933 réponses à ce sujet

[carrmatt91]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

carrmatt91 wrote...

this thread has given me the worst headache ever...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Thats why I don't choose destroy, i know war is harsh, but this is losing your humanity.

 

in refuse ALL of humanity LITTERALLY loses their humanity just as the asari lose their asari-ness and the turians etc. mainly because THEY ARE ALL DEAD/WORSE.

and i don't care that your saying everyone who chose destroy did it just because the geth die and they wanted to commit genocide , its not like i looked at control and synthesis and thought to myself, "id never choose them because they DON'T kill the geth" if i could choose for the geth and EDI to live in destroy you can bet your a** i would, but thats the cost of war im afraid, the geth dying in destroy is the lessar of the two evils aka, either the geth die or everyone in this current cycle dies. 

you're just going to say "but i died free!" like you have for everyone else but im gonna say, err... no you were likely harvested along with every other race you knew and loved (apart from geth who were probably killed anyway), enjoy life as a reaper for the next 50K years until someone steps up to the plate and makes the exact same decision you should have made in the first place.

whose to say the people in the next cycle didn't sacrifice even more synthetics to kill the reapers?

Indeed.  Everyone being turned into a Reaper to harvest the next cycle is losing *their* humanity.  Also, lets not forget the Batarians, Asari, Salarians etc.

My Shepard will live with her decision.  And all of the children in this cycle and into the future will be able to live because she was willing to make that sacrifice.

You can stand on your principles if you want, but remember all of the dead you're standing on because of them.

We didn't loose our humanity we died, thats how i see it.

...but you LITERALLY become a Reaper.  You can't lose your humanity any more than that I'd say.  LITERALLY lose your humanity and become a REAPER.

Thats after I died, commiting Genocide is done while I'm alive,

well if each reaper is "a nation unto each" then your still in there somewhere... maybe not as a human but when shep becomes the catalyst, then the AI he becomes is based off his morals, therefore i can assume a similar thing happens here, except he is no longer in control of his actions, more like a passenger.

Modifié par carrmatt91, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:43 .

[BeastSaver]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BeastSaver wrote...

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.

^This^

To me, Control and Synthesize are not options I can take. Destroy first, Refusal second. Both put an end to the Reapers.

One puts an end to the Reapers. One kills all advanced life in the galaxy and allows the cycle to continue until the next cycle decides not to be stupid and stops the Reapers because you wouldn't.

Yeeeeeeeah. I can definitely see why someone'd pick Refuse.

I would always choose Destroy first to end the Reaper threat. Refuse would be next because, although your cycle doesn't win, the next does because you provide them with the information to make it possible.

Control and Synthesize are abhorent because the Reapers still exist. I would personally be horrified by the continued existence of the the husks, brutes, banshees, praetorians, etc., who have been hideously transformed and must live their lives out as monstrosities.

[Omega2079]

Taboo-XX wrote...

He's a proxy. He surrenders to you.

I thought that this was obvious. He can't fight you, so he offers all the possible options.

It can't call in some minions? Maybe one of the countless ones flying around in eye shot?


Why even activate the platform the brings Shepard there?

Modifié par Omega2079, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:51 .

[alienatedflea]

agu123 wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

agu123 wrote...

You just said that organics are forced to become as heartless as the Reapers. Which is impossible in my opinion. Hence the sarcasm.

Do you understand now?

youre joking right? >.< read Taboo's comment...to destroy the enemy, I have to become the enemy...or something like that...

as shepard said in Mass Effect one when he tries to get the body of a windowers killed at Eden Prime...he said something to the effect that we can't lose our humanity in the process...destroy and synthesis (in a way...since I am pro-synthesis) we lose our humanity...the cost is too greater

Oh, I suppose I missed the part where Taboo-XX stated that his Shepard's will is equal to the will of every organic being in the Galaxy. Please direct me to that statement.

Because you said that by choosing destroy "we force all organics to become as heartless as the Reapers".

all organics are being represented by shepard...by default, he doesnt actually force anything because there isnt force when all parties involved are consenting...but by destroying the reapers...you destroy all synthetics...its just like the reapers to commit needless loss of life...

[Taboo]

I represent myself, or that's how I see it.

[alienatedflea]

Rip504 wrote...

I protected the life we live and have now,without alternating much. No need to feel guilt or remorse. Also no need to feel right or correct when speaking of the death of the Geth.

I am a Spectre. The first and last line of defense. I protect that which is sacred. Life as we know it. Sorry Geth,I did what I chose to do. My job is/was to protect this galaxy. I did.

just proves how selfish the destroy option really is...

[Taboo]

alienatedflea wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I protected the life we live and have now,without alternating much. No need to feel guilt or remorse. Also no need to feel right or correct when speaking of the death of the Geth.

I am a Spectre. The first and last line of defense. I protect that which is sacred. Life as we know it. Sorry Geth,I did what I chose to do. My job is/was to protect this galaxy. I did.

just proves how selfish the destroy option really is...

I don't see it that way. Please do not assume I do.

[carrmatt91]

alienatedflea wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I protected the life we live and have now,without alternating much. No need to feel guilt or remorse. Also no need to feel right or correct when speaking of the death of the Geth.

I am a Spectre. The first and last line of defense. I protect that which is sacred. Life as we know it. Sorry Geth,I did what I chose to do. My job is/was to protect this galaxy. I did.

just proves how selfish the destroy option really is...

would have been better to phrase it as "i did what i had to do"

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

After everything you've been through the Geth and EDI wanted to stop the reapers as much as anyone else does and would have sacrificed themselves to kill the reapers. Plus they can always be rebuilt.

[Pacifien]

Well, some people have damned players who chose to let the Destiny Ascension fend for itself in a strategic decision to ensure Sovereign died in Mass Effect 1. (Which, let's be honest, saving the Destiny Ascension was the decision that allowed everyone you meet in game to survive. Whether it was the best strategy is besides the point right now.) Destroy in Mass Effect 3 is a similar strategic decision: ensure victory by knowing you've eliminated the enemy at all costs.

Only it's done, I'd say, correctly this time. Most people felt frustration for the Council in the first game. In contrast, most players worked hard to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians. They consider EDI and Legion allies. To build those relationships and then sacrifice them to ensure the Reapers destruction must have felt brutal, because it *is* brutal. That's war.

And it's manipulative, but the writers have been trying to manipulate the players for three games to little success because players tend to pick the decisions that make the game feel paragon versus feel gritty. Probably says something that people argue so vehemently *for* the destruction option versus the "Everyone Lives" solutions. That part of me that argued so many times about leaving the Destiny Ascension to focus on Sovereign feels vindicated. That same part of me that realized those arguments never went anywhere and that I never convinced a *single* person to *ever* change their mind feels like this argument is going to be just as taxing to people and just as empty in the end.

[KotorEffect3]

Pacifien wrote...

Well, some people have damned players who chose to let the Destiny Ascension fend for itself in a strategic decision to ensure Sovereign died in Mass Effect 1. (Which, let's be honest, saving the Destiny Ascension was the decision that allowed everyone you meet in game to survive. Whether it was the best strategy is besides the point right now.) Destroy in Mass Effect 3 is a similar strategic decision: ensure victory by knowing you've eliminated the enemy at all costs.

Only it's done, I'd say, correctly this time. Most people felt frustration for the Council in the first game. In contrast, most players worked hard to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians. They consider EDI and Legion allies. To build those relationships and then sacrifice them to ensure the Reapers destruction must have felt brutal, because it *is* brutal. That's war.

And it's manipulative, but the writers have been trying to manipulate the players for three games to little success because players tend to pick the decisions that make the game feel paragon versus feel gritty. Probably says something that people argue so vehemently *for* the destruction option versus the "Everyone Lives" solutions. That part of me that argued so many times about leaving the Destiny Ascension to focus on Sovereign feels vindicated. That same part of me that realized those arguments never went anywhere and that I never convinced a *single* person to *ever* change their mind feels like this argument is going to be just as taxing to people and just as empty in the end.

The thing is that there is no real negative consequence to saving the DA in ME 1, Sovereign is destroyed either way and in ME 2 humanity is more respected than hated.  Sure there is still some resentment but it isn't anywhere near the levels of hostility humans experience if the DA was destroyed.  So far I think the only negative consequence is some alliance EMS goes down due to the ships we sacrificed to save the council but that is offset by getting the DA as a war accet so it really doesn't matter in that regard.  At this point the only reason to sacrifice the DA in ME 1 is to see the new council in ME 3, which for the most part is more tolerable than the old council (exception being the asari)

[Rip504]

alienatedflea wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I protected the life we live and have now,without alternating much. No need to feel guilt or remorse. Also no need to feel right or correct when speaking of the death of the Geth.

I am a Spectre. The first and last line of defense. I protect that which is sacred. Life as we know it. Sorry Geth,I did what I chose to do. My job is/was to protect this galaxy. I did.

just proves how selfish the destroy option really is...

Accepting responisbilty for my actions,selfish. Allowing Reapers to continue Harvesting life,Selflessness.

Four different endings. Shepard chooses one of them. Selfish.

Modifié par Rip504, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:21 .

[wantedman dan]

Pacifien wrote...

That's war.

And it's also a video game. If I needed my escape route to tell me such, I'd play Call of Duty.

[carrmatt91]

Pacifien wrote...

Well, some people have damned players who chose to let the Destiny Ascension fend for itself in a strategic decision to ensure Sovereign died in Mass Effect 1. (Which, let's be honest, saving the Destiny Ascension was the decision that allowed everyone you meet in game to survive. Whether it was the best strategy is besides the point right now.) Destroy in Mass Effect 3 is a similar strategic decision: ensure victory by knowing you've eliminated the enemy at all costs.

Only it's done, I'd say, correctly this time. Most people felt frustration for the Council in the first game. In contrast, most players worked hard to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians. They consider EDI and Legion allies. To build those relationships and then sacrifice them to ensure the Reapers destruction must have felt brutal, because it *is* brutal. That's war.

And it's manipulative, but the writers have been trying to manipulate the players for three games to little success because players tend to pick the decisions that make the game feel paragon versus feel gritty. Probably says something that people argue so vehemently *for* the destruction option versus the "Everyone Lives" solutions. That part of me that argued so many times about leaving the Destiny Ascension to focus on Sovereign feels vindicated. That same part of me that realized those arguments never went anywhere and that I never convinced a *single* person to *ever* change their mind feels like this argument is going to be just as taxing to people and just as empty in the end.

in the type of war shepard was fighting there's no room for over emotional attatchment, im gonna steal a line from LOTR here - "if you don't find a way, no-one will", it's Ruthless Calculus you must do what has to be done to 'win', the only reason i saved the ascension in the first game was because 'my' shepard saw it as a valuable asset in the inevitable war with the reapers and needless to say the amount of people on-board that you save outweighs the amount of people you lose whilst saving them.

[Pacifien]

TOBY FLENDERSON wrote...
After everything you've been through the Geth and EDI wanted to stop the reapers as much as anyone else does and would have sacrificed themselves to kill the reapers. Plus they can always be rebuilt.

Synthetics can be rebuilt, but everything that the Geth and EDI were cannot. What led the Geth to such desperation to join the Reapers in Mass Effect 3 in the first place was the Quarians destroying their Dyson Sphere, which destroyed billions of programs that Legion said were simply lost and irrecoverable. Not to mention that Tali said the sentience of the Geth was unintentional to start with, but the result of years of tweaking VI programs by the Quarians until they accidentally stumbled upon artificial intelligence.

EDI herself is also an unintentional AI construct. She gained sentience on Luna and was again tweaked by Cerberus using parts.

Perhaps both of their stories are telling of how AI need to develop, because they both "evolved" in a sense rather than were purpose built to have their AI from the start. The catalyst appeared to have been built with sentience and the directive to solve a problem. It did that, with seeming single-minded determination. As EDI and the Geth were both originally VI and gained their AI status on accident and only improved their intelligence by the acclimation and altering their programming of other programs and ideas, they could transcend their initial programming.

But the fact is, their programming were a hodgepodge. You could call a new program EDI, give it the same basic code as the original EDI, place her in the Normandy, but how that new program chooses to then alter her programming will distinguish her as distinct from the original. She might never have that loyalty to the crew the original had, that was critical for the crew to treat her as her own person in return. (And thus the cycle continues....)

[KotorEffect3]

wantedman dan wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

That's war.

And it's also a video game. If I needed my escape route to tell me such, I'd play Call of Duty.

ME 3 is a war story though.  We've all known that is where the series was heading since we found out about the reapers in ME 1.  I even remember at the end of ME 1 where either the council or Udina say something to the effect of "war is in our future" and Shepard finishes it off with a little "the reapers are coming" speech.  We all knew ME 3 was going to get brutal

[alienatedflea]

TOBY FLENDERSON wrote...

After everything you've been through the Geth and EDI wanted to stop the reapers as much as anyone else does and would have sacrificed themselves to kill the reapers. Plus they can always be rebuilt.

or sacrifice yourself...all is well...if you say geth is alive...and its immoral to kill them...reapers are very much alive...because shepard because their AI....but you want more blood on your hands in order to destroy the reapers..

[Pacifien]

wantedman dan wrote...

Pacifien wrote...
That's war.

And it's also a video game. If I needed my escape route to tell me such, I'd play Call of Duty.

Yeah, but I don't like those types of games, but I liked Mass Effect, so what you want and what I want is at an impasse.

I'm well aware that many people play Mass Effect as a form of entertainment that does not end with a feeling like they got the **** beat out of them. Mass Effect 3, however, probably didn't deliver. But it's a video game.

[alienatedflea]

sacrifice yourself...i mean you can always be cloned... if thats the way of thinking is on destroy...

[Pacifien]

carrmatt91 wrote...
the only reason i saved the ascension in the first game was because 'my' shepard saw it as a valuable asset in the inevitable war with the reapers and needless to say the amount of people on-board that you save outweighs the amount of people you lose whilst saving them.

This is just as valid an argument for destruction as it was for why you saved the Destiny Ascension.

[wantedman dan]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

That's war.

And it's also a video game. If I needed my escape route to tell me such, I'd play Call of Duty.

ME 3 is a war story though.  We've all known that is where the series was heading since we found out about the reapers in ME 1.  I even remember at the end of ME 1 where either the council or Udina say something to the effect of "war is in our future" and Shepard finishes it off with a little "the reapers are coming" speech.  We all knew ME 3 was going to get brutal

They've all been war stories. Let's not fool ourselves, here.

[Pacifien]

KotorEffect3 wrote...
At this point the only reason to sacrifice the DA in ME 1 is to see the new council in ME 3, which for the most part is more tolerable than the old council (exception being the asari)

Well, there's roleplay. In a roleplaying game. Some people still do that.

And the dalatrass is awesome.

[wantedman dan]

Pacifien wrote...

Yeah, but I don't like those types of games, but I liked Mass Effect, so what you want and what I want is at an impasse.

I'm well aware that many people play Mass Effect as a form of entertainment that does not end with a feeling like they got the **** beat out of them. Mass Effect 3, however, probably didn't deliver. But it's a video game.

The point being, you should be able to get the ending you wanted and I should have gotten mine, especially from a series which has so treasured the concept of self-determination.

[KotorEffect3]

wantedman dan wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

That's war.

And it's also a video game. If I needed my escape route to tell me such, I'd play Call of Duty.

ME 3 is a war story though.  We've all known that is where the series was heading since we found out about the reapers in ME 1.  I even remember at the end of ME 1 where either the council or Udina say something to the effect of "war is in our future" and Shepard finishes it off with a little "the reapers are coming" speech.  We all knew ME 3 was going to get brutal

They've all been war stories. Let's not fool ourselves, here.

Yes that is true but we knew ME 3 would be the most brutal we knew ME 3 would be about the reapers.  The difference is ME 3 doesn't let up.  ME 1 and ME 2 have moments where the games ease off the accelerator and we can relax a little bit.  ME 3 doesn't do that it comes at you hard and just keeps coming at you harder and harder.  Even when you are running around the citadel the detoriating galaxy is reflected by the growing fear and desparation we see on the citadel.  The hospital soon becomes over crowded and we see hallways being cluttered by the injured or dying because there is no other place to put them.  The growing desparation and fear is reflected really well in the docks holding area as we see the memorial wall become full with wartime casualties.  ME 3 doesn't let up and it shouldn't let up.  The reapers are here and they mean business.

Modifié par KotorEffect3, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:42 .

[wantedman dan]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Yes that is true but we knew ME 3 would be the most brutal we knew ME 3 would be about the reapers.  The difference is ME 3 doesn't let up.  ME 1 and ME 2 have moments where the games ease off the accelerator and we can relax a little bit.  ME 3 doesn't do that it comes at you hard and just keeps coming at you harder and harder.

-snip-

ME 3 doesn't let up and it shouldn't let up.  The reapers are here and they mean business.

Okay, and Shepard has made a career of doing the impossible. The very fact that the endings are divorced from this concept is poor narrative.