933 réponses à ce sujet

[Khajiit Jzargo]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

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.

The catalyst saying that you will lose is no more different than if you and me were to play basketball and i were to tell you, your going to lose. Its not a fact, is the catalyst defending what he believes, When the refusal ending was available I had a very him EMS and I though we might have a chance of winning, we didn't, but At least i didn't commit a war crime and submit to the Catalyst tyrany. Also you willingly destroyed the Geth, there were other options but you decided to destroy them, its genocide don't try to justify it.

If you pick refuse than you are just being downright stubborn and foolish.  I don't care how high your EMS is the game makes it very clear that the reapers cannot be defeated conventionaly.  Hackett who is the admiral coordinating all of the allied forces says so on more than one occasion.  Hackett didn't get to where he is by not knowing war.  He knows very well what will happen if the crucible is not used.  Funny thing is the refusal crowd claims they have the moral high ground when they are condemning trillions to their deaths and forcing the next cycle to face the reapers.  Sorry but you don't have the moral high ground when you can end the reaper threat permanently but refuse over a misplaced sense of righteousness.

Actually to be fair, Hackett said slim to none to beat them conventionally, slim is a possibility, anyway I rather die than to step to their level, it makes me just as bad as them, And the Galaxy agreed to kill the reapers but not to commit genocide in the process.

[wantedman dan]

kleindropper wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

No, it makes you a genocidal monster, whether you felt bad for the Geth/Edi or not, your still killing them, I rather refuse and die as a formed galaxy.

Destroying the galaxy to save some walking computers is ridiculous.  They can simply be re-made if you want them back after the Reapers are destroyed.

You do realize that, essentially we are all walking computers, right?

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

We've been through this before.

You were warned preceding your choice that the Crucible would indiscriminately kill all synthetics. You willingly chose to kill them in addition to the Reapers.

Yes, I've heard that nonsense said before. It only works as an argument against Destroy for people who over-simplify by not realising that intent can be as important as the action.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Destroy is a perfectly valid option to pick, picking destroy doesn't mean you want to destroy the geth or edi. All it means is that they are unfortunate collateral damage. The last casualties in this terrible war but they are sacrifices that will be remembered. The only choice of the 4 that I do condemn is refuse.

That is so wrong, whether you want to destroy them or not, if you choose to do it, its genocide. 

No-one is choosing to kill the geth (well, maybe some are but those people will probably have already done it back at Rannoch). They are choosing to kill the Reapers and the only way to do that is to unfortunately kill the geth too. You can argue about whether or not that's a lesser or greater evil than chosing the risk of Control or the violation of Synthesis (but there's no way you can defend getting everyone killed as better) but genocide it ain't.

Refuse is simply stubborn pride (not helped by the alternatives all being pretty stupid). I wonder how many people have died needlessly to that throughout history?

Theres no point to this arguement, when you shot the red machine, you knew the Geth were all going to die, yet you shot it, you commited genocide.

[KotorEffect3]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Destroy is a perfectly valid option to pick, picking destroy doesn't mean you want to destroy the geth or edi. All it means is that they are unfortunate collateral damage. The last casualties in this terrible war but they are sacrifices that will be remembered. The only choice of the 4 that I do condemn is refuse.

That is so wrong, whether you want to destroy them or not, if you choose to do it, its genocide. 

By your logic not using the crucible at all when you have a chance to use it to end the war you are commiting a genocide of every advanced civilization of the galaxy including the synthetics.  Your inaction condemns many more and forces the next cycle to face the reapers.  And no I don't want to hear how you think you can beat them conventionaly, you can't end of story.  You do not have the moral high ground you think you have.  You have the blood of trillions on your hands.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Facemelter91 wrote...

Just FYI, Geth don't die in destroy... Red beam would have had to target Geth hardware, which wasn't reaper tech. In order for the red beam to have outright killed them it would have destroyed computer programs as well, which well... our friends on Gilligan's planet wouldn't have left. If the red beam targeted sentient AI, Geth, from the very way they are designed, are not technically AI in a sense. They need to be in large numbers to be even remotely better than a normal VI. The reaper upgrade is merely like updating ME3 to the EC. Red beam would have stripped the reaper upgrade and left the normal stupid Geth. Hell, if you want to stretch it, the Geth could have very well have put a space station out in dark space to monitor for reapers which could very well have been untouched.

Making conclusions from what we are given. There is no indication aside from star brat saying, "derp, they die" that the Geth have perished. They are also made very differently from EDI, so just because she died doesn't mean squat in concern of the Geth.

To put it even more frankly, I don't believe that the red beam kills EDI's AI core because we never get an explanation as to what "Synthetic" means. I believe it kills her body, but she is still safely ensconced in the Normandy's computers like she was before she ever got the sexbot.

I believe that while the Geth bodies may be destroyed, their consciousness...es... still exist in, to put it flippantly, the Geth iCloud.

[KotorEffect3]

I should also note that if anyone that is arguing against destroy because they think it is murder is a hypocrite if they played the arrival dlc.

[wantedman dan]

Reorte wrote...

Yes, I've heard that nonsense said before. It only works as an argument against Destroy for people who over-simplify by not realising that intent can be as important as the action.

Ah, lovely. This again. We've been through this before, too.

The fact of the matter is, by choosing destroy you willingly chosse to kill all synthetics because they are synthetics. There is no alternative to that.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Theres no point to this arguement, when you shot the red machine, you knew the Geth were all going to die, yet you shot it, you commited genocide.

Genocide requires intent. I had no intent to kill the geth even though I knew it would happen. Stop over-simplifying, it's leading you to false conclusions.

[wantedman dan]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I should also note that if anyone that is arguing against destroy because they think it is murder is a hypocrite if they played the arrival dlc.

You do realize that we didn't kill the Batarians because they were Batarians, right?

[IscrewTali]

wantedman dan wrote...

kleindropper wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

No, it makes you a genocidal monster, whether you felt bad for the Geth/Edi or not, your still killing them, I rather refuse and die as a formed galaxy.

Destroying the galaxy to save some walking computers is ridiculous.  They can simply be re-made if you want them back after the Reapers are destroyed.

You do realize that, essentially we are all walking computers, right?

We are all computers, "because he said so". Sound familiar? Back your argument with facts.

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Yes, I've heard that nonsense said before. It only works as an argument against Destroy for people who over-simplify by not realising that intent can be as important as the action.

Ah, lovely. This again. We've been through this before, too.

The fact of the matter is, by choosing destroy you willingly chosse to kill all synthetics because they are synthetics. There is no alternative to that.

Yes, I know. It's bloody depressing that some people are clearly incapable of enough intelligence to grasp it.

[KotorEffect3]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Destroy is a perfectly valid option to pick, picking destroy doesn't mean you want to destroy the geth or edi. All it means is that they are unfortunate collateral damage. The last casualties in this terrible war but they are sacrifices that will be remembered. The only choice of the 4 that I do condemn is refuse.

That is so wrong, whether you want to destroy them or not, if you choose to do it, its genocide. 

No-one is choosing to kill the geth (well, maybe some are but those people will probably have already done it back at Rannoch). They are choosing to kill the Reapers and the only way to do that is to unfortunately kill the geth too. You can argue about whether or not that's a lesser or greater evil than chosing the risk of Control or the violation of Synthesis (but there's no way you can defend getting everyone killed as better) but genocide it ain't.

Refuse is simply stubborn pride (not helped by the alternatives all being pretty stupid). I wonder how many people have died needlessly to that throughout history?

Theres no point to this arguement, when you shot the red machine, you knew the Geth were all going to die, yet you shot it, you commited genocide.

When you did nothing but throw your little temper tantrum and refused when you had the chance to end the war you commited genocide on a much larger scale.

[Father_Jerusalem]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I should also note that if anyone that is arguing against destroy because they think it is murder is a hypocrite if they played the arrival dlc.

I wouldn't necessarily go THAT far. In Arrival you are literally presented with no choice. In ME3, you are presented with three other choices, one of which simply happens to be unbearably stupid.

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I should also note that if anyone that is arguing against destroy because they think it is murder is a hypocrite if they played the arrival dlc.

You do realize that we didn't kill the Batarians because they were Batarians, right?

You know that if you let the clock run down in Arrival the Reapers turn up and it's Critical Mission Failure? If you didn't let that happen then you're a hypocrite.

[Faded-Myth]

I chose Control. No species is sacrificed and Shepard is elevated to the status of a super-guardian of space. It means not being with Tali, but she's a strong one.

I personally prefer Destroy to Refusal. I feel like standing there not doing anything is tantamount to giving up when the galaxy needs you to most. You're not "doing everything you can or die trying": because at that point you are no longer trying.

[wantedman dan]

IscrewTali wrote...

We are all computers, "because he said so". Sound familiar? Back your argument with facts.

The difference being my argument is reinforced by actual science.

The Brain vs. The Computer. I even picked the kids' page for you for easier digestion.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Rip504 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The catalyst saying that you will lose is no more different than if you and me were to play basketball and i were to tell you, your going to lose. Its not a fact, is the catalyst defending what he believes, When the refusal ending was available I had a very him EMS and I though we might have a chance of winning, we didn't, but At least i didn't commit a war crime and submit to the Catalyst tyrany. Also you willingly destroyed the Geth, there were other options but you decided to destroy them, its genocide don't try to justify it.

It is fact,proven in game. It is justifiable by every argument that supports Geth or reject ending. You allow the Reapers to keep harvesting all life with no Guarantee of ever stopping them,after rejecting three separate ways of stopping them. Reject is a worse option stop trying to justify it. LMAO again.


Your stating the Catalyst is telling the truth about everything except reject. You are speaking in Bias and nothing else.
The Catalyst could be saying that destroy will kill the Geth, EDI and you to try and persuade you not to destroy them. Although we know this is not the case,just as we know it is fact that you will lose and let all life die,while the Reapers keep on harvesting life when rejecting the Catalyst. MY EMS is over 9,000. I never had any delusions that I would/could win conventionally. I was more then correct.

Were not arguing the best ending, were arguing genocide. When the Catalyst tells you about the options hes giving you facts that cannot be changed, when he tells you will lose by refusing, that remained to be seen, And honestly like I said before, I rather die than to step down to their level, commiting genocide and war crimes.

[KotorEffect3]

wantedman dan wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I should also note that if anyone that is arguing against destroy because they think it is murder is a hypocrite if they played the arrival dlc.

You do realize that we didn't kill the Batarians because they were Batarians, right?

And we didn't kill synthetics because they are synthetics.  In both instances we killed them to stop the reapers, we killed them for the greater good.  Not because we wanted to kill them but because we had to in order to stop the reapers.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I should also note that if anyone that is arguing against destroy because they think it is murder is a hypocrite if they played the arrival dlc.

I wouldn't necessarily go THAT far. In Arrival you are literally presented with no choice. In ME3, you are presented with three other choices, one of which simply happens to be unbearably stupid.

And one that goes against everything about the Mass Effect series.

[Lord Goose]

I'll leave you with your speculations. They, however, when released from their central control,
become sentient creatures capable of benefit rather than
only of harm. What does that say about their central control?

I assume you're talking about Leviathan? Well, I'm not taking him into account, because his DLC is not yet released. Judging from parts of leaked script, it may as well be possible, that Leviathan was unique Reaper, who was keeping parts of their creators consiciousness and will. Where are a lines suggesting that, at very least.

What is definitely known, is that Reapers only became fully sentient in synthesis, and what they simply cannot choose to stop harvesting.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I should also note that if anyone that is arguing against destroy because they think it is murder is a hypocrite if they played the arrival dlc.

I wouldn't necessarily go THAT far. In Arrival you are literally presented with no choice. In ME3, you are presented with three other choices, one of which simply happens to be unbearably stupid.

And one that goes against everything about the Mass Effect series.

Yes, it's Synthesis.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I should also note that if anyone that is arguing against destroy because they think it is murder is a hypocrite if they played the arrival dlc.

I wouldn't necessarily go THAT far. In Arrival you are literally presented with no choice. In ME3, you are presented with three other choices, one of which simply happens to be unbearably stupid.

And one that goes against everything about the Mass Effect series.

You mean Refusal? Good to see you're finally coming around!

[wantedman dan]

Reorte wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Yes, I've heard that nonsense said before. It only works as an argument against Destroy for people who over-simplify by not realising that intent can be as important as the action.

Ah, lovely. This again. We've been through this before, too.

The fact of the matter is, by choosing destroy you willingly chosse to kill all synthetics because they are synthetics. There is no alternative to that.

Yes, I know. It's bloody depressing that some people are clearly incapable of enough intelligence to grasp it.

And what a shame it is, too, that those same people can't understand that the willingness leads to intentionality.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Destroy is a perfectly valid option to pick, picking destroy doesn't mean you want to destroy the geth or edi. All it means is that they are unfortunate collateral damage. The last casualties in this terrible war but they are sacrifices that will be remembered. The only choice of the 4 that I do condemn is refuse.

That is so wrong, whether you want to destroy them or not, if you choose to do it, its genocide. 

By your logic not using the crucible at all when you have a chance to use it to end the war you are commiting a genocide of every advanced civilization of the galaxy including the synthetics.  Your inaction condemns many more and forces the next cycle to face the reapers.  And no I don't want to hear how you think you can beat them conventionaly, you can't end of story.  You do not have the moral high ground you think you have.  You have the blood of trillions on your hands.

Again you guys need to stop acting obtuse and learn the definition of Genocide. We as a Galaxy decided to fight, by refusing we continue to fight and take our chances, if we die, that does not make it Genocide. When you shoot the red machine, your willingly with no exception destroying the Geth, Therefore you are commiting genocide. I will not explain it again.