331 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

JakeMacDon wrote...

IMO, having the power to divert, affect or otherwise stop a crime and not acting makes you complicit in that crime.

If you stand and watch as a person is murdered and you could stop the murder and don't, you are as guilty as the murderer.  Saying after that you didn't want to impose your morality and interfere with the free will of the murderer to murder or the victim to be murdered is criminal and ludicrous.

If you have the power, means and ability to stop a genocide and you refuse, you are not on a moral high ground, you're a coward in every sense of the word.  Or is there such a thing as a "good" genocide? You're qualified to judge, are you?

If your allies have willingly committed their lives and resources to your cause, they then obviously do it because they trust you will make the decision that benefits all.  This idea that "extinction is better than capitulation" fails on every level, and negates everything that has lead to the moment - especially when your enemy seeks only your extinction and nothing else.  To decide to do nothing simply because you "die free" betrays all those who put their faith in you. That is as much forcing a choice on people as is any of the other choices you are presented with - and it's only outcome is annihilation.  

This is an important point to distinguish: at the end, at that point in the narrative, this is not about you.  You are not there as Shepard.  You are a cipher for the races of the galaxy.  It's not about your personal morality.  It's about doing your job.  It's about extracting the greatest possible good from disaster.

The point is to avoid extinction. 

Refusal is the most hypocritical choice you can make in these endings.  You were sent to save those uncountable billions, not pontificate on the bullsh!t "rightness" of your wee-wee-waving rugged individualism.  Sometimes, all you can do is choose the least crappy of crappy choices and hope for the best, but there is no "best" in Refusal.  

You fail, unequivocally.  You fail those billions, you betray all the faith given you.  You allow trillions to die, but hey, you stuck to your principles.  Good for you, you must be proud.  The dead salute your willingness to see them die for your self-satisfaction.

Yes, congratulations.  You're a free corpse rotting in the rightness of your heroic stand of doing nothing.  You allowed a trillion other corpses to agree with you whether they wanted to or not, and the ashes of a dozen civilizations smoulder in the bright sunshine of your moral fundamentalism.  You passed the buck and allowed whomever comes after to learn from your example.  Perhaps they too can commit smugly self-righteous suicide.

It did, after all, turn out so well for this cycle.

<3<3<3

[Keiran Solaris]

Reapers can mess with your thoughts and perceptions. Having an AI that is linked to the Reapers telling you anything makes it immediately suspect. I just don't see my Shep trusting the Catalyst. He views the crucible as just another Reaper trap. We wasted our time and resources building it and it was all just a giant distraction. Would have preferred to see Shep do something after turning him down (call down an airstrike on the presidium tower, head back off into the fight, etc) but I'm content to refuse to play the Reapers game. We are told numerous times throughout the series that the Reapers left their tech behind so that we would use it and evolve along the path they wanted. I refuse to follow that path anymore.

[zombieord]

Rhiens VI wrote...

zombieord wrote...
To quote our Commander, "I'll fight and win this war without compromising the soul of our species."

I stuck to that word.

No, you didn't. You lost the war.

Yes, we lost the war. After doing everything I could to unite the galaxy and take the Reapers head on. Bioware decided it wasn't enough. They decided a super weapon couldn't simply 'work'. Instead, I had to choose between 3 Reaper approved cycle enders. I chose not to sacrifice what makes us different from the cold/ruthless/genocidal Reapers.

There is honor in death and sacrifice.

[zombieord]

likta_ wrote...

zombieord wrote...


No where in game does it say the Crucible is ever used. The stargazer scene says they never had conflict with the Reapers. You could just as easily assume the cycle that discovered the Crucible either scrapped it completely or created a weapon to destroy only the Reapers.

Word of God (Twitter) says that they indeed used the Crucible. Don't pretend you never used outside sources to come to the conclusion you arrived at.

Don't act like you've never dismissed outside information. Bioware wants me to speculate, so I'm speculating. It's what I like to call an opinion.<3

[RinuCZ]

F00lishG wrote...
...I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

Except that you're winning by agreeing to execute a proposition made by a leader of your enemies. If I review the options from Shepard's point of view, it's sensible to refuse it. She doesn't know an outcome. Picking offered choices looks to me like an act of fear. Yes, the series was about defeating Reapers. The question was how to do it? Following a logic of Destroy, I'd preserve Human Reaper. I didn't. Why? Because I didn't know what will happen but I didn't see "the end justified the means" as the right path. Same logic is applied here.

In my ME2, Shepard didn't let fear compromise who she was. Neither in ME3. She didn't push these shiny, yet fishy buttons. She decided to fight the same way she'd done before. Her judgement in ME1/ME2 proved well for all parties involved in ME3 and there wasn't a reason to abandon it. It doesn't matter that you know outcomes of other choices. Would the galaxy be better place and more species would be alive if you joined forces with Saren? Seriously, who knows. That's the point.

Refusal epilogue is vague enough to imagine what happened between "I'll take my chances" and Stargazer. You can believe that Shepard just sat on the floor and waited for the party to end. Or you can believe she managed to contact allies, maybe ran into argument with others (as it happened before) and they fought back. Directly or they could hide, spread in smaller groups as Earthclans did before the attack or do an "underground resistance". They resisted long enough to leave behind enough clues for the next cycle to effectively defend themselves. 
Everyone or almost everybody (remember Javik) died in the end but in my books it fits in.

It was a decent conclusion, probably the most mature. New Destroy seems pretty fluffy in a comparison, even if it tried to be hardcore by erasing Geths.

It's fine there are other choices, they just don't fit into the original story I was playing. If something is done with face import, next time I'll probably slightly change my in-game behavior and choose Destroy.

Modifié par RinuCZ, 29 juin 2012 - 03:21 .

[LiarasShield]

my answer is on my own thread but it is this

believe as a whole all the endings have been improved and better we don't have to worry abot the relays blowing up or everyone dieing from starvation or stuff of that nature


What If your given absolute power do you know in the end if it will corrupt you some day or that you can remain good forever?


What if Some people don't want to force everyone to be part organic or synthetic against their will?


What If I don't want to kill off a entire allied race just to see the reapers burn


Sometimes it isn't always wining that makes a hero great but how he or she handles defeat and if he or she is willing to hold onto his or her own beliefs the way I played shepard she would want everyone to remain free and make their own decisions so yes did we lose this cycle and the reapers won yes


But I believe the next cycle with liaras time capsule data of potential reaper weaknesses or technology that we had during that time will allow the next cycle to be more advanced or more adapt then we were and maybe could defeat the reapers without the crucible where we could not defeat them without the crucible either way

I don't feel that this is a defeat like many keep thinking because the races after us probably did beat them conventionally where we could not

[69_Gio_69]

v3paR wrote...

The problem is that those choises are given to you by your very enemy you intended to destroy in ME1, ME2 and ME3. Hes not some old wise man who is there to help you to chose right. He is in fact the reason why all those people are dying right outside that room.

This is the most obvious problem. Before EC i selected destroy. That was the only posible option for me. But after EC i just hope the next cycle won without the crucible. And im holding to that.

I too think that is the core of the problem. The point is that the Starchild and Shepard (+ the rest of the galaxy) have totally different goals. The starchild wants to find a way to end conflict between organics and synthetics. Shepards goal is to stop the reapers. 

The ultimate choice you make is not one where you stop the reapers (because all 3 choices have that effect), but how you will stop the conflict between organics and synthetics. Therefore the reason for choosing one of the solutions isn't based on your own motives, but based on the motives of the starchild. 

I personally don't agree with the motives of the starchild, because I believe synthetics and organics can coexist (Obviously everybody who saw the mission where you are in 'the geth world' will think the same way). So I'm forced to choose a solution for something, I think, isn't broken. That's the reason I don't like the endings.

[Legbiter]

The only thing the Reject ending does is kick the can down the road for the next cycle to complete and use the Crucible. Shepard damn trillions of lives out of mistaken pride.

[SHARXTREME]

F00lishG wrote...

Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. There. War over. No one else needs to die.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

Or are you all just so cynical that you see yourself  rejecting Bioware itself because you cannot accept what was handed to you?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

No, you have not won when you face your biggest enemy (and in the same time the tool to defeat him).
If anything you have lost.
IT is giving you the choice, so you are inferior to IT, these are not your choices, IT alredy made those "choices", so you have lost even before you have met IT.

Destroy- surrender geth- you wouldn't choose this on your own-you lose
Control- surrender yourself- same as above- you lose
Synthesis- surrender everybody(even in the future) to the original idea that created the reapers in the first place- you lose
Reject/refuse- surrender current cycle, spare the reapers- you lose

You see- shepard lost even before the catalyst. But he can win in the next cycle with that data logs that Liara made, maybe. That's also not his/hers choice, So it's a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.
Shepard can't choose, or win, and can't use the catalyst, Starchild chooses for him. Starchild wins even if that destroys IT. .It is its faulty logic, choices and its will to give you that faulty choices, not shepards. 

To bad, and they could have made a normal ending based on character deaths, but they chose to put whole species and future in the mix, basically destroying good story. 

.
  

[OnlyHazeRemains]

Oh god you people are so narrow mindend ignorant fools.
Youre like school chilrden, stomping their feet on the ground going
"naah i wont take your stupid choices because i dont like your face and, well you suck! *pouty lips*"

I now see half of the ME3 ending ****storm came out of the blatant inability to even grasp the philosophical / moral concepts behind it.
LOL @ you

Modifié par Samurai_Smartie, 29 juin 2012 - 02:07 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

Oh god you people are so narrow mindend ignorant fools.
Youre like school chilrden, stomping their feet on the ground going
"naah i wont take your stupid choiced because i dont like your face and, well you suck! *pouty lips*"

I now see half of the ME3 ending ****storm came out of the blatant inability to even grasp the philosophical / moral concepts behind it.
LOL @ you

The irony. 

It almost hospitalised me. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 29 juin 2012 - 01:47 .

[Gravbh]

Control is maintaining the status quo, with a different hand guiding things. Synthesis is what the starkid ultimate wants. Destroy is refusing him. He even says "the peace won't last" if you blow him up. He thinks it's a bad decision and doesn't want you to take it.

You can refuse the reapers and blow them up, with the geth/edi as casualties, or you can refuse the reapers and suicide the entire galaxy, dumping the decision in the lap of the next cycle.

Picking the new refusal ending just makes no sense to me when you can already refuse starkid by blowing up up.

[Wulfram]

Destroy vs Refuse is really a classic thought experiment in ethics, the Trolley Problem.

If you're the driver of an out of control tram and there's 5 people working on the current line, should you divert so to another line where there's only 1?

Basically, is it right to kill one person to prevent the deaths of many?

Modifié par Wulfram, 29 juin 2012 - 01:42 .

[LiarasShield]

LiarasShield wrote...

my answer is on my own thread but it is this

believe as a whole all the endings have been improved and better we don't have to worry abot the relays blowing up or everyone dieing from starvation or stuff of that nature


What If your given absolute power do you know in the end if it will corrupt you some day or that you can remain good forever?


What if Some people don't want to force everyone to be part organic or synthetic against their will?


What If I don't want to kill off a entire allied race just to see the reapers burn


Sometimes it isn't always wining that makes a hero great but how he or she handles defeat and if he or she is willing to hold onto his or her own beliefs the way I played shepard she would want everyone to remain free and make their own decisions so yes did we lose this cycle and the reapers won yes


But I believe the next cycle with liaras time capsule data of potential reaper weaknesses or technology that we had during that time will allow the next cycle to be more advanced or more adapt then we were and maybe could defeat the reapers without the crucible where we could not defeat them without the crucible either way

I don't feel that this is a defeat like many keep thinking because the races after us probably did beat them conventionally where we could not

Please read and try to understand why some of us would pick refuse under then yalls random assumption of us just hating on bioware

[insomniak9]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

Oh god you people are so narrow mindend ignorant fools.
Youre like school chilrden, stomping their feet on the ground going
"naah i wont take your stupid choiced because i dont like your face and, well you suck! *pouty lips*"

I now see half of the ME3 ending ****storm came out of the blatant inability to even grasp the philosophical / moral concepts behind it.
LOL @ you

The irony. 

It has almost hospitalised me. 

Alanis Morissette wrote a song about how ironic that post is 

[Bomma72]

Yeah but if the catalyst is to be believed then the cycle inevitably started up again. So destroy and control both fail eventually.

[Helios969]

OP, you know how some people thought it was an FU by the writers/devs? Well it also works the other way too. It's basically a fun way to stick your middle finger up in the air at the endings and Starbrat. (Boy, who would have thunk a cold, calculating AI could get angry like a petulant child!) It's my second favorite option to destroy.

[LiarasShield]

their are alot more reasons for why some of us choose refuse other then just dissing bioware that is assumption of people making more assumptions of people who didn't like the three core endings lol

[ahleung]

LiarasShield wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

my answer is on my own thread but it is this

believe as a whole all the endings have been improved and better we don't have to worry abot the relays blowing up or everyone dieing from starvation or stuff of that nature


What If your given absolute power do you know in the end if it will corrupt you some day or that you can remain good forever?


What if Some people don't want to force everyone to be part organic or synthetic against their will?


What If I don't want to kill off a entire allied race just to see the reapers burn


Sometimes it isn't always wining that makes a hero great but how he or she handles defeat and if he or she is willing to hold onto his or her own beliefs the way I played shepard she would want everyone to remain free and make their own decisions so yes did we lose this cycle and the reapers won yes


But I believe the next cycle with liaras time capsule data of potential reaper weaknesses or technology that we had during that time will allow the next cycle to be more advanced or more adapt then we were and maybe could defeat the reapers without the crucible where we could not defeat them without the crucible either way

I don't feel that this is a defeat like many keep thinking because the races after us probably did beat them conventionally where we could not

Please read and try to understand why some of us would pick refuse under then yalls random assumption of us just hating on bioware

And one more problem:
From Shepard's point of view, there is no reason to trust Catalyst.
On the contrary, there are so many reasons not to.

As I said in other threads, Refusal is the most character-consistent ending for Shepard.

Modifié par ahleung, 29 juin 2012 - 02:08 .

[LiarasShield]

If I die I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you and I'll die free

[Bomma72]

69_Gio_69 wrote...

v3paR wrote...

The problem is that those choises are given to you by your very enemy you intended to destroy in ME1, ME2 and ME3. Hes not some old wise man who is there to help you to chose right. He is in fact the reason why all those people are dying right outside that room.

This is the most obvious problem. Before EC i selected destroy. That was the only posible option for me. But after EC i just hope the next cycle won without the crucible. And im holding to that.

I too think that is the core of the problem. The point is that the Starchild and Shepard (+ the rest of the galaxy) have totally different goals. The starchild wants to find a way to end conflict between organics and synthetics. Shepards goal is to stop the reapers. 

The ultimate choice you make is not one where you stop the reapers (because all 3 choices have that effect), but how you will stop the conflict between organics and synthetics. Therefore the reason for choosing one of the solutions isn't based on your own motives, but based on the motives of the starchild. 

I personally don't agree with the motives of the starchild, because I believe synthetics and organics can coexist (Obviously everybody who saw the mission where you are in 'the geth world' will think the same way). So I'm forced to choose a solution for something, I think, isn't broken. That's the reason I don't like the endings.

I don't think Control or Destroy really does stop the Reapers because the starchild says the cycle continued.

[firebreather19]

When have the reapers ever lied?

[Sousabird]

I wouldn't let the whole galaxy die when I can stop the reapers, even if it does mean going along with star brat

[SHARXTREME]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

Oh god you people are so narrow mindend ignorant fools.
Youre like school chilrden, stomping their feet on the ground going
"naah i wont take your stupid choiced because i dont like your face and, well you suck! *pouty lips*"

I now see half of the ME3 ending ****storm came out of the blatant inability to even grasp the philosophical / moral concepts behind it.
LOL @ you

Please elaborate. No, don't.

If you can't see that the whole ending is complete destruction of story and logic of that story before the ending, then LOL is on you.
Extended ending has just extended that faulty logic.
Every choice is wrong, because the "person" who is giving you the choices is by definition wrong, was always wrong and if you don't stop it it will always be wrong. But you don't have that choice or power to correct that mistake which "name" is Catalyst. Bioware didn't think that would be viable ending, even it's the only viable ending.

Other two passable endings would be(if the choices weren't given by faulty AI):
Control if you're someone with good intentions but doesn't think of very long term conseqences  
Destroy if you're ruthless and calculated, but ultimately one who thinks tacticaly/short term and doesn't mind saccrificing few species for his interest. 

[LiarasShield]

it isn't even about the reapers lieing it is just each premise of three endingds does not appeal to me I don't pick reject to diss bioware I pick it because i believe in the freedom of choice and not killing my own allies to kill the reapers or

Or Gain infinite power that I don't know may make me evil or twisted some day so that is why I pick reject