406 réponses à ce sujet

[TheSixthghoul]

Bill Casey wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Refusal is surrendering.

Incorrect...
Refusal is the polar opposite of surrendering...
It is the 300 Ending...


LastStand
DefiantToTheEnd

Isn't suicide surrendering?

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Isn't suicide surrendering?

Is going down fighting to the last breath equals to suicide now? My my....

[Sisterofshane]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

I wouldn't go into history lessons, but did you even watch the said movie?
They had several options, but abhorred them. Had they taken them, they would being left alive. But it was not their only goal.

This. Persia was not in the habit of destroying what they could use.  Sparta had a chance to surrender, but it would have meant the loss of their Sovereignty and the utter destruction of their culture.  That was considered to be a fate worse than death by most Spartans.

[Grimwick]

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.

Stop using meta-evidence to justify your decision. You don't know when you reject the SC that everyone will be killed and on hearing what the SC says I think it can be agreed he makes little sense..

In synthesis you will know exactly what will happen - therefore are making the morally wrong decision.

Modifié par Grimwick, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:36 .

[Tokalla]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Sparta had no other option, Shepard had three. 

Sure they did.  Xerxes offered them better land, to retain their freedom, and the title of "Friend of Persia" if they stood down and allowed the army to pass.  The Spartans found death preferable to a favorable compromise.  Perhaps they felt they couldn't trust Xerxes, but I see more cause to have trusted the Persians than the Catalyst.  When considering the Spartan decision, recall that the other Greek city states have only just begun to work together for this very invasion (and previously often fought one another).  The Thespians who died along with the Spartans had also previously declined Persian diplomacy, and stayed to fight to the end on the final day at the pass.  The Greeks valued their right to govern themselves enough to accept extermination over favorable compromise.  The fact that some city states surrendered to Persia (like Thebes) shows that those who refused were risking total annihilation against a clearly superior force over any form of compromise to their own cultural principles.

Regarding Topic:

Refuse is perfectly reasonable if one values preservation of life less than something else that is compromised by the choosing any of the other available options.  Some cultures have viewed a life without honor as worthless.  I feel certain that such cultures and individuals do exist within the ME universe.  They are not wrong or less intelligent due to not sharing your values.

[Reptilian Rob]

Tokalla wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Sparta had no other option, Shepard had three. 

Sure they did.  Xerxes offered them better land, to retain their freedom, and the title of "Friend of Persia" if they stood down and allowed the army to pass.  The Spartans found death preferable to a favorable compromise.  Perhaps they felt they couldn't trust Xerxes, but I see more cause to have trusted the Persians than the Catalyst.  When considering the Spartan decision, recall that the other Greek city states have only just begun to work together for this very invasion (and previously often fought one another).  The Thespians who died along with the Spartans had also previously declined Persian diplomacy, and stayed to fight to the end on the final day at the pass.  The Greeks valued their right to govern themselves enough to accept extermination over favorable compromise.  The fact that some city states surrendered to Persia (like Thebes) shows that those who refused were risking total annihilation against a clearly superior force over any form of compromise to their own cultural principles.

Regarding Topic:

Refuse is perfectly reasonable if one values preservation of life less than something else that is compromised by the choosing any of the other available options.  Some cultures have viewed a life without honor as worthless.  I feel certain that such cultures and individuals do exist within the ME universe.  They are not wrong or less intelligent due to not sharing your values.

That's easy for a Spartan to choose, being that they are bred for country and war. Shepard wasn't, he just wanted to do what was right in the eyes of the galaxy not for himself or one nation. Semantics yes, but still. 

[Geneaux486]

Stop using meta-evidence to justify your decision. You don't know when you reject the SC that everyone will be killed and on hearing what the SC says I think it can be agreed he makes little sense..

In synthesis you will know exactly what will happen - therefore are making the morally wrong decision.

That last sentence is literally the exact opposite of what the case is.  Shepard knows for a fact that the cycle will be lost, because organics were already losing. Badly. The bulk of the galaxy's remaining offensive resources were thrown at the Reapers surrouding Earth in nothing more than a distraction run, and even then, they took heavy losses. Combine that with the fact that homeworlds are already burning. Add to that the fact that the Turian and Asari militaries, both at their full strength starting out, were decimated by the Reapers' sheer force alone. There was no conventional victory in this cycle's future.
Also, to say synthesis is morally wrong is false. The Crucible must be used to be victorious, and Shepard is left to process new information and make a judgement call, which everyone trusts him to do. Refusal ignores the goal and the hard work and lives lost to get the Crucible ready to fire, condemning the cycle to extinction and reaperfication.

Also, the spartan comparison is bull****. As I said, the spartans didn't have a superweapon capable of crushing all of their enemies at once but refuse to use it. It's not the same situation.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:53 .

[Tokalla]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

That's easy for a Spartan to choose, being that they are bred for country and war. Shepard wasn't, he just wanted to do what was right in the eyes of the galaxy not for himself or one nation. Semantics yes, but still. 

I'm always up for some antics. 

Agreed, which is why I mentioned the Thespians.  They chose to not only remain with the Spartans, but refused Leonidas' order to leave (when he sent the other Greek forces away prior to the final battle at the pass) by doing so.  I would also argue that some of the background options for Shepard would indicate a more Spartan mentality than you give credit (especially if one follows the proper decisions through out the games).  Though even a more caring perspective can result in seeing extinction as preferable to submission of any degree.  

[Tokalla]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Also, the spartan comparison is bull****. As I said, the spartans didn't have a superweapon capable of crushing all of their enemies at once but refuse to use it. It's not the same situation.

True.  Rather all the Spartans likely had to do was accept better land and a title, then allow the Persians to pass on their mission to conquer Athens (whom the Spartans were less than fond of) and the other Greek city states.  Effectively eliminating all their competition and improving their present station.  A circumstance need not mirror another perfectly to demonstrate that their are those who would not compromise any principles under the threat of total annihilation.  Besides, your own presentation of the situation is entirely ignoring the critical elements of making a choice by claiming a false dichotomy and ignoring any potential ramifications of utilizing said super weapon.  The situation is not simply to use or not to use, nor is it crush all enemies or not.  The consequences of the decision are what ultimately matter most, and not simply in the "who survived" sense.  Your perspective of what is the best choice for you does not invalidate someone else's simply because you choose to see the issue in such a simplistic manner.

Modifié par Tokalla, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:52 .

[Geneaux486]

Tokalla wrote...
 A circumstance need not mirror another perfectly to demonstrate that their are those who would not compromise any principles under the threat of total annihilation.

 

The problem is the circumstances don't mirror each other at all.  Shepard is not given the choice to surrender, he's being surrendered to.  That's the exact opposite of the situation the Spartans are in.

Besides, your own presentation of the situation is entirely ignoring the critical elements of making a choice by claiming a false dichotomy and ignoring any potential ramifications of utilizing said super weapon.  The situation is not simply to use or not to use, nor is it crush all enemies or not.  The consequences of the decision are what ultimately matter most, and not simply in the "who survived" sense.

 

My presentation ignores nothing.  The entire game is spent dealing with the potential rammifications of the use of the weapon, and by the time the final mission is ready to be launched, everyone unanimously agrees that the Crucible needs to be activated at all costs, because it at least presents the chance of victory, as opposed to not using it, which guarantees failure, and a fate worse than death.  Everyone agreed that the thing needed to be fired, so what gives Shepard the right, at the end, to decide not to by himself?  Especially when doing so condemns his friends and allies to being harvested.

Your perspective of what is the best choice for you does not invalidate someone else's simply because you choose to see the issue in such a simplistic manner.

Not a simplistic manner, a rational one.  My posts here are a response to the incorrect notion that Refusal indicates some sort of moral high ground relative to the other three choices.  The problem is people see using the Crucible as a form of surrender, when that's completely backwards from what's going on.  It's your weapon.  Organics designed it, your side built it, your side plugged it in, and only you can fire it.  The Catalyst is effectively submitting to Shepard by disclosing all of the functions of the Crucible.  If that wasn't the case, he wouldn't have mentioned the Destroy feature at all.  Simply put:  The Catalyst is surrendering to you, not the other way around.

[IanPolaris]

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.

Absolutely False.  You are forgetting that the Reapers are Senient and able to make moral choice as is the Catalyst (that's what it means to be an AI and Sentient).  Just because you refese to do what the Catalyst wants does NOT obligate the Reapers to destroy all advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  They CHOOSE to do it anyway, and you are not responsible for that choice. 

In short, I utterly reject the notion of 'negative responsibility'.  OTOH, with Synethesis, you are CHOOSING to change everyone at the most fundamental and intimate level without their consent.  That means you ARE responsible.  That's why Synethesis is a human rights violation while Refusal is not.

-Polaris

[Geneaux486]

IanPolaris wrote...
Absolutely False.  You are forgetting that the Reapers are Senient and able to make moral choice as is the Catalyst (that's what it means to be an AI and Sentient).  Just because you refese to do what the Catalyst wants does NOT obligate the Reapers to destroy all advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  They CHOOSE to do it anyway, and you are not responsible for that choice.

No, but you're responsible for refusing to stop them when you have the means.  You know what the Reapers are going to do if you don't use the Crucible, and you have the power to stop it.  Actively choosing not to act when you have the ability to act does make it Shepard's responsibility.  Moreso because Shepard's superiors trusted him with the responsibility of activating the thing in the first place.  Also, the Catalyst is only supporting the use of the Crucible because it acknowleges the superiority of the thing. 

In short, I utterly reject the notion of 'negative responsibility'.  OTOH, with Synethesis, you are CHOOSING to change everyone at the most fundamental and intimate level without their consent.  That means you ARE responsible.  That's why Synethesis is a human rights violation while Refusal is not.

-Polaris

Refusal is a human rights violation.  As I said, Shepard's failure to act when he has the ability to stop the Reapers does make him responsible for the ensuing Reaperfication.  It was his direct choice, his direct inaction, that disrupts the Alliance's entire plan and dooms them all, his failure to live up to his word and do his duty. 

-neaux486

Modifié par Geneaux486, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:41 .

[Tokalla]

 @Geneaux486

The example of the Spartans is enough to demonstrate that death before compromise of one's principles is reasonable to some individuals and cultures, regardless of how rational or reasonable it may be to you.

Your perspective is both simplistic and rational, rationality does not require or imply complexity.  That does not mean it is the only rational perspective on the scenario, merely that it is how you rationally see things.  Your point about Shepard's orders are valid, but Shepard is also in a position to decide if those orders require alteration or not.  As no one would expect him to fire the Crucible if it was discovered it would do more harm than good (like say exterminating all life, but only damaging some Reapers).  While you feel that no such issue is present, others with different ethical/moral priorities might disagree.

I don't feel it is accurate to state that the Catalyst is surrendering, as no end of the hostility has been ordered (typically the first step of a surrender).  A more precise view would be it feels threatened and knows you have the ability to either aid or hinder its objective.  This is also why the Catalyst would seek to pressure you into a choice, rather than offer a cease fire to negotiate.  In the eyes of some, I am certain accepting anything offered by the party they are presently at war with could be seen as compromise.  More importantly, you seem to not be grasping that the offers all include some consequences that others may feel morally opposed to performing.  Thus declining the "conditions of surrender" as presented may be more acceptable even if the consequence is annihilation.

All I have been pointing out is that while to you refuse may seem a violation, that does not mean it is an objective truth or invalidate alternate perspectives.

Modifié par Tokalla, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:23 .

[Tokalla]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Refusal is a human rights violation.

As you (and I am sure many others too) see it, yes.  However, that does not mean that everyone else shares that belief, or that it is the only "right" way to see the scenario.  I would even argue that the Catalyst should be regarded as solely responsible since Shepard's mere presence supposedly invalidates the "solution".  Unwillingness to negotiate or allow for a cease fire truly fall on the Catalyst, not Shepard.  I also don't believe there is a moral imperative or even documented legal right indicating that one is required to kill innocents in order to save other innocents.  Some would rather take their chances on the improbable chance of conventional combat (and to presume losing is an absolute certainty only demonstrates gamism, metagaming, and a poor memory for all the times the unlikely or impossible has happened to Shepard).  I do understand the desire to "play it safe", and hold Destroy as my general first choice.  Refuse is my second pick of the options presented, and would be my first of not for my belief that Destroy holds implied consent (though I do understand the view of those who feel there is no Implied consent, as I am rather close to the line on that perspective myself).

Modifié par Tokalla, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:48 .

[Aylyese]

Geneaux486 wrote...

They don't wipe out organics, they convert them into Reaper form once they've hit what the Catalyst believes to be the pinnacle of technological developement, leaving room for the next group of species to advance and evolve.  Organics are preserved in Reaper form, mind and body.  It's a terrible solution not because it's illogical, because the problem is it is logical, but because it ignores the value of the individual and has no regard for the pain and suffering inflicted in the process of Reaperfication. 

For specialists in preservation, they are doing craploads of killing. Husks are not preserved. All the bodies rotting on the collector ship were not preserved. From the absolute start of ME3, if you were not canonfodder, you were dead. That giant red laser on the Reapers head only caused one thing, and it wasn't more reapers.

Geneaux486 wrote... 
Synthesis does not remove diversity.  Humans are still humans, krogan are still krogan, turians are still turians, etc.  Synthesis grants understanding, and a strengthened genetic framework, nothing more.

But synthetics and Organics will always fight (apparently) so you make everyone synthetic and organic so they don't fight, and this is NOT removing diversity? It is still a horrible precedent to set, no matter how minor some may consider it to be.

Geneaux486 wrote...  

Yet the highest EMS earns you the survival ending, so by your logic perfect destroy is technically the best ending, even though it kills the Geth and EDI.  See my point?  It's left up to personal choice for a reason.  The epilogue paints an optimistic picture with any of the choices for a reason.

I tend to consider that to be a Multiplayer reward easter egg, not any form of serious commentary over the fact that they actually thought Synthesis was an awesome idea worthy of making it the top choice.

Modifié par Aylyese, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:02 .

[Geneaux486]

Tokalla wrote...
The example of the Spartans is enough to demonstrate that death before compromise of one's principles is reasonable to some individuals and cultures, regardless of how rational or reasonable it may be to you.

Only problem with that is in Shepard's case, it's choosing death as opposed to victory, not compromise.

I don't feel it is accurate to state that the Catalyst is surrendering, as no end of the hostility has been ordered (typically the first step of a surrender).

 

While that is typically how it goes, the Catalyst is an atypical adversary.  What it does do is disclose all of the Crucible's functions, even the one that ends it.  It also admits that its solution no longer works and that through the Crucible, a new one must be found.  This is an admission of defeat.

In the eyes of some, I am certain accepting anything offered by the party they are presently at war with could be seen as compromise.

The only thing the Catalyst is offering is cooperation.

More importantly, you seem to not be grasping that the offers all include some consequences that others may feel morally opposed to performing.  Thus declining the "conditions of surrender" as presented may be more acceptable even if the consequence is annihilation.

Problem with that is that for one thing, nothing suggests that the Catalyst has anything to do with the choices.  They're potential functions of the Crucible, which is not of Reaper origin.  Furthermore, the consequences of any given choice pale in comparison to the consequence of making no choice at all, the end result being the Reaperfication of most, and death for the rest.

All I have been pointing out is that while to you refuse may seem a violation, that does not mean it is an objective truth or invalidate alternate perspectives.

The objective truth here is that with refusal, guaranteed loss.  Using the Crucible, chance for victory.  Only problem arises if one thinks the Catalyst is actually the one giving you the choices, and there's nothing to suggest that he is either before or after the Crucible's activation.

 I would even argue that the Catalyst should be regarded as solely responsible since Shepard's mere presence supposedly invalidates the "solution".  Unwillingness to negotiate or allow for a cease fire truly fall on the Catalyst, not Shepard.

By extension, the blame for the negative effects of the Crucible choices falls on the Reapers for necesitating such rash actions.  The Catalyst may simply lack the ability to command a cease-fire.  In fact, I'd say this is likely given how cooperative he is otherwise. 

I also don't believe there is a moral imperative or even documented legal right indicating that one is required to kill innocents in order to save other innocents.

Only one option kills innocents.

and to presume losing is an absolute certainty only demonstrates gamism, metagaming, and a poor memory for all the times the unlikely or impossible has happened to Shepard

There's no meta-gaming required to know that the Reapers will be victorious.  Hackett knew, Shepard knew, and everyone else who had observed them knew.  It's in the lore, it's in the foreground, we see it over and over again through Mass Effect 3, when militaries at their strongest are wiped out effortleselly.  We've seen what horrors they're capable of when just one of them is involved, now we've got not only the entire fleet, thousands, but they're pitting themselves against a severely weakened galaxy by the end.  Again, none of the traits you're assigning to the belief of a definite loss are accurate, the player, like Shepard, knows what he or she needs to know going in.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:12 .

[Tokalla]

@ Geneaux486

Certainty of victory or loss is very much not something one can have if they are actually viewing things from the character perspective.  Simply because you feel it was certain, does not make everyone see things that way, nor does it change that loss of life may be viewed as preferable to some others.

Morality and ethics are not able to be debated as if they have objective truths.  Your unwillingness to accept the perspectives of others makes discussion ultimately pointless, as you will never be any more right than anyone else in this discussion.  Repeating yourself in slightly different words about how the Catalyst has been defeated by presence (and not use) of a super weapon (utterly ignoring that the actual fighting has yet to cease, therefore meaning that by any military or reasonable definition of "defeat" the terms have not yet been reached) does not actually make anyone else see the circumstance any differently than the first time you explained your point of view.  

If the one who states he controls the Reapers cannot get them to stand down, then he does not truly control them.  Further, I would count that as a definite reason the Reapers should be utterly destroyed as they would be uncontrolable monsters even under the control ending (as Shepard merely replaces the Catalyst with himself).  I would also say that urgency he pushes for is there due to this being a game and not due to any in world limitation of the Catalyst.  Likely this is an attempt to keep the player from considering too much and losing suspension of disbelief, as the same trick is frequently used in films (and the dircetion BW has taken is toward more cinematic experiences).  While his urgency can be rationalized, I haven't seen anything actually indicating a true cause (I hesitate to believe it seeks to say it seeks to preserve life due to its prior actions, but this is a plausible possibility).

If the Catalyst has been defeated, then no option need be chosen as the war is over.  Except it isn't, and one would not need the cooperation of a defeated foe in order to actually defeat them (as by having been defeated they were already beaten).  You are assuming the battle has ended before you have taken the action that actually ends it.  Sure it cooperates, it still has a chance of attaining its goals.  The fact that you do not see how some would feel allowing the Catalyst to reach its goal is an act of compromising with an enemy doesn't make that perspective wrong.

I personally find control and synthesis to be violations of my ethical views to the degree I would not consider them options.  Not because of an unwillingness to compromise (which synthesis is as I must violate the right to choose of every being in the galaxy while the Catalyst still attains its actual objective), but due to my views on individual rights and self determination.  Further, I regard the Reapers as something that require destruction.  Either they are massive monstrosities constructed to perform a horrific task with no true remaining link to the individuals they once were that should be destroyed rather than repurposed, or they are the still functioning "collectives" that have been forced to perform unspeakable atrocities upon other beings for an unknown length of time (which would certainly result in significant trauma to their psyches) deserving of the peace that has so long been denied them.

Modifié par Tokalla, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:21 .

[Geneaux486]

Certainty of victory or loss is very much not something one can have if they are actually viewing things from the character perspective.

You're half right.  From the character's perspective, certainty of victory is not something that can be had.  Certainty of loss, on the other hand, absolutely.  Choosing to allow the mission to fail when its objective is the last, best hope for the galaxy does guarantee a loss.  There is no meta-gaming required to see that much.

Simply because you feel it was certain, does not make everyone see things that way, nor does it change that loss of life may be viewed as preferable to some others.

Be that as it may, Refusal is still one person condemning everyone to death by going against the wishes (and orders) of all of his allies.  Ironically, the thing you're accusing me of doing, presenting my own morality as objective truth (which I'm not), is exactly what Shepard does by choosing Refuse.

Morality and ethics are not able to be debated as if they have objective truths.

Maybe not by you.  If we were to accept that there were no objective truths regarding morals and ethics, that the concepts were completely subjective, what would be the point of debating them at all?

Your unwillingness to accept the perspectives of others makes discussion ultimately pointless

It's an unwllingness that exists only in your mind.  I understand the mindset of choosing Refusal, I simply disagree with it.  My views are no more or less credible than those of anyone else here who's played the series in full, but we're all here debating them anyway.  Understanding and agreeing are not the same thing.

 Repeating yourself in slightly different words about how the Catalyst has been defeated by presence (and not use) of a super weapon (utterly ignoring that the actual fighting has yet to cease, therefore meaning that by any military or reasonable definition of "defeat" the terms have not yet been reached) does not actually make anyone else see the circumstance any differently than the first time you explained your point of view.

I restate it because it's a constant part of my argument.  It's an in-game fact and it backs up what I am saying, hence its continuous use.  I'm not so arrogant as to think that my explanation of it would help people who don't understand it do so when the game itself already makes it abundantly clear.  

If the one who states he controls the Reapers cannot get them to stand down, then he does not truly control them.

His control could be limitted to simply programing the goals of the Reapers into each one and setting them loose to do what they will (Sovereign implies this), but that's still a degree of control.

If the Catalyst has been defeated, then no option need be chosen as the war is over.

The war is ending because the Catalyst is helping you to activate your own weapon.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:02 .

[IanPolaris]

Geneaux486 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Absolutely False.  You are forgetting that the Reapers are Senient and able to make moral choice as is the Catalyst (that's what it means to be an AI and Sentient).  Just because you refese to do what the Catalyst wants does NOT obligate the Reapers to destroy all advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  They CHOOSE to do it anyway, and you are not responsible for that choice.

No, but you're responsible for refusing to stop them when you have the means.  You know what the Reapers are going to do if you don't use the Crucible, and you have the power to stop it.  Actively choosing not to act when you have the ability to act does make it Shepard's responsibility.  Moreso because Shepard's superiors trusted him with the responsibility of activating the thing in the first place.  Also, the Catalyst is only supporting the use of the Crucible because it acknowleges the superiority of the thing. 

You don't.  The Catalyst does.  The Catalyst is in total control of the Crucible regardless of what he says (proof: He can turn it off at any time).  Futhermore, The Catalyst can stop the Reapers any time he wants to.  You have to trust the catalyst (and you have no reason to) is telling the truth, and even then the Catalyst has to allow your actions to work.

That means you are NOT a valid moral agent.  The Catalyst is.  That is the a-number-one problem with the endings even now (except Refusal).

In short, I utterly reject the notion of 'negative responsibility'.  OTOH, with Synethesis, you are CHOOSING to change everyone at the most fundamental and intimate level without their consent.  That means you ARE responsible.  That's why Synethesis is a human rights violation while Refusal is not.

-Polaris

Refusal is a human rights violation.  As I said, Shepard's failure to act when he has the ability to stop the Reapers does make him responsible for the ensuing Reaperfication.  It was his direct choice, his direct inaction, that disrupts the Alliance's entire plan and dooms them all, his failure to live up to his word and do his duty. 

-neaux486

It is NOT.  Refusal ONLY means that you did not do what the Catalyst wanted you do.  That is the only thing you are "responsible" for.  It is the CATALYST that takes the moral blame for the rest not you.  I reject your entire moral premise. 

-Polaris

[Sniktchtherat]

savionen wrote...

All the endings are a violation.

+1,000,000,000,000.

No matter the prettifying, it boils down to choose...and thus lose.  Reject, everyone dies.  Destroy, control, synthesis, you have allowed the Repaers to once again guide your evolution to the place they desire.  Thus, they win.

All the endings are bad.  We're in their cattle chute - the only "choice" we have is the method of demise.  Death of the body, or death of the soul.  Either way....we lose.

Modifié par Sniktchtherat, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:42 .

[IanPolaris]

Sniktchtherat wrote...

savionen wrote...

All the endings are a violation.

+1,000,000,000,000.

No matter the prettifying, it boils down to choose...and thus lose.  Reject, everyone dies.  Destroy, control, synthesis, you have allowed the Repaers to once again guide your evolution to the place they desire.  Thus, they win.

All the endings are bad.  We're in their cattle chute - the only "choice" we have is the method of demise.  Death of the body, or death of the soul.  Either way....we lose.

In short, the only way to 'win' is not to play the game at all.  Is that really the message that Bioware wants to send to it's customers?

-Polaris

[Sniktchtherat]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sniktchtherat wrote...

savionen wrote...

All the endings are a violation.

+1,000,000,000,000.

No matter the prettifying, it boils down to choose...and thus lose.  Reject, everyone dies.  Destroy, control, synthesis, you have allowed the Repaers to once again guide your evolution to the place they desire.  Thus, they win.

All the endings are bad.  We're in their cattle chute - the only "choice" we have is the method of demise.  Death of the body, or death of the soul.  Either way....we lose.

In short, the only way to 'win' is not to play the game at all.  Is that really the message that Bioware wants to send to it's customers?

-Polaris

Whether it was the one they wanted or not, it is the one they sent.

[RiouHotaru]

IanPolaris wrote...

Absolutely False.  You are forgetting that the Reapers are Senient and able to make moral choice as is the Catalyst (that's what it means to be an AI and Sentient).  Just because you refese to do what the Catalyst wants does NOT obligate the Reapers to destroy all advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  They CHOOSE to do it anyway, and you are not responsible for that choice. 

In short, I utterly reject the notion of 'negative responsibility'.  OTOH, with Synethesis, you are CHOOSING to change everyone at the most fundamental and intimate level without their consent.  That means you ARE responsible.  That's why Synethesis is a human rights violation while Refusal is not.

-Polaris

The Reapers are programmed, as is the Catalyst.  The only fault of the Catalyst is that it's following it's own programming.

In Refusal, Shepard chooses to do nothing on moral grounds.  In response, the Catalyst ALSO does nothing (since the Catalyst cannot act on the choices given to Shepard, only Shepard can enact them) and the Cycle continues.

Your argument assumes the Catalyst is capable of taking action outside of it's programming, which the game states it can't.

You can't argue around the fact that SHEPARD IS AT FAULT.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:34 .

[RiouHotaru]

Sniktchtherat wrote...

savionen wrote...

All the endings are a violation.

+1,000,000,000,000.

No matter the prettifying, it boils down to choose...and thus lose.  Reject, everyone dies.  Destroy, control, synthesis, you have allowed the Repaers to once again guide your evolution to the place they desire.  Thus, they win.

All the endings are bad.  We're in their cattle chute - the only "choice" we have is the method of demise.  Death of the body, or death of the soul.  Either way....we lose.

Why is picking one of the endings OTHER than Refusal a "Reaper victory"?

The Cycle ends in ALL the endings, but at least in the first three, the primary races are around to say "Hey, we did it!"

How in the name of all that is logical is that a REAPER victory?!

[Sniktchtherat]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Sniktchtherat wrote...

savionen wrote...

All the endings are a violation.

+1,000,000,000,000.

No matter the prettifying, it boils down to choose...and thus lose.  Reject, everyone dies.  Destroy, control, synthesis, you have allowed the Repaers to once again guide your evolution to the place they desire.  Thus, they win.

All the endings are bad.  We're in their cattle chute - the only "choice" we have is the method of demise.  Death of the body, or death of the soul.  Either way....we lose.

Why is picking one of the endings OTHER than Refusal a "Reaper victory"?

The Cycle ends in ALL the endings, but at least in the first three, the primary races are around to say "Hey, we did it!"

How in the name of all that is logical is that a REAPER victory?!

*sigh*

Let me quote Sovereign.

"by using our technology, you evolve along the paths we desire."

The kid is the one offering you the choices.  The kid who identifies  himself as the COLLECTED MINDS OF THE REAPERS.  If you take ANY of his choices, then you're allowing rhe Reapers to choose your evolution by elimination of all othr choices.  yes, even Destroy.  The kid says "the chaos will come again."  He's denying his entire purpose by presenting you that choice.  For no reason I can find logical.  he's not an altruist .  He's not a philanthropist.  He has a REASON for every thing he gives you.  He GAINS from any of them.  Including Destroy.  Otherwise, he would not offer them.  If you accept a Reaper gift, there's a fishhook - and it's NOT EDI AND THE GETH THAT ARE THE HOOK.  it's that by allowing them to guide you, you end up ONLY at the place THEY desire.  Which means you lose.  We've been using their tech for quite a while.  The hook's already set.  Picking one of their options just lets them reel you in all the faster.  Ask TIM or Saren.

And if you don't allow them to guide you, they kill you.  Which means you lose.

The game's very premise dooms us.

Modifié par Sniktchtherat, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:38 .