319 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

ohupthis wrote...
there's NOTHING meritorious about them, they kill hence they will die.

By this logic, the turians must die for the First Contact War.
They killed almost a thousand of our people for no reason at all. They must die.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

unoriginalname1133 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

unoriginalname1133 wrote...
Is there actually any debate that the Reapers are the bad guys? I can't imagine anyone arguing that genocide isn't a bad thing, and the Reapers have committed genocide countless times. It doesn't matter why they did it; some things are just downright evil, genocide among them

The Reapers don't commit genocide if they can avoid it. They "elevate" organic species to immortality as Reapers.
As such, I can argue that, while not ideal, preserving organic life in Reaper form and opening way for new life is better than Synthetics simply destroying all organic life without even offering a second life.

I think that you are working from the same false assumption that the Catalyst did; namely that synthetics will always kill organics. Your potential interactions with EDI and the Geth refute this. There is also an assumption that becoming an abomination is better than being murdered along with the rest of your race (genocide was still present either way). Without these basic assumtions, the Reapers' many genocides become even more sinister, as they are rendered pointless on top of everything else. Incidently, I would have loved the chance to make this argument to the Catalyst in the game as well.

OH so would I believe me, however that's rather difficult, because we get 3 options, R=Reapers gone(YIPPEE!!) B=Reapers still reapin'(BOOOO!!),G=Reapers still reapin'(BOOOO) but NOW WE'RE RELATED TO THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry but, RED is it, be damned the consequences, (sorry EDI, GETH) but I'm not going to call a plant, one of my cousins!!

[Joe Del Toro]

MisterJB wrote...
Hardly. Comparing something as simple as a breakfast to the ending of the trilogy is a disservice.
A rotten egg is a rotten egg. Eating it will not nourish me, it will make me sick. However, all three endings bring negative consequences but also positive that you overlooked.

Good lord way to nitpick an analogy into oblivion. My point still stands that the choice is being made into a terrible one for no reason.
 

The consequences of Destroy make sense and are a logical result of the option you picked. You picked an ultimate end of the spectrum; there will be no form of compromise with the Reapers, they must be destroyed. As such, the Crucible destroys the Cycle that brough the galaxy so much pain and suffering but also target the wonders than the Reapers created. The Relays, the Citadel and the Geth who were using Reaper code to gain true life. 
The consequences of this choice are in tune with its spirit. Same as with Control where none of this technology is destroyed.

That was one big paragraph that basically stated just how arbitrary this is. Yes, destroying things is in spirit with an ending labelled 'Destroy'. That doesn't mean it should be a set 'choice' to begin with.

[balance5050]

"For the sake of more debate, would you change your decision if Shepard survived the control ending?"

No.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

MisterJB wrote...

unoriginalname1133 wrote...
I think that you are working from the same false assumption that the Catalyst did; namely that synthetics will always kill organics. Your potential interactions with EDI and the Geth refute this. There is also an assumption that becoming an abomination is better than being murdered along with the rest of your race (genocide was still present either way). Without these basic assumtions, the Reapers' many genocides become even more sinister, as they are rendered pointless on top of everything else. Incidently, I would have loved the chance to make this argument to the Catalyst in the game as well.

War between two different people sharing the same space is inevitable.
Cooperation in the face of a common enemy is nothing new and that is the basis of turian/krogan and quarian/geth cooperation. Once the Reapers are gone, the peace won't last.

"Abomination" is a point of view. Life is better than death even if it life as a Reaper. And that is my point of view. Of course, I'm not surprised many don't share it.

OH come on now, you can't be serious!!!

You'd prefer running through the galaxy, KILLING TRILLIONS as a reaper, over self-determination?
You really are out there, perhaps increasing your meds, might help this delusiveness!!

[MisterJB]

Averdi wrote...
Well, first, regardless of what you may think about the ending choices and their appropriateness, my Shepard has a pretty solid track record of avoiding choices between bad options.  He did it when he made peace between the geth and quarians.  He would call your sentiment cowardly defeatist twaddle and look for a better solution.

I would tell him the best possible solution already exists. It is called "Synthesis".

Finally, do you think an ending where Shepard died, had his/her sacrifice honored, but the relays were left intact and galactic rebuilding could commence is a sunshine and bunny ending?  I'd like a range of options, based on past choices, that include Shepard living, but I'd generally be ok with that type of ending (previous sentence).

Sunshine and bunnies is the catalyst letting you go back in time with a reaper gun to prevent the invasion in the first place.  In a post-invasion galaxy where billions are dead, some races almost completely, I really don't think we need to worry about an ending being too bright.

Yes, I do. Maybe I could accept a more happy ending if Shepard's choices spread through the entire final battle dictated which races would survive, which would be extinct.
But that is not in the game. All of the casualties inflicted during the war are not a direct result of a player's choice, they're just standard in war.

[MisterJB]

ohupthis wrote...

You'd prefer running through the galaxy, KILLING TRILLIONS as a reaper, over self-determination?

No, I'd prefer to be alive as a reaper than have my entire race extinct.
It's not a prime solution but anything is better than the alternative.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Hadeedak wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I think there's a decent logical case for picking Control even without dead Geth. Particularly if you clear up a few practical issues, like how you can control the reapers while dead.

It would be a minority choice, but I'm sure some would take it.  Even more would take it if the story leading up to the final choice wasn't so heavy handedly anti-Control - like allowing Shepard to show some sympathy with the objective, while opposing TIM's methods.

Synthesis is just gibberish.

control isn't any better, those big-baddies are still reapin'.

Based on what, exactly?

they're still in existence?

[wantedman dan]

MisterJB wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

You'd prefer running through the galaxy, KILLING TRILLIONS as a reaper, over self-determination?

No, I'd prefer to be alive as a reaper than have my entire race extinct.
It's not a prime solution but anything is better than the alternative.

So you'd rather live life as a slave than die a free man. I'm glad to see you have your priorities straight.

[wolfstanus]

Destroy only destroyed reapers... Then again I'm not retarded enough to rush the game and having low ems. A lot of people are retarded like that.

[Necrotron]

If it only destroyed the Reapers, I would say, boy, that was terrible writing and I'd wonder why the Catalyst was ever put in there in the first place.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

I don't understand why the ending has to be an arbitrary point where the story says 'Right, stop everything, choose here.' Why can't it simply play out according to how I played the last 3 games. That way, there is a perfect ending, but you don't 'choose' it, you PLAY for it. As much as anyone wants to defend the three choices we are given, there's no excuse for a choice to be thrown up like this. Why wouldn't you want better than this?

Ask E/A, they're the "all seeing eye"

[d-boy15]

"It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - emiliano zapata

one of many reasons that make me choose destroy.

[MisterJB]

ohupthis wrote...
they're still in existence?

If you believe that the Reapers; who are clearly sapient creatures; will always kill organics; regardless of Control or Synthesis; you are then admitting that Synthetics will always kill organics and, therefore, the Catalyst was right.
Logic then dictates that what the Reapers do is necessary.

[Sousabird]

I would destroy esspecially if only reapers die it's the perfect ending, the only good thing about control is it spares the geth and EDI

[wantedman dan]

MisterJB wrote...

ohupthis wrote...
they're still in existence?

If you believe that the Reapers; who are clearly sapient creatures; will always kill organics; regardless of Control or Synthesis; you are then admitting that Synthetics will always kill organics and, therefore, the Catalyst was right.
Logic then dictates that what the Reapers do is necessary.

There are several confounding variables you're neglecting, such as the capacity of Shepard to take--and subsequently maintain--control of the reapers, as well as the fact that the Reapers are transcendent of the stereotypical Mass Effect defintion of "synthetics."

[MisterJB]

wantedman dan wrote...
So you'd rather live life as a slave than die a free man. I'm glad to see you have your priorities straight.

I'm certain whoever killed me will stand in awe of my brave sacrifice for the ideal of freedom...for about two seconds before moving on with its life and never think about me again.
On the other hand, while there is life, there is hope to regain freedom.

[wantedman dan]

MisterJB wrote...

I'm certain whoever killed me will stand in awe of my brave sacrifice for the ideal of freedom...for about two seconds before moving on with its life and never think about me again.

On the other hand, while there is life, there is hope to regain freedom.

So basically your only reason to live at this point is to leave positive impressions onto others about your existence, not doing what you know to be the right thing.

I can say that you're doing a ******-poor job of doing that, thus far.

[Averdi]

MisterJB wrote...

I would tell him the best possible solution already exists. It is called "Synthesis".

Ok, well, while in my opinion accepting any ending (expecially synthesis) is nuts, the bigger problem with your position is that you support the theme of the story contradicting itself.  Shepard turns from fixer to slave, and that's a bad thing objectively, not just relatively.

Yes, I do. Maybe I could accept a more happy ending if Shepard's choices spread through the entire final battle dictated which races would survive, which would be extinct.
But that is not in the game. All of the casualties inflicted during the war are not a direct result of a player's choice, they're just standard in war.

Well, I can't do much with that.  I don't accept that any outcome not directly controlled by the player is irrelevant to the 'happiness' of the story.  Staking out a position that only dire consequences in the ending choice are acceptable is just as extreme a position as those insisting that only sunshine and bunnies be the outcome of victory.

[MisterJB]

wantedman dan wrote...
So basically your only reason to live at this point is to leave positive impressions onto others about your existence, not doing what you know to be the right thing.

I can say that you're doing a ******-poor job of doing that, thus far.

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective concepts.
My main reason to live is the same as everyone else's. Self-preservation instincts.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

MisterJB wrote...

ohupthis wrote...
there's NOTHING meritorious about them, they kill hence they will die.

By this logic, the turians must die for the First Contact War.
They killed almost a thousand of our people for no reason at all. They must die.

We, Human and Turian, LOST enough during that war, time to move forward.

There were losses on both sides, so could you find me another example?

[wantedman dan]

MisterJB wrote...

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective concepts.
My main reason to live is the same as everyone else's. Self-preservation instincts.

Your generalizations amuse me.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

MisterJB wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

You'd prefer running through the galaxy, KILLING TRILLIONS as a reaper, over self-determination?

No, I'd prefer to be alive as a reaper than have my entire race extinct.
It's not a prime solution but anything is better than the alternative.

Uh HUH, yeah, killing trillions. sociopath.

[111987]

d-boy15 wrote...

"It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - emiliano zapata

one of many reasons that make me choose destroy.

But you die in the other endings too...

[MisterJB]

Averdi wrote...
Ok, well, while in my opinion accepting any ending (expecially synthesis) is nuts, the bigger problem with your position is that you support the theme of the story contradicting itself.  Shepard turns from fixer to slave, and that's a bad thing objectively, not just relatively.

I do not accept the idea that picking any of the existing endings turns Shepard into a slave.
I will, however, acknowledge that Shepard's dialogue during the final sequence is horrible.

Well, I can't do much with that.  I don't accept that any outcome not directly controlled by the player is irrelevant to the 'happiness' of the story.  Staking out a position that only dire consequences in the ending choice are acceptable is just as extreme a position as those insisting that only sunshine and bunnies be the outcome of victory.

I do not claim that onyl dire consequences are acceptable. I simply do not wish for an option where the positive consequences outmatch the negative ones by so much that their presence is negligible.
For instance, destroy the Reapers, the geth are alive, the Relays are fine and we can even study the Reaper corpses.