a trick. But you are assuming the Starkid is being honest or that anything will happen, post Shepard's death, if you just check yourself out first. The explanation for Destroy doesn't matter. None of the explanations the Starkid offers matter. The only thing that is made perfectly clear to you is that, if you want to save the galaxy, you have to kill yourself, with no ability to verify it after your death and no assurances that the Crucible will fire, other than Starkid going "dude, trust me".
|
|