287 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.

You think he will but you don't know. It sure as hell sounds creepy in the EC. The very fact that you say "I think" rather than "I know" means you know there's a risk. If there was some cast-iron guarentee that Shepard wouldn't abuse Control or be changed by the Reapers then it would be the best choice but I can't think of anything that could be said that would give me that confidence.

Modifié par Reorte, 29 juin 2012 - 07:27 .

[Fauxnormal]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.

Because my Shepard wanted the Reapers gone, for good, for certian, and was willing to accept that there would be casualties as a result.

[Subject9x]

Fauxnormal wrote...

And one has nothing to do with the other.

You can not magically willpower the Reapers away. That the game essentially laughed in your face should not be a surprise, primarily because most of you only chose that option as a childish way of defying the creators of the game itself.

And any 'in game' logic isn't. I've heard people 'defending' the choice, and it's troll logic at best.

but the crucible willpowers the reapers away, 'away' being relative.
actually  the two are related, the crucible is just as much a potential plot device to stop the reapers as shepards willpower is. I'd like to think that many would argue that the more entertaining and badass way to put done the reapers involves the willpower of the player character. Pushing an I-win button was one hell of an anti-climax.

Also, who's this 'you' that you speak of? I chose destroy. 

[eye basher]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[TreguardD]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.

A *true* Paragon Shepard would never choose control. It would drive her insane.

[Fauxnormal]

Subject9x wrote...

Fauxnormal wrote...

And one has nothing to do with the other.

You can not magically willpower the Reapers away. That the game essentially laughed in your face should not be a surprise, primarily because most of you only chose that option as a childish way of defying the creators of the game itself.

And any 'in game' logic isn't. I've heard people 'defending' the choice, and it's troll logic at best.

but the crucible willpowers the reapers away, 'away' being relative.
actually  the two are related, the crucible is just as much a potential plot device to stop the reapers as shepards willpower is. I'd like to think that many would argue that the more entertaining and badass way to put done the reapers involves the willpower of the player character. Pushing an I-win button was one hell of an anti-climax.

Also, who's this 'you' that you speak of? I chose destroy. 

No. It blows them up, blends them with us, or lets you take control of them. it does not 'willpower them away'.

And no it's not. That's stupid, trite, cleche, overdone, boring, and predictable.

Also, oops. My bad.

[Ticonderoga117]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.

Personally, I wouldn't say it's inevitable. Nothing is in my opinion. However, it is a risk. Destroy, for me, is the only one that totally solves the major problem, the Reapers have been doing thier thing for all time. Kill them all, end the only constant and "inevitable" threat to life in the Galaxy.

[TheDarkShape]

Of course a paragon Shepard would choose Control, because a truly paragon Shepard wouldn't murder EDI and the Geth when there were other options available.

[Fauxnormal]

TheDarkShape wrote...

Of course a paragon Shepard would choose Control, because a truly paragon Shepard wouldn't murder EDI and the Geth when there were other options available.

This is an unbeliveable naive and foolish statement.

Even a ParagonShep knows damn well that sacrifices will be made in war.

[Reorte]

TheDarkShape wrote...

Of course a paragon Shepard would choose Control, because a truly paragon Shepard wouldn't murder EDI and the Geth when there were other options available.

If he could be sure that it wasn't a trap and wasn't saving them in the short term only to deliver death to everyone in the long term.

[Ageless Face]

Fauxnormal wrote...

Again, we come back to you being young or sheltered. Murder. Is. Murder.

And I never said there was anything wrong with it. I made that choice on one of my Shepards, too.

But to make the same choice over and over again because you can't accept that in a war there will be casualities is purely stupid.

Well... Thank you for telling me what I am when you don't even know me? Yes, Murder is murder. Destroying the reapers is also murder. Isn't murdering them is right? Murder can sometimes be justified. I consider the geth's reason for it as understandle. And I understand a war will have casualties. What I don't understand is why add more to the pile when it's not necessary. If you think it does, that's fine. I still won't do it if I have the option to find another solution.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 29 juin 2012 - 07:31 .

[ghost9191]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.

same as jjust because you think otherwise doesn't mean it will happen. it is not your shepard that is in command, it is just a copy. the catalyst was built to help with synthetic and organic war and it turned on its creators. there is risk, atleast those of us that choose destroy don't deny the fact we destroy the geth.

you are talking about protecting races from those that would do them harm. what happens to a race that advances too far and would threaten that peace. they would probably be destroyed in order to keep peace. reminds me of other things in history , hmm

[ghost9191]

TheDarkShape wrote...

Of course a paragon Shepard would choose Control, because a truly paragon Shepard wouldn't murder EDI and the Geth when there were other options available.

and i don't make a choice just because they are blue or red, right or wrong all the way.  needs of the many i guess

would i risk humanity on the chance my shep could control this race hmm , and again it is not really shep, just a copy , possibly flawed

[Fauxnormal]

HagarIshay wrote...

Fauxnormal wrote...

Again, we come back to you being young or sheltered. Murder. Is. Murder.

And I never said there was anything wrong with it. I made that choice on one of my Shepards, too.

But to make the same choice over and over again because you can't accept that in a war there will be casualities is purely stupid.

Well... Thank you for telling me what I am when you don't even know me? Murder is murder. Destroying the reapers is also murder. Isn't murdering them is right? Murder can sometimes be justified. I consider the geth's reason for it as understandle. And I understand a war will have casualties. What I don't understand is why add more to the pile when it's not necessary. If you think it does, that's fine. I still won't do it if I have the option to find another solution.

Murdering someone who wants to destroy everything and everyone in the galaxy? Yeah, that's right.

Put your defensiveness away, it's annoying.

Murdering innocent humans, torturing innocent humans, and commiting atrocities that the geth did for the REASONS the Geth did is not only unacceptable, it's on an entirely differant level .

For the tenth time, because it's war. Sometimes, in war, deaths happen. To make sure a threat will go away and never return? To save hundereds of thousands of others?

I would wipe out the Geth in a heartbeat, and have.

[Subject9x]

Fauxnormal wrote...

No. It blows them up, blends them with us, or lets you take control of them. it does not 'willpower them away'.

And no it's not. That's stupid, trite, cleche, overdone, boring, and predictable.

Also, oops. My bad.

the means by which each choice resolves the plot are different yes, but the result is the same;  the reaper threat is ended. Notice how the means are just as contrived as using the player characters willpower? 


"And no it's not. That's stupid, trite, cleche, overdone, boring, and predictable. "
How about the movie Independence Day? that was a great, forward-thinking movie! the humans when backed against a wall just uploaded a virus to the alien mothership! d'oy why didnt Mass Effect think of that? its brilliant! <facepalm>

You sound like one of those hipsters thats averse to something just because you want to be different.
Cliche's can be good or bad. Nothing is ever really 'overdone,' in fact certain tropes come in and out of favor throughtout history. The whole 'grrrr grim dark hero must die' at this moment is quite 'overdone' as well as 'drrr in order for our game to be 'deep' we need to have some sort of choice at da end'

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Reorte wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.

You think he will but you don't know. It sure as hell sounds creepy in the EC. The very fact that you say "I think" rather than "I know" means you know there's a risk. If there was some cast-iron guarentee that Shepard wouldn't abuse Control or be changed by the Reapers then it would be the best choice but I can't think of anything that could be said that would give me that confidence.

There is also a risk that people will accidently create new synthetics and restart the war after Destroy. I think SHepard won't go insane. Do I need more reason? Control might sound creepy to you but it doesn't to me.

Fauxnormal wrote...
Because my Shepard wanted the Reapers gone, for good, for certian, and was willing to accept that there would be casualties as a result.

But your Shepard isn't my Shepard. You don't have to like Synthesis or Control. But neither can you make me choose otherwise. I'm tired of being told why Synthesis is horrifying and why I'm a monster for choosing it/an idiot for not choosing Destroy.

TreguardD wrote...
A *true* Paragon Shepard would never choose control. It would drive her insane.

Because you decide what a 'true' Paragon Shepard does and doesn't do right? You have used the 'true scotsman' arguement. I won't waste my time any more with you.

[ghost9191]

HagarIshay wrote...

Fauxnormal wrote...

Again, we come back to you being young or sheltered. Murder. Is. Murder.

And I never said there was anything wrong with it. I made that choice on one of my Shepards, too.

But to make the same choice over and over again because you can't accept that in a war there will be casualities is purely stupid.

Well... Thank you for telling me what I am when you don't even know me? Yes, Murder is murder. Destroying the reapers is also murder. Isn't murdering them is right? Murder can sometimes be justified. I consider the geth's reason for it as understandle. And I understand a war will have casualties. What I don't understand is why add more to the pile when it's not necessary. If you think it does, that's fine. I still won't do it if I have the option to find another solution.

but with control do you think there won't be deaths? i mean think of all the loved ones people lost to the reapers, hatred is a powerful motive. what if people try to rise up against them , or attack someone else. or gain control of the reapers like cerberus and so many others. to think that there would just be peace after everything the reapers did idk, and it seems to

[Fauxnormal]

Subject9x wrote...

Fauxnormal wrote...

No. It blows them up, blends them with us, or lets you take control of them. it does not 'willpower them away'.

And no it's not. That's stupid, trite, cleche, overdone, boring, and predictable.

Also, oops. My bad.

the means by which each choice resolves the plot are different yes, but the result is the same;  the reaper threat is ended. Notice how the means are just as contrived as using the player characters willpower? 


"And no it's not. That's stupid, trite, cleche, overdone, boring, and predictable. "
How about the movie Independence Day? that was a great, forward-thinking movie! the humans when backed against a wall just uploaded a virus to the alien mothership! d'oy why didnt Mass Effect think of that? its brilliant! <facepalm>

You sound like one of those hipsters thats averse to something just because you want to be different.
Cliche's can be good or bad. Nothing is ever really 'overdone,' in fact certain tropes come in and out of favor throughtout history. The whole 'grrrr grim dark hero must die' at this moment is quite 'overdone' as well as 'drrr in order for our game to be 'deep' we need to have some sort of choice at da end'

That was a horrible movie.

I don't care about your opinion of me.

I do not want a cliched, Disney ending. I want an ending that makes me think. This one did.

[AxStapleton]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.

You are assuming that Shepard would be completely and utterly infallable over eons. With that kind of power, one mistake could end up being catastrophic. Don't get me wrong, it has real potential like the other options but you cannot disregard the risk just because he/she's paragon. How would a once organic mind cope with near infinite power and immortality? All choices have uplifting tones but, as far as I see it, they all have significant dark sides. This is supposed to be bittersweet after all.

[Fauxnormal]

[quote]Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

[quote]Reorte wrote...

[quote]Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.[/quote]
You think he will but you don't know. It sure as hell sounds creepy in the EC. The very fact that you say "I think" rather than "I know" means you know there's a risk. If there was some cast-iron guarentee that Shepard wouldn't abuse Control or be changed by the Reapers then it would be the best choice but I can't think of anything that could be said that would give me that confidence.
[/quote]

There is also a risk that people will accidently create new synthetics and restart the war after Destroy. I think SHepard won't go insane. Do I need more reason? Control might sound creepy to you but it doesn't to me.

[quote]Fauxnormal wrote...
Because my Shepard wanted the Reapers gone, for good, for certian, and was willing to accept that there would be casualties as a result.



[/quote]

But your Shepard isn't my Shepard. You don't have to like Synthesis or Control. But neither can you make me choose otherwise. I'm tired of being told why Synthesis is horrifying and why I'm a monster for choosing it/an idiot for not choosing Destroy.

[quote]

Uh. I never tried to MAKE you do anything. I never said synthesis is horrifying. I chose it on one my other other Sheps.

[ghost9191]

AxStapleton wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I can never consider Destroy as 'saving the many at the cost of a few' when there are two options that are 'save everyone'.

To those who who say Control is Risky, have you considered that others won't see it the same way. To me, a paragon Shepard choosing Control would be a good thing, I think he/she will stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will. Just because you think otherwise doesn't mean Shepard going corrupt is the only possible outcome.

You are assuming that Shepard would be completely and utterly infallable over eons. With that kind of power, one mistake could end up being catastrophic. Don't get me wrong, it has real potential like the other options but you cannot disregard the risk just because he/she's paragon. How would a once organic mind cope with near infinite power and immortality? All choices have uplifting tones but, as far as I see it, they all have significant dark sides. This is supposed to be bittersweet after all.

damn it it is not shepard, it is a copy

[Dendio1]

Billyg3453 wrote...

You destroy all synthetic life. You knowingly choose to do this.
I still pick destroy every time, but it is the purposeful destruction of the entire geth population. Genocide.

They get a nice RIP plaque.

But seriously shepard made the hard choice. Javik foreshadowed this in his final words.

Modifié par Dendio1, 29 juin 2012 - 07:41 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I wasn't talking to you specifcally about trying to make me like Destroy, Fauxnormal. Should have put that in a different paragraph or something. I apologize.

[Fauxnormal]

....I'm not trying to make you do anything. Christ.

[Ageless Face]

Fauxnormal wrote...

Murdering someone who wants to destroy everything and everyone in the galaxy? Yeah, that's right.

Put your defensiveness away, it's annoying.

Murdering innocent humans, torturing innocent humans, and commiting atrocities that the geth did for the REASONS the Geth did is not only unacceptable, it's on an entirely differant level .

For the tenth time, because it's war. Sometimes, in war, deaths happen. To make sure a threat will go away and never return? To save hundereds of thousands of others?

I would wipe out the Geth in a heartbeat, and have.

I'M annoying? Am I the one who can't have a conversation without throwing insults? If you can't have a civil conversation, don't start one. You don't want me to get defensive, then don't be offensive. Simple as that.

I consider why the geth did what they did as understanble. And I believe that if I can save lives, I will. You disagree, that's fine, it's your opinion. We'll both just have to agree to disagree, because we will never get anywhere otherwise.