[PC/PS3/360/WiiU] Mass Effect 3

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The only way to keep the Synthetics is by literally commanding the Reapers against their will to abandon their goal.

You say this as if it's a bad thing, but any war essentially means one side is going to command the other to abandon their goal.

Also, noticed a subtle difference between the paragon and renegade control ending. Paragon is "sacrifice of shepard, to guide and protect the many" renegade is "potential of it all, peace through power" Hadn't noticed it through the grudge, but... it's nice. A subtle, but nice difference between paragon and renegade Shepard.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Keroko

You say this as if it's a bad thing, but any war essentially means one side is going to command the other to abandon their goal.

No, what I am saying is that Robots are being persecuted by the game itself. And that the only way to spare the Geth is to give the Reapers Shepard himself, making him join them like they wanted. It is apparently such a valuable prize that Star Child is willing to hold back the machine genocide for a while longer.

All three official endings are terms of surrender. Of Shepard getting on his knees and offer something the Reapers wanted.

We LOSE in all three.

[npal]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

No, what I am saying is that Robots are being persecuted by the game itself. And that the only way to spare the Geth is to give the Reapers Shepard himself, making him join them like they wanted. It is apparently such a valuable prize that Star Child is willing to hold back the machine genocide for a while longer.

All three official endings are terms of surrender. Of Shepard getting on his knees and offer something the Reapers wanted.

We LOSE in all three.

Eh... The whole point of ME3 was amassing war assets to either work ON the Crucible or help defend whoever is working for the Crucible. ME3 is all about the Crucible because throughout the game, they are being pretty obvious in stating that there is no way to beat the Reapers through conventional means. So that rules out the assets actually doing anything more.

The nature of the Crucible itself is a mystery. True, they should be able to tell SOMETHING about it, even when following some alien blueprint, but I doubt they'd be able to pinpoint much other than "it seems to be able to disperse huge levels of energy".

In the end, Bioware chose to have the Crucible mean what it means. On one hand, Shepard has certain loss on his hands, as stated time and time again in the game, and on the other a gamble. Seriously, who the hell would pick certain defeat over a gamble? Certain defeat is certain defeat. A gamble, yes, could mean defeat but it doesn't have to. Even if the blue kid would win in the end, Shepard would be a fool not to take the gamble because the other option is insane or, I daresay, idiotic.

Could the Crucible be a trap to annihilate all organic life instead, a pretty major trap made by the blue kid? Sure it could, but certain defeat is an option you just can't take if you can take another with even a slim chance of actually working as advertised.

So, no, you don't lose in all three. You only straightforward lose in the fourth option. Sure you just to go down fighting till the bitter end, but only after giving up any chance of actually winning. Could they have written the thing in a way that refusing means actually winning here and now? Sure, they have space magic, why not use it like this? But they chose to do it like that. That does not mean in any way that the 3 endings offered are a defeat.

And about the robot racism argument... Eh... it might have worked somewhat, till you invoked Japan...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by npal

The nature of the Crucible itself is a mystery. True, they should be able to tell SOMETHING about it, even when following some alien blueprint, but I doubt they'd be able to pinpoint much other than "it seems to be able to disperse huge levels of energy".

No it's not. The Crucible is where the leader of Reapers reside. This is not in doubt; The Crucible is effectively the palace of the final boss. I have no idea why you think the Crucible is any kind of weapon. The Star Child is in complete control of it, and the only way Shepard can use it is because the Star Child LET him.

That's why as soon as you refuse the Star Child, nothing happened. The Star Child just turned off the crucible. So what made you think the Crucible is some kind of trump card?

[BetoJR]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

So what made you think the Crucible is some kind of trump card?

I thought he was talking about how the characters perceive it, no?

[npal]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

No it's not. The Crucible is where the leader of Reapers reside. This is not in doubt; The Crucible is effectively the palace of the final boss. I have no idea why you think the Crucible is any kind of weapon. The Star Child is in complete control of it, and the only way Shepard can use it is because the Star Child LET him.

That's why as soon as you refuse the Star Child, nothing happened. The Star Child just turned off the crucible. So what made you think the Crucible is some kind of trump card?

Well, Shepard thought it was a weapon. So it's the god of reapers. And? He seems willing to negotiate. Shepard already has it pretty clear that they stand no chance whatsoever and the Crucible was their own hope, when they didn't know what it was. Negotiating is a smart move when you're on the side getting royally screwed. It only boils down to whether you actually believe the blue kid, therefore believing you have a chance, or not. Why wouldn't I choose to gamble if the other option is annihilation? Cause I'm badass? O_o

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by npal

Well, Shepard thought it was a weapon. So it's the god of reapers. And? He seems willing to negotiate. Shepard already has it pretty clear that they stand no chance whatsoever and the Crucible was their own hope, when they didn't know what it was. Negotiating is a smart move when you're on the side getting royally screwed. It only boils down to whether you actually believe the blue kid, therefore believing you have a chance, or not. Why wouldn't I choose to gamble if the other option is annihilation? Cause I'm badass? O_o

"Negotiating is the smart move"?

Negotiating for what?

You just agreed with me; that all three endings are just Shepard signing the terms of surrender. That this isn't about "one last chance", but is instead "please don't hurt us, we will do whatever you say".

By the way, how does your Shepard survive this long all three games, did he do so by waving a white flag around?

Shepard is threatened annihilation ALL the time. Hell, he even died once. My Shepard is willing to fight. It is your choice to go on your knees and make all the gameplay so far irrelevant.

After all, why even fight Saren in Mass Effect 1?

[npal]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

"Negotiating is the smart move"?

Negotiating for what?

You just agreed with me; that all three endings are just Shepard signing the terms of surrender. That this isn't about "one last chance", but is instead "please don't hurt us, we will do whatever you say".

By the way, how does your Shepard survive this long all three games, did he do so by waving a white flag around?

Shepard is threatened annihilation ALL the time. Hell, he even died once. My Shepard is willing to fight. It is your choice to go on your knees and make all the gameplay so far irrelevant.

After all, why even fight Saren in Mass Effect 1?

Eh, Shepard is not surrendering. The choices the blue kid offers aren't even close to be considered surrender. If anything, if the blue kid is actually being truthful, besides the Synthesis ending which can be argued both ways, the other two options are practically huge victories. Subduing your enemy or destroying him. How is that surrender? Instead of crushing you till you're a pulp, I'm basically offering you command of the enemy, destruction of the enemy or peace through merge. Explain to me how the two first, if true, are ways of surrendering.

As for ME1 and 2. Incorrect. Sovereign is powerful, and Saren was cunning, but Sovereign was just one and its abilities, while appearing rather vast for just one ship, were just that. Abilities of ONE ship. It took Shepard inside the Citadel plus the whole damn fleet to get it down. In ME2, again, it was basically taking down ONE Reaper, and both were considered suicidal. An entire fleet of Reapers isn't even close to suicidal. They knew that and that's how ME3 is different from the previous ones. The scale of the threat is insane and the gamble resting on the Crucible is too big to just refuse it.

[Destined_Fate]

Everyone is forgetting that the Blue Kid isn't your ally. Look at it like this.

Synthesis - You become what they wanted. Eventually resources will dry up and space issues ensure, because everyone is now immortal yet can still have kids, and the logical step to take next it to convert your race into a Reaper to cope with resources and space requiring much time to become abundant again. Not to mention that eventually you'll run into races that aren't a part of Synthesis that will not appreciate the idea of being forced to become something completely different than what they already are. Mankind and Aliens have shown to be very resistant to change, especially change that is being forced upon them. The only answer is war and to end war is to do what the Reapers did by becoming the Reapers which means they win.

Control - Shepard dies and a VI is created based off who your Shepard is - Control makes mention that the Shepard Reaper "isn't" the man/woman that sacificed themself. However, it isn't Shepard and will eventually live into age that doesn't appreciate being watched and ordered about by things such as Reapers. It's like Big Brother only taking to the worst possible levels. Eventually the races will rebel when Shepard Reaper crosses the line to enforce the Universe. War awaits, eventually the Reapers will win and the Shepard VI will come to the conclusion that the Cycles are needed to protect the peace of the Universe from life itself and the only way races will be perserved from their own self-destructive behaviour is to ascend to Reaperhood. Reapers win.

Destroy - Reapers were created by mortals before, they can be created again. Even with the Reapers death humanity and the alien races have shown that they can't keep their hands off Reaper tech and that any peace between the Geth an Quarion means little since other sources of AI will be created and may very well rebel too. It may take time but eventually the Reapers will be recreated in response to a war of some kind like before(accelerated thanks to salvaged Reaper tech), though they may not take the appearance of a Reaper until muxh later. After all, the First Reaper didn't look like a Reaper. It was a Rogue AI that forced ascension upon its creators - something Starchild/Harbringer admits to and says it's the "Only Way" as far as it's concerned. Thus the Reapers win and the cycles will eventually start up yet again after forced ascension is carried out in the distant future against the galactic races that have forgotten the Reaper threat and consider it a fairy tale.

What ending you pick wont matter, eventually the cycles will begin once more. All that changes is how long for the Reaper conclusion being embraced. Destroy would take the longest(Since they must be recreated), Control the shortest(Because of the divide between Organics/Synthetics and Big Brother Reaper), and Synthesis as the middle ground on the time table.

The Reapers have shown to think very far ahead and care little if they die. They will gladly wait many years to carry out their cycles. Picking Destroy may kill them but what can be destroyed can be remade, even the Reapers know that.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by npal

Eh, Shepard is not surrendering. The choices the blue kid offers aren't even close to be considered surrender. If anything, if the blue kid is actually being truthful, besides the Synthesis ending which can be argued both ways, the other two options are practically huge victories. Subduing your enemy or destroying him. How is that surrender? Instead of crushing you till you're a pulp, I'm basically offering you command of the enemy, destruction of the enemy or peace through merge. Explain to me how the two first, if true, are ways of surrendering.

The destruction of Synthetics is the GOAL of the Reapers. To obey that in exchange for survival is surrender.

Now, if you actually wiped out the Geth already, then I understand why you think it isn't a bad thing. But for the rest of us who actually care about Synthetics, that's surrender.

Do I have to invoke the Godwin's Law to explain why it is a bad idea to give your mortal enemy what they wanted?

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

No, what I am saying is that Robots are being persecuted by the game itself. And that the only way to spare the Geth is to give the Reapers Shepard himself, making him join them like they wanted. It is apparently such a valuable prize that Star Child is willing to hold back the machine genocide for a while longer.

All three official endings are terms of surrender. Of Shepard getting on his knees and offer something the Reapers wanted.

We LOSE in all three.

Ah, see, this is one theory the fourth ending pretty much smashed. The whole "The reapers win because the crucible is one elaborate reaper plot" theory was reliant on the crucible being a trick to prevent the organics from realizing that we could beat them the hard way.

But as the fourth ending shows, the reapers did not need this crucible trickery to win. At all.

So why the choices?

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The destruction of Synthetics is the GOAL of the Reapers. To obey that in exchange for survival is surrender.

Now, if you actually wiped out the Geth already, then I understand why you think it isn't a bad thing. But for the rest of us who actually care about Synthetics, that's surrender.

Do I have to invoke the Godwin's Law to explain why it is a bad idea to give your mortal enemy what they wanted?

Fun thing about synthetics: We can build more. Hell, even the star child acknowledges this. How is this possibly a victory for the reapers?

Originally Posted by Destined_Fate

Destroy - Reapers were created by mortals before, they can be created again. Even with the Reapers death humanity and the alien races have shown that they can't keep their hands off Reaper tech and that any peace between the Geth an Quarion means little since other sources of AI will be created and may very well rebel too. It may take time but eventually the Reapers will be recreated in response to a war of some kind like before(accelerated thanks to salvaged Reaper tech), though they may not take the appearance of a Reaper until muxh later. After all, the First Reaper didn't look like a Reaper. It was a Rogue AI that forced ascension upon its creators - something Starchild/Harbringer admits to and says it's the "Only Way" as far as it's concerned. Thus the Reapers win and the cycles will eventually start up yet again after forced ascension is carried out in the distant future against the galactic races that have forgotten the Reaper threat and consider it a fairy tale.

And this would be the same even if we didn't use the crucible. So I guess your point is... There is no happy ending possible in the Mass Effect universe at all?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Keroko

Ah, see, this is one theory the fourth ending pretty much smashed. The whole "The reapers win because the crucible is one elaborate reaper plot" theory was reliant on the crucible being a trick to prevent the organics from realizing that we could beat them the hard way.

But as the fourth ending shows, the reapers did not need this crucible trickery to win. At all.

So why the choices?

The Crucible is a way to give the Reapers what THEY wanted. And they tricked us to help them build it. This explains why they had spies everywhere, but did nothing to stop the construction.

As I say, it offers destruction of synthetics or the absorption of Shepard into their ranks. Both are to their benefit. We spend the entire game building something for them. I suspect that the Control method is actually the most ideal for the Reapers.

Fun thing about synthetics: We can build more. Hell, even the star child acknowledges this. How is this possibly a victory for the reapers?

The Reapers want the Synthetics dead. This is their hard wired, illogical goal. Their entire logic is retarded to begin with.
However, "We can build more" is not making any sense. You only say that if you assume it doesn't matter that the Geth dies. One way or another, you killed the synthetics because the Reapers ordered you to.
The Reapers are retarded enough that I can believe they don't think their own annihilation matters. As long as they get to kill synthetics in the process. Thus, a victory to the Reapers.

Or more accurately, the Reapers used YOU to kill the Synthetics. You work for them. That is a greater victory more than anything else.

[npal]

Originally Posted by Destined_Fate

Everyone is forgetting that the Blue Kid isn't your ally. Look at it like this.

Synthesis - You become what they wanted. Eventually resources will dry up and space issues ensure, because everyone is now immortal yet can still have kids, and the logical step to take next it to convert your race into a Reaper to cope with resources and space requiring much time to become abundant again. Not to mention that eventually you'll run into races that aren't a part of Synthesis that will not appreciate the idea of being forced to become something completely different than what they already are. Mankind and Aliens have shown to be very resistant to change, especially change that is being forced upon them. The only answer is war and to end war is to do what the Reapers did by becoming the Reapers which means they win.

Control - Shepard dies and a VI is created based off who your Shepard is - Control makes mention that the Shepard Reaper "isn't" the man/woman that sacificed themself. However, it isn't Shepard and will eventually live into age that doesn't appreciate being watched and ordered about by things such as Reapers. It's like Big Brother only taking to the worst possible levels. Eventually the races will rebel when Shepard Reaper crosses the line to enforce the Universe. War awaits, eventually the Reapers will win and the Shepard VI will come to the conclusion that the Cycles are needed to protect the peace of the Universe from life itself and the only way races will be perserved from their own self-destructive behaviour is to ascend to Reaperhood. Reapers win.

Destroy - Reapers were created by mortals before, they can be created again. Even with the Reapers death humanity and the alien races have shown that they can't keep their hands off Reaper tech and that any peace between the Geth an Quarion means little since other sources of AI will be created and may very well rebel too. It may take time but eventually the Reapers will be recreated in response to a war of some kind like before(accelerated thanks to salvaged Reaper tech), though they may not take the appearance of a Reaper until muxh later. After all, the First Reaper didn't look like a Reaper. It was a Rogue AI that forced ascension upon its creators - something Starchild/Harbringer admits to and says it's the "Only Way" as far as it's concerned. Thus the Reapers win and the cycles will eventually start up yet again after forced ascension is carried out in the distant future against the galactic races that have forgotten the Reaper threat and consider it a fairy tale.

What ending you pick wont matter, eventually the cycles will begin once more. All that changes is how long for the Reaper conclusion being embraced. Destroy would take the longest, Control the shortest, and Synthesis as the middle ground on the time table.

The Reapers have shown to think very far ahead and care little if they die. They will gladly wait many years to carry out their cycles. Picking Destroy may kill them but what can be destroyed can be remade, even the Reapers know that.

There is always conflict in the world, one way or another. Not sure what your point is. If there were no Reapers, they'd be something else, maybe some form of sentience like the Geth would evolve into a form of Reaper.

In essence, there is no point winning a war because in the end, there might be more of them? No point in winning a losing battle with whatever you can get because you *think* the enemy has all bases covered, therefore better die fighting than take our chances?

And why would a Shepard AI do what you believe it will? It's not indoctrinated, it's a full fledged Reaper with Shepard's disposition in it. Why would the Shepard AI come to the conclusion that the cycles are necessary? It might. It might not. It's a totally different story. Right now, he wins with that.

Synthesis effect is galaxy-wide, so unless something else comes from a galaxy far far away, I don't see any conflict of that sort possible. And even if it comes, and even if they fight against them... So? Why should ME give an everlasting peace scenario? Plus, biosynthetics are not just synthetics, so the synthetics-organics antithesis won't really be there.

Now truth be told, the only real thing I wanted from the endings before the Extended Cut was a why and a how. I wasn't that insanely pissed as most. I got most of what I needed for the ending to be an ending. Sure, they aren't exemplary endings, and sure they are kind of a rip off from DeM, but they aren't really devoid of merit, excluding the Mass effect space magic in general, that is. And I've seen far worse endings than the Extended Cut ones in my lifetime so I probably don't feel the same about it as most. Rationally though, they could be argued for or against, the main reason being, they let too much space magic in. Once you let magic of any kind in, one can justify anything any way.

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The Crucible is a way to give the Reapers what THEY wanted. And they tricked us to help them build it. This explains why they had spies everywhere, but did nothing to stop the construction.

As I say, it offers destruction of synthetics or the absorption of Shepard into their ranks. Both are to their benefit. We spend the entire game building something for them. I suspect that the Control method is actually the most ideal for the Reapers.

And that's where your logic crumbles, because the reapers don't need the crucible. There was no need for it. None.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The Reapers want the Synthetics dead. This is their hard wired, illogical goal. Their entire logic is retarded to begin with.
However, "We can build more" is not making any sense. You only say that if you assume it doesn't matter that the Geth dies. One way or another, you killed the synthetics because the Reapers ordered you to.
The Reapers are retarded enough that I can believe they don't think their own annihilation matters. As long as they get to kill synthetics in the process. Thus, a victory to the Reapers.

Only if you ignore that even the reapers acknowledge that organics will just build more synthetics. The reapers quite blatantly tell you that they know destroying all synthetics isn't going to stop this.

Also, you're kind of twisting their goals here. "destroy synthetics" isn't the reapers goal. "preservation of organic life" is. The reapers are gardeners, cutting the weeds (synthetics) to prevent it from choking all the garden and trimming the plants while harvesting its fruits (organics) to sustain themselves and keep the plants growing.

Yeah, it's fucked up logic from a human point of view. From a gardner's point of view it makes sense. It's the age old "do you worry about the ants beneath your feet?" question that higher beings tend to pose in stories.

[tkdtiger]

We I finished the extended cut but this time I managed to ask the star child more questions. Did anyone else get this explanation on his creation

Spoiler:

that his creators unwillingly became the first reapers against their will...

[Keroko]

In other words, the reapers were the first rebelling synthetics.

If the leaks concerning Leviathan are true, it would be arguably an even bigger flaw than the endings. Withholding information that could potentially change our point of view of the reapers as a whole for DLC.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Destined_Fate

Everyone is forgetting that the Blue Kid isn't your ally. Look at it like this.

Synthesis - You become what they wanted. Eventually resources will dry up and space issues ensure, because everyone is now immortal yet can still have kids, and the logical step to take next it to convert your race into a Reaper to cope with resources and space requiring much time to become abundant again. Not to mention that eventually you'll run into races that aren't a part of Synthesis that will not appreciate the idea of being forced to become something completely different than what they already are. Mankind and Aliens have shown to be very resistant to change, especially change that is being forced upon them. The only answer is war and to end war is to do what the Reapers did by becoming the Reapers which means they win.

Control - Shepard dies and a VI is created based off who your Shepard is - Control makes mention that the Shepard Reaper "isn't" the man/woman that sacificed themself. However, it isn't Shepard and will eventually live into age that doesn't appreciate being watched and ordered about by things such as Reapers. It's like Big Brother only taking to the worst possible levels. Eventually the races will rebel when Shepard Reaper crosses the line to enforce the Universe. War awaits, eventually the Reapers will win and the Shepard VI will come to the conclusion that the Cycles are needed to protect the peace of the Universe from life itself and the only way races will be perserved from their own self-destructive behaviour is to ascend to Reaperhood. Reapers win.

Destroy - Reapers were created by mortals before, they can be created again. Even with the Reapers death humanity and the alien races have shown that they can't keep their hands off Reaper tech and that any peace between the Geth an Quarion means little since other sources of AI will be created and may very well rebel too. It may take time but eventually the Reapers will be recreated in response to a war of some kind like before(accelerated thanks to salvaged Reaper tech), though they may not take the appearance of a Reaper until muxh later. After all, the First Reaper didn't look like a Reaper. It was a Rogue AI that forced ascension upon its creators - something Starchild/Harbringer admits to and says it's the "Only Way" as far as it's concerned. Thus the Reapers win and the cycles will eventually start up yet again after forced ascension is carried out in the distant future against the galactic races that have forgotten the Reaper threat and consider it a fairy tale.

What ending you pick wont matter, eventually the cycles will begin once more. All that changes is how long for the Reaper conclusion being embraced. Destroy would take the longest(Since they must be recreated), Control the shortest(Because of the divide between Organics/Synthetics and Big Brother Reaper), and Synthesis as the middle ground on the time table.

The Reapers have shown to think very far ahead and care little if they die. They will gladly wait many years to carry out their cycles. Picking Destroy may kill them but what can be destroyed can be remade, even the Reapers know that.

I'm inclined to agree. All 3 do, to a greater or lesser extent, feel like a surrender.

Sythesis: Another issue with Synthesis is that it changes everyone against their will. What if you don't want to become a weird synthetic/organic hybrid? Hell isn't that what the Reapers are anyway? Also, a significant theme of Mass Effect is Self determination, the entire point of the genophage plotline was that the genophage sucked for the Krogan because it removed their self determination. Synthesis only really makes sense from a renegade perspective, from a paragon perspective it's all about letting people and aliens choose their own path, it's very Reaperish reasoning to force something on everyone. And frankly if we're talking about Renegade, Renegade Shephard would probably prefer to shoot the star child in the head.

Control is unsatisfying because you allow the Reapers to survive. The Reapers have done so much by that point in the game, and they crossed the moral event horizon so many times, that most players want to see them all dead. And for those who say that doing so is committing mass genocide (as each reaper contains the combined conciousness of an spieces), well, do you imagine existing inside a Reaper would be pleasant? Furthermore, the only people who espoused the "control" idea were madmen who had been indoctrinated. Shephard had always said it was pointless to try and control the Reapers, why should Shephard suddenly change his mind because the Star Child (who, might I add, is a reaper, and could be easily lying) said so. In all of his/her dialogue, Shephard never really believed what the reapers ever told him/her.

Destroy in unsatisfying because, of course, it involves destroying the Geth and EDI, which the game went to great lengths to show were "good".+

As far as I can see, the Star Child was just an instance of the Reapers dicking with Shephard's head. Anyway, how can you destroy all synthetics without simultaneously frying every computer in the galaxy? I can only imagine most of the Civilizations of Mass Effect are completely dependent on computers (and VIs) for their existence at this point.

EDIT: @Keroko, if the Reapers were the first rebelling synthetics (plausible), then why do they want to "preserve" organic life by destroying synthetics, and civilizations capable of building synthetics?

EDIT 2: Also, for those who've played it, anyone notice the bizarre similarities between Freespace 1 and 2, and the Mass Effect Trilogy?

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

@Keroko, if the Reapers were the first rebelling synthetics (plausible), then why do they want to "preserve" organic life by destroying synthetics, and civilizations capable of building synthetics?

True. That's a huge flaw. Okay, new theory: The reapers didn't rebel, but instead followed their programming, which meant the first intelligent lifeform to be harvested... were their creators.

[BetoJR]

Originally Posted by Keroko

True. That's a huge flaw. Okay, new theory: The reapers didn't rebel, but instead followed their programming, which meant the first intelligent lifeform to be harvested... were their creators.

That's even explicitly stated by the Catalyst, actually.

[Keroko]

Doip. You're right. So much for me sounding smart.