1027 réponses à ce sujet

[N-Seven]

LiarasShield wrote...


Actually it is vice versa so what you become a Ai with incredible power you don't know if one day that power may corrupt you or turn into a similar abomination of the catalyst

Unknown actually.  It's just as possible that you become a benevolent god-being that is beyond traditional morality.  In any case, it's hard to imagine anything worse that what is already controlling the reapers.

Forcing everyone to be part synthetic and organic against their will altering their dna and either completely changing them or forcing them to be something that they never were is not right

It's arguable that this is better than becoming reaper sludge.   Again, remember you are partially synthetic.

Destroying your own forces to kill the reapers is not right

Partial forces.   But letting the Reapers destroy all of them, including all other advanced life in the galaxy, through your inaction is better?  Nope.

If I die then I die knowing I did everything I could to stop you and I will die free I believe in freedom of choice and not submitting to the catalyst so I chose Reject

Again, everything except use the Crucible, which you were trying to build all game, were ordered to build, involved immense sacrifice from allied forces, and was the culmination of this war effort and countless war efforts in other cycles.

And I also believe the next generation with our data of the reapers could've found another solution besides the crucible and stoped the reapers without the crucible  where we could not so yes giving the next generation a better chance to beat the reapers without the crucible is fine way to me

Unknown.  At this point it could be just as likely that future cycles also continue to fail and this may have been the best chance for countless millenia, and you've doomed trillions, quadrillions of lives and civilizations to war and harvesting, for millenia.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

MegaSovereign wrote...

"I will die knowing I did everything I could to stop you"

Except use the only weapon you've been preparing the entire game.

He did everything he could except commit genocide, thats fine by me.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
So basically you rather submit to the catalyst genocidal options instead of taking you chance and fight, is submission not prefferable to extinction? I see you made your chouce, i rather die fighting.

You're not submitting to it if you choose Destroy and possibly not if you choose Control (that one is a bit uncertain). You're refusing to do something just because your enemy mentioned it as an option.

[Jonata]

The amount of how many people would let an entire Galaxy die because of their hate for a glowing kid and their stubborness against compromise honestly creeps me out.

But again, that's probably because of the average age of Mass Effect players. I hope so.

[savionen]

MegaSovereign wrote...

"I will die knowing I did everything I could to stop you"

Except use the only weapon you've been preparing the entire game.

I don't like Rejection as an actual choice, but it also wasn't implemented very well.

Shepard: I'll do everything I can to stop you.
*stands there for 10 seconds doing nothing, fade to black*

Might as well pick Destroy.


Excluding meta and knowing what would happen already I would have picked Reject, before Shepard's speech and nothing actually happening.

For what you said earlier, I picked Control the first time even though I thought a conventional victory of some sort should have been possible. And by conventional victory I simply mean the Crucible not housing a god-kid.

Jonata wrote...

But again, that's probably because of the average age of Mass Effect players. I hope so.

Seems like the youngins are the ones that pick Synthesis from what I've seen.

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:55 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Better to die for freedom then alter people kill other people or mess with power that we were either never ment to have or power that is beyond our comprehension and yes you can still die pretty quick if you take a direct reaper beam to the body

Best to pick the choice that has the least bad impact on everyone else. Letting everyone get murdered on principle is just sick.

Is submission not preferable to extinction? Don't worry you don't need to answer that.

[Clayless]

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

There you go meta-gaming.

But to answer your point, *we're* not killing anyone. The Catalyst is. You know, the genocidal monster we're fighting.

Knowingly allowing him to continue, when you had a chance to stop him, is almost as bad as being him.

Versus doing it's bidding and trusting that what the enemy is said is factual?

Yes. The enemy said it, and your options were do nothing and doom the galaxy to death or take a chance and hope he's telling the truth.

If you choose to do nothing there is no moral high ground, you knowingly let the galaxy die because you didn't want to take a chance.

[MegaSovereign]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

"I will die knowing I did everything I could to stop you"

Except use the only weapon you've been preparing the entire game.

He did everything he could except commit genocide, thats fine by me.

Then use the Crucible to seize control of the Reapers.

inb4Controlcorruptsyou

[LiarasShield]

Jonata wrote...

The amount of how many people would let an entire Galaxy die because of their hate for a glowing kid and their stubborness against compromise honestly creeps me out.

But again, that's probably because of the average age of Mass Effect players. I hope so.

Honestly how many people are willing to play god or turn everyone into half machines against their will or kill their own forces to kill the reapers make me creeped out and just as sick

I'd rather let the next generation hopefully find a bteer solution with our info and more time to prepare for the reapers then use a device that will rape the galaxy one way or another

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
So basically you rather submit to the catalyst genocidal options instead of taking you chance and fight, is submission not prefferable to extinction? I see you made your chouce, i rather die fighting.

You're not submitting to it if you choose Destroy and possibly not if you choose Control (that one is a bit uncertain). You're refusing to do something just because your enemy mentioned it as an option.

Your submitting to the catalyst tyrany, Shepard shouldn't have to do something like commit genocide to win a war.
"Commiting genocide to stop genocide just ensures that no one is left alive" Padok Wiks, cures genophage if Mordin is dead.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Better to die for freedom then alter people kill other people or mess with power that we were either never ment to have or power that is beyond our comprehension and yes you can still die pretty quick if you take a direct reaper beam to the body

Best to pick the choice that has the least bad impact on everyone else. Letting everyone get murdered on principle is just sick.

Is submission not preferable to extinction? Don't worry you don't need to answer that.

You clearly need to think about it. The point about submission being preferable to extinction is to ask "Is it better to die than be a slave?" Well, with Destroy no-one is a slave and some are dead. With Reject no-one is a slave and everyone is dead. If you can spin that into least bad then you're insane. Extinction being preferable to submission is still about the least bad choice.

[BD Manchild]

Here's a part of an article on Forbes that I feel is worth looking at, giving what I feel are perfectly legit reasons why Shepard might not use the Crucible (full article here: www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2012/06/28/real-hero-of-mass-effect/):

However, the Crucible was rushed, built under terrible conditions by
people who barely understood what they were building. So, none of the
options are ideal. Control seems far too close to indoctrination for
comfort, and even the Catalyst seems cagey about whether Shepard will be
able to control the Reapers, although it is considerably more confident
in the Extended Cut. Synthesis is a huge change to the basis of all
life in the galaxy. Destruction will treat billions of Geth as an
acceptable cost to preserve the rest of the galaxy – and it would be
blood (well, oil) on Shepard’s hands, and staining the foundations of
post-Reaper galactic civilization. And, of course, Shepard has no reason
to believe the Catalyst. This could all be a trick.
By refusing to use the Crucible, Shepard is taking a moral stance –
saying that she is willing to play the long game, if that’s what it
takes to defeat the Reapers. She is not prepared to write off an entire
sentient race as an acceptable cost. She is, in that sense, refusing to
think like a Reaper – with their genocidal utilitarianism – or to accept
the Reapers’ tools as the only way to deal with them.

Without Liara T’Soni’s knowledge, making that choice would be insane.
Without Liara T’Soni’s perspective, Shepard would not be able to
consider it. But she has both. So, the rejection ending is the ending
where Shepard stays true to her principles, refuses to compromise and
places her trust in her current cycle not to want victory at any cost, and the cycles to come to defeat the Reapers without having to compromise.

[Clayless]

LiarasShield wrote...

Jonata wrote...

The amount of how many people would let an entire Galaxy die because of their hate for a glowing kid and their stubborness against compromise honestly creeps me out.

But again, that's probably because of the average age of Mass Effect players. I hope so.

Honestly how many people are willing to play god or turn everyone into half machines against their will or kill their own forces to kill the reapers make me creeped out and just as sick

I'd rather let the next generation hopefully find a bteer solution with our info and more time to prepare for the reapers then use a device that will rape the galaxy one way or another

The game implies they used the Crucible and word of god states a future cycle used the Crucible.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

"I will die knowing I did everything I could to stop you"

Except use the only weapon you've been preparing the entire game.

He did everything he could except commit genocide, thats fine by me.

Then use the Crucible to seize control of the Reapers.

inb4Controlcorruptsyou

The catalyst becomes a rogue AI, whats to say I won't become one. Also, I don't get enough information to make a decision like that in my opinion.

[Reorte]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Your submitting to the catalyst tyrany, Shepard shouldn't have to do something like commit genocide to win a war.
"Commiting genocide to stop genocide just ensures that no one is left alive" Padok Wiks, cures genophage if Mordin is dead.

It does leave people alive. What you're doing ensures that no one is left alive. The tyrant is saying "Hah hah, try to stop me and it'll lead to a big war that gets a lot of people killed!" so you just let him march in and kill everyone instead of getting lots of people killed stopping him.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

BD Manchild wrote...

Here's a part of an article on Forbes that I feel is worth looking at, giving what I feel are perfectly legit reasons why Shepard might not use the Crucible (full article here: www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2012/06/28/real-hero-of-mass-effect/):

However, the Crucible was rushed, built under terrible conditions by
people who barely understood what they were building. So, none of the
options are ideal. Control seems far too close to indoctrination for
comfort, and even the Catalyst seems cagey about whether Shepard will be
able to control the Reapers, although it is considerably more confident
in the Extended Cut. Synthesis is a huge change to the basis of all
life in the galaxy. Destruction will treat billions of Geth as an
acceptable cost to preserve the rest of the galaxy – and it would be
blood (well, oil) on Shepard’s hands, and staining the foundations of
post-Reaper galactic civilization. And, of course, Shepard has no reason
to believe the Catalyst. This could all be a trick.
By refusing to use the Crucible, Shepard is taking a moral stance –
saying that she is willing to play the long game, if that’s what it
takes to defeat the Reapers. She is not prepared to write off an entire
sentient race as an acceptable cost. She is, in that sense, refusing to
think like a Reaper – with their genocidal utilitarianism – or to accept
the Reapers’ tools as the only way to deal with them.

Without Liara T’Soni’s knowledge, making that choice would be insane.
Without Liara T’Soni’s perspective, Shepard would not be able to
consider it. But she has both. So, the rejection ending is the ending
where Shepard stays true to her principles, refuses to compromise and
places her trust in her current cycle not to want victory at any cost, and the cycles to come to defeat the Reapers without having to compromise.

I love that line.

[v TricKy v]

Did you guys watched the movie 300 and thought how stupid these Spartans were? That they wanted to go down fighting instead of negotiating with Xerxes even though they knew they would loose.
Would you call them stupid too for fighting for they belief in?
Am actually tired of these discussions. If you cant understand the viewpoint, than SO BE IT. But stop acting like your superior just for taking a "better" choice

[Lukeyguy]

The Angry One wrote...

Disclaimer: If my opinions on the ending bother you, the back button should be to the top left of your browser.

When talking about rejection compared to the other endings, people often bring up how the Reaper threat is still ended one way or another and how selfish people are for rejecting and so on. That's debatable, but not the point here.
One important point that I think is often missed though pointed out many times before by various people - how does Shepard know that?

Every one of the 3 options is a leap of faith based on the word - and that alone - of the creator and controller of the Reapers. Shepard will not even survive to see these options pan out. Definitely so in control and synthesis, and at least a likely possibility in destroy (especially since Shepard tries to commit suicide by explosion).
From Shepard's perspective, all she sees is the head Reaper giving her an ultimatum, the logic of which is flawed. Why would the Reapers hand you the keys to their own destruction? The Catalyst does not adequately explain the reasons for this, other than the current solution no longer being viable for arbitrary reasons.

How is the Catalyst trustworthy? The Reaper's main tactic throughout all 3 games is corruption and deception.
Yes, Sovereign and Harbinger were honest. But they didn't WANT anything from Shepard, they were simply making proclamations as to their intent.
With others they have manipulated, lied and used up through indoctrination and such. Look at the Geth. The Geth were attacked by the Quarians, so the Reapers promised to upgrade and help them. Which they did... they also took total control and made them puppets, illustrating perfectly how the Reapers cannot be trusted.

This represents a fundamental flaw in the ending. Within the narrative Shepard basically can't take any of these options, they require a leap of faith far worse than the one needed to give TIM the Collector Base, for example.
The only way you know the endings are viable is because you already know what they'll do! This is in the EC of course - a first time player with the OE must simply blindly fumble into an ending because you have no other choice.
Now that you HAVE the choice to reject, no other ending makes sense internally. You can philosophise about sacrifice and brave new eras all you want. I'm sure some will immediately react and yell "DON'T SPEAK FOR MY SHEPARD". But I'm sorry, you see the appeal of destroy/control/synthesis because you are meta-gaming. Shepard doesn't see it because Shepard CANNOT see it.

You're completely right. I picked rejection in my first playthrough (let's assume the non-EC never happened ok).

I received a slap in the face, with Liara telling me everyone died and hence had to go back and change it. Meh oh well. I'm happy with Destroy now anyway 

[LiarasShield]

My true paragon choice is refuse I'm not going to sacrifice anybody and I'm not going to play with power that I shouldn't and I'm not going to force merge races against their will or without their consent their is no way and yes extinction is better then submission

[MegaSovereign]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

"I will die knowing I did everything I could to stop you"

Except use the only weapon you've been preparing the entire game.

He did everything he could except commit genocide, thats fine by me.

Then use the Crucible to seize control of the Reapers.

inb4Controlcorruptsyou

The catalyst becomes a rogue AI, whats to say I won't become one. Also, I don't get enough information to make a decision like that in my opinion.

He's not really a rogue AI. His original programming IS the problem.

He was created to stop tech singularity. He finds out it's basically an unsolvable problem, so he's stuck in a logic loop.

Shepard-based AI isn't bound by any sort of singular purpose, other than to stop the cycle of destruction. Shepard's memories and morals guide the new AI.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:01 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Better to die for freedom then alter people kill other people or mess with power that we were either never ment to have or power that is beyond our comprehension and yes you can still die pretty quick if you take a direct reaper beam to the body

Best to pick the choice that has the least bad impact on everyone else. Letting everyone get murdered on principle is just sick.

Is submission not preferable to extinction? Don't worry you don't need to answer that.

You clearly need to think about it. The point about submission being preferable to extinction is to ask "Is it better to die than be a slave?" Well, with Destroy no-one is a slave and some are dead. With Reject no-one is a slave and everyone is dead. If you can spin that into least bad then you're insane. Extinction being preferable to submission is still about the least bad choice.

You are a slave, you submitted to the Catalyst flawed logic and genocidal brain to win the war, Like I said, I rather die than to live knowing I won a war by commiting Genocide, and I believe by the events of ME during the end, the galaxy would gladly die than to sacrifice a whole species to win, but you want to commit war crimes to win a war, don't worry, I know Hitler is smiling upon you.

[Eire Icon]

LiarasShield wrote...

Merging life together against their will is wrong

What about killing entire races against their will - is that not wrong also ?

LiarasShield wrote...
Killing your own forces to kill the reapers is wrong and yes despite what you think refuse is still the best moral choice out of all these options because we go down fighting for freedom not altering people not messing with power beyond our comprehension not personally killing my own forces to kill the reapers

Its called collatoral damage. Yes its not a pleasant choice, but you're talking as if not making a choice will somehow save them. It won't.

LiarasShield wrote...
Honestly how many people are willing to play god or turn everyone into half machines against their will or kill their own forces to kill the reapers make me creeped out and just as sick

I'd rather let the next generation hopefully find a bteer solution with our info and more time to prepare for the reapers then use a device that will rape the galaxy one way or another

Do you not realise by refusing to make a choice, you are actually playing God? You are actually dooming an entire galaxy based on your own beliefs alone.

You have the power, you choose not to use it, everyone else is powerless, and their fate is sealed by your actions

By sheer definition of the term - You are playing God when you refuse to choose

Modifié par Eire Icon, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:03 .

[The Angry One]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Yes. The enemy said it, and your options were do nothing and doom the galaxy to death or take a chance and hope he's telling the truth.

If you choose to do nothing there is no moral high ground, you knowingly let the galaxy die because you didn't want to take a chance.

I'm not knowingly doing anything of the sort. I'm putting my faith in my allies that we'll find some way out of this, to defy the enemy that's giving us all an ultimatum.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Your submitting to the catalyst tyrany, Shepard shouldn't have to do something like commit genocide to win a war.
"Commiting genocide to stop genocide just ensures that no one is left alive" Padok Wiks, cures genophage if Mordin is dead.

It does leave people alive. What you're doing ensures that no one is left alive. The tyrant is saying "Hah hah, try to stop me and it'll lead to a big war that gets a lot of people killed!" so you just let him march in and kill everyone instead of getting lots of people killed stopping him.

Except the Geth, your humanity, and the soul of your species.

[Clayless]

LiarasShield wrote...

My true paragon choice is refuse I'm not going to sacrifice anybody and I'm not going to play with power that I shouldn't and I'm not going to force merge races against their will or without their consent their is no way and yes extinction is better then submission

Technically choosing to let everyone die horrible deaths, against their will or without their consent, is just as bad.

Even if I wanted to destroy the Reapers but didn't want to sacrifice the Geth I wouldn't consider sacrificing the Geth and everyone else to let the Reapers win the better option.