689 réponses à ce sujet

[frylock23]

111987 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

111987 wrote...

Kelwing wrote...

Only choice I ever make. Until the starbrat gives me a valid and BELIEVABLE reason to except what he says as truth. I'll kill him and his toys ever damn time.

I hate this reasoning. If you don't believe the Catalyst, than you shouldn't believe that blowing up the tubes activates Destroy.

Nice strawman.

Believing the ideals presented in the endings is fundamentally and inherently not associated with how they're carried though.

I don't believe the catalyst either. He told me I was going to die because of my synthetic implants (The same implants that Shepard needs to survive), when I very clearly lived. Going off of this, there's nothing to say the geth or EDI also didn't survive.

It's not a strawman argument because your argument is different from Kelwing's. Or at least that's how I interpret it, because it is left vague.

The Catalyst also never said Shepard would die. You just made that assumption.

Besides, these are two different arguments. The reasoning I am referring to is that if you don't believe what the Catalyst is saying, you should choose Destroy, when in reality you have to have some degree of trust with the Catalyst.

No, in reality you aren't given a choice which is just one more reason to dislike the endings. You have to have some desgree of trust in the Catalyst whether you trust him or not. BioWare wrote the game that way. I personally would prefer option four -> Flipping Star Brat the bird and telling Hackett to give 'em Hell.

[Lost Mercenary]

Sisterofshane wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

Speak for yourelf, you're the one that believes that synthetics will always wipe out organics.

By picking destroy, I am putting my faith in the fact that Synthetics will not always trend toward genocide.  You won't even give them the benefit of the doubt.

This so hard!!!

I picked Red because I knew the Catalyst was talking out of his ghostly backside. Synthetics will  not always destroy organics (minus Reapers) since the Geth/Quarian peace and the EDI/Joker romance proved otherwise.

My Sheaprd has faith in the people he knows and whom he helped build bridges bewteen DNA and metal. We will destroy the Reapers and the cycle will end.

Note: STILL HATE ALL THE ENDINGS!!!!

[Grimwick]

MisterJB wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
Insults without basis. Why am I not surprised?

Literally, you have never, ever, EVER explained why you dislike Destroy. All you do is stroke your Synth-peen and tell yourself how amazing and awesome it is.

You're the embodiment of "I don't like it, therefore it is wrong".

I don't like Destroy because it presents the most simplistic solution to an incredibly complex problem, it's primitive, neanderthal. It disregards the warnings of the Catalyst and gvies up amazing knowledge out of fear.

And yes, claiming that the only possible solution to a conflict with another sentient species is the destruction of one of the sides is close-minded. If I tried to say the same about the turians, I would be savagely attacked and yet, I'm sure they seemded just as hostile during the FCW as the Reapers do now.

What...

For a start, nobody ever claimed it was the only possible solution... simply the most practical and the best out of the three.

And since when did simple solutions become 'primitive' or 'neanderthal'? That's the most absurd thing I've heard all week. The most simple solution is in 99% of cases the best solution.

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
Insults without basis. Why am I not surprised?

Literally, you have never, ever, EVER explained why you dislike Destroy. All you do is stroke your Synth-peen and tell yourself how amazing and awesome it is.

You're the embodiment of "I don't like it, therefore it is wrong".

I don't like Destroy because it presents the most simplistic solution to an incredibly complex problem, it's primitive, neanderthal. It disregards the warnings of the Catalyst and gvies up amazing knowledge out of fear.

And yes, claiming that the only possible solution to a conflict with another sentient species is the destruction of one of the sides is close-minded. If I tried to say the same about the turians, I would be savagely attacked and yet, I'm sure they seemded just as hostile during the FCW as the Reapers do now.

So just because the solution is simple means it's a bad solution? Please, don't become a scientist. Not everything requires a Rube Goldberg-esque climax.

No one AT ALL said Destroy is the "only" possible solution, merely the "best" (quoted because of subjectivity). "Best" does not, in any way, imply "only".

The turians are a horrible analogy. They never committed interstellar genocide based on knee-jerk logic to a nonexistent problem.

[Clayless]

dreamgazer wrote...

This is true. It does prove, however, that the catalyst slants his language towards the worst-case scenario instead of the best-case. He wouldn't bring it up without the intention of Shepard contemplating his synthetic nature and whether s/he'd die.
What else is he slanting in this fashion?

Or he's a logical machine relaying information and has no reason to sugarcoat the situation.

Sisterofshane wrote...

I would call that to imply. Either way, he never directly states that Shepard will die, and we know it is possible for Shepard to live. He also never directly states that EDi and the Geth will die. Therefore, it may be possible for them to live.

Imply is what I meant to say (if you read my quote, what I say make no sense due to a typo). The assumption that a synthetic will survive the destroy ending because an organic with synthetic parts can survive is just that; an assumption.

o Ventus wrote...

"You can destroy all synthetic life if you want. Even you are partly synthetic."

If he wasn't saying that to stress the notion that Shepard can die, then why did he bother?

When he says those words, one would normally take it as meaning "Ok then, Shepard is going to die." If they pick the Destroy ending and see Shepard survive, they're likely going say to themselves- "Huh. What else was he lying to me about?"

That's the problem there, assuming he said Shepard will die. He never said, or implied, that.

[MisterJB]

Sisterofshane wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

Speak for yourelf, you're the one that believes that synthetics will always wipe out organics.

By picking destroy, I am putting my faith in the fact that Synthetics will not always trend toward genocide.  You won't even give them the benefit of the doubt.

I did not pick Synthesis because I believed all synthetics were geared towards genocide.
I did it because it extends the possible benefits of transhumanism and it does this to every single life form, regardless of financial status which would be impossible otherwise.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

^ There are many logical reasons why some of us choose Destroy. Why should you care and/or berate on how WE decide the fate of the Galaxy. It's all opinion and preferences. 

I created this thread for people who support, not for people who think others are wrong and berate them because their opinion is different

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 27 mai 2012 - 09:03 .

[PrimeOfValor]

Sending the reapers into obilivion is rewarding enough for me, out of the all outcomes in ME3 (other than major plotholes, syntheitic dying or not, and crappy StarKid).

[Sisterofshane]

@Our_Last_Scene, we do know from metagaming, however, that it is possible to activate the Crucible and have it NOT affect all Synthetics. We never gain control over EDI and the Geth if we choose to control the Reapers. It would make no sense for the same machine to target all synthetics with one option, and only the Reapers in another.

As I said earlier, I believe if the Crucible is properly built, it only affects the things that are directly connected to the Citadel - the Mass Relays and the Reapers. If it is poorly built, it affects everything.

[Grimwick]

MisterJB wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

Speak for yourelf, you're the one that believes that synthetics will always wipe out organics.

By picking destroy, I am putting my faith in the fact that Synthetics will not always trend toward genocide.  You won't even give them the benefit of the doubt.

I did not pick Synthesis because I believed all synthetics were geared towards genocide.
I did it because it extends the possible benefits of transhumanism and it does this to every single life form, regardless of financial status which would be impossible otherwise.

That is most certainly not substantiated by any evidence.

[frylock23]

dreamgazer wrote...

Luviagelita wrote...

It's funny if you think of it at Shepard's view.

Synthesis:
Oh, the Catalyst. So, you're controlling the Reapers. And you turned billions of people into something horrible. And you destroyed our homeworlds. Dude, you're totally right, I'll make everyone merge with you!

Control:
Oh, the Catalyst. So, you're controlling the Reapers. And you said the Illusive Man couldn't control you because you controlled him. And you're asking if I can control you. Dude, THAT makes sence!

Not quite. There are very sound reasonings behind each of the other options, and ways you can interpret their implications that speak to some very healthy benefits for organic life---and, potentially, for Shepard.  However, for every step you take towards a positive element in each of those options, you're met with either an unknown variable and/or an ethically troubling undercurrent. And in order to believe, you have to broker faith with the Reaper-controlling, cycle-designing catalyst.  There's a whole lot of complication going on.

Which basically boils down to BioWare giving us a game that gives us no way to win. And, while that might not be a big issue if they'd done it correctly, they tacked it onto the end of an epic trilogy where they'd set the bar of letting the player protagonist win against overwhelming odds in spectacular fashion in the previous two episodes, so it left a very, very bad taste in a lot of folks' mouths.

[o Ventus]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

"You can destroy all synthetic life if you want. Even you are partly synthetic."

If he wasn't saying that to stress the notion that Shepard can die, then why did he bother?

When he says those words, one would normally take it as meaning "Ok then, Shepard is going to die." If they pick the Destroy ending and see Shepard survive, they're likely going say to themselves- "Huh. What else was he lying to me about?"

That's the problem there, assuming he said Shepard will die. He never said, or implied, that.

Oh my god. What do you think the "Even you are partly synthetic..." part was intended for? Just to blow hot air?

[Ji99saw]

o Ventus wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...

So we resort to name calling now?  Once more, Losing a few casualties in war and Genocide are completly different. It doesn't matter who he was talking to the reaper threat was still very much present and you tried to make it seem as though it was not. And by the way Genocide is the complete oppisite of Sheps and everyone elses beliefs throught ou the entie trilogy even the reapers preseve life in the reaper ship. But if you believe that Commiting Genocide To Prevent Genocide is right then that Speaks volumes about you.

Oh please. You're another one of those idiots that thinks the Reapers honestly preserve people by melting them down and liquefying their brains? That doesn't only go against established biology and philosophy (You can't carry thoughts, ideas, or memories without a BRAIN), it's also a poor attempt to make a formerly cold and ruthless enemy sympathetic. That'd be like saying Hitler went through with the Holocaust because Jewish people picked on him when he was a child. Did you not listen to Mordin in ME2? Or Shepard on Rannoch? If there's anything left of the species inside the Reapers, it's NOT them anymore. "No art, replaced by tech, no glands, replaced by tech, no soul, replaced by tech." Shepard even says "Those races died thousands of years ago! You killed them! We're letting them rest in peace." The only "genocide" being committed is against the geth, but you technically did the same thing when you rewrote them and slaughtered a couple thousand of them over the course of the 3 games.

I'll just ignore the fact that you answered only half my points, but whatever.

Also, prior to just now, I didn't call you any names.

It's almost as if I can physically see your stupidity from my moniter. Once more this is SciFi and anything can happen, even Javik said that DNA are genetic Markers that hold experience, memories, ideas and that's why he knows so much about the Normandy crew without ever meeting them or in your case without having there brains. . Cold?, Ruthless?, Hitler? I highly doubt something as old and powerful as the reapers has any sort of hate or vicious intent and they Beleive that they are doing the right thing in order to preserve the galaxy see for everyone in the future and not just the ones hold the power right now. As far as mordin he was talking about Husks (collecters) and what Reapers are different. I don't like what the reapers do but I know it's not coplete Genocide and that species DNA is preserved forever. As far as Shepard is concerned he Auto Dialogue his way throgh the game and that's not what my Shep would say. Plenty of times Shep talked for himself and the player did not agree and since shep is whatever the player wants him to be that argument is invalid

[dreamgazer]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

This is true. It does prove, however, that the catalyst slants his language towards the worst-case scenario instead of the best-case. He wouldn't bring it up without the intention of Shepard contemplating his synthetic nature and whether s/he'd die.
What else is he slanting in this fashion?

Or he's a logical machine relaying information and has no reason to sugarcoat the situation.

If that's the case, then he wouldn't have a reason to address an unreliable variable in the first place.  It would be an irrelevant piece of data.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 27 mai 2012 - 09:05 .

[Clayless]

Sisterofshane wrote...

@Our_Last_Scene, we do know from metagaming, however, that it is possible to activate the Crucible and have it NOT affect all Synthetics. We never gain control over EDI and the Geth if we choose to control the Reapers. It would make no sense for the same machine to target all synthetics with one option, and only the Reapers in another.

As I said earlier, I believe if the Crucible is properly built, it only affects the things that are directly connected to the Citadel - the Mass Relays and the Reapers. If it is poorly built, it affects everything.

That's a nice theory.

Anyway I don't mind peoples subjective views on the endings, I'm just hovering around for all the "The Catalyst was lying" and "EDI survives the destroy ending" comments.

[lordofdogtown19]

The only way to know the Reaper threat is gone for sure is to destroy them

Supported

[Clayless]

dreamgazer wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

This is true. It does prove, however, that the catalyst slants his language towards the worst-case scenario instead of the best-case. He wouldn't bring it up without the intention of Shepard contemplating his synthetic nature and whether s/he'd die.
What else is he slanting in this fashion?

Or he's a logical machine relaying information and has no reason to sugarcoat the situation.

If that's the case, then he wouldn't have a reason to address an unreliable variable in the first place.  It would be an irrelevant piece of data.

"You might die if you chose that one" is pretty relevant data to me. The Catalyst is a machine of logic, but it is not illogical to relay that information to someone.

Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 27 mai 2012 - 09:08 .

[MisterJB]

o Ventus wrote...
So just because the solution is simple means it's a bad solution? Please, don't become a scientist. Not everything requires a Rube Goldberg-esque climax.

A piece of fiction that proposes itself as more complex than a childish battle of Good vs Evil does.

No one AT ALL said Destroy is the "only" possible solution, merely the "best" (quoted because of subjectivity). "Best" does not, in any way, imply "only".

"We destroy them or they destroy us" implies it is the only solution.

The turians are a horrible analogy. They never committed interstellar genocide based on knee-jerk logic to a nonexistent problem.

Actually, they did. The krogan will be extinct eventually if we don't cure the genophage not to mention the DoomsDay Bomb on Tuchanka. And, ultimately, the turians are imperialistic, they subjugate "lesser" species and turn them into client races which was the purpose of the FCW. However, we found a different solution to keep our indepedence other than a campaign to destroy all turians.

And the problem is as real to the Catalyst as the Krogan Rebellions were to the turians; we simply don't know as much as it does.

Also, the Reapers don't commit genocide. They preserve all organic races.

Modifié par MisterJB, 27 mai 2012 - 09:09 .

[themaniac003]

Shepard must be alive for a reason.  I support this thread!

[Sisterofshane]

MisterJB wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

Speak for yourelf, you're the one that believes that synthetics will always wipe out organics.

By picking destroy, I am putting my faith in the fact that Synthetics will not always trend toward genocide.  You won't even give them the benefit of the doubt.

I did not pick Synthesis because I believed all synthetics were geared towards genocide.
I did it because it extends the possible benefits of transhumanism and it does this to every single life form, regardless of financial status which would be impossible otherwise.

Previous discussions I have had with you before would suggest otherwise.
Don't come in here and accuse any of us of being close-minded.  There are a multitude of different reasons we would choose the ending, the least of which being that we reject the  "close-minded" philosophy of the being who would claim it to be a non-solution to his imaginery problem.

[MisterJB]

Grimwick wrote...
That is most certainly not substantiated by any evidence.

You need only to look at Paul Grayson and the physical benefits Reaper technology had on him to see that it is possible and an worthy goal to purse so long as we don't sacrifice our freedom to achieve it.

[Grimwick]

MisterJB wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
So just because the solution is simple means it's a bad solution? Please, don't become a scientist. Not everything requires a Rube Goldberg-esque climax.

A piece of fiction that proposes itself as more complex than a childish battle of Good vs Evil does.

No one AT ALL said Destroy is the "only" possible solution, merely the "best" (quoted because of subjectivity). "Best" does not, in any way, imply "only".

"We destroy them or they destroy us" implies it is the only solution.

The turians are a horrible analogy. They never committed interstellar genocide based on knee-jerk logic to a nonexistent problem.

Actually, they did. The krogan will be extinct eventually if we don't cure the genophage not to mention the DoomsDay Bomb on Tuchanka. And, ultimately, the turians are imperialistic, they subjugate "lesser" species and turn them into client races which was the purpose of the FCW. However, we found a different solution to keep our indepedence other than a campaign to destroy all turians.

And the problem is as real to the Catalyst as the Krogan Rebellions were to the turians; we simply don't know as much as it does.

Also, the Reapers don't commit genocide. They preserve all organic races.

You obviously didn't listen to the games very well. You might also want to look up what the term 'genocide' actually means.

[o Ventus]

Ji99saw wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...

So we resort to name calling now?  Once more, Losing a few casualties in war and Genocide are completly different. It doesn't matter who he was talking to the reaper threat was still very much present and you tried to make it seem as though it was not. And by the way Genocide is the complete oppisite of Sheps and everyone elses beliefs throught ou the entie trilogy even the reapers preseve life in the reaper ship. But if you believe that Commiting Genocide To Prevent Genocide is right then that Speaks volumes about you.

Oh please. You're another one of those idiots that thinks the Reapers honestly preserve people by melting them down and liquefying their brains? That doesn't only go against established biology and philosophy (You can't carry thoughts, ideas, or memories without a BRAIN), it's also a poor attempt to make a formerly cold and ruthless enemy sympathetic. That'd be like saying Hitler went through with the Holocaust because Jewish people picked on him when he was a child. Did you not listen to Mordin in ME2? Or Shepard on Rannoch? If there's anything left of the species inside the Reapers, it's NOT them anymore. "No art, replaced by tech, no glands, replaced by tech, no soul, replaced by tech." Shepard even says "Those races died thousands of years ago! You killed them! We're letting them rest in peace." The only "genocide" being committed is against the geth, but you technically did the same thing when you rewrote them and slaughtered a couple thousand of them over the course of the 3 games.

I'll just ignore the fact that you answered only half my points, but whatever.

Also, prior to just now, I didn't call you any names.

It's almost as if I can physically see your stupidity from my moniter. Once more this is SciFi and anything can happen, even Javik said that DNA are genetic Markers that hold experience, memories, ideas and that's why he knows so much about the Normandy crew without ever meeting them or in your case without having there brains. . Cold?, Ruthless?, Hitler? I highly doubt something as old and powerful as the reapers has any sort of hate or vicious intent and they Beleive that they are doing the right thing in order to preserve the galaxy see for everyone in the future and not just the ones hold the power right now. As far as mordin he was talking about Husks (collecters) and what Reapers are different. I don't like what the reapers do but I know it's not coplete Genocide and that species DNA is preserved forever. As far as Shepard is concerned he Auto Dialogue his way throgh the game and that's not what my Shep would say. Plenty of times Shep talked for himself and the player did not agree and since shep is whatever the player wants him to be that argument is invalid

"Cold" and "ruthless" do not imply hatred or vicious intent, so congratulations on the English fail.

"Science fiction" doesn't give you a free pass to let you do whatever the hell you want, either. If you establish a set of rules, like ME did in the first game, you must follow those rules. You don't see people just flying to and from work by themselves do you? Or using contemporary firearms? Or breathing fire? It's called "Science fiction[/i] for a reason.

Javik is invalid, since he's the product of said science fiction. It's impossible to relay information via touch, unless the protheans have memory neurons in their fingers and not their brains (which is not the case).

And yes, Shepard is sculpted by the player, but only to an extent. The auto dialogue, as much as I despise it, only asserts this. You have only as much control over Shepard as his/her backstory and the conversations that allow for dialogue wheels. Everything else is set in stone and concrete.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

@ JB. Stop thinking that your opinion is the only right one. Your ego has blinded you from the fact that others have their own opinion/preferences. We chose Destroy, and we have good reasons, and opinions. We shouldn't be berated because of this. Why should you even care?

[Necrotron]

I'm not willing to sacrifice the soul of our species to save it.

Supporting 'none of the above' all the way.