1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Jackums]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

In my opinion they are not equally valid. Synthesis and Control have some serious ethical issues that do not exist in Destroy. These have been discussed to death in other threads and do not need to be discussed here.

Control poses no ethical issues. Perhaps the Renegade Control outcome, but that's non-existent in the Paragon version. And Destroy is just as questionable in that it's effectively committing genocide.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Refuse, however, is a prideful sacrifice of trillions of lives for the sake of your personal "honor". It is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I do no see a point in delaying a chance for victory. It could take hundreds more cycles before another gets to where you are
so you could be condemning quadrillions to death by refusing to play. Like Javik said, ask the trillions of dead souls if honor matters. Their silence is your answer.

I agree, 100%.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

So I say take the chance. You know refusal means certain death for all. So what have you got to lose by shooting the red tube? Nothing. I'm not a gambling woman, but here I'll play the game. Deal me in.

I have no problem with Destroy at all. Personally I wouldn't choose it, for various reasons, but unlike Refuse, it's valid enough for me to see why others may choose it. I'm pro-Control (Paragon).

EDIT: I like your sig, by the way, especially the bold.

"Godlike Power and Armada; Galactic Molecular Eugenics; Genocide in 2 scenarios; or Full Retard (Refuse)"

Modifié par JackumsD, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:24 .

[IscrewTali]

savionen wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Again with the IF's and MAY's. There is no room for that in war, saying otherwise is just hippie crap. No matter how you put it, you fail to make the hard decision, pushing it for someone else to make. A coward's way out. Standing together is just an excuse for you failing to make the decision. If the countless cycles before you believed conventional victory was possible, they'd never have bothered with Crucible. You're not only doing the current and next cycle a favor by destroying them, but to all cycles that came before you, laying the groundwork so that you could finally end it.

Hmm... we have these plans for this ancient thing that is somehow related to the Reapers. It might do something with them.... maybe. Let's build that instead of building ships, thinking up new tactics against the Reapers, or salvaging Reaper tech to make new weapons, armor and shields!

If that was a valid option and a possibility for winning the war, the Crucible plans wouldve been ditched countless cycles ago. Do you really think the previous cycles havent reached the same conclusions? Even by Javik's standards, this cycle is still primitive. if so, i would like to see the most advanced cycles and how they failed to defeat the Reapers. And no matter what you do, Reapers have agents watchers like Sovereign in every cycle, making sure their technology stays within their ideal boundaries. It's simply not possible to advance technology enough to surpass the Reapers before they arrive.

[memorysquid]

savionen wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Rhayak wrote...

Rejection is perhaps the dullest choice one can make: sticking to the values of everything that was done over the course of three games? Yay, genius

The Star Child is trustworthy simply because his statements come from EONS of observation.
Besides, why the hell should he lie? He doesn't need to. Without any action from the crucible, the galaxy simply loses the war. Then the next cycle wins because they were smart enough to actually USE the big space-magic weapon

Therefore, every other choice is better than rejection. From both Shepard's perspective and that of any person of sense.

Fixed.

Like when Shepard "did the impossible" by sending an asteroid into a relay killing over 300,000 Batarians so he could "stick to his core values" of making sure to kill as many Batarians as he personally could before allowing the galaxy to die by being paralyzed with indecision.  Khajit reasoning at its finest.

Arrival apparently isn't canon, so....

So .... what?  I played it; I payed for it and ME3 started off mentioning it.  It affected MY Shepard, at the least.  And it is stupid for Shep to be in jail at the start of ME3 without it.  Try a playthrough without importing a character that did Arrival, as I did, and you just go HUH? when Anderson is trying to tell you why they would lock you up or court martial you.

[Rhayak]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Rhayak wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

I remember my shepard saying " I rather die fighting than to live like that", My thoughs exactly.

Yeah, my Shepard said the same when talking to Saren about being slaves to the machines.

Only the Rejection ending brings that about. Slaves, then grey goop.

No, you live knowing that you followed the Catalyst Tyrany and commited Genocide to win a war, you submitted because you were afraid of extinction and you wanted to ensure you win instead of dyinh., Again i will use this reference, Padok wiks said commiting genocide to stop genocide is wrong.

Look, i know it seems horribly wrong, but what the Reapers do is prevent COMPLETE genocide by performing nearly-total genocide on a regular basis. Simple as that.
I guess it sounds perfectly normal if you've lived a few million years....

And the merging of organic and synthetic life (my choice for Main Shepard) is definitely better than that. No more genocides, everyone happy and holding hands.... so perhaps it wasn't the worst thing in the world to actually trust the Star Child O_O

[N-Seven]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Trusting your enemy and doing what he tells you its not a good idea in war, unless you metagame, thats how it seems.

"Sir, our forces are getting utterly destroyed.   We're up against a vastly superior force and the casualties, both military and civilian, are huge.   But an envoy from the enemy has appeared, and he wishes to parley a solution."

"He can't be trusted!  He must have some plan to defeat us, even though...umm...he is already doing that.  Anyways...I kinda hate kids, so whatever.  HONOR!!!  EVERYONE, TO THE DEATH!!"

I admit I pictured it in my head and I laughed. But in all seriousness, Its better than
"OKSZ I AMZ THE CATALYST, AND I WILL GIVESS YOU THREE CHOICES AND BARELY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DO, MASS GENOCIDE, MASS SLAVERY AND MASS MOLESTATION, CHOOSE BECAUSE IM YOUR ENEMY AND I WANT TO HELPZ YOU.

But still, it's not a stretch to think, 'Ok you're a freak, but you know what?  We're getting our asses totally kicked here, and Liara would absolutely kill me if she found out I let her become reaper sludge and didn't use the Crucible thing, so why the hell not.'

I really dislike the Reject ending, but if you like it well to each his own.  I'm more arguing against the OP's insistance that non-rejection options can't be seen as a rational choice without metagaming.

[Grimwick]

Agreed, OP.

[LiarasShield]

IscrewTali wrote...

savionen wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Again with the IF's and MAY's. There is no room for that in war, saying otherwise is just hippie crap. No matter how you put it, you fail to make the hard decision, pushing it for someone else to make. A coward's way out. Standing together is just an excuse for you failing to make the decision. If the countless cycles before you believed conventional victory was possible, they'd never have bothered with Crucible. You're not only doing the current and next cycle a favor by destroying them, but to all cycles that came before you, laying the groundwork so that you could finally end it.

Hmm... we have these plans for this ancient thing that is somehow related to the Reapers. It might do something with them.... maybe. Let's build that instead of building ships, thinking up new tactics against the Reapers, or salvaging Reaper tech to make new weapons, armor and shields!

If that was a valid option and a possibility for winning the war, the Crucible plans wouldve been ditched countless cycles ago. Do you really think the previous cycles havent reached the same conclusions? Even by Javik's standards, this cycle is still primitive. if so, i would like to see the most advanced cycles and how they failed to defeat the Reapers. And no matter what you do, Reapers have agents watchers like Sovereign in every cycle, making sure their technology stays within their ideal boundaries. It's simply not possible to advance technology enough to surpass the Reapers before they arrive.

Ahh but the next generation would have thousand of years to prepare and be ready for the reapers that was way more of a warning and preperation that we got espically since the council denied the reapers exsistence for two of the games

[savionen]

IscrewTali wrote...

savionen wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Again with the IF's and MAY's. There is no room for that in war, saying otherwise is just hippie crap. No matter how you put it, you fail to make the hard decision, pushing it for someone else to make. A coward's way out. Standing together is just an excuse for you failing to make the decision. If the countless cycles before you believed conventional victory was possible, they'd never have bothered with Crucible. You're not only doing the current and next cycle a favor by destroying them, but to all cycles that came before you, laying the groundwork so that you could finally end it.

Hmm... we have these plans for this ancient thing that is somehow related to the Reapers. It might do something with them.... maybe. Let's build that instead of building ships, thinking up new tactics against the Reapers, or salvaging Reaper tech to make new weapons, armor and shields!

If that was a valid option and a possibility for winning the war, the Crucible plans wouldve been ditched countless cycles ago. Do you really think the previous cycles havent reached the same conclusions? Even by Javik's standards, this cycle is still primitive. if so, i would like to see the most advanced cycles and how they failed to defeat the Reapers. And no matter what you do, Reapers have agents watchers like Sovereign in every cycle, making sure their technology stays within their ideal boundaries. It's simply not possible to advance technology enough to surpass the Reapers before they arrive.

Every previous cycle was also completely screwed in every way possible, before the fight actually began. Mass relays shut down, government and military leaders assassinated, and not even knowing that the Reapers exist.

[RiouHotaru]

Guglio08 wrote...

Captiosus77 wrote...

TAO is presenting a classic strawman argument just to keep arguing why she hates the endings. Any attempts to point out the reality of the game (that metagaming is inescapable during the course of the trilogy, or that even if you suspend metagaming the four choices have the same direct net effect for Shepard [death!]), are met with subsequent reiterations of the strawman.

Rejection is the second most morally objectionable choice Shepard could make. Why? Because it forces Shepard's morality on the ENTIRE GALAXY and dooms ALL advanced civilizations to death - and metagaming isn't necessary to know widescale death is the end result as it's repeated, by damn near every central character, throughout the game. Only synthesis is more morally reprehensible.

But, whatever. This entire thread is meaningless as TAO will just continue to use Catalyst style flawed logic to justify still being angry.

I would like to point this post out for being extremely spot on.

If you were in Shepard's shoes, this is what you know at the end of the game:
- Your cycle is the only one that has ever created the Crucible and deployed it
- You have made it to the place you need to be to activate it
- You have poured your entire life's work and the full force of all the races of your cycle into protecting the Crucible
- You have four choices ahead of you

Regardless of "metagaming," Shepard can either doom his cycle to death or take a leap of faith on one of the presented "solutions." If his leap fails, everyone dies. If he refuses to choose, everyone dies. If the leap succeeds, maybe everyone surivives? Logically, you HAVE to take that leap. The three choices can effectively be considered one choice, split into three flavours that you can select from. 

It's either, absolute failure, or potential success. Saying that absolute failure is the only "true" choice is completely and morally illogical.

This.  The options are "pick a choice and possibly fail" or "do nothing and fail for certain."

It's not meta-gaming to conclude:  "I'll pick the choice I think will work the best.  I don't have anything to lose otherwise."

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Reorte wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Reorte wrote...

That's the decision you've got to make, based on what little information you've got. It's marginally more information than you had before the Catalyst showed up and you were ready to try to activate the Crucible with everyone fully admitting that they didn't know what it would do.

Trusting your enemy and doing what he tells you its not a good idea in war, unless you metagame, thats how it seems.

You need to look beyond just what it's saying and ask how likely it is to make things even worse. Even if you don't believe a word of it activating the thing anyway is a much lesser gamble than fighting on for almost certain Reaper victory. Also, consider what it says. It seems to be trying to steer you away from Destroy. Why does it speak at all? It doesn't appear to be able to actually intervene to stop Shepard from doing something, all it can do is talk him around to its preferred choice.

That is wrong, if you tell him you won't choose destroy he gets mad, you want a link?

[memorysquid]

Sauruz wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Plus Liara says our galaxy lost and all died.

Actually, she only says that they "failed to stop them". She never says anything that could imply that "all died".

Plus the Catalyst says synthetics get Reaperized too.

That has nothing to do with it. Likewise, many organics could have survived into the next cycle.

What was it the Reapers were doing that our galaxy failed to stop?  Oh yeah, Reaperizing everyone and everything as in previous cycles.  Seriously?

Modifié par memorysquid, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:26 .

[Gorkan86]

Shepard knows that victory over the reapers only possible via the Crucible. He does not know how the Crucible working. Catalyst offers him options. Shepard need to take a chance and believe Catalyst or refuse to use the Crucible and die. Because he know that conventionally they can't defeat the Reapers. So he has two choices, without meta-gaming.

[Ryzaki]

savionen wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Again with the IF's and MAY's. There is no room for that in war, saying otherwise is just hippie crap. No matter how you put it, you fail to make the hard decision, pushing it for someone else to make. A coward's way out. Standing together is just an excuse for you failing to make the decision. If the countless cycles before you believed conventional victory was possible, they'd never have bothered with Crucible. You're not only doing the current and next cycle a favor by destroying them, but to all cycles that came before you, laying the groundwork so that you could finally end it.

Hmm... we have these plans for this ancient thing that is somehow related to the Reapers. It might do something with them.... maybe. Let's build that instead of building ships, thinking up new tactics against the Reapers, or salvaging Reaper tech to make new weapons, armor and shields!

Honestly this cycle had their deaths coming to them. The military was just too ridculous. (Oh we've only been fighting the reapers for a few weeks ALL HOPE IS LOST MUST THROW ALL RESOURCES INTO THING WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE WILL WORK! )

Wut? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:27 .

[M Hedonist]

JackumsD wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

In my opinion they are not equally valid. Synthesis and Control have some serious ethical issues that do not exist in Destroy. These have been discussed to death in other threads and do not need to be discussed here.

Control poses no ethical issues. Perhaps the Renegade Control outcome, but that's non-existent in the Paragon version. And Destroy is just as questionable in that it's effectively committing genocide.

Paragon Control and Renegade Control are the same thing. The Renegade Control monologue is just more realistic.
Eventually someone will create weapons that can destroy Reapers. Or someone will construct another Crucible. To keep the peace you will eventually have to get your hands tentacles dirty by forcefully stopping such development.

[v TricKy v]

ITT: People trying to proof that the views of other people are wrong

Ironic that you people are arguing about morals and principles

Modifié par v TricKy v, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:28 .

[humes spork]

elitehunter34 wrote...

I never said the Crucible is a Reaper trap.  You're making a straw man argument.  What I'm saying is that Shepard has no way of knowing whether or not the Catalyst can take control of the Crucible and use it for his own means. That is an entirely different thing than saying the Crucible is a Reaper trap.

Oh yes, the difference between the Crucible being a Reaper trap, and being used as a Reaper trap, is staggering.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

N-Seven wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Trusting your enemy and doing what he tells you its not a good idea in war, unless you metagame, thats how it seems.

"Sir, our forces are getting utterly destroyed.   We're up against a vastly superior force and the casualties, both military and civilian, are huge.   But an envoy from the enemy has appeared, and he wishes to parley a solution."

"He can't be trusted!  He must have some plan to defeat us, even though...umm...he is already doing that.  Anyways...I kinda hate kids, so whatever.  HONOR!!!  EVERYONE, TO THE DEATH!!"

I admit I pictured it in my head and I laughed. But in all seriousness, Its better than
"OKSZ I AMZ THE CATALYST, AND I WILL GIVESS YOU THREE CHOICES AND BARELY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DO, MASS GENOCIDE, MASS SLAVERY AND MASS MOLESTATION, CHOOSE BECAUSE IM YOUR ENEMY AND I WANT TO HELPZ YOU.

But still, it's not a stretch to think, 'Ok you're a freak, but you know what?  We're getting our asses totally kicked here, and Liara would absolutely kill me if she found out I let her become reaper sludge and didn't use the Crucible thing, so why the hell not.'

I really dislike the Reject ending, but if you like it well to each his own.  I'm more arguing against the OP's insistance that non-rejection options can't be seen as a rational choice without metagaming.

The only reason it can be seen rational is because the Reapers seem to be winning, other than that, i don't think you have much to go on.

[Wesker1984]

Biotic Sage wrote...

How is it any less a leap of faith to expect to defeat the Reapers with military strength when thousands of cycles before us failed to do so? I'm not saying choosing one of the Destroy, Control, or Synthesis paths is undoubtedly the right decision, but I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3 is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that thousands of dead cycles before us attempted. Isn't doing something DIFFERENT, trying a different approach the most logical choice here? Again I'm not saying it doesn't come with risk, but there's no way you can convince me that the inherent risk is greater than the refusal.

Also, the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.

Agreed! And chosing refusal is like spitting in the face of billions of life who tried to stop the cycles for good! Control is always my choice.

Modifié par Wesker1984, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:27 .

[IscrewTali]

LiarasShield wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

savionen wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Again with the IF's and MAY's. There is no room for that in war, saying otherwise is just hippie crap. No matter how you put it, you fail to make the hard decision, pushing it for someone else to make. A coward's way out. Standing together is just an excuse for you failing to make the decision. If the countless cycles before you believed conventional victory was possible, they'd never have bothered with Crucible. You're not only doing the current and next cycle a favor by destroying them, but to all cycles that came before you, laying the groundwork so that you could finally end it.

Hmm... we have these plans for this ancient thing that is somehow related to the Reapers. It might do something with them.... maybe. Let's build that instead of building ships, thinking up new tactics against the Reapers, or salvaging Reaper tech to make new weapons, armor and shields!

If that was a valid option and a possibility for winning the war, the Crucible plans wouldve been ditched countless cycles ago. Do you really think the previous cycles havent reached the same conclusions? Even by Javik's standards, this cycle is still primitive. if so, i would like to see the most advanced cycles and how they failed to defeat the Reapers. And no matter what you do, Reapers have agents watchers like Sovereign in every cycle, making sure their technology stays within their ideal boundaries. It's simply not possible to advance technology enough to surpass the Reapers before they arrive.

Ahh but the next generation would have thousand of years to prepare and be ready for the reapers that was way more of a warning and preperation that we got espically since the council denied the reapers exsistence for two of the games

Knowing about it doesnt help if you lack the technology to deal with it. And the Reapers wont allow you to reach such peak in technology.

[Rhayak]

Wait, Arrival is not considered canon? On what basis? That it was a sort-of-mediocre DLC and not as awesome as Shadow Broker? Come on....

[Reorte]

JackumsD wrote...

Control poses no ethical issues. Perhaps the Renegade Control outcome, but that's non-existent in the Paragon version. And Destroy is just as questionable in that it's effectively committing genocide.

Paragon Control would be the ideal solution if it could be trusted. The lack of trust in it is the big danger and the tone, even in Paragon Control, seems to suggest that my lack of trust may have been justified. I can understand why people would choose it but it feels like they've probably doomed the galaxy to further Reapers.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Rhayak wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Rhayak wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

I remember my shepard saying " I rather die fighting than to live like that", My thoughs exactly.

Yeah, my Shepard said the same when talking to Saren about being slaves to the machines.

Only the Rejection ending brings that about. Slaves, then grey goop.

No, you live knowing that you followed the Catalyst Tyrany and commited Genocide to win a war, you submitted because you were afraid of extinction and you wanted to ensure you win instead of dyinh., Again i will use this reference, Padok wiks said commiting genocide to stop genocide is wrong.

Look, i know it seems horribly wrong, but what the Reapers do is prevent COMPLETE genocide by performing nearly-total genocide on a regular basis. Simple as that.
I guess it sounds perfectly normal if you've lived a few million years....

And the merging of organic and synthetic life (my choice for Main Shepard) is definitely better than that. No more genocides, everyone happy and holding hands.... so perhaps it wasn't the worst thing in the world to actually trust the Star Child O_O

Thats after seeing all the endings, that is metagaming my friend.

[Ryzaki]

Oh yay once again people are trying to say their ending's morally superior when every single ending has flaws. It's just a game of pick which one bothers you the least.

[Jeb231]

This belongs to personal opinion. At the end of the day you either trust the guardian or you don't. It's not the first ambiguous decision players had to make in the series, for instance rescuing the Geth in ME2 was the wrong call. And seriously, risking destroying all advanced life from this cycle because you are worried the catalyst may be lying isn't a call my paragon Sheppard would be willing to risk.

Modifié par Jeb231, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:29 .

[savionen]

Rhayak wrote...

Wait, Arrival is not considered canon? On what basis? That it was a sort-of-mediocre DLC and not as awesome as Shadow Broker? Come on....

Apparently from Bioware's perspective DLC is not canon, since not everybody has access to it.

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .