933 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

LightningSamus wrote...

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.

Afraid to die?

Your life will end one day and dying a hero isn't a bad thing at all.

Refusal is definitevly NOT dying a hero.

[Vexille]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

so your basically dodging the question.

theres no indication at all that Hackett did anything that qualifies as incompetent... the reapers were just too strong.

how about you actually answer it

[agu123]

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.

They died because you refused to make a choice.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Lazengan wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem 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.

Um no. Even if it were the Asari or the Turians or the Quarians, the rest of the galaxy - and that race itself - would absolutely agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and to do what needed to be done. 

Refusal is the absolute epitome of selfishness. 

No, We would fight as a galaxy and not sacrifice each other. Anyway, theres no point of arguing this because its just a matter of opinion. We both have about the same ammount of evidence to support our opinions, so no one can be right.

why choose refusal and doom everyone

when you can choose destroy and only sacrifice the geth and EDI?

where they given a choice, I would think they would choose to sacrifice themselves so that the rest of the galaxy can live

As my Shepard said " I fight for freedom, mine and everyones, I fight for the right to choose our own faith. And if i die, I'll die knowing i did everything i did to stop you and I'll die free"
We agreed to fight the reapers, if i refuse to what the catalyst gives me as choices, im just continuing to fight the reapers, even if that means me dying.

[Kaica]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

You two, care to explain? (Just out of curiosity)

[Tealjaker94]

LightningSamus wrote...

Tealjaker94 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.

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

Synthetic fought against organics in the past and the reason why reapers exist, Protheans thought them and it's obvios that they have been at war before the catalyst was made.

They don't understand organics and they aren't the same and don't feel pain, and synthetic don't understand that, they upgrade and become advanced, organics will see them as a threat.

Organics are like children still learning from their mistakes, they build things in order to help them survive and they have always had wars against each other, Javik mentions wars in his cycle too. Organics would never be at peace for good, there will always be disputes over different things.
Synthetics helped a race survive as their planet wasn't habitable also Shepard was givien syntheics to survive after being killed by collecters.

There will always be synthetics, organics have different ways and means in using them but things always go wrong

Catalsyt wouldn't have been made if organics weren't looking for a solution to organic and synthetic relations, it's not it's fault for being created, it's organics.

Again, another mistake made by oganics and who says a reaper like species couldn't be made again?

Disagree all you want but it's the truth and i'm not going to argue all day about this.

History always repeats itself.

If so, then AI-Shep will conclude that the cycle is the way to go and resume reaping. I rest my case against control.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem 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.

Um no. Even if it were the Asari or the Turians or the Quarians, the rest of the galaxy - and that race itself - would absolutely agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and to do what needed to be done. 

Refusal is the absolute epitome of selfishness. 

No, We would fight as a galaxy and not sacrifice each other. Anyway, theres no point of arguing this because its just a matter of opinion. We both have about the same ammount of evidence to support our opinions, so no one can be right.

Murdering 1.5 billion members of a machine race who probably backed their **** up on the iCloud > murdering every member of every sentient species in the galaxy. Fact.

I can be right because I have the facts on my side. You can't be right because you're purely arguing on emotion.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

so your basically dodging the question.

theres no indication at all that Hackett did anything that qualifies as incompetent... the reapers were just too strong.

how about you actually answer it

I will, that analogy doesn't go well with what were arguing. He sacrificed a fleet to save to others so we can fight the reapers and win in our terms.
This is the actual fight, We didn't agree to sacrifice anyone. Also, its a fleet not a whole species,

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:22 .

[Vexille]

Kaica wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

You two, care to explain? (Just out of curiosity)

they cant though... I just want to see if they think Hackett losing all 3 fleets because he had a slight chance of victory was the right choice over sacraficing one to save the other 2.

it mirrors the end incredibly well and highlights just how stupid refusal is, especially from a military standpoint.

[agu123]

Kaica wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

You two, care to explain? (Just out of curiosity)

I think they're talking about the codex entry named "The Battle of Palaven".

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem 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.

Um no. Even if it were the Asari or the Turians or the Quarians, the rest of the galaxy - and that race itself - would absolutely agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and to do what needed to be done. 

Refusal is the absolute epitome of selfishness. 

No, We would fight as a galaxy and not sacrifice each other. Anyway, theres no point of arguing this because its just a matter of opinion. We both have about the same ammount of evidence to support our opinions, so no one can be right.

Murdering 1.5 billion members of a machine race who probably backed their **** up on the iCloud > murdering every member of every sentient species in the galaxy. Fact.

I can be right because I have the facts on my side. You can't be right because you're purely arguing on emotion.

How do you know the Galaxy isn't united and won't sacrifice anyone even if it means all of them dying. Like i said you can't prove me wrong.

[Tealjaker94]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

so your basically dodging the question.

theres no indication at all that Hackett did anything that qualifies as incompetent... the reapers were just too strong.

how about you actually answer it

I will, that analogy doesn't go well with what were arguing. He sacrificed a fleet to save to others so we can fight the reapers and win in our terms.
This is the actual fight, We didn't agree to sacrifice anyone. Also, its a fleet not a whole species,

What? Sacrifice is a part of war. I had no illusions about defeating the Reapers with no casualties and everything being sunshine and rainbows. I guess you thought differently.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Vexille wrote...

Kaica wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

You two, care to explain? (Just out of curiosity)

they cant though... I just want to see if they think Hackett losing all 3 fleets because he had a slight chance of victory was the right choice over sacraficing one to save the other 2.

it mirrors the end incredibly well and highlights just how stupid refusal is, especially from a military standpoint.

I wrote my explanation, look up.

[Vexille]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

so your basically dodging the question.

theres no indication at all that Hackett did anything that qualifies as incompetent... the reapers were just too strong.

how about you actually answer it

I will, that analogy doesn't go well with what were arguing. He sacrificed a fleet to save to others so we can fight the reapers and win in our terms.
This is the actual fight, We didn't agree to sacrifice anyone.

it mirrors it perfectly... Hackett sacraficed one fleet to save 2, destroy sacrafices one "Species" to save the rest.

Refusal would have been hackett staying and trying to beat the reapers rather then "sacraficing" some of his men.

Hackett staying and fighting had about as much chance of working as shepard trying to win conventionally... aka slim to none

Modifié par Vexille, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:25 .

[Bill Casey]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

No it is not...
An N7 officer has to be prepared to sacrifice their own men to complete an objective...
Their sacrifice means that others will never face what they faced here today. Those sacrifices have no honor if the mission fails. This is the hardest sacrifice to make...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:25 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


How do you know the Galaxy isn't united and won't sacrifice anyone even if it means all of them dying. Like i said you can't prove me wrong.

Because logic dictates that not everyone in the galaxy is a complete and utter idiot.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:26 .

[Kaica]

agu123 wrote...

Kaica wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

You two, care to explain? (Just out of curiosity)

I think they're talking about the codex entry named "The Battle of Palaven".

Heh thanks But I meant I would like to read an explanation why Hackett should be called "incompetent fool". In my opinion he was doing his job and he was doing it well. I just want to hear other opinions, too

[Funkdrspot]

The Angry One wrote...
You live under the tyranny of the Catalyst's legacy

That doesn't make any sense. There is no longer tyranny and the catalyst no longer has a legacy in destroy

The Angry One wrote...
and you sacrificed billions of Geth to do it.

War has cost, sacrifice. You sacrificed someone on Virmire to stop Saren and Soverign. Hackett had to sacrifice a fleet to save 2. Most of the greatest generals in human history have had to absorb some losses in order to win.

The Angry One wrote...
Its immensely preferable to control and the outright Reaper victory of synthesis, of course, but it's still a future tainted by the Catalyst.

How is it tainted by the Catalyst? He didn't choose for you. He didn't even make the choices available. You did. You are psyching yourself out just because the catalyst gives you some cliffnotes.

If the catalyst wasn't even there, how would you feel about the end choices? I'm betting you would see it completely different.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

so your basically dodging the question.

theres no indication at all that Hackett did anything that qualifies as incompetent... the reapers were just too strong.

how about you actually answer it

I will, that analogy doesn't go well with what were arguing. He sacrificed a fleet to save to others so we can fight the reapers and win in our terms.
This is the actual fight, We didn't agree to sacrifice anyone. Also, its a fleet not a whole species,

What? Sacrifice is a part of war. I had no illusions about defeating the Reapers with no casualties and everything being sunshine and rainbows. I guess you thought differently.

Sacrifice yes, killing a whole species, no. I rather die fighting than to betray and commit genocide to one of my allies, thats not sacrifice, thats taking the easy way out, especially when at the time i didn't know if the catalyst was telling the truth, and also I didn't know with 100% certainty that we would lose.

[Rasofe]

Wow, Khajit, your credibility just went down a notch.

The analogy fits perfectly. And I'm sure that when the Alliance fleet was made, there was no epic agreement that we'll sacrifice whole fleets to win the day. But the parameters changed, the Reapers invaded and things were desperate. Hackett had to make a call. Retreat with one fleet covering, or stand and fight and be obliterated as one united armada. He made the decision to retreat, which was not agreed upon beforehand.

Similarly, it was never openly agreed that the Geth and AI would be sacrificed for a victory. But it is a sound judgement given that an entire cycle of life and civilisation doesn't die with it.

Fleet or Species, it doesn't matter. If there was an ethical dilemma in the situation, there is no difference.

There are never any beforehand agreements in these situations, no conventions of ethics or morality to abide with. It is important to see things at face value and make the best decision available, and if you believe that in the given situation an attempt for a conventional victory was the best, then so be it. But do not accuse those who think differently of genocidal tendencies or godlust or cowardice. Such concepts are completely out of place in the fact of the true gravity of the situation.

Modifié par Rasofe, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:29 .

[BeastSaver]

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.

[Lazengan]

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.

what's wrong with control

you become a god

[Vexille]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Vexille wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Vexille wrote...

So khajiit, do you believe Admiral Hackett is a murderer for sacrificing one fleet to save 2 others?

"Incompetent fool" would perhaps be a more accurate description.
Too bad Coronati was killed or he'd slap Hackett upside the head for his tactical stupidity.

Basically this.

so your basically dodging the question.

theres no indication at all that Hackett did anything that qualifies as incompetent... the reapers were just too strong.

how about you actually answer it

I will, that analogy doesn't go well with what were arguing. He sacrificed a fleet to save to others so we can fight the reapers and win in our terms.
This is the actual fight, We didn't agree to sacrifice anyone. Also, its a fleet not a whole species,

What? Sacrifice is a part of war. I had no illusions about defeating the Reapers with no casualties and everything being sunshine and rainbows. I guess you thought differently.

Sacrifice yes, killing a whole species, no. I rather die fighting than to betray and commit genocide to one of my allies, thats not sacrifice, thats taking the easy way out, especially when at the time i didn't know if the catalyst was telling the truth, and also I didn't know with 100% certainty that we would lose.

So Hackett and everyone else telling you conventional victory wasnt possible... you missed all that?

were you RPing "Stupid Shep"?

[babachewie]

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.

Jesus you have the worst logic and answers to most of the crap I see on here.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 No, Destroyers are not heartless murderers.

Refusers are.