933 réponses à ce sujet

[Tealjaker94]

v TricKy v wrote...

Master Xanthan 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" 

So you sacrifice everyone for nothing? ok glad we cleared that up.

Why does everyone keep saying that all die for nothing? We made it possible for the next cycle to win. And if the new female stargazer is a hint atleast a few Asari survived. We still played our role in the defeat of the Reapers in the end without giving in.

And I defeated them with far fewer casualties, far sooner.

[eye basher]

AxStapleton wrote...

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.

I'm not presenting destroy as the best, be all and end all, ending at all.

Of course it has a lot of potential to do that and its on our head if it happens, but neither is it definite that it will always end in Synthetics wiping out all Organics as Starbrat claims. Otherwise it would have already happened and all this would be a non-issue. The Geth and Quarians were already making the first steps towards peace after nearly wiping each other out.

All the choices (including refusal) are made on the hope that they go in your favour and the slides or subsequent cutscenes all reflect that.

Please i made peace between the quarians and the geth and that was just in a few days imagine what i could do in 50 years after turning the reapers into molten slag.

[Welsh Inferno]

The Angry One wrote...

What gives Shepard the right to sacrifice the Geth for that?
Maybe people won't care as long as they're comfortable. That's not the point, is it? We achieve that by mortgaging our future on the Catalyst's agenda.
That just isn't right.

Its not his agenda though. It goes completely against what he was built for. I recognise that the ending(ALL of them) are morally wrong. But its also wrong to risk everything & everyone because you dont want to do something that is morally wrong. Suck up your pride for the many who want to live.

[The Angry One]

riesenwiesel wrote...

Hackulator wrote...
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.

 
It is completely impossible from Shepard's point of view to know how a 
post-synthesis world would look like. 

A shot in the dark that changes every organic and syntetic creature? That is not something you can or want to deside alone.

Pro-synthesis arguments get more and more amusing don't they?

[Eluril]

The Angry One wrote...

Eluril wrote...

While I think the ultimate Paragon choice in the game is Synthesis (the Paragon to me is an idealist who believes that everyone should be saved, no matter the cost to his own person), My renegade Shepard naturally chose Destroy. The Renegade believes that in war, the lesser of all evils has to be chosen and that in war there are no easy choices. The sacrifice of the Geth was irrelevant (they were already dead) and therefore, EDI was the only direct loss. The sacrifice is worth it. My renegade would never agree to synthesis or control.

Synthesis is a Reaper victory. So no.
Moreover, a Paragon would never impose a change on all the people of the galaxy without their consent. That goes against everything a paragon stands for.

But a Paragon rejects the use of the weapon available to him/her and dooms everyone to harvesting? The Paragon believes in saving lives at any cost, as many lives as they can. They would never use a weapon that destroyed all synthetics. The paragon to me would place synthetic and organic life on the same level. Therefore they would not use Destroy. To me the paragon choices are down to Control and Synthesis. To me, Synthesis is an ascension / singularity in which everyone is uplifted.

However, I do not believe it is a permanent utopia. The Catalyst states that a previous solution was tried like this and it failed. But now we are ready. I think that's a big hint that synthesis is not as utopian as it seems. My main character is the Renegade so I reject all of the non-destroy choices, but I can see other opinions for sure.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

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.

YES YOU DID, everyone spent the entire game telling you conventional victory was impossible. Refusal is a case of commander DERP Shepard snatching  defeat from the jaws of victory

Shepard never believed in no win solutions, hes done the impossible before. So whats your point.

[The Angry One]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

What gives Shepard the right to sacrifice the Geth for that?
Maybe people won't care as long as they're comfortable. That's not the point, is it? We achieve that by mortgaging our future on the Catalyst's agenda.
That just isn't right.

Its not his agenda though. It goes completely against what he was built for. I recognise that the ending(ALL of them) are morally wrong. But its also wrong to risk everything & everyone because you dont want to do something that is morally wrong. Suck up your pride for the many who want to live.

It's not pride, it's duty. Also, realise that you're meta-gaming. Shepard has no basis to trust that the Reapers are telling the truth, or that it's worth it even if they are.

[Vexille]

ok lets put this in perspective... if you broadcasted the choice to everyone else fighting the Reapers what do you think their response would be?

"Ok guys I can end the reaper threat forever and get us complete victory, but we lose the Geth... or we can take our chances."

This is of course will our fleet is barely holding on against the reapers...

I'm guessing Hackett and everyother commander out their would be shouting "SHOOT THE TUBE YOU IDIOT!"

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Master Xanthan 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" 

So you sacrifice everyone for nothing? ok glad we cleared that up.

Why does everyone keep saying that all die for nothing? We made it possible for the next cycle to win. And if the new female stargazer is a hint atleast a few Asari survived. We still played our role in the defeat of the Reapers in the end without giving in.

And I defeated them with far fewer casualties, far sooner.

But you submitted to the catalyst, commited genocide, and went against everything we as a galaxy agreed to do.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Vexille wrote...

ok lets put this in perspective... if you broadcasted the choice to everyone else fighting the Reapers what do you think their response would be?

"Ok guys I can end the reaper threat forever and get us complete victory, but we lose the Geth... or we can take our chances."

This is of course will our fleet is barely holding on against the reapers...

I'm guessing Hackett and everyother commander out their would be shouting "SHOOT THE TUBE YOU IDIOT!"

The Galaxy was completely united, I'm pretty sure when the topic of destroying an entire species to live, most would disagree and make a last stand.

[The Angry One]

Vexille wrote...

ok lets put this in perspective... if you broadcasted the choice to everyone else fighting the Reapers what do you think their response would be?

"Ok guys I can end the reaper threat forever and get us complete victory, but we lose the Geth... or we can take our chances."

This is of course will our fleet is barely holding on against the reapers...

I'm guessing Hackett and everyother commander out their would be shouting "SHOOT THE TUBE YOU IDIOT!"

And they would believe what the Reapers say because?

[Tealjaker94]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Master Xanthan 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" 

So you sacrifice everyone for nothing? ok glad we cleared that up.

Why does everyone keep saying that all die for nothing? We made it possible for the next cycle to win. And if the new female stargazer is a hint atleast a few Asari survived. We still played our role in the defeat of the Reapers in the end without giving in.

And I defeated them with far fewer casualties, far sooner.

But you submitted to the catalyst, commited genocide, and went against everything we as a galaxy agreed to do.

I didn't submit to the catalyst, I killed him. I sacrificed a few so that the many could live. I did exactly what we as a galaxy agreed to do, I used the crucible to destroy the Reapers, the plan since the beginning of the game.

[AxStapleton]

Hackulator wrote...

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.

I won't get into an anti this, anti that. And I respect your opinion. But to demonstrate your option is perfect in every kind of way is just as much head canon as people saying the Geth and EDI don't die in destroy. I accept and respect why you chose it but I kindly request that you accept and respect my opinion.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


1-Its not ignorance, I had 8000 ems, I though we had a bit of a chance.
2-How are you to know that the Catalyst isn't lying, How are you to know that destroy won't kill people with synthetic implants, The catalyst even said the Crucible won't discrinimate.. Every desicion is a gamble.
3-Your right theres a lot of people i wish never had authority, like you, especially if i was a geth.

1. It is. You are told over and over and over that you don't have a chance. You're seeing billions of people dying every day. Your ships are barely making a dent in the Reaper forces. They control every homeworld, every major colony... if you ignore ALL of that. It is absolutely willful ignorance.

2. Even if he IS lying, your choices are: do nothing = everyone dies. He's lying = everyone dies. He's telling the truth = you can save trillions and trillions of lives. Why wouldn't you make a choice and HOPE knowing that even if he is lying, the situation can't get ANY worse? Not to mention: the Reapers are already winning. He has no reason to lie. He's not a Bond villain trying to trick you.

3. And I wouldn't want you to have authority, especially if I WAS ANYONE ELSE IN THE GALAXY. Here's the thing: if you pick refuse, the Geth die ANYWAY. How is that any better? Hmm? 

[Kaica]

The Angry One wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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

I guarentee the rest of the Galaxy you just saved won't feel that way.

Including the Geth?
They'll feel that way, because that's what they're doing now. Fighting the Reapers to DEFEAT them.
They have no idea the Crucible is actually a dagger in our back.

Bolded part obviously doesn't mean the Geth. 

With Shepard alive he'll tell people about the Crucible & the Catalyst and all that. You think people will be outraged then? No way.

What gives Shepard the right to sacrifice the Geth for that?
Maybe people won't care as long as they're comfortable. That's not the point, is it? We achieve that by mortgaging our future on the Catalyst's agenda.
That just isn't right.

There was an excellent point about Hackett earlier.

What gives anyone the right to sacrifice anything/anyone?

Whether you (not spesifically you, just general you) like it or not, it's one part of war. In a perfect world it wouldn't have to be, though in a perfect world there wouldn't probably even be wars.

I stated earlier that I can totally understand the urge to either save everyone or to sacrifice everyone. In my eyes it is the only fair option. But in war, sometimes you have to forget what is fair for all and do what needs to be done. And why does it need to be done? Because without doing it, the war was basically for nothing and the lives were given for nothing. It would totally be fair, but without anyone left to enjoy it.

I'm not sure whether I'm making my point clear. I can clarify if needed.

This is a question about moral and ethics, and those kind of questions don't have right or wrong answers. Our opinions are formed by our own experiences and even cultures. I find it extremely fascinating to discuss this kind of things, though.

[Vexille]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

ok lets put this in perspective... if you broadcasted the choice to everyone else fighting the Reapers what do you think their response would be?

"Ok guys I can end the reaper threat forever and get us complete victory, but we lose the Geth... or we can take our chances."

This is of course will our fleet is barely holding on against the reapers...

I'm guessing Hackett and everyother commander out their would be shouting "SHOOT THE TUBE YOU IDIOT!"

The Galaxy was completely united, I'm pretty sure when the topic of destroying an entire species to live, most would disagree and make a last stand.

BULL ****.

and calling the geth a "Species" is a gigantic stretch

[B.Shep]

I agree with Angry One, the StarBrat himself states he already tried to use Synthesis sometimes before.

Considering the pros and cons i believe Destroy is the best choice: no more Reaper threat ever. Organics are free to create their own future with their choices.
Control is a big gamble, you let the galaxy in the hands of the new catalyst(Shep-IA) and hope it will not reach the same conclusion the Starchild.

[en2ym3]

 When people are being reasonable, I don't think anyone seriously believes anyone is evil for picking some ending.  It's just the result of people making a discussion personal and adopting a bad, offensive attitude.  

It's draining and depressing to watch people do it so relentlessly, somehow oblivious or indifferent to what they're doing but often upset when others do the same. :\\  Maybe some don't understand the importance of how they say something, or how they make a point.  Or they don't respect other human beings.

[Rasofe]

B.Shep wrote...

I agree with Angry One, the StarBrat himself states he already tried to use Synthesis sometimes before.

Considering the pros and cons i believe Destroy is the best choice: no more Reaper threat ever. Organics are free to create their own future with their choices.
Control is a big gamble, you let the galaxy in the hands of the new catalyst(Shep-IA) and hope it will not reach the same conclusion the Starchild.

Pardon the intrustion but it sounds more like you're disagreeing than agreeing.

[Father_Jerusalem]

The Angry One wrote...

carrmatt91 wrote...

i think of it this way

destroy: save countless organic species (discovered/undiscovered)

reject: save no one

I think of it this way.

RGB: Doing the Reaper's bidding.

Reject: Fighting the Reapers.

Yes, some of you think submission is preferable to extinction.
I disagree, and so did ME1 and ME2.

This just in: stopping the Reapers, forever, and saving the galaxy is "doing the Reapers' bidding",

[Tealjaker94]

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

ok lets put this in perspective... if you broadcasted the choice to everyone else fighting the Reapers what do you think their response would be?

"Ok guys I can end the reaper threat forever and get us complete victory, but we lose the Geth... or we can take our chances."

This is of course will our fleet is barely holding on against the reapers...

I'm guessing Hackett and everyother commander out their would be shouting "SHOOT THE TUBE YOU IDIOT!"

The Galaxy was completely united, I'm pretty sure when the topic of destroying an entire species to live, most would disagree and make a last stand.

BULL ****.

and calling the geth a "Species" is a gigantic stretch

Exactly right. Shepard is one of few people in the galaxy who care about the geth at all. I can assure you most of your soldiers don't see the geth as any different than their equipment.

[BatmanPWNS]

Lol, Shep's a soldier. If he hasn't murdered someone then he wouldn't even be one.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


1-Its not ignorance, I had 8000 ems, I though we had a bit of a chance.
2-How are you to know that the Catalyst isn't lying, How are you to know that destroy won't kill people with synthetic implants, The catalyst even said the Crucible won't discrinimate.. Every desicion is a gamble.
3-Your right theres a lot of people i wish never had authority, like you, especially if i was a geth.

1. It is. You are told over and over and over that you don't have a chance. You're seeing billions of people dying every day. Your ships are barely making a dent in the Reaper forces. They control every homeworld, every major colony... if you ignore ALL of that. It is absolutely willful ignorance.

2. Even if he IS lying, your choices are: do nothing = everyone dies. He's lying = everyone dies. He's telling the truth = you can save trillions and trillions of lives. Why wouldn't you make a choice and HOPE knowing that even if he is lying, the situation can't get ANY worse? Not to mention: the Reapers are already winning. He has no reason to lie. He's not a Bond villain trying to trick you.

3. And I wouldn't want you to have authority, especially if I WAS ANYONE ELSE IN THE GALAXY. Here's the thing: if you pick refuse, the Geth die ANYWAY. How is that any better? Hmm? 

1-I'll take my chances rather than a AI created by the people trying to kill me.
2-Doing nothing and taking your chances, is better than doing something that you have no idea whether its true or what the consequences actually are
3-You died together as a united galaxy instead of doing something as killing a whole species when the whole galaxy agreed to work together. Destroy is hypocracy, genocide, betrayal, etc.

[Tealjaker94]

B.Shep wrote...

I agree with Angry One, the StarBrat himself states he already tried to use Synthesis sometimes before.

Considering the pros and cons i believe Destroy is the best choice: no more Reaper threat ever. Organics are free to create their own future with their choices.
Control is a big gamble, you let the galaxy in the hands of the new catalyst(Shep-IA) and hope it will not reach the same conclusion the Starchild.

Cool banners bro:D

[Vexille]

Kaica wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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

I guarentee the rest of the Galaxy you just saved won't feel that way.

Including the Geth?
They'll feel that way, because that's what they're doing now. Fighting the Reapers to DEFEAT them.
They have no idea the Crucible is actually a dagger in our back.

Bolded part obviously doesn't mean the Geth. 

With Shepard alive he'll tell people about the Crucible & the Catalyst and all that. You think people will be outraged then? No way.

What gives Shepard the right to sacrifice the Geth for that?
Maybe people won't care as long as they're comfortable. That's not the point, is it? We achieve that by mortgaging our future on the Catalyst's agenda.
That just isn't right.

There was an excellent point about Hackett earlier.

What gives anyone the right to sacrifice anything/anyone?

Whether you (not spesifically you, just general you) like it or not, it's one part of war. In a perfect world it wouldn't have to be, though in a perfect world there wouldn't probably even be wars.

I stated earlier that I can totally understand the urge to either save everyone or to sacrifice everyone. In my eyes it is the only fair option. But in war, sometimes you have to forget what is fair for all and do what needs to be done. And why does it need to be done? Because without doing it, the war was basically for nothing and the lives were given for nothing. It would totally be fair, but without anyone left to enjoy it.

I'm not sure whether I'm making my point clear. I can clarify if needed.

This is a question about moral and ethics, and those kind of questions don't have right or wrong answers. Our opinions are formed by our own experiences and even cultures. I find it extremely fascinating to discuss this kind of things, though.

that was me talking about the fleets and hackets decision to sacrafice a third of it to save the rest...

Was Hackett a murderer for that? NO.

losing 1 fleet and saving the rest was the right choice, just as losing one species to save the rest.

the situations mirror each other almost perfectly (in both cases their was a sliver of a chance that staying and fighting conventionally would work, but a sacrafice of a part to save the whole is the responsible choice)