933 réponses à ce sujet

[Khajiit Jzargo]

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*

Let me copy and paste my previous post.
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 so that the rest can live.

[Vox Draco]

The Angry One wrote...

It's okay synthesis says they're not alive anyway.

Yeah, somehow quite another slap into the fan's faces, like refusal? Doesn't get quite enough attention though, I am afraid...

[Reorte]

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.

The reasons for them dying, particularly the geth (which only have Reaper software, not hardware) are flakey at best and without knowing precisely what's been damaged in them being able to rebuild them is as plausible as saying that there's no chance.

[Father_Jerusalem]

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.

Maybe. But you know what we're not? Dead. We're not dead.

Not being dead > dead.

Full. Stop.

[Welsh Inferno]

Bfler wrote...

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? 

Keep your head-canon in your head. The game presents it as they die. You can believe what you want, but dont use it in discussions as "proof" that its the "best" ending or something. Some have, is all im saying.

[Vexille]

Hackulator wrote...

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

also, the Geth arent "murdered", they were sacraficed in order to save others.

its like what Hackett did... he sacraficed one fleet in order to save the other 2 fleets at the start of the game... Is he A "murderer"?

by staying and losing all 3 fleets instead of one... would we view him as someone "who wouldnt let fear compromise who he is"?

no we would view him as an incompentent war leader, just as Shepard would be viewd as incompetent if he choose refuse over Destroy

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Let me copy and paste my previous post.
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 so that the rest can live.

That would be the original plan of actually using the Crucible that you've spent the entire game being pestered about?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Vexille wrote...

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

I swear sometimes i think people love acting obtuse.
First thing, when you make the refusal desicion, you don't know if your going to die, so your not commiting genocide, your taking your chances which then later on you find out you failed, if you choose destroy you know beforehand your commiting genocide. Secondly, the galaxy didn't agree lets go sacrifice a whole species in order to win, not we will win this war in our terms, not the catalyst terms.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 01 juillet 2012 - 05:40 .

[LightningSamus]

Master Xanthan wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

Control is the moral choice in picking an ending.

Eh, the Reaper threat is still present though. Sure the Shepard AI has control for now but eventually the AI could become corrupted and become as stupid as the Star Kid then there will be another reaper war.

Same can be said for destroy, you still haven't resolved the problem between organics and synthetics and it will all come rushing back in the future.

Synthetics will become stronger and try to destroy their masters, the organics are more doomed as they would destroy all organic life while the reapers allowed organic life to live on.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

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*

Let me copy and paste my previous post.
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 so that the rest can live.

I saw your next post. You're still killing EVERYONE in the galaxy - who, by the way, you didn't get to ask if they were okay with that plan - because you won't kill every Geth.

All plans last until the first shot is fired. There is a clear-cut win solution being presented to you that you can achieve by either sacrificing yourself, or sacrificing EDI and the Geth. If you stubbornly stick to "nuh uh! the PLAN!" after being presented with those options, you are a worse war criminal than the Reapers.

If you had radioed EDI and told her "So, I have a chance to kill the Reapers forever, but iit involves killing you. I think instead, I'm gonna say no and just condemn everything in the galaxy to a horrible death." Do you REALLY think she'd say "Oh sure, yeah, go with that idea"? REALLY?

No. Because she's not stupid.

[Nragedreaper]

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

Control is the moral choice in picking an ending.

Somehow I doubt that.  There will eventually be a point where someone is going to want to go to war with someone else.  So your Controled reapers are going to have to pick a side.  At some point you will go back to killing organic and inorganics alike.  It's a vicious cycle.

[Reorte]

LightningSamus wrote...

Same can be said for destroy, you still haven't resolved the problem between organics and synthetics and it will all come rushing back in the future.

Synthetics will become stronger and try to destroy their masters, the organics are more doomed as they would destroy all organic life while the reapers allowed organic life to live on.

Yeah, on the authority of an insane AI.

[Tealjaker94]

LightningSamus wrote...

Master Xanthan wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

Control is the moral choice in picking an ending.

Eh, the Reaper threat is still present though. Sure the Shepard AI has control for now but eventually the AI could become corrupted and become as stupid as the Star Kid then there will be another reaper war.

Same can be said for destroy, you still haven't resolved the problem between organics and synthetics and it will all come rushing back in the future.

Synthetics will become stronger and try to destroy their masters, the organics are more doomed as they would destroy all organic life while the reapers allowed organic life to live on.

Speculation based solely upon what the catalyst says. The Reapers are a known threat that exist now. 

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Let me copy and paste my previous post.
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 so that the rest can live.

That would be the original plan of actually using the Crucible that you've spent the entire game being pestered about?

The hope was the the Crucible would wipe out the Reapers, not a whole species. The variables changed.

[The Angry One]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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.

Maybe. But you know what we're not? Dead. We're not dead.

Not being dead > dead.

Full. Stop.

What is the point of a life built upon an act of cowardice and betrayal?

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Let me copy and paste my previous post.
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 so that the rest can live.

That would be the original plan of actually using the Crucible that you've spent the entire game being pestered about?

The hope was the the Crucible would wipe out the Reapers, not a whole species. The variables changed.

They didn't know what it would do and were prepared to take the risk.

[Hackulator]

Something is only valid as a worthwhile sacrifice if you gain something from it. Choosing Destroy means you murder EDI and the Geth because you are afraid of growing beyond what you currently are, and what you get for their "sacrifice" is a world that is demonstrably worse than a post-Synthesis world in basically every way.

Also, to people saying "don't choose Synthesis cause its what the Reapers want", if you automatically reject a possibility because someone tells you they want it, you are controlled by them just as much as if you choose that possibility because they like it.

[Reorte]

The Angry One wrote...


What is the point of a life built upon an act of cowardice and betrayal?

You get everyone killed and have the gall to talk about betrayal?

[Vexille]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

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

I swear sometimes i think people love acting obtuse.
First thing, when you make the refusal desicion, you don't know if your going to die, so your not commiting genocide, your taking your chances which then later on you find out you failed, if you choose destroy you know beforehand your commiting genocide. Secondly, the galaxy didn't agree lets go sacrifice a whole species in order to win, not we will win this war in our terms, not the catalyst terms.

funny... that what most people who read your posts are thinking too.

So you have an option to WIN NOW at the cost of the Geth or.. you choose to refuse and potentially lose ( everyone dies) and even if you win in a refuse scenario billions are going to die.

I'm sorry but sacraficing a couple billion toasters to save the rest of the galaxy is justified

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

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

I swear sometimes i think people love acting obtuse.
First thing, when you make the refusal desicion, you don't know if your going to die, so your not commiting genocide, your taking your chances which then later on you find out you failed, if you choose destroy you know beforehand your commiting genocide. Secondly, the galaxy didn't agree lets go sacrifice a whole species in order to win, not we will win this war in our terms, not the catalyst terms.

Yeah. You do. You absolutely know that you're going to fail. You can see the battle going on. You can see your ships being destroyed. You know going in that the ONE CHANCE  you had was to use the Crucible. The entire plan hinged on that. And now you're refusing to use it.

If you "don't know if your going to die" then, man, I don't even. You obviously must not have been paying attention to any of the thousand times when you're told "If you don't use the Crucible, we can't stop the Reapers" throughout the game.

[The Angry One]

Reorte wrote...

The Angry One wrote...


What is the point of a life built upon an act of cowardice and betrayal?

You get everyone killed and have the gall to talk about betrayal?

They agreed to fight the Reapers beforehand. To reject the Catalyst's offer is to continue to fight them.
To accept is to betray your own allies.

[Rasofe]

Vexille wrote...

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.

Pardon, you missunderstood me. I spoke of the pre-EC endings. In the EC all three options are good and refusal is a default surrender.

[eye basher]

People talk about morals when the talk about the geth wanna know what legion says in ME2 when you have to either destroy the heretics or rewrite them that morals do not aply to the geth because they are not alive.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

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*

Let me copy and paste my previous post.
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 so that the rest can live.

I saw your next post. You're still killing EVERYONE in the galaxy - who, by the way, you didn't get to ask if they were okay with that plan - because you won't kill every Geth.

All plans last until the first shot is fired. There is a clear-cut win solution being presented to you that you can achieve by either sacrificing yourself, or sacrificing EDI and the Geth. If you stubbornly stick to "nuh uh! the PLAN!" after being presented with those options, you are a worse war criminal than the Reapers.

If you had radioed EDI and told her "So, I have a chance to kill the Reapers forever, but iit involves killing you. I think instead, I'm gonna say no and just condemn everything in the galaxy to a horrible death." Do you REALLY think she'd say "Oh sure, yeah, go with that idea"? REALLY?

No. Because she's not stupid.

"My shepard" didn't know that we were going to fail when he decided to refuse the Catalyst desicion, he decided it would be better to take our chances instead of commiting outright genocide. So I didn't know beforehand we were all going to die, We did end up dying but I didn't know, so I didn't commit genocide. When you choose destroy you know your killing the Geth. Therefore you commit genocide.