913 réponses à ce sujet

[Clayless]

omikron199 wrote...

Answer this already please
is 1 death (Shepard's) better than trillions (military that will die during conventional war)?

If you're talking about Shepard and the galaxy, then trillions is a vast understatement.

Edit:

Ah nevermind then.

Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 20 avril 2012 - 01:25 .

[Elyiia]

omikron199 wrote...

Answer this already please
is 1 death (Shepard's) better than trillions (military that will die during conventional war)?

Answer this, trilions of lives are at stack, would you solely rely on a device that you have no idea what it does. You don't even know it's a weapon. Do you bet trillions of lives on this magic probe?

[omikron199]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

omikron199 wrote...

Answer this already please
is 1 death (Shepard's) better than trillions (military that will die during conventional war)?

If you're talking about Shepard and the galaxy, then trillions is a vast understatement.

Edit:

Ah nevermind then.

Also you have a very good point! Not only military will die during this conventional war.

I'm just confused that supporters of this "conventional thing" want such a choice.

They actually want to reject own sacrifice to save the galaxy and get trillions of their allies, friends, pals, their kids maybe, aunts, uncles, grandpas killed.

They want to kill their own people.


For what? For diversity of choices? For selfish reasons like "I do not trust catalyst"
If you ended the game you saw that the catalyst told you exactly what happens next.

Yes the ending is so bad though

[omikron199]

Elyiia wrote...

omikron199 wrote...

Answer this already please
is 1 death (Shepard's) better than trillions (military that will die during conventional war)?

Answer this, trilions of lives are at stack, would you solely rely on a device that you have no idea what it does. You don't even know it's a weapon. Do you bet trillions of lives on this magic probe?

And you want Shepard standing at the very end near the catalyst having 3 choices say: "I dont trust you" and walk away? Well even if not walk away - to order to fight without the crucible because YOU don't know how it works and do not trust the catalyst.

Then there was no point in me3 for you from the beginning - the whole point was to build the crucible because it may've could stop the reapers and you didn't trust that.

About choices


Well I made  my choice and I saw the ending - the reapers blew up to hell.

Modifié par omikron199, 20 avril 2012 - 01:43 .

[Clayless]

omikron199 wrote...

For what? For diversity of choices? For selfish reasons like "I do not trust catalyst"
If you ended the game you saw that the catalyst told you exactly what happens next.

Some people like to guess if the Catalyst is lying or not, which means there's 3 outcomes:

Do nothing and everyone dies.
Trust the Catalyst, he's lying, and everyone dies.
Trust the Catalyst, he's telling the truth, and you save the galaxy.

And heck in hindsight we see that the Catalyst was telling the truth. Some people use the fact that Shepard can survive, but the Catalyst only says Shepard's partially synthetic, which would mean only his synthetic parts would be destroyed. What would happen to his organic parts? Well it seems like they don't die if your EMS is high enough, and to be fair slight movement from Shepard isn't exactly the song and dance routine some people make it out to be.

[Elyiia]

omikron199 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

omikron199 wrote...

Answer this already please
is 1 death (Shepard's) better than trillions (military that will die during conventional war)?

Answer this, trilions of lives are at stack, would you solely rely on a device that you have no idea what it does. You don't even know it's a weapon. Do you bet trillions of lives on this magic probe?

And you want Shepard standing at the very end near the catalyst having 3 choices say: "I dont trust you" and walk away. Well even if not walk away - to order to fight without the crucible because YOU don't know how it works and do not trust the catalyst.

Then there was no point in me3 for you from the beginning - the whole point was to build the crucible because it may've could stop the reapers and you didn't trust that.

About choices


Well I did  my choice and I saw the ending - the reapers blew up to hell.

Putting words in my mouth really helps your argument, no really. When they start construction on the Crucible, they have no idea what it does. This is a fact. When they finish it, they still don't know what it does. This is a fact.

The leaders are putting all their eggs into one basket and they don't even know what the basket is.

[Haargel]

Voted for first option.

[omikron199]

Elyiia wrote...

Putting words in my mouth really helps your argument, no really. When they start construction on the Crucible, they have no idea what it does. This is a fact. When they finish it, they still don't know what it does. This is a fact.

The leaders are putting all their eggs into one basket and they don't even know what the basket is.

And what? Council asks does Shepard believe that  the crucible can stop the reapers, and he replies - "I believe in trying" or something like that

Well I belive Shepard. Why would I prefer death of trillions of my allies, their relatives and civilians and possible death to all advanced civilizations instead of sacrificing myself?

Also did you picked any choice in the end or just quit?

Modifié par omikron199, 20 avril 2012 - 01:55 .

[Noelemahc]

omikron199 wrote...

Also did you picked any choice in the end or just quit?

I started with checking whether I can get back to the cell phone reception zone downstairs to call Hackett and as for a nuclear strike, and that led me to create the thread in my sig.

But then I had to settle for Synthesis, because Control leaves the Reapers more capable of coming back, and I didn't waste all that time saving the Quarian people from themselves to be able to kill the Geth in cold blood.

[Elyiia]

omikron199 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Putting words in my mouth really helps your argument, no really. When they start construction on the Crucible, they have no idea what it does. This is a fact. When they finish it, they still don't know what it does. This is a fact.

The leaders are putting all their eggs into one basket and they don't even know what the basket is.

And what? Council asks does Shepard believe that  the crucible can stop the reapers, and he replies - "I believe in trying" or something like that

Well I belive Shepard. Why would I prefer death of trillions of my allies, their relatives and civilians and possible death to all advanced civilizations instead of sacrificing myself?

Also did you picked any choice in the end or just quit?

He says he believes in trying, he doesn't say they should use a device that they have no idea what it does as their only plan. Hell, when they discover it he doesn't even believe Liara.

Sacrificing Shepard has nothing to do with this. My choice has nothing to do with this. The issue is that they ignore tactics and technology that would allow them to win in favour of a magic space probe that they have no idea what it does.

[PhotonMaze]

If conventional victory is an option, I will kill myself. That would make the Reapers seem so weak and the story would seem so uninspired.

[Elyiia]

PhotonMaze wrote...

If conventional victory is an option, I will kill myself. That would make the Reapers seem so weak and the story would seem so uninspired.

And having them controlled by a ghost child doesn't?

[fchopin]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

As you can see there are variations. Do they actually differ or where some omitted to reduce the length of the scene because more options became available? To me "wipe out all synthetic life" is pretty clear.

Besides, it is nonsensical when you have already established peace with the geth. And none of the other solutions will make sense in that case either.

Ok, before we get to what the starchild’s ending selections are let’s go back to how the selections came in to existence.Starchild says that the crucible changed him so he is able to see more possibilities to the organic synthetic problem.
Is that correct or are we in fact seeing the ending possibilities that the previous races who designed the crucible programmed the starchild to see?
 
Why is the starchild showing us 3 end selections?
Are the 3 selections starchild creations or the race that designed the crucible creations?
Are we given choices by the crucible designers who reprogrammed the starchild?
 
These are some of the questions we don’t know the answer to.
 
If we believe the starchild is the giver of the choices should we trust him?
Are the choices believable?
Is the Synthesis choice believable? No it is not as it is wrong.
It is not possible to change the whole universe so all synthetics and organics die and create a new DNA.
Even if it was possible and a new creation came about it would still not stop the new race from creating new AI’s so it changes nothing.
The reason is that only where the beam can get to will be effected and that is only a small part of our galaxy and the same for all the other choices.
 
If we believe starchild is giving us the 3 options then we know he is either lying or does not know what he is talking about so in that case we would not believe anything he says like the geth will die or all synthetics will die but i would still pick the destroy option.
If we believe the crucible creators are the ones who programmed the starchild on what to say then we have to pick the destroy option as their motives would always be to destroy the reapers.

The only choice for me is go with destroy and hope for the best, if i am lucky i survive and have blue babies or if i die then Joker can have the blue babies.

[omikron199]

Elyiia wrote...

PhotonMaze wrote...

If conventional victory is an option, I will kill myself. That would make the Reapers seem so weak and the story would seem so uninspired.

And having them controlled by a ghost child doesn't?

If you saw the movie "Contact" with J. Foster you can think that the catalyst is just a bad parallel for J. Foster's father.
So yes ghost child makes a little more sense than killing your own people because of not trusting in thing you did through the whole me3

Modifié par omikron199, 20 avril 2012 - 02:17 .

[Elyiia]

omikron199 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

PhotonMaze wrote...

If conventional victory is an option, I will kill myself. That would make the Reapers seem so weak and the story would seem so uninspired.

And having them controlled by a ghost child doesn't?

If you saw he movie "Contact" with J. Foster you can think that the catalyst is just a bad parallel for J. Foster's father.
So yes ghost child makes a little more sense than killing your own people because of not trusting in thing you did through the whole me3

Why do you respond with things that aren't even related? He said the Reapers would seem weak if they could be beaten conventionally, I said that it makes them seem weak by having them controlled by a ghost child. That has nothing to do with the choices, at all.

Besides having  a perfect enemy is so boring and uninspired and suspends belief.

[omikron199]

Elyiia wrote...

PhotonMaze wrote...

If conventional victory is an option, I will kill myself. That would make the Reapers seem so weak and the story would seem so uninspired.

And having them controlled by a ghost child doesn't?

If you saw he movie "Contact" with J. Foster you can think that the catalyst is just a bad parallel for J. Foster's father.
So yes ghost child makes a little more sense than killing your own people because of not trusting in thing you did through the whole me3

Why do you respond with things that aren't even related? He said the Reapers would seem weak if they could be beaten conventionally, I said that it makes them seem weak by having them controlled by a ghost child. That has nothing to do with the choices, at all.

Besides having  a perfect enemy is so boring and uninspired and suspends belief.

My point was that the ghost child idea was inspired by the movie "Contact" And why the catalyst is ghost child in the first place. Or even if it was not - you can parallel those to make some sense of it.

So conventinal victory in my opinion is more uninspired than the idea of ghost child.

And yes this is not related to the choices.

Modifié par omikron199, 20 avril 2012 - 02:34 .

[D_Dude1210]

Posted this in a different topic. Let's see if someone can adress it here...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Throughout all the conversations Shepard has had with the Reapers prior to Starbrat, through all the Reaper's actions and methods through all of Shepard's experience with them. They've never shown themselves as anything more than sadistic, destructive, arrogant and extremely decietful and cunning machines bent on nothing but the annihilation of all advanced life.

Now here comes a little Starbrat who says that he controls the Reapers and the only reaction Shepard demonstrates is complete trust? How the hell does this make sense?

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Except that Shepard doesn't know that. As a character, he doesn't have hindsight of the events that transpired after he made his "choice".

All he knows is this: a little kid out of nowhere who admits to being the leader/controller of an extemely sadistic, genocidal and highly decieftul race WHO IS HIS ENEMY has just told you to a) grab live cables, shoot an explosivr conduit or c) jump off a cliff. All in the hopes that MAYBE he's telling the truth (read: highly decietful). I mean COME ON! how stupid would you have to be.

I mean for all he knows the means to activate the crucible would have been to shoot this kid or something and the kid just doesn't want him to figure it out.

[the slynx]

omikron199 wrote...

Answer this already please
is 1 death (Shepard's) better than trillions (military that will die during conventional war)?

I'd trade any single person's life to save trillions. All of us play that moral calculus at some point, no matter how tenuous and amorphous those calculations are. I share your concerns, and I still want the option to refuse Sky Kid's choices.

But I don't think that's the only issue here. And it's not just not trusting the Sky Kid - although I think this is a good point, since we can't really know what the real consequences are until someone performs the act. It's not even just that there may well be further options about which this admitted Reaper hasn't told us.

The destroy ending, as presented in game, would have mind-numbingly disastrous consequences, if it actually harms crucial tech the way the game suggests. (BioWare staff tweets have suggested that's not the case, but I'm curious how they've arrived at that assertion.) I can't stress enough that the economic and technological effects of what the destroy ending proposes would be completely catastrophic, based solely on in-game explication.  And that's not even dealing with knowingly wiping out synthetic life entirely.

Synthesis could mean anything, including several horrifying immoral consequences, and I think there's a real issue of body integrity: you can't force that choice, especially not knowing what it means, on others. There are enough moral quandaries and detestable results possible from any such step in that direction that I think a rational person could, and probably should, make strong arguments about not beginning such a process without complete, utter clarity about what it entails, and what its effects would be. Control also appears to destroy the relays and some important tech (so: see above), and it's not at all clear what it means, either. (You're dead, but you're in control. So... you're not dead. Or not in control?)

There are several detailed write-ups of the horrific moral implications of the choices in this forum, and I believe a few are linked in OP. The people in this thread aren't arguing that we should be given the sole discretion to toss away lives on a whim. I think the opposite impulse animates us: concerns for the effects on those lives from such uncertain and potentially damaging actions as are currently presented by the Catalyst. The moral and philosophical issues here can't be abstracted to simple numbers, although we are all factoring in those numbers before weighing in here.

[a.m.p]

omikron199 wrote...

Answer this already please
is 1 death (Shepard's) better than trillions (military that will die during conventional war)?

Answering.
1) In-universe, in-character, from my Shepard's point of view, who has no idea what the crucible does
As I said a million times, at least two of those times I told this to you personally. I do not know what the crucible does. All I know is what my enemy wants me to do. My enemy's stated goal is to kill the advanced civilizations of the cycle. My stated goal is to prevent this. Why would I consider even for a moment that anything he says is true or that anything he wants me to do will help me achieve my goal and not his goal? I wouldn't. I came here hoping against all evidence that this device will help me. I find out that it is most likely a reaper trap that could do anything. I will not give up and go along with the plan of my enemy. Whether that results in my immediate death right there or my survival is irrelevant. It is not about me and it was never about me. If the best I can do for my cycle is not surrender to whatever grand plan there is in store for them, 'final evolution of life' or a 10000 year long dark age, then so be it.

So let me ask you in turn. Hitler offers you to end the second world war. To do that you have to push a big red button in his office. You don't know what the button does, but he tells you that when you push it, everyone will become a pure aryan and there will be peace. Will you push the button? Please do answer.

2) As a player, aware of the other options and analyzing the meaning of the ending
So what is the message here? I'm confused, you see. What artistic vision am I compromising by wanting to win this war with the forces I gathered? Seriously, what did the writers try to tell me? That the only way to solve the problem of a very powerful enemy attacking you and trying to kill all your people is to compromise with that enemy, accept his doctrine and go along with his other plan for you that involves killing a large part of your people and destroying your civilization? Don't point me at real world examples of survival through subjugation right now. We are talking about the message contained in this piece of art.

If that is the message, then I'd like the writers to tell me so, so I can drop this pointless attempt at salvaging the ending. Because if that is the message of Mass Effect as a whole, I don't want anything to do with it.
If this however is not the intended message and simply a writing job gone horribly wrong, and the message is still unity through diversity, like it has always been, then how does my compromise violate it?

[omikron199]

a.m.p wrote...

omikron199 wrote...

Answer this already please
is 1 death (Shepard's) better than trillions (military that will die during conventional war)?

So let me ask you in turn. Hitler offers you to end the second world war. To do that you have to push a big red button in his office. You don't know what the button does, but he tells you that when you push it, everyone will become a pure aryan and there will be peace. Will you push the button? Please do answer.

You've provided a very bad analogy very very bad, that does not fit at all
Your getting it out of context badly.

Let me fix taht again

THE WW2 starts with the evil hitler's(HARBRINGER'S) soldiers killing every non aryan. And you as a non aryan military man met an archeologist that says" well there is a plan for a doom's day device that could probably stop  hitler's soldiers but I don't know how it works" Would I throw that opportunity away? Hell no. Skipping military campaign.... So the doom's day device if finally ready and delievered to the Berlin. I step up in the control room and Verner Von Braun shows up.

He says. - 1.Well I didn't expect someone actually build it and deliever it this far. You're proving that I was wrong and my killing solution will not work anymore.
You can join us and control our divisions and order them to stop kill non aryan people. But you will die because of doom's day device needs to be disarmed and you probably will get electroshortcuted. But aryan hitler's soldiers will still be alive and kickin

2. Or you can  push the activation button on doom's day device and spread EVIL  hitler's soldiers killing virus that will also kill all canadians(which you just got as  allies) and probably kill you( if you didn't collect good doctors, engeneers etc.) because you're half canadian, aren't you?  But all aryan  hitler's soldiers will die for good

3 But I see the new possibility, the understanding of doom's day device made me different. So you and every non aryan can mary aryan  and be part of aryan family and create a new DNA - the final evolution of life! But I will kill you because the only avialable aryan woman here is My wife. Everyone will become aryan.

Also I forgot to mention that doom's day device or virus in it or whatever will destroy all electricity.

You have a tough choice.

You - I...don't know

4. Oh WTF I reject your choices and will win the war with anything that I've got. *Looking in the window where a  hitler's  tank blows up a trench full of your allies*

You radio your commander that the device is a "no go" and telling him that we will just fight back.

The point of having doom's day device is lost. Building it through the whole military campaign was pointless loosing of time and money and resources. All of non aryan people got killed in a long lasting horrible war.




So back to the question?

I would pick red again.

And if I would not modify your question - YES, I would press the button, probably several times, maybe even held it

Modifié par omikron199, 20 avril 2012 - 03:44 .

[a.m.p]

omikron199 wrote...
YES, I would press the button, probably several times, maybe even held it

Thank you. That was all that I wanted to ask.

[a.m.p]

@D_Dude1210
Those are the major problems that this compromise is supposed to fix, we keep coming back to them. They are currently #3 on my personal list of things terribly wrong with the ending, so I'm not sure what to tell you, that you don't already know yourself.

[a.m.p]

Elyiia wrote...

PhotonMaze wrote...

If conventional victory is an option, I will kill myself. That would make the Reapers seem so weak and the story would seem so uninspired.

And having them controlled by a ghost child doesn't?

And have to second that one. How does barely winning a long and terrible war against them make them weaker than turning them into a deluded ancient AI's servants that can be shut down by shooting a tube?

[Numara]

1 thing is bothering me... only in the RED choice we got Shepard to survive, even if star.nosense.child says it will kill him/her as the other 2 choices will do, so Why is he is Lying? I mean Why if the red option only affects Reapers tecnology? and child was lying in order to prevent Shep to use that choice telling him his geth friends EDI and himself/herslef will die too?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

LMFAO, what?? You people are nuts.

It took the combined Citadel Fleets, DA, and two different Alliance fleets (iirc) to take down Sovereign. You seriously think Shepard's combined war assets are that times a thousand? Please get a reality check.

Oh, and half of your ground forces team was killed before they even touched the ground, in the best case scenario. THat figure can be as high as 75% in the worst case.

There is no frickin way for a conventional victory.