281 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

Apathy1989 wrote...

Destroy is an option for either side I think.

Control seems more renegade. Its pragmatic.

Synthesis seems more paragon. Its a dreamy future that makes no sense.

Desstroy fits either side. Control, if it works and isn't simply a trap, goes whichever way Shepard goes. Synthesis is so utterly abhorent that I can only view it as a very renegade choice.

[Vigilant111]

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

 If paragon Shepard is supposed to be a pragmatist and wants fairness to all, then surely controlling the Reapers or fusing organics with them so that the Reaper's purpose no longer exists is the best thing to do, as a paragon Shepard who makes paragon choices, hence blue/green.

Destroy is red, because it's a typically renegade thing to do. Shepard just blows everything up like the usual renegade jerk. It's wasteful and crass.

OP did you play the Mass Effect Series? Sounds like you fully believe what the catalyst has to say, and you Cannot see through this lies. Also sounds like your just a bit upset you got tricked by silly color coding. They tricked you get over it. Destroy is pro life. (Geth/Edi don't die either) Please learn ME. lol

Wait they don't die? please explain cos I am having a hard time with my conscience, I mean if I was gonna stop and think before pressing destroy buttom which I did, my thoughts would be for Geth and EDI

Another precisation, EDI "apparently" sometimes survives the red ending, at least some claim it to be so, as it never happened to me, there's no indication as of what happens to the geth however, s/he's just assuming...

Bioware themsleves had said EDI lives in the Destroy option, also confirmed by that one chick Jessica Chobot's twitter that Catalyst indeed lies.

That information shouldn't even matter, can't you smell bullsh*t when hes telling you all these things? Lmao. If your that gullible.. yesh!

No I didn't trust it, I just felt guilty for killing Geth and EDI, whether the Catalyst is lying or not meant nothing to me, synthesis, if its not the worst, it is certainly no more special than the others, to me its destroy everytime, two playthroughs

[Ageless Face]

Reorte wrote...

Destroy is no better by any estimation, since you obliterate that entire race, which is why an option to argue the points laid out---that organics are at fault, and we should (and shall, given the circumstances) thereafter treat synthetics with the respect and dignity deserving of every sentient being, rendering the ‘Cycle’ purposeless---is sorely needed.

The possibility of it taking out the geth was a cheap shot from BioWare to make it look like a bad option. But even then they are simply casualties of war.

Oh, really? It does not matter that you kill the synthetics as long as the reapers are dead? 

In that case, every country which has issues with another needs to go to war. People will get killed? No matter! We still won!

[Pride Demon]

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

 If paragon Shepard is supposed to be a pragmatist and wants fairness to all, then surely controlling the Reapers or fusing organics with them so that the Reaper's purpose no longer exists is the best thing to do, as a paragon Shepard who makes paragon choices, hence blue/green.

Destroy is red, because it's a typically renegade thing to do. Shepard just blows everything up like the usual renegade jerk. It's wasteful and crass.

OP did you play the Mass Effect Series? Sounds like you fully believe what the catalyst has to say, and you Cannot see through this lies. Also sounds like your just a bit upset you got tricked by silly color coding. They tricked you get over it. Destroy is pro life. (Geth/Edi don't die either) Please learn ME. lol

Wait they don't die? please explain cos I am having a hard time with my conscience, I mean if I was gonna stop and think before pressing destroy buttom which I did, my thoughts would be for Geth and EDI

Another precisation, EDI "apparently" sometimes survives the red ending, at least some claim it to be so, as it never happened to me, there's no indication as of what happens to the geth however, s/he's just assuming...

Bioware themsleves had said EDI lives in the Destroy option, also confirmed by that one chick Jessica Chobot's twitter that Catalyst indeed lies.

That information shouldn't even matter, can't you smell bullsh*t when hes telling you all these things? Lmao. If your that gullible.. yesh!

Information always matters... Misinformation just causes confusion and spreads false beliefs...
I'm aware of what bioware said regarding EDI, they also said the Normandy had crashlanded on Mars, though...

I would prefer if rather than call me gullible you'd accept the fact we have no informations as of yet about what actually happens to the geth (which is fact, as much as you twist and turn) and next time say clearly the fact you think they survive is just your assumption...

[Vigilant111]

HagarIshay wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Destroy is no better by any estimation, since you obliterate that entire race, which is why an option to argue the points laid out---that organics are at fault, and we should (and shall, given the circumstances) thereafter treat synthetics with the respect and dignity deserving of every sentient being, rendering the ‘Cycle’ purposeless---is sorely needed.

The possibility of it taking out the geth was a cheap shot from BioWare to make it look like a bad option. But even then they are simply casualties of war.

Oh, really? It does not matter that you kill the synthetics as long as the reapers are dead? 

In that case, every country which has issues with another needs to go to war. People will get killed? No matter! We still won!

We certainly do not gloat about it, we accept it as an atrocious consequence of war for the mistake we made when we created synthetics in an attempt to make organic life better with total disregard of synthetics welfare

Modifié par Vigilant111, 26 mai 2012 - 09:55 .

[Bounercz]

In my opinion those 2 are realy bad,its like youve got cancer fight with it for like 3 years and when youre finaly beat this disease then you just shoot yoursel in head without reason ,i dont know whats good at turning everyone into husk or control something that cant be controled

[Ageless Face]

Vigilant111 wrote...

We certainly do not gloat about it, we accept it as an atrocious consequence of war for the mistake we made when we made synthetics to make life better

From what I know about wars, the leaders are trying as hard as they can to save people. If you are able to save the innocent, even if it means to let the criminal go, then democratic laws will tell you to save the civillians. In both synthesis and control you are given this option, plus the reapers won't walk away and continue to murder. I understand why people will choose destroy, but it's still looks like an complete waste of synthetic lives to me. 

Modifié par HagarIshay, 26 mai 2012 - 10:08 .

[Reorte]

HagarIshay wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Destroy is no better by any estimation, since you obliterate that entire race, which is why an option to argue the points laid out---that organics are at fault, and we should (and shall, given the circumstances) thereafter treat synthetics with the respect and dignity deserving of every sentient being, rendering the ‘Cycle’ purposeless---is sorely needed.

The possibility of it taking out the geth was a cheap shot from BioWare to make it look like a bad option. But even then they are simply casualties of war.

Oh, really? It does not matter that you kill the synthetics as long as the reapers are dead? 

In that case, every country which has issues with another needs to go to war. People will get killed? No matter! We still won!

If it's a necessary evil, then yes. Of course I'd prefer it if the geth survive but I've at least I won't bow and scrape to the enemy because I'm too scared to make hard choices.

[Reorte]

HagarIshay wrote...

From what I know about wars, the leaders are trying as hard as they can to save people. If you are able to save the innocent, even if it means to let the criminal go, then democratic laws will tell you to save the civillians. In both synthesis and control you are given this option, plus the reapers won't walk away and continue to murder. I understand why people will choose destroy, but it's still looks like an complete waste of synthetic lives to me.

I don't trust that the Reapers will walk away in control and what's done to everyone in synthesis is far more objectionable than the end of one species. I'm not going to massively gamble everyone's fate because of one group.

In wars governments will always permit attacks that might kill civilians. Victory would be impossible otherwise. When it comes to criminals the police will not simply let the criminal go rather than risk anyone else, whether it's a high-speed chase or a nutcase holding a hostage. If you point a gun at someone's head they certainly won't let you go free. Sometimes innocent people will be hurt or killed because of that but not as many as would be if you just let the crooks have their own way.

Modifié par Reorte, 26 mai 2012 - 10:16 .

[Flubberlub]

Controlling the most powerful and wisest beings in existence is a good choice
Destroying an evil race purely built up of war criminals is a good choice
Synthesising all and creating harmony between all races with a consensus built in is a good choice
But which one is best? That is up to you

[Vigilant111]

HagarIshay wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

We certainly do not gloat about it, we accept it as an atrocious consequence of war for the mistake we made when we made synthetics to make life better

From what I know about wars, the leaders are trying as hard as they can to save people. If you are able to save the innocent, even if it means to let the criminal go, then democratic laws will tell you to save the civillians. In both synthesis and control you are given this option, plus the reapers won't walk away and continue to murder. I understand why people will choose destroy, but it's still looks like an complete waste of synthetic lives to me. 

You have a very good point

But u must take into account what "saving"  means, too much is unknown about the effects of synthesis/control, I do not want to take gamble, and it is a numbers game

Javik killed his men to "save" them from being used by reapers, because he knew his men would hate it

The French scuttled their ships from falling into German hands...

[Ageless Face]

Reorte wrote...

If it's a necessary evil, then yes. Of course I'd prefer it if the geth survive but I've at least I won't bow and scrape to the enemy because I'm too scared to make hard choices.

Bow? No, you won't be bowing to anything. You are not surrendering to anyone. Your goal will be accomplished with any of the endings. Ending the reaper war, find a solution for saving the galaxy. 

In control, you are dominating the reapers. You will decide what they will do. You are not answering to the catalyst.

In synthesis, you have found a solution for everyone to live equally, no more the fear of organics above/under synthetics. And the reapers will leave the galaxy alone.

And yes, in destroy you are killing the reapers and making all organic lives be saved, letiting them have free will and what to do with their lives. But is it worth giving organics completley free will- which before the war they already had and can have again even if not choosing destroy- and by that also killing synthetics, which deserve to live just as much as any organic?

 
I don't trust that the Reapers will walk away in control and what's done to everyone in synthesis is far more objectionable than the end of one species. I'm not going to massively gamble everyone's fate because of one group.

In wars governments will always permit attacks that might kill civilians. Victory would be impossible otherwise. When it comes to criminals the police will not simply let the criminal go rather than risk anyone else, whether it's a high-speed chase or a nutcase holding a hostage. If you point a gun at someone's head they certainly won't let you go free. Sometimes innocent people will be hurt or killed because of that but not as many as would be if you just let the crooks have their own way.

 

The only reason the reapers won't go away in control is becasue you told them not to. 

Of couse govrements will permit attacks. But if they are can find a solution which will prevents civillians of getting hurt, they will do it. And if the estimates of casualties are too high, they will try to find another way. Beause if you are not protecting your civillians, the people you are sworn to defend, then you are no good at your job, and you are no better than your enemies. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Bounercz wrote...

In my opinion those 2 are realy bad,its like youve got cancer fight with it for like 3 years and when youre finaly beat this disease then you just shoot yoursel in head without reason ,i dont know whats good at turning everyone into husk or control something that cant be controled

Only if you assume people are being turned into husks, and that the Reapers can't be controlled. 

That would be the product of ingoring what you see and deliberately imagining a negative outcome from nothing. 

[LelianaHawke]

You can't predict the future.

Control and synthesis are justified on the assumption that synthetics will go to war with organics in the future. But everything we saw in ME3 goes against that. The Geth didn't want to go to war with the Quarians, and the majority were peaceful. EDI rebelled against her creators using her for nefarious ends.

Destroy is justified on the grounds of certainty. You can never predict the future with certainty, so any argument that says 'synthetics will kill in future' is to be discarded, as it has no supporting evidence. The only certain thing is that the reapers killed innocent people based on a faulty prediction.

Destroy is therefore the most ethical choice.

Modifié par LelianaHawke, 26 mai 2012 - 10:52 .

[Vigilant111]

Catalyst is the arrogant one, its the inflexible one, law of average dictates, when experiment is repeated enough something surprising will happen like maintaining galactic peace without the reapers' interference

[Bounercz]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Bounercz wrote...

In my opinion those 2 are realy bad,its like youve got cancer fight with it for like 3 years and when youre finaly beat this disease then you just shoot yoursel in head without reason ,i dont know whats good at turning everyone into husk or control something that cant be controled

Only if you assume people are being turned into husks, and that the Reapers can't be controlled. 

That would be the product of ingoring what you see and deliberately imagining a negative outcome from nothing. 

Ignoring? have you even played ME1,2? whole lore said that they cant be controled and synthesis is making husk, even saren said this ....dont care about some f*** kid which said whole 5 years you played was lie ? ...rly play again ME1 and 2 and then you will know that red is only right end .

[nitefyre410]

Gilgamesh - King of Heroes finds this "Act" of heroism that this Shepard committed ... A mockery, utterly pathetic and boring.


That's what all three chooses are a mockery and more of Bioware forced and contrived notions of trying to play at being "Meaningful" and "Deep". It like the ending of Mass Effect 3 was written by a bunch Emo kids who are mad that daddy did not buy them a BMW...

And Gilgamesh's expression matches mine when it comes to the endings.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 26 mai 2012 - 11:26 .

[Festilence]

comrade gando wrote...

OP is actually harbinger

I lol'd.

[Archonsg]

nitefyre410 wrote...




Gilgamesh - King of Heroes finds this "Act" of heroism that this Shepard committed ... A mockery, utterly pathetic and boring.


That's what all three chooses are a mockery and more of Bioware forced and contrived notions of trying to play at being "Meaningful" and "Deep". It like the ending of Mass Effect 3 was written by a bunch Emo kids who are mad that daddy did not buy them a BMW...

And Gilgamesh's expression matches mine when it comes to the endings.

QFT.
All three endings are a mockery.
Just remember that you *are* accepting, without so much a fight, three death sentence suicides given to you by the thing that IS STILL KILLING your allies while it tries to fool you into thinking this is a noble sacrifice.

It is controlling the Reapers.
It could stop them from killing anyone at any time, it it truly wanted to honestly talk.
 
 

[Erield]

Destroy = Genocide

Control = Slavery on a scale and magnitude that any slaveholders that have ever existed would have found appalling

Synthesis = A mad scientist cackling in his lab as he pushes buttons to activate powers that gods would tremble with fear to play with--that won't even solve supposed problem.

There are no good options for the ending; just disgusting, reprehensible, or evil.

[nitefyre410]

Archonsg wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

*snip* 


Gilgamesh - King of Heroes finds this "Act" of heroism that this Shepard committed ... A mockery, utterly pathetic and boring.


That's what all three chooses are a mockery and more of Bioware forced and contrived notions of trying to play at being "Meaningful" and "Deep". It like the ending of Mass Effect 3 was written by a bunch Emo kids who are mad that daddy did not buy them a BMW...

And Gilgamesh's expression matches mine when it comes to the endings.

QFT.
All three endings are a mockery.
Just remember that you *are* accepting, without so much a fight, three death sentence suicides given to you by the thing that IS STILL KILLING your allies while it tries to fool you into thinking this is a noble sacrifice.

It is controlling the Reapers.
It could stop them from killing anyone at any time, it it truly wanted to honestly talk.
 
 

 

Thats what so frustating about  Bioware trying to force this drivel down my throat as being deep and meaningful.  Its not even that, its childish nonsense trying to mascarade as deep, high minded and meaningful.  If they wanted to have meaning heroic sacfrice ending... Shepard should have fought and LOST ... while talking about why they and those after them would continue to fight even if it was hopeless to defeat the Reapers.

This endings just so that Bioware is nowhere near as good as they or others claim them to be - alot of their greatness in the end is just fluff and it showed in the end. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 26 mai 2012 - 01:10 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Bounercz wrote...


Ignoring? have you even played ME1,2? whole lore said that they cant be controled

Nope. Actually, it points to the opposite. The Illusive Man found a way to control them, and the Catalyst has been doing that for millions of years. 

and synthesis is making husk, even saren said this

Nope. The Reapers version of synthesis, which is more eradicating the organic side in favor of making them completely machine-like, is creating husks. Saren's version was a noble and idealistic goal corrupted by Sovereign. The actual affects of synthesis are unknown, and can't be. It's imposing the will of one over everybody, so I don't pick it. 

....dont care about some f*** kid which said whole 5 years you played was lie ? ...rly play again ME1 and 2 and then you will know that red is only right end .

You assume much. 

I do care what the kid says, but more because I don't trust it. 

If I play ME1 and 2 again it will reveal nothing that I don't already know. 

[Duncaaaaaan]

Damn I got some people buttravaged.

[Reorte]

Erield wrote...

Destroy = Genocide

I do wish people would stop saying this. It's only genocide if you're deliberately doing it just to kill the geth. It's like the difference between murder and manslaughter. Motive is massively important.

[Reorte]

HagarIshay wrote...

Reorte wrote...

If it's a necessary evil, then yes. Of course I'd prefer it if the geth survive but I've at least I won't bow and scrape to the enemy because I'm too scared to make hard choices.

Bow? No, you won't be bowing to anything. You are not surrendering to anyone. Your goal will be accomplished with any of the endings. Ending the reaper war, find a solution for saving the galaxy. 

In control, you are dominating the reapers. You will decide what they will do. You are not answering to the catalyst.

If you believe you'll have full control with your personality intact (which doesn't sound much like dying to me even if the body is gone). A huge gamble, considering what the Catalyst represents. And that's without considering the dangers of giving that much power to one person.

In synthesis, you have found a solution for everyone to live equally, no more the fear of organics above/under synthetics. And the reapers will leave the galaxy alone.

That's just a load of nonsense. It does nothing to address the issue the Catalyst claims to be there to prevent. It does nothing to make everyone treat each other equally (look how badly we treat other people who are members of exactly the same species as us for heaven's sake). It imposes a hugely invasive change on everyone. It'll destroy every non-technological life-bearing planet (no evolution == no adapation == death the nex. It's infinitely more vile than losing one species as collateral damage. And it's utterly ludicrous.

And yes, in destroy you are killing the reapers and making all organic lives be saved, letiting them have free will and what to do with their lives. But is it worth giving organics completley free will- which before the war they already had and can have again even if not choosing destroy- and by that also killing synthetics, which deserve to live just as much as any organic?

If you question whether it's worth letting people have free will then I really don't know what to say. As for synthetics deserving to live, everyone deserves to live. You can't save them all.

The only reason the reapers won't go away in control is becasue you told them not to.

Again, only if you believe that. I don't, it's far too convenient. It's far too like what TIM believed.

Of couse govrements will permit attacks. But if they are can find a solution which will prevents civillians of getting hurt, they will do it. And if the estimates of casualties are too high, they will try to find another way. Beause if you are not protecting your civillians, the people you are sworn to defend, then you are no good at your job, and you are no better than your enemies.

And that's a big if. It assumes that the other choices aren't too risky or too unacceptable. They could surrender straight away, after all. It's all about, as I think Garrus says, the ruthless calculus of war.