933 réponses à ce sujet

[babachewie]

Refusal is just dumb when compared to the outrage Destroy brings. Kill one faction to save the rest or just let everyone die together. Its a pretty easy choice. To just let everyone die over some misguided moral standing is ridiculous. Nobody's gonna care about your moral standing when they're all dead. When Garrus , Tali, and all the rest are about to be liquidated into into Reaper Goo and transformed into the very machines they hate, I'm sure they're all be like well at least we have our morals.....which are about to be modified to the Catalysts. In fact I think they should of added extra scenes to refuse and made you watch all these characters you care about die horribly if you chose this. Anyway I sided with the Quarians my first play through and Destroy was a lot easier choice. Plus the Geth would sacrifice anything to get what they want. Look at Legion. He'd sacrifice the entire quarian race for the Reaper tech and even kill Shepard who's the best chance to stop the Reapers in the first place. Everyone looks out for number 1. Even Machines. Nobodys innocent.

Modifié par babachewie, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:20 .

[wantedman dan]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did I say it was okay? No? Thanks for, you know, reading. I said that sacrificing the few for the good of the many is PREFERABLE to the many being, you know, completely and utterly wiped out. Would it be better if the Geth didn't have to die? Absolutely. And that's why I prefer Control.

If you don't want your feeble justifications to be interpreted in such a way, don't justify them where they will be.

Is submission not perferable to extinction? Yes it is. But you know what's even better than that? Winning. Which you are about to do until you take one final self-righteously moral stand and say "Nope. Better to let everything die."

And you are winning at what cost? Genocide, eugenics, or slavery. Take your pick.

That is the point that you have missed the entire time: if you are mandatorily stooping down to the level of those you're trying to defeat, you are no better than they are. One would wonder, at that point, is victory worth that cost?

Shepard is absolutely ABSOLUTELY the direct catalyst of said war crimes. You are given three choices to end the war, to prevent ANY FURTHER loss of life. If you pick one of those endings, the Reapers will be unable to kill even one more person. Ever. You choose to say "Nope". You are completely, utterly, and solely responsible for all those deaths because you could have stopped them, and you said "no".

SHEPARD IS ABSOLUTELY CATALYST BECAUSE I SAY SO LAWL. Such a brilliant argument with such amazing reinforcing evidence. I never thought of it that way.

Your non-sequitur is noted.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Destroy vs Refuse in a nutshell:

There are thirteen puppies.

If you kill one, twelve of those puppies will live.

If you say no, all thirteen puppies will die.

What do you do?

[Miezul_Carpatin]

I now understand why the endings are a failure for me : either you win by compromising your morality or totally lose. This is not something I want to find out by playing a game which is supposed to entertain me and be a distraction from real life.

[wantedman dan]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Destroy vs Refuse in a nutshell:

There are thirteen puppies.

If you kill one, twelve of those puppies will live.

If you say no, all thirteen puppies will die.

What do you do?

LOL.

Weren't you complaining about my childishness in another thread? You certainly have no problem acting in such a manner.

[wantedman dan]

Miezul_Carpatin wrote...

I now understand why the endings are a failure for me : either you win by compromising your morality or totally lose. This is not something I want to find out by playing a game which is supposed to entertain me and be a distraction from real life.

THIS. So much this.

[agu123]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

agu123 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

I never said we had to save everyone, but im not destroying a whole species, we are an united galaxy we will fight not surrender to the catalyst logic and reasoning.

You surrendered to the Reapers the moment you said you wouldn't use the Crucible to stop the Catalyst and his talking abominations, just because you didn't want to get your hands dirty.

The galaxy doesn't care about your morals. Asari and Turian children watching their parents getting turned into Reaper ground troops on their respective planets don't care about your ideals. They never said anything about "dying to stop the Reapers", they were busy attempting to survive.

and the next cycles defeats the Reapers based on your information, so I died, I didn't commit Genocide, and the Reapers ended up being defeated.

Yay! Congratulations! Someone else did the job for you. Meanwhile, everybody in this cicle is dead.

Don't worry though, I'm sure the Asari, the Turians, the Quarians, the Krogan, the Salarians, Humans, the Vorcha, the Hanar and the Drell, the Elcor, the freaking Batarians, the Geth and every other species that is never seen but only mentioned, are being preserved by the Catalyst and his friends.

I hate Kai Leng but if you can't make the hard choices, step aside for those who can.

How did I surrender? The galaxy agreed to fight the Reapers beforehand. To reject the Catalyst's offer is to continue to fight them. If you accept it, If i stop fighting them, then i surrendered,

We as a galaxy became united and gave it everything we had without commiting genocide, I'm pretty sure we would be proud.

The Primarch tells you that their only hope is to win the battle on Earth and activate the Crucible.
The Asari councilor offers help because she's aware of the Crucible's existance.
You asked the Rachni, the Geth, the Cerberus deserters (and even the Salarians if you sabotage the cure) to work on the Crucible.
During the battle of Earth, most of Hammer was wiped out, and Sword is clearly still taking losses while gaining time, so that you could activate the Crucible.
Hackett tells you multiple times that conventional victory is impossible against the entire Reaper fleet.

Meanwhile, inside the Citadel.

The only man who made it alive to the Citadel with you is dead, and you're bleeding from everywhere. You meet the master of the Reapers which explains you what the Crucible does. He didn't design it, it's not part of his plan (though you can argue that Synthesis was part of the Catalyst plan for a few reasons. Even Control if you want to go that far.) Destroy on the other hand, is against anything the Catalyst stands for, and it completely nullifies his attempts at "preserving organics".

Now, tell me, why the hell would you refuse to act in this situation? Do you really think that Hammer and Sword (or what's left of them) can deal with the rest of the Reapers? What about all the sacrifices you made to get to the Citadel in the first place?

Modifié par agu123, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:27 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

wantedman dan wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did I say it was okay? No? Thanks for, you know, reading. I said that sacrificing the few for the good of the many is PREFERABLE to the many being, you know, completely and utterly wiped out. Would it be better if the Geth didn't have to die? Absolutely. And that's why I prefer Control.

If you don't want your feeble justifications to be interpreted in such a way, don't justify them where they will be.

Is submission not perferable to extinction? Yes it is. But you know what's even better than that? Winning. Which you are about to do until you take one final self-righteously moral stand and say "Nope. Better to let everything die."

And you are winning at what cost? Genocide, eugenics, or slavery. Take your pick.

That is the point that you have missed the entire time: if you are mandatorily stooping down to the level of those you're trying to defeat, you are no better than they are. One would wonder, at that point, is victory worth that cost?

Shepard is absolutely ABSOLUTELY the direct catalyst of said war crimes. You are given three choices to end the war, to prevent ANY FURTHER loss of life. If you pick one of those endings, the Reapers will be unable to kill even one more person. Ever. You choose to say "Nope". You are completely, utterly, and solely responsible for all those deaths because you could have stopped them, and you said "no".

SHEPARD IS ABSOLUTELY CATALYST BECAUSE I SAY SO LAWL. Such a brilliant argument with such amazing reinforcing evidence. I never thought of it that way.

Your non-sequitur is noted.

Yeah. Like I said. I knew getting into this with you from the start was a mistake. No matter how much evidence we give you, you will continually dismiss, berate, and condescend to anyone who disagrees with you. 

There is literally zero point in ever trying to have a rational conversation with someone who continually refuses to be rational. I would, quite frankly, rather slam my head in a door than ever attempt to "converse" with you again. 

While I am hesitent to throw out the "troll" label because it is too oftentimes misused, it is quite apparent that that is precisely what you are. 

Good day, sir.

[Cant Planet]

wantedman dan wrote...

Cant Planet wrote...

I understand that you think taking no action and precipitating dozens of genocides because you don't want to be responsible for making a choice, and prefer to crow about your strong moral code, is philosophically superior and more ethically justifiable than making a choice and causing less death.

Obviously not, because you minimize the impact of not choosing between war crimes.

I understand that you seem to think you're the only person on these boards who has ever read a book or had a thought, and that you have magical insight into the unspoken motives of others.

I understand that the game was designed to have every ending be an uncomfortable compromise, and that you find this to be an unnecessary burden on whatever organ it is that moderates your sense of personal rage.

And, probably most importantly, I understand that it's possible to have a debate about it without being a condescending dick.

This is adorable. Either you stay consistent with your supposed abhorrence of condescention and refuse to do such, or you willingly adopt hypocrisy and do to others that which you apparently hate.

It's true, I am adorable! Nice of you to finally notice.

Also, your spellcheck's broken.

[SlyTF1]

I am...

[wantedman dan]

Cant Planet wrote...

It's true, I am adorable! Nice of you to finally notice.

Also, your spellcheck's broken.

For some reason, Chrome's spellchecker doesn't work when using the full reply page.

[dragonflight288]

No war is won without sacrifice. No game of chess can be won without sacrificing pieces, from the pawn and even better or more powerful pieces.

Trying to defeat the Reapers conventionally is like trying to win a game of chess without sacrificing a single piece, even the pawns.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Rip504 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote....

You willingly decided to destroy the Geth, you commited Genocide.

You willing chose to do nothing. Your now responsible for the destruction of all life. You could have stopped the cycle and chose not to. Allowing the Reapers to continue their harvest. You allowed it. Shepard,now one of the Reapers greatest allies. Shepard could have stopped the Reapers,but chose to allow them to continue harvesting. With no guarantee that the Reapers would have ever been stopped. The Catalyst tells us the Geth will be killed in the destroy option,The Catalyst also tell us you will fail in the reject ending. You knew you would fail and all life would be destroyed with no guarantee of ever stopping the reapers. You still chose to do it.

I think it was nice of Bioware to throw the "rejects" a bone and tell you that the next cycle defeated the Reapers. Imagine if they would have not. Imagine if the Reapers would have kept on reaping for another Billion years,because you chose to not stop them. The loss of life after the crucible is on Shepard's hands,just as the oil of the Geth is on Shepard's hands.

I say refuse is easliy a worse option then destroy.

No, we fought and loss, it is not genocide,

Where do I call it genocide? I hold you responsible for it,as you are. You knew you would fail,and chose to do so. You chose to fail,and watch all life die for the sake of being able to say NO. When destroy is a much lesser evil.

A casualty of war and the intent to wipe out an entire race,are two separte things.

I didn't know i was going to fail.

[IscrewTali]

wantedman dan wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did I say it was okay? No? Thanks for, you know, reading. I said that sacrificing the few for the good of the many is PREFERABLE to the many being, you know, completely and utterly wiped out. Would it be better if the Geth didn't have to die? Absolutely. And that's why I prefer Control.

If you don't want your feeble justifications to be interpreted in such a way, don't justify them where they will be.

Is submission not perferable to extinction? Yes it is. But you know what's even better than that? Winning. Which you are about to do until you take one final self-righteously moral stand and say "Nope. Better to let everything die."

And you are winning at what cost? Genocide, eugenics, or slavery. Take your pick.

That is the point that you have missed the entire time: if you are mandatorily stooping down to the level of those you're trying to defeat, you are no better than they are. One would wonder, at that point, is victory worth that cost?

Shepard is absolutely ABSOLUTELY the direct catalyst of said war crimes. You are given three choices to end the war, to prevent ANY FURTHER loss of life. If you pick one of those endings, the Reapers will be unable to kill even one more person. Ever. You choose to say "Nope". You are completely, utterly, and solely responsible for all those deaths because you could have stopped them, and you said "no".

SHEPARD IS ABSOLUTELY CATALYST BECAUSE I SAY SO LAWL. Such a brilliant argument with such amazing reinforcing evidence. I never thought of it that way.

Your non-sequitur is noted.

If your(wantedman dan) Shepard acted like this from the beginning, you would have stopped playing on Virmire. Letting 1 die so that a handful can live and destroy the evil krogan clone factory. OR let no one die, fight to the bitter end, knowing you cant win, and letting a clone krogan army conquer the galaxy for the Reapers.

And saying the Genocide argument cant be compared to this is pure BS.

[wantedman dan]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Yeah. Like I said. I knew getting into this with you from the start was a mistake. No matter how much evidence we give you, you will continually dismiss, berate, and condescend to anyone who disagrees with you. 

There is literally zero point in ever trying to have a rational conversation with someone who continually refuses to be rational. I would, quite frankly, rather slam my head in a door than ever attempt to "converse" with you again. 

While I am hesitent to throw out the "troll" label because it is too oftentimes misused, it is quite apparent that that is precisely what you are. 

Good day, sir.

Please. Spare me your heartbreaking symphony; if you had offered a compelling argument, it would have been noted.

What you've offered has only been something along the lines of "because I said so" and "because you're irrational." And you wonder why I'm reticent to take you seriously.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did I say it was okay? No? Thanks for, you know, reading. I said that sacrificing the few for the good of the many is PREFERABLE to the many being, you know, completely and utterly wiped out. Would it be better if the Geth didn't have to die? Absolutely. And that's why I prefer Control.

If you don't want your feeble justifications to be interpreted in such a way, don't justify them where they will be.

Is submission not perferable to extinction? Yes it is. But you know what's even better than that? Winning. Which you are about to do until you take one final self-righteously moral stand and say "Nope. Better to let everything die."

And you are winning at what cost? Genocide, eugenics, or slavery. Take your pick.

That is the point that you have missed the entire time: if you are mandatorily stooping down to the level of those you're trying to defeat, you are no better than they are. One would wonder, at that point, is victory worth that cost?

Shepard is absolutely ABSOLUTELY the direct catalyst of said war crimes. You are given three choices to end the war, to prevent ANY FURTHER loss of life. If you pick one of those endings, the Reapers will be unable to kill even one more person. Ever. You choose to say "Nope". You are completely, utterly, and solely responsible for all those deaths because you could have stopped them, and you said "no".

SHEPARD IS ABSOLUTELY CATALYST BECAUSE I SAY SO LAWL. Such a brilliant argument with such amazing reinforcing evidence. I never thought of it that way.

Your non-sequitur is noted.

Yeah. Like I said. I knew getting into this with you from the start was a mistake. No matter how much evidence we give you, you will continually dismiss, berate, and condescend to anyone who disagrees with you. 

There is literally zero point in ever trying to have a rational conversation with someone who continually refuses to be rational. I would, quite frankly, rather slam my head in a door than ever attempt to "converse" with you again. 

While I am hesitent to throw out the "troll" label because it is too oftentimes misused, it is quite apparent that that is precisely what you are. 

Good day, sir.

Seems to me your denying evidence, he clearly explained why destroy is wrong and your response in to call him a troll.

[wantedman dan]

IscrewTali wrote...

If your(wantedman dan) Shepard acted like this from the beginning, you would have stopped playing on Virmire. Letting 1 die so that a handful can live and destroy the evil krogan clone factory. OR let no one die, fight to the bitter end, knowing you cant win, and letting a clone krogan army conquer the galaxy for the Reapers.

And saying the Genocide argument cant be compared to this is pure BS.

Oh, well just because you said so...

It's complete BS. I didn't order Ashley to stay behind on Virmire because she was human, white, from Earth, or any other form of classification, racial disparity, or nationality. You are wrong, you fundamentally misunderstand what genocide is, and it is quite frankly laughable.

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

Miezul_Carpatin wrote...

I now understand why the endings are a failure for me : either you win by compromising your morality or totally lose. This is not something I want to find out by playing a game which is supposed to entertain me and be a distraction from real life.

THIS. So much this.

Up to a point. Sometimes you need to make tough decisions, but the negatives in Destroy are just forced. Not all being light and joy and having to have some unpleasant consequences makes the game more convincing and therefore able to draw me in better - as long as it's not forced. The damned whatever you do nature of The Witcher seems to work, but the ones in the ME3 ending are out of kilter and arbitrary.

[wantedman dan]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Seems to me your denying evidence, he clearly explained why destroy is wrong and your response in to call him a troll.

No, don't break the delusion. It'll only hurt his feelings more.

[Rip504]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
I didn't know i was going to fail.

LMAO,then I didn't know the Geth would die. Since the Catalyst states both will happen.



*A casualty of war and the intent to wipe out an entire race,are two separate Issues.*

Geth are a casualty of war. Not a race wiped out for any specific reason,other then sharing similarities with the Reapers. An unintended side effect. I did not chose to create the Geth in this manner,I did not chose for the crucible to function in this manner. It was never my intent,but rather a casualty of war.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

IscrewTali wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Did I say it was okay? No? Thanks for, you know, reading. I said that sacrificing the few for the good of the many is PREFERABLE to the many being, you know, completely and utterly wiped out. Would it be better if the Geth didn't have to die? Absolutely. And that's why I prefer Control.

If you don't want your feeble justifications to be interpreted in such a way, don't justify them where they will be.

Is submission not perferable to extinction? Yes it is. But you know what's even better than that? Winning. Which you are about to do until you take one final self-righteously moral stand and say "Nope. Better to let everything die."

And you are winning at what cost? Genocide, eugenics, or slavery. Take your pick.

That is the point that you have missed the entire time: if you are mandatorily stooping down to the level of those you're trying to defeat, you are no better than they are. One would wonder, at that point, is victory worth that cost?

Shepard is absolutely ABSOLUTELY the direct catalyst of said war crimes. You are given three choices to end the war, to prevent ANY FURTHER loss of life. If you pick one of those endings, the Reapers will be unable to kill even one more person. Ever. You choose to say "Nope". You are completely, utterly, and solely responsible for all those deaths because you could have stopped them, and you said "no".

SHEPARD IS ABSOLUTELY CATALYST BECAUSE I SAY SO LAWL. Such a brilliant argument with such amazing reinforcing evidence. I never thought of it that way.

Your non-sequitur is noted.

If your(wantedman dan) Shepard acted like this from the beginning, you would have stopped playing on Virmire. Letting 1 die so that a handful can live and destroy the evil krogan clone factory. OR let no one die, fight to the bitter end, knowing you cant win, and letting a clone krogan army conquer the galaxy for the Reapers.

And saying the Genocide argument cant be compared to this is pure BS.

Sacrifying one person and destroying a whole species is different.

[Lord Goose]

And you are winning at what cost? Genocide, eugenics, or
slavery.

First of all, Control isn't slavery. Reapers are not entirely sentient in their current state. They cannot choose to stop the harvest, for example. They're fire, and fire burns. Controlling the fire is not a slavery.
Destroy also have its justification. Geth and EDI are soldiers and they were prepared to die. This decision still falls into Renegade morality, but its morality nonetheless.
Synthesis have its own bright sides too.

Also, both decisions are not really what Catalyst wants.

[wantedman dan]

Rip504 wrote...

Geth are a casualty of war. Not a race wiped out for any specific reason,other then sharing similarities with the Reapers. An unintended side effect. I did not chose to create the Geth in this manner,I did not chose for the crucible to function in this manner. It was never my intent,but rather a casualty of war.

You just used the Catalyst as a source for something that you believe, yet now you're willing to ignore it?

Either you take everything at face value, or you take nothing. There is no selective retconning on your behalf.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Seems to me your denying evidence, he clearly explained why destroy is wrong and your response in to call him a troll.

I'm calling him a troll because he IS a troll.

I clearly explained why Destroy is preferable to Refuse, and his (and your) response is to say "nuh uh!"

He, and you, have no evidence other than sanctimony.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:36 .

[Miezul_Carpatin]

One more thing is bugging me about Destroy. As far as I remember someone said in the game that the Reapers are not totally synthetic, but they are also part organic. If Shepard survives being part synthetic and part organic, why don't some of the reapers survive? Just wondering.