332 réponses à ce sujet

[Krunjar]

ENOUGH! can't we all just agree to take from the ending what we like? why do you insecure little dolts have to have everyone ELSE agree with youre opinion of the ending.

THERE IS NOT BEST ENDING IT'S ALL A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION!!

there now can we all forget this nonsense now ?

[Zine2]

Adanu wrote...

Heroism means nothing if you are dead and so is everyone else.

That's pretty foolish. Heroism is not about publicized heroism. You aren't a hero because the media call you a hero and the people adore you as one.

Real heroism is about doing what's right even though no one will know.

[monrapias]

Adanu wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

In the reject ending everyone dies and the Reapers win. If Shepard chooses anything else the Reapers lose and the galaxy is saved.


The reject ending is the loser ending.

Heroism is often not about how you win, but how you face defeat.

Heroism means nothing if you are dead and so is everyone else.

Screw you for calling me childish for disagreeing with you.

I like how you were very mature there,  saying "screw you" like a 5 year old.

[Simocrates]

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt but after that reply I can tell you either didn't understand the logic that was explained rather clearly and just filled in your own blanks or you are trolling.

[tonnactus]

Eterna5 wrote...

Becoming a god like being in order to watch over and safeguard organic life seems pretty noble to me,

Control is completly retarded. One single human mind(or its offspring) to control basicly the essence of millions of races. How idiotic is this.

Not to forget it contradicts every knowledge about the reapers. Everyone who tried to use them became their tool.

Shepard isnt special and immune to that,because he already shown signs of indoctrination.

Control is completly retarded and illogical, like synthesis.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 juin 2012 - 09:56 .

[Blarty]

Zine2 wrote...

Blarty wrote...


Okay, well let's be pragmatic - how exactly does the Refuse ending benefit Shepard, the other races, and the war effort in general over and above giving you the moral high ground?

The whole pont of a moral choice is that it not necessarily the pragmatic choice. Otherwise, the choice has no meaning. If you have the pragmatic and moral choice rolled into one, why choose anything else?

You are NOT looking at the benefits when making a moral choice. A moral choice is to say "This is who we are. This is what we believe in. We believe that uniting the galaxy makes us stronger. If Casey Hudson thinks otherwise, screw him, we die free!"

Moral choices that are the same as the pragmatic choice are not meaningful choices. That's why I rated the Control ending - which is the best utilitarian ending - as less good than the Reject one.

But really, you don't die free or at least that freedom doesn't last very long as mankind and all the other races, all their knowledge and experiences, are subsumed into the Reaper collective bound to the will of the Catalyst.

But as you say Moral choices aren't necessarily pragmatic or practical choices, but moral choices are not necessarily the right choice either, in all circumstances.

To defend yourself on the side of morality while your world burns, and supposedly your friends die or are turned into husks, the very humanity that defines you is turned into syntho-organic goop to make a big space spider out of, sounds more like you're willing to sacrifice trillions of innocent lives for the sake of not compromising your OWN morality; is that in itself a moral thing to do? Is that a decision made with the best interests of those people at it's very heart, or your own?

[Zine2]

Zanza86 wrote...

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt but after that reply I can tell you either didn't understand the logic that was explained rather clearly and just filled in your own blanks or you are trolling.

I don't need your doubt. Anyone who says the Reapers had sound logic is simply contradicted by canon statements by the Star Child.

They are a rogue AI that killed their own masters. They are idiots. They are rabid dogs that must be put down.

This has been incontrovertibly laid down in the EC; and anyone still subscribing to the foolish notion that the Reapers knew what they were doing is still in massive denial mode.

[MIBO765]

Zine2 wrote...

MIBO765 wrote...
There is no security that somebody will finde Liaras archive or even understand or believe the data in it... if the archive surpasses the eternity of some 10000 yeras.

If you are trapped on a desert island with five of your friends and you're all starving to death, would you kill one of your friends and eat him to give everyone else a chance to live?

You don't know if rescue is coming. You don't know if eating your friend will actually save everyone.

That's the reality of moral dilemmas, not this certainty about how "If I do X, I will kill the Geth but save everyone!"

Sometimes all you can do when facing the end is to stick by your principles. Sometimes you lose. Maybe you all die because you refused to kill and eat your friend. But refusing to sacrifice your soul and morals does, in fact, represent a morally correct choice.

But you know, that billion of years passed and no one defeated the reapers.

[Zine2]

Blarty wrote...


But really, you don't die free or at least that freedom doesn't last very long as mankind and all the other races, all their knowledge and experiences, are subsumed into the Reaper collective bound to the will of the Catalyst.

Doesn't really matter. Again: The essence of sticking by your principles is the willingness to abide by them even in the face of death. It's not your fault that the galaxy is about to get wiped out in the first place. The onus is on the Reapers. You went with Reject. You tried to win conventionally. It failed

But in the end, the failure is not what's important. What's important is that you chose a choice without moral compromise.

But as you say Moral choices aren't necessarily pragmatic or practical choices, but moral choices are not necessarily the right choice either, in all circumstances.

Like I said: Moral is not always utilitarian. In fact, making them the same tends to make the moral choice lose meaning.

[Firmijn]

I actually like Reject and Destroy the most.

[Zine2]

MIBO765 wrote...


But you know, that billion of years passed and no one defeated the reapers.

So how are you so certain that the Star Child's choices will actually defeat the Reapers? By your own logic, the galaxy was doomed already. 

[Veneke]

Five1thOUsanD wrote...

Veneke wrote...

commandergodchild wrote...

Youmu wrote...

If the next cycle just picks R, G or B anyways, Shepard not picking one when he had the chance just leads to the current cycle to die off for... nothing. Being forced in to the dilemma matters little, when Shepard changes nothing, the next cycle is placed into that dilemma, and actually picks their favorite color. Reject would be a good ending, if it actually allowed the next cycle to defeat the reapers without the starchild, thanks to the detailed information and much, much more time to prepare. But nope. 

Guess one can always headcanon it to be that the next cycle doesn't use the crucible - at which point one might just as well headcanon that Destroy ending leaves EDI and Geth fixable.

In the reject ending Liara tells the next cycle that the crucible didnt work.  It seems really unlikely they would then go ahead and build it for the hell of it given how many resources were required.  I think logically the next cycle defeats the reapers without the crucible. 

I initially thought that as well, however, it would appear that tweets by Gamble and posts by Jessica Merizan pretty much confirm that the established ending for Rejection is that the next cycle picks one of the RGB.

Call it headcanon if you like, but I'll take the evidence from the game over evidence from twitter this time around.

Nothing wrong with headcanon, and it's precisely what I'm doing as it happens, but there's no evidence in the game to suggest how the next cycle wins. If they pick RGB then Rejection isn't what it should be, but rather simply passing the buck along. If they win conventionally its arguably one of the best, if not the best, ending.

[JeosDinas]

Zine2 wrote...

No, he's saying that the other three aren't valid choices because you can't trust the Star Kid to actually be honest about what he says. Hence you can't make a utilitarian choice based on the information presented by the Star Kid at the time.

Except, as nuts as this sounds, the thing is a program. It has no reason to lie. It acknowledges that it has failed. It has a directive. It wants to achieve it. Distrust in this case is not utilitarian, because even utilitarian decisions take into consideration a risk/reward model. And in all other cases, the risks are the the same as the Refusal's reward: destruction.

There's not a single, mathmatical reason not to take the gamble.

The real argument for the Refusal ending is deontological in nature. "I do this and act this way and will not do these things because it is morally imperative for me not to." And that's a fair moral consideration. But it's of a different kith and kind.

Modifié par JeosDinas, 27 juin 2012 - 10:03 .

[zyntifox]

Zine2 wrote...

MIBO765 wrote...
There is no security that somebody will finde Liaras archive or even understand or believe the data in it... if the archive surpasses the eternity of some 10000 yeras.

If you are trapped on a desert island with five of your friends and you're all starving to death, would you kill one of your friends and eat him to give everyone else a chance to live?

You don't know if rescue is coming. You don't know if eating your friend will actually save everyone.

That's the reality of moral dilemmas, not this certainty about how "If I do X, I will kill the Geth but save everyone!"

Sometimes all you can do when facing the end is to stick by your principles. Sometimes you lose. Maybe you all die because you refused to kill and eat your friend. But refusing to sacrifice your soul and morals does, in fact, represent a morally correct choice.

Good post, i agree.

[Simocrates]

They are stupid because they surpassed their creators. They are stupid because they fulfil their purpose. They are stupid because unlike organic beings they actually have a purpose laid out for them. With logic like that you should create your own Mass Effect series.

I think the catalyst asked you if you can blame fire for burning and you felt stupid. Hence the unnecessary effort you put into this "hard whine" thread.

[Blarty]

Zine2 wrote...

MIBO765 wrote...


But you know, that billion of years passed and no one defeated the reapers.

So how are you so certain that the Star Child's choices will actually defeat the Reapers? By your own logic, the galaxy was doomed already. 

By the same token, why doesn't the Star Child just have Shepard killed whilst he's on the station, it's by far the most easiest route for the AI to take, leaving the least vulnerability to the Reapers and the following cycles, because no-one other than Shepard at that point knows anything about the true nature of the Catalyst. This route also allows a near 1 probability of the continuance not only fo the cycles but of the Catalyst itself.

[TurambarEA]

Agree with you, OP.

[Zine2]

JeosDinas wrote...

Except, as nuts as this sounds, the thing is a program. It has no reason to lie. It acknowledges that it has failed.

So why was it using all those Indoctrinated people to spread lies and misinformation among the allied races again? Like TIM who was shooting Anderson just 5 minutes before the whole Star Child appearing thing?

It doesn't merely sound nuts to trust the AI. It's really crazy to trust the AI given its record for using deception. We only know (as players, not even as ingame characters) that it's not lying in hindsight.

[aliteDC]

why biowere say I ended reaper threat by letting the reapers continue?

[Zine2]

Zanza86 wrote...

They are stupid because they surpassed their creators.

HAHAHHA. So you're one of those "I love my interpretation that the Reapers are benevolent" based on ZERO evidence eh?

*points and laughs at another condoner of genocide *

[Zine2]

Blarty wrote...
By the same token, why doesn't the Star Child just have Shepard killed whilst he's on the station,

He did try. See TIM and the gun.

[Fiyenyaa]

Zine2 wrote...

See OP. And a few other subsequent posts. That's what's called being a utilitarian. "Serve the greater good regardless of moral compromise".

That's not utilitarianism. You serve the greatest good (the greatest good for the greatest number) because it's the moral thing to do. It wouldn't be "moral compromise" to do things that are singularly immoral because in doing them you have served a greater morality.
Obviously this reasoning can be used to excuse some pretty horrendous things (which is why anyone should take utilitarianism with a pinch of salt), but it does have a certain logic to it.

Personally, I felt I had to end the Reapers once and for all, and according to the arbitrary limits of my choices, I have to kill a species to do so.

Modifié par Fiyenyaa, 27 juin 2012 - 10:08 .

[Blarty]

Zine2 wrote...

Zanza86 wrote...

They are stupid because they surpassed their creators.

HAHAHHA. So you're one of those "I love my interpretation that the Reapers are benevolent" based on ZERO evidence eh?

*points and laughs at another condoner of genocide *

Again I point to the refusal ending making Shepard complicit in the genocide of this cycle

Modifié par Blarty, 27 juin 2012 - 10:10 .

[Simocrates]

OP is definitely a troll.

[Zine2]

Fiyenyaa wrote...
Obviously this reasoning can be used to excuse some pretty horrendous things (which is why anyone should take utilitarianism with a pinch of salt), but it does have a certain logic to it.

That's why I differentiate it from the moral choice. The moral choice is to say "no" to any horrendous excuse regardless of the consequences.