285 réponses à ce sujet

[Clayless]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Was EDI ever confirmed to survive, anyway? I've heard she can walk out of the Normandy if you play your cards right.
Shepard for sure can survive. The Reapers die.
We're left to take the Starchild's word for it that the geth have bought the farm. I trust him about as far as I can throw him.

Hint: He's a noncorporeal hologram.

No she can't survive the Destroy option.

On a note for the OP, my mate has 1 playthrough, he sold Legion to Cerberus and then shot the GethVI in the face 3 times when he tried to make peace.

[IanPolaris]

M0keys wrote...

You call it waffling, I call it not betraying everything you've ever fought for.

If you pick anything other than 'destroy', you ARE betraying everything you've ever fought for.  Your squaddies, the races in your alliance, even the Reapers themselves, all understand that your primary goal has been to end the Reaper threat FOREVER.  If you have that option and don't take it, it's a collossal betrayal of everything you've ever stood for and the trust of those who helped you get to this point.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Was EDI ever confirmed to survive, anyway? I've heard she can walk out of the Normandy if you play your cards right.
Shepard for sure can survive. The Reapers die.
We're left to take the Starchild's word for it that the geth have bought the farm. I trust him about as far as I can throw him.

Hint: He's a noncorporeal hologram.

No she can't survive the Destroy option.

On a note for the OP, my mate has 1 playthrough, he sold Legion to Cerberus and then shot the GethVI in the face 3 times when he tried to make peace.

Patrick Weeks says otherwise.  Edi can (or so we're told) survive the destroy option.  The kid is a liar.

-Polaris

[M0keys]

Sisterofshane wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But what I'm trying to say is that the decision destroy makes is that what they're doing doesn't matter! They don't matter! They're tools to satisfy your goal of destroying the Reapers.

And if they, the new entries into the "great big list of things worth fighting for," are just tools for your end-goal, and you'd sacrifice any other race, you're fighting for nothing.

"The value of life and its various forms don't matter, only the state of it still existing."

It is a belief so incredibly insane, I'd rather just wipe out the galaxy to preserve the dignity of our existences than save us all by betraying the very meaning of ever having lived at all. Maybe another galaxy's got a better shot in the big scheme of things.

Again, I think you are arguing your point incorrectly.  The only become TOOLS of the destruction if you USE them specifically to destroy.  As it happens, the crucible is the tool, and no one knew prior to meeting the catalyst that the Geth would be in danger.  If we had, we might have agreed to tell the geth to GTFO of the way.

But you can't save the Geth and still destroy the Reapers. Thus, they become a part of a mechanism to destroy the Reapers. Their deaths are a requirement, a means to achieving a goal. If you choose destroy, you willingly destroy the Geth as well. It's not like you picked Destroy and later on were told the Geth died, too. You made the choice. It's not accidental.

Sisterofshane wrote...
Liken it to destroying the Alpha Relay - You killed three hundred thousand Batarians, but it wasn't their death that was specifically warranted to stop the Reapers from using the Relay Network

I didn't kill them. I did everything I could to warn them or save them. The story forced me to black out or get interrupted just so I could have Batarians tell me I was a jerk in Mass Effect 3. But at least it acknowledged I'd want to save them. It was a series of events that would lead to their death. But a series can be stopped, and I did everything I could.

The Geth dying and the Reapers dying were mutually inclusive in a single, galaxy-spanning event.

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

No, not the geth! Take the asari instead!

[shurikenmanta]

In the end it was a sacrifice I had to make. Yes, the geth died, but my rationale was infinitely more would if I didn't take down the Reapers once and for all.

[zovoes]

why are we debating as if any of the ending have ANY merit at all? they are all pick what color of suck you want endings. NONE of them should be looked at as good let alone the best.

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

Patrick Weeks says otherwise.  Edi can (or so we're told) survive the destroy option.  The kid is a liar.

-Polaris

No he never.

No she can't.

[IanPolaris]

M0keys wrote...

I didn't kill them. I did everything I could to warn them or save them. The story forced me to black out or get interrupted just so I could have Batarians tell me I was a jerk in Mass Effect 3. But at least it acknowledged I'd want to save them. It was a series of events that would lead to their death. But a series can be stopped, and I did everything I could.

The Geth dying and the Reapers dying were mutually inclusive in a single, galaxy-spanning event.

The same applies to the Geth here.  You aren't killing the Geth, the starbrat is because it is giving you no other option that ends the Reapers, and not ending the Reapers == Failure.

It's a price the Geth have already said (by being there) they are willing to pay.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Patrick Weeks says otherwise.  Edi can (or so we're told) survive the destroy option.  The kid is a liar.

-Polaris

No he never.

No she can't.

Yes he did.  Admittedly it was on twitter, but we were told that reports of Edi's survival were NOT bug and that it was a hotly debated topic in the dev team.

So yes, she apparently can.

-Polaris

[shurikenmanta]

zovoes wrote...

why are we debating as if any of the ending have ANY merit at all? they are all pick what color of suck you want endings. NONE of them should be looked at as good let alone the best.

Because some people either like the endings, or are willing to try to open their minds enough to explore the facets of them even though they don't like them.

There's like a billion blue baby threads if that's what you want to discuss.

[IanPolaris]

zovoes wrote...

why are we debating as if any of the ending have ANY merit at all? they are all pick what color of suck you want endings. NONE of them should be looked at as good let alone the best.

I agree.  It is "Pick You Own Warcrime".  I get that.  However, as horrible as it is, only one does what you set out to do the entire series.

-Polaris

[KingNothing125]

M0keys wrote...

But you can't save the Geth and still destroy the Reapers. Thus, they become a part of a mechanism to destroy the Reapers. Their deaths are a requirement, a means to achieving a goal. If you choose destroy, you willingly destroy the Geth as well. It's not like you picked Destroy and later on were told the Geth died, too. You made the choice. It's not accidental.

I didn't kill them. I did everything I could to warn them or save them. The story forced me to black out or get interrupted just so I could have Batarians tell me I was a jerk in Mass Effect 3. But at least it acknowledged I'd want to save them. It was a series of events that would lead to their death. But a series can be stopped, and I did everything I could.

The Geth dying and the Reapers dying were mutually inclusive in a single, galaxy-spanning event.

What? Killing the Batarians and killing the Geth are the same thing, unfortunate collateral damage. You were warned that activating the Project would kill 305k+ people, and you did it anyway... just as you were warned that choosing "Destroy" would kill all the Geth. The only difference is scale.

Furthermore, the Geth died to stop the Reapers forever. The Batarians only died to slow them down by a couple months. Yet you feel worse about the Geth?

Modifié par KingNothing125, 01 mai 2012 - 01:38 .

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Patrick Weeks says otherwise.  Edi can (or so we're told) survive the destroy option.  The kid is a liar.

-Polaris

No he never.

No she can't.

Yes he did.  Admittedly it was on twitter, but we were told that reports of Edi's survival were NOT bug and that it was a hotly debated topic in the dev team.

So yes, she apparently can.

-Polaris

No he never:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11492018/1

I have a whole thread dedicated to dispelling this myth. 18 pages so far and no one has been able to prove it, and if you read the first 5 pages you'll see Patrick never said that.

[Big I]

Wiping out the geth invalidates the Destroy ending for me. No matter what the EC alters, if Destroy kills the geth I'm never taking it.

[Dendio1]

M0keys wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But what I'm trying to say is that the decision destroy makes is that what they're doing doesn't matter! They don't matter! They're tools to satisfy your goal of destroying the Reapers.

So what?  They are but so is everyone else in the allied forces INCLUDING Humanity.  The Reapers threaten everyone, and everyone is willing to put the existance of not only themselve but their entire species on the line to end this threat forever.  If you waffle at the very end, you do them (including the Geth) a grave disservice.

You call it waffling, I call it not betraying everything you've ever fought for.

You pick that ending, you go from being a hero to a madman in a single moment.

I feel like I'm surrounded by utter insanity here. Please, for pete's sake, someone with some understanding come to my aid. I'm flailing madly in a blasted vacuum.

The mentality you are describing is what I mean by *everybody becomes a renegade*. It literally becomes "I will do anything to kill the reapers".  People are saying they would sacrifice any race or anything so long as the reapers die. They go off the deep end of renegade. Isn't boundless sacrifice just what the reapers are doing in the name of their cause? How long before the line between shepard and the reapers becomes blurred?

I know the other options aren't much better, but whole heartedly supporting the mass genocide of destroy, citing ends justified the means is TIM territory..

Modifié par Dendio1, 01 mai 2012 - 01:44 .

[M0keys]

IanPolaris wrote...

M0keys wrote...

You call it waffling, I call it not betraying everything you've ever fought for.

If you pick anything other than 'destroy', you ARE betraying everything you've ever fought for.  Your squaddies, the races in your alliance, even the Reapers themselves, all understand that your primary goal has been to end the Reaper threat FOREVER.  If you have that option and don't take it, it's a collossal betrayal of everything you've ever stood for and the trust of those who helped you get to this point.

-Polaris

Reapers don't understand the daily motion of life and why Shepard fights for people's lives. It understands only that life mathematically begins and ends at intervals that it creates. There is no in-between, only events, and they are pre-programmed to do certain forms of number crunching (and by crunching, I mean complete genocide of intelligent life every 50,000 years.)

Destroy means giving in to the mode of the Reapers. The ends justify genocide.
Control means giving in to the Illusive Man. The ends justify arrogant domination.
Synthesis means giving in to Saren. The ends justify the homogenizational enslavement of every strand of DNA everywhere.

They're thematic counter-points that should be used to show the villains are wrong and so are the choices, but instead Bioware used them to show you that the villains are right! Which is total BS considering the whole story's function has been proving them wrong and stopping them.

Anyway i'm at my wit's end on the subject

god/stars/whatever help us all if any of you are ever thrust into this situation.

Modifié par M0keys, 01 mai 2012 - 01:41 .

[IanPolaris]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Patrick Weeks says otherwise.  Edi can (or so we're told) survive the destroy option.  The kid is a liar.

-Polaris

No he never.

No she can't.

Yes he did.  Admittedly it was on twitter, but we were told that reports of Edi's survival were NOT bug and that it was a hotly debated topic in the dev team.

So yes, she apparently can.

-Polaris

No he never:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11492018/1

I have a whole thread dedicated to dispelling this myth. 18 pages so far and no one has been able to prove it, and if you read the first 5 pages you'll see Patrick never said that.

I was online when he DID say it.  You can claim what you like, but I know what I read in real time.

-Polaris

Edit: From your own damn thread:

http://social.biowar...2018/2#11493247

Modifié par IanPolaris, 01 mai 2012 - 01:43 .

[Gen Petitt]

Still would have chosen it because "No bastard has ever won a war by dieing for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard to die for his country!" meaning to beat the reapers you kill them not make them retreat

Modifié par Gen Petitt, 01 mai 2012 - 01:41 .

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

I was online when he DID say it.  You can claim what you like, but I know what I read in real time.

-Polaris

A link to this

Or

When did you read this?

[Navasha]

To me, there is only one acceptable ending. Only one ending where the galaxy "wins". Its unfortunate that the Geth had to be wiped out in the process, but that is the cost of winning the war. The only other two options you are allowed to choose have FAR worse consequences. Both of which are basically saying the reapers win the war and ALL advanced life in the galaxy is wiped out.

There are far worse fates than death.... Blue and Green are both examples of that.

[IanPolaris]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I was online when he DID say it.  You can claim what you like, but I know what I read in real time.

-Polaris

A link to this

Or

When did you read this?

Foul.  You know damn well it's been deleted but it WAS said.  BTW that's what the other people on your own thread told you as well.

-Polaris

[Sisterofshane]

M0keys wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But what I'm trying to say is that the decision destroy makes is that what they're doing doesn't matter! They don't matter! They're tools to satisfy your goal of destroying the Reapers.
And if they, the new entries into the "great big list of things worth fighting for," are just tools for your end-goal, and you'd sacrifice any other race, you're fighting for nothing.

"The value of life and its various forms don't matter, only the state of it still existing."

It is a belief so incredibly insane, I'd rather just wipe out the galaxy to preserve the dignity of our existences than save us all by betraying the very meaning of ever having lived at all. Maybe another galaxy's got a better shot in the big scheme of things.

Again, I think you are arguing your point incorrectly.  The only become TOOLS of the destruction if you USE them specifically to destroy.  As it happens, the crucible is the tool, and no one knew prior to meeting the catalyst that the Geth would be in danger.  If we had, we might have agreed to tell the geth to GTFO of the way.

But you can't save the Geth and still destroy the Reapers. Thus, they become a part of a mechanism to destroy the Reapers. Their deaths are a requirement, a means to achieving a goal. If you choose destroy, you willingly destroy the Geth as well. It's not like you picked Destroy and later on were told the Geth died, too. You made the choice. It's not accidental.

Sisterofshane wrote...
Liken it to destroying the Alpha Relay - You killed three hundred thousand Batarians, but it wasn't their death that was specifically warranted to stop the Reapers from using the Relay Network

I didn't kill them. I did everything I could to warn them or save them. The story forced me to black out or get interrupted just so I could have Batarians tell me I was a jerk in Mass Effect 3. But at least it acknowledged I'd want to save them. It was a series of events that would lead to their death. But a series can be stopped, and I did everything I could.

The Geth dying and the Reapers dying were mutually inclusive in a single, galaxy-spanning event.

So an acknowledgement of trying to save the Geth, even futiley, would have sold you on the destroy option?  In all honesty, did you think that you could go into the final battle against the Reapers and NOT have to sacrifice something OTHER than yourself?

And let's be honest about Aratoht -  do you think a two-hour warning was sufficient enough to allow a colony of 300,000 to evacuate?  It was a nice gesture, to be sure, but it was never going to happen.

What about Virmire?  Wasn't the victim a "tool" of your need to destroy the cloning facility, or was it justified because they both had a chance to "volunteer" first?  What would you have done if they were both pleading you to save them over the other?

Let's face the facts, the races of the galaxy (the Geth included) put their trust in you to end the threat of the Reapers.  We knew we couldn't win conventionally, so at this point we are all hands down.  If at any point in time the leaders of the galaxy (again, Geth included) thought that you weren't going to see it through, they probably would have never put their supposed "sacred" trust in you to begin with.  And, to be honest, if the Geth came to the battle not willing to sacrifice every last one of themselves to stop the Reapers (or hereby, allowing me to sacrifice THEM for the sake of the galaxy) then they have no place being there.

[The Almighty Ali]

I liked more the " You wanna defeat the reapers, well destroy the galaxy then" with the endings.

Not even the reapers would do that much damage.

[Gen Petitt]

To end them you must kill the enemy no other option is available