565 réponses à ce sujet

[TheBlackBaron]

The Angry One wrote...

I love people calling rejection selfish because I choose to do what I set out to do, what the whole galaxy agreed to do - fight the Reapers. To the end if need be.

The galaxy set out to -defeat- the Reapers and to secure a future for themselves and their progeny.

I highly doubt that Shepard choosing to place his morals before their survival was part of the plan. 

zombieord wrote...

I'm perfectly happy with the moral dilemmas present in all 3 games. Curing the genophage? That's not cut and dry. Let Legion upload the Reaper code? Another brilliant dilemma.

The betrayal was not giving Shepard the option to stay in character. All options presented are of the enemy's bidding.

Well, thanks to the EC you have your option to "stay in character".

If you can't stomach the consequences of that option, pick another choice. 

[xsdob]

nicocap24 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Citadel is intact after shooting the tube. I'd imagine shooting at the tower would make a lot of things go boom and kill a lot of people. I'm willing to make the necessary sacrifices, but you're not willing to sacrifice the geth, then why are you willing to sacrifice the people on the Citadel?

The tower being destroyed would cause no more damage than the entire structure of the Citadel shattering in destroy, that's my point.

Which no longer occurs in the EC, meaning you'll be doing what the crappy destory pre-ec ending did.

Congrats on duplicating the ****tly presented endings results.

Yeah I'm sure everybody survived that.

OK, I was wrong about the Citadel. But still, more people survive there than if you chose to refuse. 

Alright, I was wrong too. I picked paragon control as my cannon though, so I guess I played into the synthesis plan by not picking it and downright saying how horrible it was to the catalyst face before kicking him out and running the reapers to work with organics and synthetics instead of ruling them.

That's what renegade control is for.

Control makes me nervous. I just get the feeling that the new Shepcatalyst will be corrupted and do stupid stuff like the old catalyst did.

In paragon control it's made clear shepard won't, in renegade control it's made clear shepard will.

That's the beauty of the ending, it's the only one where alaignment is accounted for, and I love it.

Oh, I haven't seen the paragon version. I guess my next paragon Shepard will pick control.  

The dialouge difference is subtle, but there. If shepard began with "Only now do I understand the full extent of the sacrifice" than it's paragon. If shepard starts with "Only now do I comprehend the full potential of the decision" than it's renegade.

[Gorkan86]

OP, why argue with people whose views do not coincide with yours?
So it is difficult to imagine that it is not just your opinion but there are other people's opinions? You're sick of it?

[Arcadian Legend]

Might wanna cut down on dem quote pyramids.

[The Angry One]

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Peace without meaning....wow....there's a concept....

This really baffled me for a sec....peace without meaning....

I'm pretty sure "peace without meaning" is a concept only those can understand that have never seen the cruel reality of the opposite of peace...

What is the point of peace if it's forced? Nobody will gain anything from it. We might as well be automatons pre-programmed to get along.

Mass Effect was about peace through understanding and cooperation between diverse species, organic and synthetic. Not about peace forced through DNA rearranging.

Ok, I can see what you don't like about destroy and synthesis. What about control?

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of one person controlling all the Reapers, and the Reapers being around. Paragon or renegade. Even the paragon control sounds a bit too absolutist for my tastes.

[KingZayd]

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Peace without meaning....wow....there's a concept....

This really baffled me for a sec....peace without meaning....

I'm pretty sure "peace without meaning" is a concept only those can understand that have never seen the cruel reality of the opposite of peace...

What is the point of peace if it's forced? Nobody will gain anything from it. We might as well be automatons pre-programmed to get along.

Mass Effect was about peace through understanding and cooperation between diverse species, organic and synthetic. Not about peace forced through DNA rearranging.

Ok, I can see what you don't like about destroy and synthesis. What about control?

Giving someone absolute power forever? Yeah that sounds sensible.

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

I think it's safe to conclude that all of The Angry One's anti-ending arguments are a product of petulance, not some great moral stand or logical thinking.

>sacrificing the entire galaxy is better than sacrificing a tiny fraction of that population to save the whole
>refusing the Catalyst's offers based on your morals and pride, resulting in the deaths of trillions, is more "good" than putting aside your own petty sentiments for the better of the whole

Etc, etc.

Strawman some more.

Did my post upset you? Or was it just an accurate deduction of your state of emotion > logic?

Petulance.

But if you have some justification for your hypocritical arguments, I'd very much like to see them.

[flanny]

Leafs43 wrote...

The endings were crap before June 26th.

They are crap after June 26th, just with a few more bells and whistles.

this

[The Angry One]

JackumsD wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

I think it's safe to conclude that all of The Angry One's anti-ending arguments are a product of petulance, not some great moral stand or logical thinking.

>sacrificing the entire galaxy is better than sacrificing a tiny fraction of that population to save the whole
>refusing the Catalyst's offers based on your morals and pride, resulting in the deaths of trillions, is more "good" than putting aside your own petty sentiments for the better of the whole

Etc, etc.

Strawman some more.

Did my post upset you? Or was it just an accurate deduction of your state of emotion > logic?

Petulance.

But if you have some justification for your hypocritical arguments, I'd very much like to see them.

I am pointing out that you're strawmanning, and now you respond with insults.
Time of day, not given.

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Peace without meaning....wow....there's a concept....

This really baffled me for a sec....peace without meaning....

I'm pretty sure "peace without meaning" is a concept only those can understand that have never seen the cruel reality of the opposite of peace...

What is the point of peace if it's forced? Nobody will gain anything from it. We might as well be automatons pre-programmed to get along.

Mass Effect was about peace through understanding and cooperation between diverse species, organic and synthetic. Not about peace forced through DNA rearranging.

Ok, I can see what you don't like about destroy and synthesis. What about control?

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of one person controlling all the Reapers, and the Reapers being around. Paragon or renegade. Even the paragon control sounds a bit too absolutist for my tastes.

That's exactly why I don't chose control, and because I want the reapers to be destroyed. But since you don't want to chose destroy (which is completely understandable) isn't it better to chose control instead of refuse?

[xsdob]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I love people calling rejection selfish because I choose to do what I set out to do, what the whole galaxy agreed to do - fight the Reapers. To the end if need be.

The galaxy set out to -defeat- the Reapers and to secure a future for themselves and their progeny.

I highly doubt that Shepard choosing to place his morals before their survival was part of the plan. 

zombieord wrote...

I'm perfectly happy with the moral dilemmas present in all 3 games. Curing the genophage? That's not cut and dry. Let Legion upload the Reaper code? Another brilliant dilemma.

The betrayal was not giving Shepard the option to stay in character. All options presented are of the enemy's bidding.

Well, thanks to the EC you have your option to "stay in character".

If you can't stomach the consequences of that option, pick another choice. 

To quote a golden rule that the mass effect roleplay group I;m in uses, "You can play your character however you want, but don't expect the universe to agree with you."

Modifié par xsdob, 30 juin 2012 - 09:48 .

[translationninja]

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Peace without meaning....wow....there's a concept....

This really baffled me for a sec....peace without meaning....

I'm pretty sure "peace without meaning" is a concept only those can understand that have never seen the cruel reality of the opposite of peace...

What is the point of peace if it's forced? Nobody will gain anything from it. We might as well be automatons pre-programmed to get along.

Mass Effect was about peace through understanding and cooperation between diverse species, organic and synthetic. Not about peace forced through DNA rearranging.

I understand what you are trying to say. I am not rejecting it or trying to devaluate it, you make a compelling argument.

I do however think that you are, to some extent, superimposing idolized ideals. Like, you know, Hollywood loves to sell them.

Getting out of fiction and into the real world (I am a war veteran I should add), do you think those that had to suffer real war, real death and mutilation and the sheer horror of it all, would reject "peace" because the way it came to pass doesn't fit their ideals?

From my own experience I can tell you that once the limbs start flying people really couldn't care less about how peace comes about, they just want peace. They're not gonna say oh hai keep killing all that I hold dear if that means I won't have to give up my ideals.....that only happens in the movies.

Edit for typo...

Modifié par translationninja, 30 juin 2012 - 09:48 .

[The Angry One]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The galaxy set out to -defeat- the Reapers and to secure a future for themselves and their progeny.

I highly doubt that Shepard choosing to place his morals before their survival was part of the plan.

It's Shepard placing the future of the galaxy, a potential to be free of the Reapers before the Catalyst's control.
Shepard's morals are part of that.

It's not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of survival.

Well, thanks to the EC you have your option to "stay in character".

If you can't stomach the consequences of that option, pick another choice. 

I would take the consequences just fine if they weren't artificial and tailored to force RGB down our throats.

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

I think it's safe to conclude that all of The Angry One's anti-ending arguments are a product of petulance, not some great moral stand or logical thinking.

>sacrificing the entire galaxy is better than sacrificing a tiny fraction of that population to save the whole
>refusing the Catalyst's offers based on your morals and pride, resulting in the deaths of trillions, is more "good" than putting aside your own petty sentiments for the better of the whole

Etc, etc.

Strawman some more.

Did my post upset you? Or was it just an accurate deduction of your state of emotion > logic?

Petulance.

But if you have some justification for your hypocritical arguments, I'd very much like to see them.

I am pointing out that you're strawmanning, and now you respond with insults.
Time of day, not given.

Cop-out.

[Frakel]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

[...]  I agree that it is difficult to imagine a scenario where mass genocide could be not only justified, but morally good.  However, I submit that if such a scenario does exist (which it may not) then it looks something like the destroy option in Mass Effect.  Kill millions now to save billions later.  

Might I add that this is the kind of reasoning that people used to justify using atomic weapons in World War 2 and even now innocents are being killed in the middle east as collateral damage, in the hope that it is worth sacrificing them to stop more violence from occurring.

Even if you disagree with this reasoning (I don't know how I feel about it yet, this requires more reflection) these are very relevant issues worth discussion, and Art forms like Video games are an excellent way to have and stimulate that discussion.

I agree. One of the strong points of the endings of ME3 is all the discussion about morals that it has sparked.

[Teamsleeper]

I'm sure as hell gonna pay for this !
Jack is my favorite character

[nicocap24]

The Angry One wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The galaxy set out to -defeat- the Reapers and to secure a future for themselves and their progeny.

I highly doubt that Shepard choosing to place his morals before their survival was part of the plan.

It's Shepard placing the future of the galaxy, a potential to be free of the Reapers before the Catalyst's control.
Shepard's morals are part of that.

It's not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of survival.

Well, thanks to the EC you have your option to "stay in character".

If you can't stomach the consequences of that option, pick another choice. 

I would take the consequences just fine if they weren't artificial and tailored to force RGB down our throats.

Again, the consequences are not artificial. Just because it doesn't show the fight, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Everyone fought and the reapers won, just like it happened in every single cycle before.

[The Angry One]

translationninja wrote...

I understand what you are trying to say. I am not rejecting it or trying to devaluate it, you make a compelling argument.

I do however think that you are, to some extent, superimposing idolized ideals. Like, you know, Hollywood loves to sell them.

Getting out of fiction and into the real world (I am a war veteran I should add), do you think those that had to suffer real war, real death and mutilation and the sheer horror of it all, would reject "peace" because the way it came to pass doesn't fit their ideals?

From my own experience I can tell you that once the limbs start flying people really couldn't care less about how peace comes about, they just want peace. They're not gonna say oh hai keep killing all that I hold dear if that means I won't have to give up my ideals.....that only happens in the movies.

Edit for typo...

I'm not advocating war. This argument is specifically for synthesis. Synthesis promotes false peace based on removing all differences.
Differences are not a bad thing, and the lack of difference won't ensure no conflict, unless of course there's brainwashing too.
That's my only point there. There can be peace without synthesis, I'd argue that's what Mass Effect has been building up to. So why force it?

[TheBlackBaron]

The Angry One wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The galaxy set out to -defeat- the Reapers and to secure a future for themselves and their progeny.

I highly doubt that Shepard choosing to place his morals before their survival was part of the plan.

It's Shepard placing the future of the galaxy, a potential to be free of the Reapers before the Catalyst's control.
Shepard's morals are part of that.

It's not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of survival.

Mmmhmm. 

One wonders if you'd be so cavalier about this if there was a cutscene after Reject of Shepard telling the leaders of the other species, "Sorry, I didn't think you were worthy of survival. I sacrified your future for my present."

Well, thanks to the EC you have your option to "stay in character".

If you can't stomach the consequences of that option, pick another choice. 

I would take the consequences just fine if they weren't artificial and tailored to force RGB down our throats.

They're no more artificial and tailored than your own invention of details to explain why Reject should have allowed you to defeat the Reapers. Because the idea that the Reapers will just stop fighting has totally been hinted at in the series, right?

On the other hand, everybody fighting and everybody losing is, oh, precisely what's happened in every cycle preceding our own. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 30 juin 2012 - 09:54 .

[Omega2079]

I think this bothered a lot of people and made it seem untrustworthy. I think this is what gave IT such strong push.

[KotorEffect3]

The Angry One wrote...


It's not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of survival.

Well that is fine and dandy for you, but what of everybody else in the galaxy?  Who are you to judge their worthiness of survival?

I would take the consequences just fine if they weren't artificial and tailored to force RGB down our throats.
Hard choices aren't about being able to choose the consequences you want.  This is war, sacrifices have to be made

[zombieord]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Well, thanks to the EC you have your option to "stay in character".

If you can't stomach the consequences of that option, pick another choice. 

I love having the option to reject the Catalyst. It does let me stay in character. It let's Shepard be Shepard.

I can stomach the consequences. If we can't beat the Reapers, we won't join them. Let the next cycle show them the full force of our 'chaos'. That requires a bit of headcanon but SO BE IT.

[Torrible]

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Peace without meaning....wow....there's a concept....

This really baffled me for a sec....peace without meaning....

I'm pretty sure "peace without meaning" is a concept only those can understand that have never seen the cruel reality of the opposite of peace...

What is the point of peace if it's forced? Nobody will gain anything from it. We might as well be automatons pre-programmed to get along.

Mass Effect was about peace through understanding and cooperation between diverse species, organic and synthetic. Not about peace forced through DNA rearranging.

That is exactly what Synthesis is about. Think of child's moral development. Before, it was "me, me and me". As the child grows older, he sees the perspective of other people, gains empathy and so on. Synthesis allows sentient lifeforms to reach a higher plane of moral and intellectual developement. Organics and synthetics can both now truly understand one another. This is not peace procured though fear, brainwashing or violence. I fail to see anything bad about peace achieved in this way. 

Think of it in the same vein as forcing education upon young children. Education keeps people from committing crimes (most of them anyway). Is it bad to force education upon people then?

Modifié par Torrible, 30 juin 2012 - 09:59 .

[TheBlackBaron]

zombieord wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Well, thanks to the EC you have your option to "stay in character".

If you can't stomach the consequences of that option, pick another choice. 

I love having the option to reject the Catalyst. It does let me stay in character. It let's Shepard be Shepard.

I can stomach the consequences. If we can't beat the Reapers, we won't join them. Let the next cycle show them the full force of our 'chaos'. That requires a bit of headcanon but SO BE IT.

Well, good for you. 

Honestly, I mean that. I'm not being sarcastic. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 30 juin 2012 - 09:58 .

[The Angry One]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Mmmhmm. 

One wonders if you'd be so cavalier about this if there was a cutscene after Reject of Shepard telling the leaders of the other species, "Sorry, I didn't think you were worthy of survival. I sacrified your future for my present."

By that logic, why doesn't Shepard ask them for their opinion before shooting the tube/playing with the electric paddles/jumping into the green blender? Hm?

It goes both ways.

They're no more artificial and tailored than your own invention of details to explain why Reject should have allowed you to defeat the Reapers. Because the idea that the Reapers will just stop fighting has totally been hinted at in the series, right?

It is, ironically, shown in synthesis. No Catalyst, Reapers stop.
Also demonstrated in control, and the new Catalyst dialogue. The Catalyst, which Shepard can replace, is in direct, total control of the Reapers and directs what they do.

On the other hand, everybody fighting and everybody losing is, oh, precisely what's happened in every cycle preceding our own. 

Every cycle which lost the Citadel immediately, which had the relays locked down, which were taken by total surprise.