933 réponses à ce sujet

[KotorEffect3]

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.

Well actualy you could let the timer run out and a quick cutscene is shown of the reaper invasion and a game over screen hits so essentialy letting the clock run down in arrival is the same as picking refusal at the end of ME 3.

[babachewie]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

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.

Really? The whole galaxy didn't agree to commit genocide? I think they did when they all tried to at one time or another. The Geth would commit genocide for the reaper tech, The quarians would for their homeworld back, The Krogan would wipe anything out especially the Salarians and Turians who are responisible for almost wiping them out with the genophage. The Galaxy already once before got together and made the decision before ME1 to use the Krogan to wipe out the Rachni and they succeded except for one egg lucky enough to escape. I think the Galaxy is ok with genocide as choice if need be. 

[IscrewTali]

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.

Mass effect series: "we must destroy Sovereign no matter the cost" "We must stop the collectors no matter the cost" "i refuse to destroy the Reapers because there is a cost" which of the following does not belong?

[wantedman dan]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

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.

You willingly intended to systematically destroy a race of advanced, sapient intelligence because it was convenient for you. 

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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!

No, the one that Shepard commits genocide. Anyway, not the one where Shepard doesn't let fear comprimise him and he will fight till the last stand. Theres no point of arguing with you if your going to act like a child because you have nothing to back up your claims.

[wantedman dan]

Glad to see we're rehashing the same arguments.

Again. smh

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

Wrong. A willingness to do it casually, perhaps. Faced with worse alternatives it is not.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

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.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Kind of like what happens when the Reapers harvest all advanced life in the galaxy, innit?

Okay. Okay. I'll admit when I'm wrong. By picking Refusal, you're not committing Genocide.

You're committing several Genocides.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

IscrewTali wrote...

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.

Mass effect series: "we must destroy Sovereign no matter the cost" "We must stop the collectors no matter the cost" "i refuse to destroy the Reapers because there is a cost" which of the following does not belong?

If your going to use that logic why not choose control or synthesis, their basically destroyed, their not attacking you and in matter of fact their helping you rebuild. And when hackett said that he meant give it your best not commit genocide of a species.

[wantedman dan]

Reorte wrote...

Wrong. A willingness to do it casually, perhaps. Faced with worse alternatives it is not.

Fallacy. Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior gets you nowhere.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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!

No, the one that Shepard commits genocide. Anyway, not the one where Shepard doesn't let fear comprimise him and he will fight till the last stand. Theres no point of arguing with you if your going to act like a child because you have nothing to back up your claims.

Like I said, Refusal. Good to see you're finally coming around.

[Reorte]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Kind of like what happens when the Reapers harvest all advanced life in the galaxy, innit?

Okay. Okay. I'll admit when I'm wrong. By picking Refusal, you're not committing Genocide.

You're committing several Genocides.

Don't bother. I've been through this before. They'll keep twisting or ignoring definitions to ensure that it still fits their prejudice that it's genocide.

[IscrewTali]

wantedman dan wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

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.

You willingly intended to systematically destroy a race of advanced, sapient intelligence because it was convenient for you. 

Not because of convenience, but so that the OTHERS may live on. Takes a strong person to be able to live with the guilt and responsibility. Are you?

[Rip504]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
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.

I will stop responding to you now. Why is only the words of the Catalyst that you want to be debatable are debatable and not every other word?  Bias.
 You have already "Stepped" to their level by allowing them to keep on harvesting life,when you had the chance to completely stop them,but decided your "SOLUTION" is better.

Your choice is Death for all to save the Geth who will also die.!. You will allow the Reapers to continue to harvest life with no guarantee and everything pointing to conventional victory not being possible. But somehow you didn't know...

Modifié par Rip504, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Wrong. A willingness to do it casually, perhaps. Faced with worse alternatives it is not.

Fallacy. Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior gets you nowhere.

In this case avoiding it gets everyone killed, which is very definitely even worse behaviour.

[wantedman dan]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Kind of like what happens when the Reapers harvest all advanced life in the galaxy, innit?

Okay. Okay. I'll admit when I'm wrong. By picking Refusal, you're not committing Genocide.

Just when I thought you were hopele--

You're committing several Genocides.

Damn. We're back to the UR DOIN IT URSELF LAWL.

[Miezul_Carpatin]

After reading the arguments about destroy and refusal my conclusion is that both endings are sheet.

[AtreiyaN7]

I might be a Synthesis proponent, but I don't actually mind Destroy as much as I loathe Refusal. While I personally disapprove of killing off entire races simply because people are paranoid over the idea of merging the building blocks of life (thanks to the false belief that they'll be Borgified), at least you guys aren't completely selfish like the Refusal types. That's a plus - kind of.

EDIT: This is hugely amusing (to me), but right after I typed this, I turned on Prophets of Science Fiction. It's the Arthur C. Clarke episode, and about 8-9 minutes in, they briefly discussed the building blocks of life (in relation to carbon-based life in the universe).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:11 .

[Faded-Myth]

I think it's all moot anyway since I see Refusal as Indoctrination Theory, and I'm not even someone who follows that whole thing. Catalyst sounds like a Reaper, yo. The way I see it, Catalyst says "Oh, you reject my three choices? How about these lemons? You lose!" Cut to dream about having lost the war.

Since there's no physical proof it's not a dream, I say if you want to consider it a shout out to IT and that Shepard busts free from it and goes on to save the galaxy in a conventional way, go for it.

[wantedman dan]

Reorte wrote...

In this case avoiding it gets everyone killed, which is very definitely even worse behaviour.

Glad to see you can keep that logic coherent.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Reorte wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Kind of like what happens when the Reapers harvest all advanced life in the galaxy, innit?

Okay. Okay. I'll admit when I'm wrong. By picking Refusal, you're not committing Genocide.

You're committing several Genocides.

Don't bother. I've been through this before. They'll keep twisting or ignoring definitions to ensure that it still fits their prejudice that it's genocide.

Destroy IS genocide. I think that we can all agree with that. We are killing the Geth (though I maintain they have their data backed up. Maybe they use Carbonite.) though unintentionally.

But Refuse is MANY genocides. And that's what they keep arguing against. By picking refuse, Shepard is perpetuating mass genocide on a galactic scale - but they can't, and won't, acknowledge this because then it blows their case for Destroy being the worst thing in the world completely out of the water.

[Kyle Kabanya]

Hmmm behind door number one, you have control. Trillions of lives died to make each reaper, and you decide to control them, instead of putting them out of their misery.

Door number two has god mode. You force everyone to change into cyborgs. Force, not ask them to, but go against free will. And you disrupt the natral order of evolution and life/death.

Door three has stopping the reapers. That means putting to rest all those innocent lives. The remaining people in the galaxy are saved, and you don't force any changes upon people. Down side is you kill all synthetics. Big deal, you kill all the walking talking computers, I didn't know they felt emotions or pain.

Door four has the refuse ending. You get trolled by Bioware, and everyone dies.


Tough decision, but I choose door three. If you think destroy is genocide you are simply feeling human emotions, but you are wrong. Its not genocide killing a bunch of computers.

(sarcasm) Oh my friend the talking laptop died (/sarcasm) Better than real lives being killed or changed.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

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.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Kind of like what happens when the Reapers harvest all advanced life in the galaxy, innit?

Okay. Okay. I'll admit when I'm wrong. By picking Refusal, you're not committing Genocide.

You're committing several Genocides.

TO EVERYONE WHO THINKS REFUSAL IS GENOCIDE

This is honestly the last time im going to explain it because it doesn't go in your brain. I took my chances, chances meaning that there was a possibility, and tried to defeat them conventionally because I didn't want to commit genocide or choose the Catalyst absurd options. I ended up failing, but it wasn't genocide, the odds were extremely against us, but they weren't completely against us, so that means we failed, not that I commited genocide. You willingly destroyed a whole Species, you commited genocide, i didn't do it willingly because their was even a small chance to live, you knew the geth were going to die no matter what, you commited genocide, accept it, and deal with it, last time im explaining it.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

In this case avoiding it gets everyone killed, which is very definitely even worse behaviour.

Glad to see you can keep that logic coherent.

If you don't find it logical then there's no hope for you whatsoever.

[KotorEffect3]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

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.

Mass effect series: "we must destroy Sovereign no matter the cost" "We must stop the collectors no matter the cost" "i refuse to destroy the Reapers because there is a cost" which of the following does not belong?

If your going to use that logic why not choose control or synthesis, their basically destroyed, their not attacking you and in matter of fact their helping you rebuild. And when hackett said that he meant give it your best not commit genocide of a species.

Control and synthesis are valid options though they also have their unique problems but they are at least valid unlike refusal.