406 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

 Because in both you take away the right for anyone else to decide what they wish to do.

Only difference is, in Synthesis, people are still around to appreciate it.

In Refusal, they aren't.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

People are still around in both. Just different people. Depends of what difference you think is the best.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 30 juin 2012 - 11:54 .

[mass perfection]

Can't tell if troll or just stupid...

[RiouHotaru]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

People are still around in both. Just different people. Depends of what difference you think is the best.

Good point, but allow me to offer a counterpoint:

There's no reason to believe the species of the Refuse cycle wouldn't join the Galactic community in the future of the Synthesis ending.

[legion999]

The next cycle appreciates it...

[savionen]

All the endings are a violation.

[The Angry One]

All species of the galaxy agreed to fight the Reapers, to the end if need be.
Not become the Reapers. Making a deal with the Catalyst to alter their being to please it is a violation and a betrayal.

Refusal is an affirmation of the galaxy's will to defy the Reapers, to reject their deals and not bow down to their evil.
If we die, we die free.

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

People are still around in both. Just different people. Depends of what difference you think is the best.

Good point, but allow me to offer a counterpoint:

There's no reason to believe the species of the Refuse cycle wouldn't join the Galactic community in the future of the Synthesis ending.

There will be no synthesis ending in the future, because the future cycle aren't stupid.

[RiouHotaru]

legion999 wrote...

The next cycle appreciates it...

But the races in the next cycle are still around in Synthesis too.

[Enjou]

All the endings involve Shepard forcing his choice on someone, it's just a matter of who and how. The endings aren't about democracy, they are about one man/woman having to make the hard choices and deciding the fate of the galaxy.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

People are still around in both. Just different people. Depends of what difference you think is the best.

Good point, but allow me to offer a counterpoint:

There's no reason to believe the species of the Refuse cycle wouldn't join the Galactic community in the future of the Synthesis ending.

 
Yes, but you are not prescient when you make a choice. So I believe you would understand the difference between killing somebody yourself and risking that somebody else will kill him later.
At least it would if you have conscience at all.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 30 juin 2012 - 11:59 .

[ThatDancingTurian]

Refusal as an option only makes sense if you headcanon out BioWare's insult wherein Shepard just stands there like a moron. If Shepard had tried to find an alternative way to use the Crucible aside from the options presented by the evil Reaper overlord, then it would be far more acceptable.

In this scenario, Shepard would have done everything in his/her power to stop the Reaper threat (one can argue that without meta-gaming information, blindly following the direction from a Reaper consensus posing as a child does not count as a viable option as it could very easily be a trick), which is the duty entrusted in him/her by the people.

The ability to change the DNA of all life was not a duty Shepard was entrusted with in any scenario.

Modifié par Aris Ravenstar, 30 juin 2012 - 11:59 .

[savionen]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...

Refusal as an option only makes sense if you headcanon out BioWare's insult wherein Shepard just stands there like a moron. If Shepard had tried to find an alternative way to use the Crucible aside from the options presented by the evil Reaper overlord, then it would be far more acceptable.

In this scenario, Shepard would have done everything in his/her power to stop the Reaper threat (one can argue that without meta-gaming information, blindly following the direction from a Reaper consensus posing as a child does not count as a viable option as it could very easily be a trick), which is the duty entrusted in him/her by the people.

The ability to change the DNA of all life was not a duty Shepard was entrusted with in any scenario.

I'M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO STOP YOU
*stands there for hours on end doing nothing*

[legion999]

RiouHotaru wrote...

legion999 wrote...

The next cycle appreciates it...

But the races in the next cycle are still around in Synthesis too.

Yes but it was stated that no one appreciated it. This is not the case.

And in Synthesis I wouldn't say they were the same races anymore.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

All species of the galaxy agreed to fight the Reapers, to the end if need be.
Not become the Reapers. Making a deal with the Catalyst to alter their being to please it is a violation and a betrayal.

Refusal is an affirmation of the galaxy's will to defy the Reapers, to reject their deals and not bow down to their evil.
If we die, we die free.

There will be no synthesis ending in the future, because the future cycle aren't stupid.

They agreed to fight, yes.  Did they agree to die if Shepard decided that the options allowed via the Crucible's creation and use weren't what Shepard wanted?

Refusal is Shepard holding to a moral principle and deciding that not making the decision not to choose is better than choosing.  At no point does anyone else get to chime in and go "But uhh...Shepard you could just pick this option."

As for the last sentence, well, the Crucible gets used anyway.  How it gets used is entirely up to headcanon.

[Baronesa]

Refusal makes sense if:

a: You don't trust the Catalyst.
b: You don't meta-game by knowing the outcomes of each decision
c: Stick with what has worked for Shepard in every single other occasion... be defiant and look for a different solution.

[Jenonax]

As a diehard supporter of the Refusal ending, I agree I like it much more if I headcannon my way out of Bioware sticking their middle finger up at me and letting Shepard stand there and do nothing.

I will choose it every time. I will not let my Shepard be compromised.

[RiouHotaru]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...

Refusal as an option only makes sense if you headcanon out BioWare's insult wherein Shepard just stands there like a moron. If Shepard had tried to find an alternative way to use the Crucible aside from the options presented by the evil Reaper overlord, then it would be far more acceptable.

In this scenario, Shepard would have done everything in his/her power to stop the Reaper threat (one can argue that without meta-gaming information, blindly following the direction from a Reaper consensus posing as a child does not count as a viable option as it could very easily be a trick), which is the duty entrusted in him/her by the people.

The ability to change the DNA of all life was not a duty Shepard was entrusted with in any scenario.

Actually, the ability to do is WAS entrusted to Shepard:

Enjou wrote...
The endings aren't about democracy, they are about one man/woman having to make the hard choices and deciding the fate of the galaxy.

 

And there you have it.

[savionen]

Shepard was just covered in tree sap and revived by the next cycle anyway.

[Wulfram]

Is a sin of omission as bad as a sin of commission? Is choosing not to save someone as bad as choosing to kill them?

[RiouHotaru]

Baronesa wrote...

Refusal makes sense if:

a: You don't trust the Catalyst.
b: You don't meta-game by knowing the outcomes of each decision
c: Stick with what has worked for Shepard in every single other occasion... be defiant and look for a different solution.

I'll agree on point A, but after the Catalyst's infodump it seems odd to say he's still untrustworthy.  What point would he have in constructing such a ridiculously elaborate set of lies (assuming he can lie at all.  Remember, AIs by default cannot lie)

Point B is also fine, but even without meta-gaming it doesn't always make sense.

and Point C is contentous because at only one point in ME3 is a Third Option available (Geth/Quarian War).

Jenonax wrote...

As a diehard supporter of the Refusal ending, I agree I like it much more if I headcannon my way out of Bioware sticking their middle finger up at me and letting Shepard stand there and do nothing.

I will choose it every time. I will not let my Shepard be compromised.

And that's fine, but that doesn't change the point that Shepard is still making the sole decision.

[RiouHotaru]

Wulfram wrote...

Is a sin of omission as bad as a sin of commission? Is choosing not to save someone as bad as choosing to kill them?

Depending upon where you stand it's equal.  Since you had the power to do something and chose not to.

But I need context to determine how this applies to the current argument.

[Wulfram]

RiouHotaru wrote...

(assuming he can lie at all.  Remember, AIs by default cannot lie)

Unshackled AIs can.  Well, EDI can anyway.

[Dresden867]

Baronesa wrote...

Refusal makes sense if:

a: You don't trust the Catalyst.
b: You don't meta-game by knowing the outcomes of each decision
c: Stick with what has worked for Shepard in every single other occasion... be defiant and look for a different solution.

 This is only true if your Shep is willing to gamble with the lives of the Fleet and the Galaxy to look for options at a point in time when he knows that time is very limited, and the Crucible, very likely to be destroyed, imminently.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

... and when Shep asks him "are you just an AI", he's saying "as much as you just an animal". Presumably this means he's very advanced and probably has "lie" function.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:11 .

[saracen16]

RiouHotaru wrote...

 Because in both you take away the right for anyone else to decide what they wish to do.

Only difference is, in Synthesis, people are still around to appreciate it.

In Refusal, they aren't.

You can't enjoy chocolate unless you taste it, but even though I am biased towards synthesis as the lesser evil of all endings, I agree that no one else has a decision to decide their future. The same can be said for the destroy ending: while the geth seek never to be harvested, they also seek self-preservation.