933 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

and come on, with every choice you cause death most likely, i mean with synthesis you rewrite all dna, changing what someone ones was into something new, basically killing right there, control well, i'm gonna enforce peace with force but i totally won't kill anyone. more to it but still. and then refusal, i know if i refuse a lot of ppl are gonna die but i am totally gonna do it . well those are the short versions, basically no matter what you kill someone. Only diff with destroy is you well destroy not really kill, and they are all faceless so thats a plus. so i guess i am just rambling . my point is with destroy you might destroy one race but it is to save the many. they are a casualty , one that will not be forgotten

[TamiBx]

 "Dead Reapers is how we win this"  


I agree with the OP; there was a price to pay but so did all the endings and I believe this was the best choice. 

[dragonflight288]

At the very least, destroy is the most tactically sound and carries the least risks. No chance of shepard abusing power, no merging of synthetics and organics with end results that are totally unknowable, and this cycle lives on. Much is sacrificed and lost, but name one war that doesn't have that.

[JesseLee202]

Kaica wrote...

JesseLee202 wrote...

Kaica wrote...

JesseLee202 wrote...

Kaica wrote...

...And the pointless debate of same arguments lingers on.

Sad.

If you actually took time to consider each others' opinions and views... But no. You refuse to listen, you block anything that might cause you to think over your boundaries. You reject anyone else's thoughts and opinions because you think that you are the only one who has actually thought about the case.

Why bother writing here if you are only protecting your own views (with ridiculous arguments that are based solely on feelings and picking from that kind of things from the games that support your cause) instead of being open to other possibilities?

Being all black and white and accepting only one truth (your own) is so immature I cannot even comprehend it.

If you think your truth (which actually is pretty much just emotion and childish belief) is the only correct one, the best one, you have stopped learning and are jammed in that level of development. And I just say it's not a very high level.

And your truth is more truthfull then others? 

Don't get all "holier than thou" just because people don't agree with your views.

Before making this kind of replies, I strongly recommend looking at (my) previous posts. You can find everything there, so no need to guess or read between the lines (something that isn't there) 

Edit: to save the trouble of finding my comments, check pages 1-14. Some comments are after page 34 

I already saw your comments. 

My point was; that text I bolded can work both ways, and you ranting about letting emotion cloud judgement was unnecessary and almost hypoctitical. (Considering we all do it.)

Thanks for clarifying  I admit, it was a truly poor choice of words. I could try to justify it with a bad day and trying to concentrate in various things at the same time, but I won't. I admit my error 

I think I didn't make my idea clear, so I'll try again. (My English isn't perfect for it's not my mother language, so I may use totally wrong words hoping to make my point clear )

I can totally see what you mean. I AM trying to get my beliefs heard, understood and considered. I have tried to stay objectical but I let feelings get the best of me. For that, I apologize. My point was that I wish and would much like to see that people give themselves chance to learn new things. I feel that if one refuses to learn anything new, they in a way think themselves as complete, thus staying on that level. Of course, it is only my own belief. So that's why I am disappointed. I didn't mean my comment as a direct insult for anyone spesific.

Simplified: I think there would be much more sense in discussion forums if everyone accepted other people's views and opinions instead of trying to prove that his/her opinion is the best / the correct / the only one there should be. I mean, stuff should be discussed, but not in the level where it comes to words' definitions or simple "you are wrong because your opinion differs from mine".

P.S. Sorry for slow writing 

No problem, miscommunication on both our parts lol

Glad its cleared up. 

[gmboy902]

My Shepard didn't want to see the synthetics die, but didn't mind it since they weren't really alive and the Geth aren't really known for their solid loyalties.

Other Shepards who chose to save the Quarians on Rannoch would have little to lose in Destroy, besides one AI.

[OmegaXI]

Tirranek wrote...

Kaica wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

I just realised... This thread passed a Godwin threshold on page 1.

I actually have no idea what you're talking about, yet I find myself interested.

Care to explain?

- newbie

If I understand correctly, Godwin's law basically states that any heated debate will eventually mention Hitler.

So true, but at least its already out of they way so hurray for small victories. ; D

But you know as much as disagree with the other choices, I can understand in some ways where people are coming from. But hey atleast we are arguing about this instead of the major rage that has been on the forums as of late.

I mean my god I never thought I would miss they days of epic discussions of:

saving or killing  the council, the collector base choice,the Talimancers and Anti-Talimancers (who strangly enough both kinda got their wishes in ME3 of getting Tali a house on her home world or killing her off, I mean really go figure), Why can't Zaheed be Squad leader in the SM, and lets not forget the
"Would you sacrafice one Race to stop the Reapers".  I very distinctly remember that last one.

*cough*

oh and Zulu's Cerberus Kitten Army post, I mean come on that was gold

Anyways enough waxing nostalgic.



Rant on

With destroy, yes you kill the Geth who you would have been allied with, you will kill EDI a loyal crew member and possible a friend. But the Reaper are gone they are dead for good, another enemy may rise up in the future but it will not be the Reapers. I understand the weight of my choice I know what and who I sacraficed to stop the Reapers, EDI and Legion where my Robo-Bros(Sis). I gained their loyality and they gained mine through ME2-3, and when it came done tomthe choice I knew what I was doing to and who I was losing but I also knew I was taking the Reapers with Us (my cannon playthorugh did not expect Shep. to survive played it "blind"). Thus ending their nightmare once and for all.

Modifié par OmegaXI, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:29 .

[Kaica]

JesseLee202 wrote...

No problem, miscommunication on both our parts lol

Glad its cleared up. 

Indeed! 

[B.Shep]

ghost9191 wrote...

and come on, with every choice you cause death most likely, i mean with synthesis you rewrite all dna, changing what someone ones was into something new, basically killing right there, control well, i'm gonna enforce peace with force but i totally won't kill anyone. more to it but still. and then refusal, i know if i refuse a lot of ppl are gonna die but i am totally gonna do it . well those are the short versions, basically no matter what you kill someone. Only diff with destroy is you well destroy not really kill, and they are all faceless so thats a plus. so i guess i am just rambling . my point is with destroy you might destroy one race but it is to save the many. they are a casualty , one that will not be forgotten

"Ask the dead if honor matters. The silence is your answer"

The way i see:
Destroy: Victory with a heavy price. Reapers cycle is broken and galaxy is free.
Synthesis: Catalyst's alternative solution. Everyone loses individuality and free will.
Control: Cycle postponed. Reapers and Shep-IA as the galaxy's sheperds, for now.

[AxStapleton]

*shameless self promotion*