472 réponses à ce sujet

[ZIPO396]

Eain wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis has no redeeming qualities. Scratch it out.

Control would have been good if you directly take the means to control the reapers from the illusive man's cold dead hands. You want control, you take it. Not just obey space kid.

Destruction must have side effects or else it would been the perfect choice, making picking control pointless. You don't like killing the geth, fine, kill the earth instead or whatever. Or destroy the mass relays. But there has to be a downside to the destruction of the reapers to make the other choice not pointless.

I agree that there should be a downside to destroying the Reapers. You don't walk away from a war like this without serious damage. Sure. I would've been cool with sacrificing an object rather than a species though. So yeah, the Earth instead of the Geth. Humanity's spread across the stars anyway, so while the loss of Earth would be painful it wouldn't destroy an entire species. It also relates more closely to the original theme of the game, ie take earth back.

I could go with the loss of Earth. As long as the people I know by name made it off in time. Preferably.

[The Angry One]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Dedutive logic need to understand.

In other words, speculation.

2.Did you not take to Sovergin and Vigil in ME1? listen to harbengerin ME2? Listen to the prothean VI in ME3?
It's been well comfermed, even with the reaper on rennock.

None of them mention to reasoning behind the cycle, only that it exists.
The 50,000 year cycle and the cycle of organics vs. synthetics are two different things, the latter is non-existant.

Modifié par The Angry One, 25 avril 2012 - 01:47 .

[chemiclord]

I'd love an option to refuse the Catalyst's options... then watch as everything you built get ripped to shreds by the Reapers to reinforce the truth that a conventional victory simply isn't possible, and that despite the ****ty decision your left with inside the Crucible, that the alternative is a LOT worse.

Maybe have a heroic "last stand" with the rest of your party against increasingly heavy waves of Reapers, hearing more and more of your fleet being snuffed out.

You could at least go out with a bang.

[Shaigunjoe]

The Angry One wrote...
Doesn't change that synthetics have no DNA. You cannot apply new DNA from or to something that has none.

I guess this one is over your head, it has been done in other scifi work before.

The catalyst never even says he takes synthetic DNA, just takes synthetic and organic life to make a new DNA.

[Peranor]

Eain wrote...

hosen17 wrote...

Most of us here on the forum, I'd assume.

Well, yeah. But I often see people still talk about the specifics of each ending as though there's some merit to it. I wonder how many people there are that hate the ending but still begrudgingly pick a colour vs people that hate the ending and therefore shut off the game before it even gets there.

Im one of those people that can't bring myself to complete the game. I shut down my game after Cronos Station and haven't played any further since then.
Im waiting to see what the EC brings. But as it looks right now I will probably never complete Mass Effect 3.


Though if someone was to hold a gun to my head and force me to complete the game I would most likely Destroy.
It's still a horrible way to end things. But I see it as the lesser of evils. After that it's control.
Synthesis is not even on the map...

Modifié par anorling, 25 avril 2012 - 01:57 .

[The Angry One]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
Doesn't change that synthetics have no DNA. You cannot apply new DNA from or to something that has none.

I guess this one is over your head, it has been done in other scifi work before.

Ah yes, the final resort of the pseudo intellectual when someone calls you on your nonsensical gibberish. "You're not smart enough!"

No. It's stupid. The end. Don't insult me with arrogant presumptions. I don't care where it's been done before.

The catalyst never even says he takes synthetic DNA, just takes synthetic and organic life to make a new DNA.

And how are you going to apply it to a Geth? Hm?

[Eain]

TheOptimist wrote...

Eain wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis has no redeeming qualities. Scratch it out.

Control would have been good if you directly take the means to control the reapers from the illusive man's cold dead hands. You want control, you take it. Not just obey space kid.

Destruction must have side effects or else it would been the perfect choice, making picking control pointless. You don't like killing the geth, fine, kill the earth instead or whatever. Or destroy the mass relays. But there has to be a downside to the destruction of the reapers to make the other choice not pointless.

I agree that there should be a downside to destroying the Reapers. You don't walk away from a war like this without serious damage. Sure. I would've been cool with sacrificing an object rather than a species though. So yeah, the Earth instead of the Geth. Humanity's spread across the stars anyway, so while the loss of Earth would be painful it wouldn't destroy an entire species. It also relates more closely to the original theme of the game, ie take earth back.

So instead of betraying the Geth you betray humanity AND all the groundforces of other species still on the planet, including Wrex, Major Kirrahe, and all the ME2 squaddies. NO. ****ING. THANKS.

Well it beats genociding a sentient lifeform. I mean replace the Geth with any species in the universe and ask me to pick the destroy option. I still won't do it. But replace that with sacrificing Earth, Thessia, Palaven, anything, and it's a better pick. Just how I see it.

[ZIPO396]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
Doesn't change that synthetics have no DNA. You cannot apply new DNA from or to something that has none.

I guess this one is over your head, it has been done in other scifi work before.

The catalyst never even says he takes synthetic DNA, just takes synthetic and organic life to make a new DNA.

Yeah but they're making another point as well just not in that bit of the quote. Just because they're now combined doesn't stop them from making synthetics later. Still how would you make the Geth organic.

Modifié par ZIPO396, 25 avril 2012 - 01:53 .

[d-boy15]

I don't want to pick any endings but if I had to choose, destroy ending is where I go.

there will be no compromise for those metal cuttlefish, star child gonna die no matter what.

Modifié par d-boy15, 25 avril 2012 - 01:56 .

[dreman9999]

Naerivar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Naerivar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You're not understanding his ponit. What makes us who we are is our perspective, memories and ego. If that is wiped out of our minds, the person we were is dead. Think of it like brain death, it's a condition when the for brian dies or too damage to properly function (The part where we think) and the hind brian is intact(The part that controls movement and the automatic functions of the brain).
If a person ever recovers from brain death, they'll have permanent memory lose, meaning everything that person was is dead.
This is one of the point of the series...Remeber Legions loyalty mission?

I do not really agree with this. Is a person that lost their memory not the same person anymore? (did their character traits vanish, did they someway act differently?). We all lose a lot of our memory daily. At this moment I don't even remember what I ate yesterday evening, the information is probably still there, and I could recall it. But over ten weeks? Not a chance. Does this mean I am a different person in ten weeks (You can practically make this time scale as small as you want) than I am now?

If I am, than it will also mean that I am a different person now than I will be in one minute. Because I am sure there will be a certain thing I forgot in that time interval. When you look at it like that, it doesn't really matter anymore whether people become different anymore.

And if we accept that the person I was a minute ago is now dead. Then we seriously need to redefine our definition of murder, because we'd all be guilty.

I am not really disagreeing with all your ideas, just trying to point out consequences.

On your point, with use even whne we lose memeory, we gain now memeory in it place and are core beliefs, ideals and ego say intact....This is an evalution of our ego not a death.  In the case of memeory lose at the level close to brain death people change completly, traits change,perspectives changes, ideals change....It is a case where everything you are is gone...And even if you keep some or most of your traits, the person you where before is gone to...Think of it like lobotamy....It's like unding a protion of progress you had  before only to rest at a diffent point, that would mean the new development you have now will make you a different person then you were before.
Think of this way, what ifyou fell in love with someone so deeply that you would die for them and that person felt the same....What would happen if someone erases every memeory of the person you loved from you mind to the point that if you met them, you would not know them? Wouldn't that mean you are different.

The different is that dramatic difference normal memory lose and a massive memory loss is. Me forgeting where my keys are doens't make me a new person, me forgeting who my  friends and are family does.

You do make a good point, but I have one problem. Where do you lay the line? What memories do define you, and what memories don't? Sure, forgetting the place of keys is trivial while forgetting the person you loved is critical. However, there will most certainly be memories halfway in between.

The only way I see to distinguish between 'keys' and 'lover' would be how much time you spend with/tinking about the relative object. But that changes over large amounts of time as well. Does that mean you are not the same person as you were twenty years ago? Most people would indeed argue that no, they are not. But does that mean the person of twenty years ago is dead?

Personally, I just see myself as always myself. I am defined as the entity that controls my body (a soul, would be the best laymen term I believe). And while my traits will change with time, I will always be me. If you want to take it mathmatically, I am a function of time. I may not be the same as 20 years ago, but I am still the same function.

Of course, it pretty much falls apart if people can proof souls don't exist (once again, I do not really mean the old fashioned soul here, rather something that defines me as me, an unchanging thing about me, like that fact that I posses this body).

There is no line to lay...It's just natural progression. The difference between who I was before years ago and now is time. It a natural prosses of learning. That fact that it's minimal make so that it's not an issue of dieing all the time. I an different form who I was when I was 10 years old, but that's because I learn more things and have new intrests, not because I forgot everything or most of the thing that I knew from when I was 10. The degree of memory loss I'm taking about is a different case because it's so dramatic. This dramaic memeory loss I'm refuring to has beens seen with alhimer's, brain damege recovery, pdsd, intense shock , and many other cases.There is a big difference.
In a case of a soul, it's really something one builds on their own based on their perspective. We are just give life, we make our soul.

[nitefyre410]

Eain wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis has no redeeming qualities. Scratch it out.

Control would have been good if you directly take the means to control the reapers from the illusive man's cold dead hands. You want control, you take it. Not just obey space kid.

Destruction must have side effects or else it would been the perfect choice, making picking control pointless. You don't like killing the geth, fine, kill the earth instead or whatever. Or destroy the mass relays. But there has to be a downside to the destruction of the reapers to make the other choice not pointless.

I agree that there should be a downside to destroying the Reapers. You don't walk away from a war like this without serious damage. Sure. I would've been cool with sacrificing an object rather than a species though. So yeah, the Earth instead of the Geth. Humanity's spread across the stars anyway, so while the loss of Earth would be painful it wouldn't destroy an entire species. It also relates more closely to the original theme of the game, ie take earth back.

  

Lets see down sides okay.. 

Billions dead 
Billions more in displaced refugees  in places where supplies are already very limited. 
Massive, food, water and medical supply shortages. 
Riots do supply shortages.  
entire economies  in shambles.  
increase in piracy because  decimated  militaries  and supply shortages.
Enitire governents in  disorder..  
A break down of law and order because the these.  Things get nasty when people can't get food and water and start getting desperate.
all this across the entire  galaxy,Yeah the  Reapers are dead but its not sunshine and rainbows here.. 
 

They only thing they needed to do is show the devastion that  was left in the wake of the war and we the players would see the price that was paid.  

Modifié par nitefyre410, 25 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[dreman9999]

Eain wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Eain wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis has no redeeming qualities. Scratch it out.

Control would have been good if you directly take the means to control the reapers from the illusive man's cold dead hands. You want control, you take it. Not just obey space kid.

Destruction must have side effects or else it would been the perfect choice, making picking control pointless. You don't like killing the geth, fine, kill the earth instead or whatever. Or destroy the mass relays. But there has to be a downside to the destruction of the reapers to make the other choice not pointless.

I agree that there should be a downside to destroying the Reapers. You don't walk away from a war like this without serious damage. Sure. I would've been cool with sacrificing an object rather than a species though. So yeah, the Earth instead of the Geth. Humanity's spread across the stars anyway, so while the loss of Earth would be painful it wouldn't destroy an entire species. It also relates more closely to the original theme of the game, ie take earth back.

So instead of betraying the Geth you betray humanity AND all the groundforces of other species still on the planet, including Wrex, Major Kirrahe, and all the ME2 squaddies. NO. ****ING. THANKS.

Well it beats genociding a sentient lifeform. I mean replace the Geth with any species in the universe and ask me to pick the destroy option. I still won't do it. But replace that with sacrificing Earth, Thessia, Palaven, anything, and it's a better pick. Just how I see it.

Can anyone prove the star child is telling the truth?

[TheOptimist]

Eain wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Eain wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis has no redeeming qualities. Scratch it out.

Control would have been good if you directly take the means to control the reapers from the illusive man's cold dead hands. You want control, you take it. Not just obey space kid.

Destruction must have side effects or else it would been the perfect choice, making picking control pointless. You don't like killing the geth, fine, kill the earth instead or whatever. Or destroy the mass relays. But there has to be a downside to the destruction of the reapers to make the other choice not pointless.

I agree that there should be a downside to destroying the Reapers. You don't walk away from a war like this without serious damage. Sure. I would've been cool with sacrificing an object rather than a species though. So yeah, the Earth instead of the Geth. Humanity's spread across the stars anyway, so while the loss of Earth would be painful it wouldn't destroy an entire species. It also relates more closely to the original theme of the game, ie take earth back.

So instead of betraying the Geth you betray humanity AND all the groundforces of other species still on the planet, including Wrex, Major Kirrahe, and all the ME2 squaddies. NO. ****ING. THANKS.

Well it beats genociding a sentient lifeform. I mean replace the Geth with any species in the universe and ask me to pick the destroy option. I still won't do it. But replace that with sacrificing Earth, Thessia, Palaven, anything, and it's a better pick. Just how I see it.

It's not better, it just makes you a different kind of mass murderer.  Shep wouldn't betray the Geth, and for sure wouldn't betray her friends on the ground and the forces they're leading.  I reiterate, I want to WIN.  This 'there has to be some grimdark in the ending' theme people get is a crock.  A quarter of the Galaxy, or more, is already dead, you have lost, at minimum, 4 very close friends in getting here, it's enough.  Let me have an ending where Shep wins and goes back to the crew able to hold her head high.

[ZIPO396]

dreman9999 wrote...

Eain wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Eain wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis has no redeeming qualities. Scratch it out.

Control would have been good if you directly take the means to control the reapers from the illusive man's cold dead hands. You want control, you take it. Not just obey space kid.

Destruction must have side effects or else it would been the perfect choice, making picking control pointless. You don't like killing the geth, fine, kill the earth instead or whatever. Or destroy the mass relays. But there has to be a downside to the destruction of the reapers to make the other choice not pointless.

I agree that there should be a downside to destroying the Reapers. You don't walk away from a war like this without serious damage. Sure. I would've been cool with sacrificing an object rather than a species though. So yeah, the Earth instead of the Geth. Humanity's spread across the stars anyway, so while the loss of Earth would be painful it wouldn't destroy an entire species. It also relates more closely to the original theme of the game, ie take earth back.

So instead of betraying the Geth you betray humanity AND all the groundforces of other species still on the planet, including Wrex, Major Kirrahe, and all the ME2 squaddies. NO. ****ING. THANKS.

Well it beats genociding a sentient lifeform. I mean replace the Geth with any species in the universe and ask me to pick the destroy option. I still won't do it. But replace that with sacrificing Earth, Thessia, Palaven, anything, and it's a better pick. Just how I see it.

Can anyone prove the star child is telling the truth?

Can anyone prove he ain't?

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Dedutive logic need to understand.

In other words, speculation.

2.Did you not take to Sovergin and Vigil in ME1? listen to harbengerin ME2? Listen to the prothean VI in ME3?
It's been well comfermed, even with the reaper on rennock.

None of them mention to reasoning behind the cycle, only that it exists.
The 50,000 year cycle and the cycle of organics vs. synthetics are two different things, the latter is non-existant.

1. Since thye ar writing EC, it' not a speculation.

2..We are not argueing why there is a cycle. The arguement is that it was stated that the cycle exists.

[The Angry One]

ZIPO396 wrote...

Can anyone prove he ain't?

Geth say hi.

[TheOptimist]

dreman9999 wrote...
Can anyone prove the star child is telling the truth?

In theory, it might not be (it lies when it insists you'll die, after all), and I personally hoped it wasn't.  But I shouldn't have to speculate about that.

[Peranor]

dreman9999 wrote...

Can anyone prove the star child is telling the truth?

He seems like an honest and straightforward little toddler. There is no reason what so ever for him to lie to Shepard.
He's just a kid! what horrible persons would his parents be if they have taught him to lie??

[The Angry One]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Since thye ar writing EC, it' not a speculation.

Why don't know who is writing the EC. Period.

2..We are not argueing why there is a cycle. The arguement is that it was stated that the cycle exists.

Missing the point again. There are two cycles. The actual cycle, and the one in the Catalyst's head.
The latter doesn't exist, and the former is unecesarry without the latter.

[pistolols]

I love control. I'm blown away by the control choice to be honest. Love the concept of Shepard becoming immortal in AI form stored in the citadel. That's what the significance was of them showing the citadel is still completely intact and closing back up. Shep is in there!! Love all the foreshadowing for it throughout the game and the contrasting views people have of the notion. Hackett on control: "he's wrong, dead reapers are how we win this!". Illusive Man calls out Edi for having taken control of Eva, and Edi explains it as having been necessary. Through that contrast of Tim's lust for power and Edi's necessity for survival we learn that the concept of control is not black and white, good or bad. It's very much a grey area and that's what makes the decision difficult to choose in the end.

[dreman9999]

ZIPO396 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Eain wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Eain wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis has no redeeming qualities. Scratch it out.

Control would have been good if you directly take the means to control the reapers from the illusive man's cold dead hands. You want control, you take it. Not just obey space kid.

Destruction must have side effects or else it would been the perfect choice, making picking control pointless. You don't like killing the geth, fine, kill the earth instead or whatever. Or destroy the mass relays. But there has to be a downside to the destruction of the reapers to make the other choice not pointless.

I agree that there should be a downside to destroying the Reapers. You don't walk away from a war like this without serious damage. Sure. I would've been cool with sacrificing an object rather than a species though. So yeah, the Earth instead of the Geth. Humanity's spread across the stars anyway, so while the loss of Earth would be painful it wouldn't destroy an entire species. It also relates more closely to the original theme of the game, ie take earth back.

So instead of betraying the Geth you betray humanity AND all the groundforces of other species still on the planet, including Wrex, Major Kirrahe, and all the ME2 squaddies. NO. ****ING. THANKS.

Well it beats genociding a sentient lifeform. I mean replace the Geth with any species in the universe and ask me to pick the destroy option. I still won't do it. But replace that with sacrificing Earth, Thessia, Palaven, anything, and it's a better pick. Just how I see it.

Can anyone prove the star child is telling the truth?

Can anyone prove he ain't?

The fact that most of what he say is contadicted by facts in the game and that fact that he is from a race of machine with a history of great deception.

[Eain]

TheOptimist wrote...

It's not better, it just makes you a different kind of mass murderer.  Shep wouldn't betray the Geth, and for sure wouldn't betray her friends on the ground and the forces they're leading.  I reiterate, I want to WIN.  This 'there has to be some grimdark in the ending' theme people get is a crock.  A quarter of the Galaxy, or more, is already dead, you have lost, at minimum, 4 very close friends in getting here, it's enough.  Let me have an ending where Shep wins and goes back to the crew able to hold her head high.

I agree, don't get me wrong. It's like Gears of War. The entire planet of Sera has already been ruined, so it would've been severely odd if the final mission had suddenly required the arbitrary death of a bunch of others. There's plenty destruction to go around. I'm just saying that as it stands the destroy option is entirely out of the question for me, whereas if the destruction were to limit itself to a single world rather than a single species it would become something I'd at the very least contemplate. It's a crappy betrayal in either case, I absolutely agree. But if I really had give an evil rating to destroying a sentient species and destroying a planet with people on it, the former would rate higher for me.

Modifié par Eain, 25 avril 2012 - 02:01 .

[ZIPO396]

The Angry One wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Can anyone prove he ain't?

Geth say hi.

Nah he thinks in infinite time. Meaning it's still possible for it to happen over a long standing future. Or he's thinking we make a self replicating nano-machine that eats everything a grey goo scenario.

Modifié par ZIPO396, 25 avril 2012 - 02:02 .