933 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

If we're to die, we all die together.
All species agreed to fight the Reapers. Nobody agreed to be sacrificed, or be sold to the Reapers to "win".

Rejection is the only way we don't sacrifice the soul of our species.

[Tealjaker94]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Master Xanthan 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.

So you choose refuse and allow everyone to die instead of just the geth and edi? That sounds even worse. Plus the Geth and Edi are a necessary sacrifice to make sure the Reaper threat is gone. Control and Synthesis don't accomplish that.

Yes, I rather all die as a galaxy than to have to do something a starbrat told me and commit genocide to a species that had agreed to help me. "I won't let fear comprimise who i am" 

You wont choose destroy because it will kill all the geth (your allies)... instead you will refuse which will kill all the geth (your allies) and every other advanced race...

did you go to the catalyst school of logic?

No, I won't choose destroy because like i said before we didn't agree to commit Genocide. We will die free.

And in destroy we will live free. I personally prefer it that way.

[AxStapleton]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I was getting the opposite notion actually. Has seemed to me that lots of people who go with destroy seem to try and speculate the deaths of EDI & the Geth away, so they can have their uber-happy ending. Keep that in your head, cause that's all it is. Head-canon.

You obviously didn't read my OP.

[Bfler]

Refusal could be the option with a stalemate. You convince the child to give organics and synthetics a chance to proof that they can coexist. The Reapers could become observers in the background. If the synthetics become too powerfull and try to exterminate organics then the Reapers could kill organics, synthetics and restart their cycle.

Modifié par Bfler, 01 juillet 2012 - 05:27 .

[Rasofe]

@Vexile
Well, I would only use the refusal option on some of my less liked characters but I still like the option.
About a quarter of the fanbase had a huge problem with the ME ending being more like a Half-Life ending. For those of you who know, Half Life and its sequels was a game themed quite clearly on the illusion of free will in terms of gameplay and story. Mass Effect had a genuine free will gameplay all the way through... until the ending, where Shepard has to comply to one of three bad choices. People were very upset that they couldn't just tell the Godchild to get lost.

But think about it. If you had a gun and the person you hated the most was in your sights, would you pull the trigger? Or would you just be happy that you can pull the trigger, but you wouldn't do it? I think most people with a nut of common sense would pick option 2. And as such, the Rejection option, while obviously a default "Surrender", is still a very welcome addition to EC.

[Reorte]

[quote]Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

[/quote]No, I won't choose destroy because like i said before we didn't agree to commit Genocide. We will die free.
[/quote]
Dead is dead. Better trillions live free.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Kaica wrote...

I can understand Khajiit Jzargo's logic and reasons, even though I always chose and will choose Destroy.

I'm not sure if I'm getting this right, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Khajiit Jzargo refuses to sacrifice anyone. He/she (didn't check, sorry) rather kills everyone than chooses someone(s) to die. I can totally understand that. It is equally fair for all. No guilt.

The reason I (and I guess a lot of others) chose destroy is to do what we were dedicated to do since the first place. We are ready to sacrifice some to gain the goal we already sacrificed so much for: to actually destroy the Reapers. We don't do it for selfish reason, we do it in the name of common good. Even if it means sacrificing some. Sometimes that is what it takes, and it sure ain't easy to make this decision.

There is no correct answer to this, there never is when it comes to moral and ethics. We just have to agree to disagree. For me, refusal is the next best option.

Anyway...

You basically got it right, and I can understand your reasons.

[Vexille]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Han Shot First 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.

So destroying the Reapers makes you a genocidal monster, but not condemning every sapient species in the galaxy to extinction? Because that is what you do when you choose the Reject Ending.

Destroy is the only ending where Shepard and the galaxy actually win the Reaper war. Control and Synthesis are stalemate endings.

I'm going to copy and pase my previous post.

No, I fulfill what we as a galaxy agreed to do, defeat the reapers or die trying. Not commit genocide or control them, or co-exist with them, We die free knowing that we did everything we could have done to defeat the reapers and never gave in to the Catalyst flawed logic.

Flawed logic is saying that Shepard is a genocidal monster in Destroy but not Reject, when Reject condemns far more sapient beings to death. And Reject causes actual extinctions of organic species, whereas with Destroy you just lose synthetics who could potentially be rebuilt.

If you choose Destroy, you make the desicion to kill the Geth to save others.
If you refuse, you refuse to kill anyone and instead fight united as a galaxy.

in destroy you agree to kill the Geth

in refuse you choose to KILL EVERYONE

you commit genocide in both scenarios... the body count is just far far higher in refuse

[billywaffles]

Destroy doesn't make you a genocidal monster. Geth terminals and EDI's body and blue box are still there. Engineers just have to re-program their IA again. I am sure that Admiral Xen would love to give all those "dead" geth terminals a new use.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

The Angry One wrote...

If we're to die, we all die together.
All species agreed to fight the Reapers. Nobody agreed to be sacrificed, or be sold to the Reapers to "win".

Rejection is the only way we don't sacrifice the soul of our species.

Exactly.

[The Angry One]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

And in destroy we will live free. I personally prefer it that way.

You live under the tyranny of the Catalyst's legacy, and you sacrificed billions of Geth to do it.
Its immensely preferable to control and the outright Reaper victory of synthesis, of course, but it's still a future tainted by the Catalyst.

[Undead Han]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I was getting the opposite notion actually. Has seemed to me that lots of people who go with destroy seem to try and speculate the deaths of EDI & the Geth away, so they can have their uber-happy ending. Keep that in your head, cause that's all it is. Head-canon.

Not quite.

With the Extended Cut the Star Child will tell Shepard that any technology destroyed by the Reapers can potentially be rebuilt, and he will tell Shepard this specifically in response to a query on how the Crucible will affect EDI and the Geth. The extended cut does leave open the possibility of EDI and the Geth being rebuilt.

That being said it is by no means guaranteed. The best you get with the Destroy Endings is a *maybe*, whereas in the other two endings they are guaranteed to be alive.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 01 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Han Shot First 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.

So destroying the Reapers makes you a genocidal monster, but not condemning every sapient species in the galaxy to extinction? Because that is what you do when you choose the Reject Ending.

Destroy is the only ending where Shepard and the galaxy actually win the Reaper war. Control and Synthesis are stalemate endings.

I'm going to copy and pase my previous post.

No, I fulfill what we as a galaxy agreed to do, defeat the reapers or die trying. Not commit genocide or control them, or co-exist with them, We die free knowing that we did everything we could have done to defeat the reapers and never gave in to the Catalyst flawed logic.

Flawed logic is saying that Shepard is a genocidal monster in Destroy but not Reject, when Reject condemns far more sapient beings to death. And Reject causes actual extinctions of organic species, whereas with Destroy you just lose synthetics who could potentially be rebuilt.

If you choose Destroy, you make the desicion to kill the Geth to save others.
If you refuse, you refuse to kill anyone and instead fight united as a galaxy.

in destroy you agree to kill the Geth

in refuse you choose to KILL EVERYONE

you commit genocide in both scenarios... the body count is just far far higher in refuse

No
In destroy you agree to commit genocide by killing the Geth
In refuse, you stick to the original plan of killing the reapers or die trying together, not to sacrifice a whole species.

[Vexille]

Rasofe wrote...

@Vexile
Well, I would only use the refusal option on some of my less liked characters but I still like the option.
About a quarter of the fanbase had a huge problem with the ME ending being more like a Half-Life ending. For those of you who know, Half Life and its sequels was a game themed quite clearly on the illusion of free will in terms of gameplay and story. Mass Effect had a genuine free will gameplay all the way through... until the ending, where Shepard has to comply to one of three bad choices. People were very upset that they couldn't just tell the Godchild to get lost.

But think about it. If you had a gun and the person you hated the most was in your sights, would you pull the trigger? Or would you just be happy that you can pull the trigger, but you wouldn't do it? I think most people with a nut of common sense would pick option 2. And as such, the Rejection option, while obviously a default "Surrender", is still a very welcome addition to EC.

I dont see how its 3 bad choices though... 2 are bad... one ends the Reaper threat forever at the cost of a fleshlight (EDI).

I of course destroy the Geth on Rannoch in half my playthroughs so destroy is actually a great option for me... Would I personally kill EDI to save every other advanced race in the galaxy? YES, hell I'd kill EDI for a quiznos coupon.

[Welsh Inferno]

AxStapleton wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I was getting the opposite notion actually. Has seemed to me that lots of people who go with destroy seem to try and speculate the deaths of EDI & the Geth away, so they can have their uber-happy ending. Keep that in your head, cause that's all it is. Head-canon.

You obviously didn't read my OP.

Yes I did. You are saying that you and others do care for the loss of EDI and the Geth. You mourn their loss. I'm saying that you are right that people care, but that a fair amount who pick it, do so head-canononing'  that they survive regardless.

[AxStapleton]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kaica wrote...

I can understand Khajiit Jzargo's logic and reasons, even though I always chose and will choose Destroy.

I'm not sure if I'm getting this right, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Khajiit Jzargo refuses to sacrifice anyone. He/she (didn't check, sorry) rather kills everyone than chooses someone(s) to die. I can totally understand that. It is equally fair for all. No guilt.

The reason I (and I guess a lot of others) chose destroy is to do what we were dedicated to do since the first place. We are ready to sacrifice some to gain the goal we already sacrificed so much for: to actually destroy the Reapers. We don't do it for selfish reason, we do it in the name of common good. Even if it means sacrificing some. Sometimes that is what it takes, and it sure ain't easy to make this decision.

There is no correct answer to this, there never is when it comes to moral and ethics. We just have to agree to disagree. For me, refusal is the next best option.

Anyway...

You basically got it right, and I can understand your reasons.

Yeah, the intention of my OP wasn't to dismiss anyone else, merely go through my line of reasoning. Sorry if it appeared that way and I respect your reasons as well. =D

[Ageless Face]

I never thought any of the people that chose destroy are heartless murderers. At least the ones that don't compare synthetics to toasters, and there are very few of those people. You have very good reasons to reject synthesis and control. I disagree, however, that those reasons worth the sacrifice. That doesn't make your reasons wrong, neither are mine, or anyone else's.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 01 juillet 2012 - 05:33 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

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.

For anyone looking for a textbook definition of "Irony", I present to you this post.

"I will not become a genocidal monster by killing the Geth, so I will go ahead and let the Reapers kill all life in the galaxy!"

*headdesks*

[Tealjaker94]

The Angry One wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

And in destroy we will live free. I personally prefer it that way.

You live under the tyranny of the Catalyst's legacy, and you sacrificed billions of Geth to do it.
Its immensely preferable to control and the outright Reaper victory of synthesis, of course, but it's still a future tainted by the Catalyst.

The only reason you're still alive to debate the ethics of what I did is because I did it. We need people who are ready to make the hard decisions that allow us all to continue living our lives in peace. 

[Vexille]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Han Shot First 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.

So destroying the Reapers makes you a genocidal monster, but not condemning every sapient species in the galaxy to extinction? Because that is what you do when you choose the Reject Ending.

Destroy is the only ending where Shepard and the galaxy actually win the Reaper war. Control and Synthesis are stalemate endings.

I'm going to copy and pase my previous post.

No, I fulfill what we as a galaxy agreed to do, defeat the reapers or die trying. Not commit genocide or control them, or co-exist with them, We die free knowing that we did everything we could have done to defeat the reapers and never gave in to the Catalyst flawed logic.

Flawed logic is saying that Shepard is a genocidal monster in Destroy but not Reject, when Reject condemns far more sapient beings to death. And Reject causes actual extinctions of organic species, whereas with Destroy you just lose synthetics who could potentially be rebuilt.

If you choose Destroy, you make the desicion to kill the Geth to save others.
If you refuse, you refuse to kill anyone and instead fight united as a galaxy.

in destroy you agree to kill the Geth

in refuse you choose to KILL EVERYONE

you commit genocide in both scenarios... the body count is just far far higher in refuse

No
In destroy you agree to commit genocide by killing the Geth
In refuse, you stick to the original plan of killing the reapers or die trying together, not to sacrifice a whole species.

no, you sacrafice ALL SPECIES instead of one thats arguably not even "alive".

[Hackulator]

When you murder someone, feeling bad about it doesn't make it better. Heartless murderer is a meaningless distinction among murderers.

[Bfler]

Welsh Inferno wrote...


Yes I did. You are saying that you and others do care for the loss of EDI and the Geth. You mourn their loss. I'm saying that you are right that people care, but that a fair amount who pick it, do so head-canononing'  that they survive regardless.

What is wrong with that? 

[Vexille]

Father_Jerusalem 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.

For anyone looking for a textbook definition of "Irony", I present to you this post.

"I will not become a genocidal monster by killing the Geth, so I will go ahead and let the Reapers kill all life in the galaxy!"

*headdesks*

I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the absurdity of his argument

[AxStapleton]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

AxStapleton wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I was getting the opposite notion actually. Has seemed to me that lots of people who go with destroy seem to try and speculate the deaths of EDI & the Geth away, so they can have their uber-happy ending. Keep that in your head, cause that's all it is. Head-canon.

You obviously didn't read my OP.

Yes I did. You are saying that you and others do care for the loss of EDI and the Geth. You mourn their loss. I'm saying that you are right that people care, but that a fair amount who pick it, do so head-canononing'  that they survive regardless.

Fair enough. Didn't quite catch what you meant.

[Welsh Inferno]

Han Shot First wrote...

Not quite.

With the Extended Cut the Star Child will tell Shepard that any technology destroyed by the Reapers can potentially be rebuilt, and he will tell Shepard this specifically in response to a query on how the Crucible will affect EDI and the Geth. The extended cut does leave open the possibility of EDI and the Geth being rebuilt.

That being said it is by no means guaranteed. The best you get with the Destroy Endings is a *maybe*, whereas in the other two endings they are guaranteed to be alive.

I know. Rebuilding an AI would not produce that same exact AI, not really interested in getting into discussion about that though as it seems to go in circles. It also hasn't stopped some people here from typing it out in their arguments as though it is a fact they survive.