1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Goose]

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.

Because, he has no gain from lying? Reapers are already more powerful than united galaxy. Where is no chance to defeat them without miracle of any sort. Catalyst have essentially no good reason to lie, and even if he lies, situation cannot be worse.

Also, speaking about Refuse. Where is a part, that many people seems to not notice.



Reject Control option.
"I'm not losing everything". "I didn't fight this war so I could give up everything I have".

So, basically, it was like that.

- You can sacrifice yourself to save anyone.
- Shut up, I would prefer everyone dead, than losing anything.

So, you are not saving so-called sould of species. You're also saving yourself. Which may goes in characterisation of your Shepard, but isn't very common.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:14 .

[Zine2]

Hudathan wrote...

So the bad guys forced you into a tough position where you might have to do some shady things to save lives,

In short, you choose to sacrifice the soul of the species.

That's gonna sound awfully hypocritical to the "I refuse to sacrifice the soul of the species" Shepard from ME2. 

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

LOL, humes, you remain completely pointless.

[...]

The key element - which you cowardly and deliberately omit because of your poor debating ability - is that you LOSE. None of this stupid "my morals are better than yours" babbling because you're too obsessed over utilitarian calculus nonsense.

Whether you lose or win is irrelevant -- you fail to understand, or refuse to accept, that control, destroy and synthesis all include moral positions as well.

When you refer to all three of those as "compromises", yes you are in fact arguing refusal is superior for the fact Shepard doesn't compromise -- or at least, that's what you think is happening. Particularly when you do that while casting aspersions on the other choices.

Really, what kind of lunatic pretends that what the Reapers do to people isn't murder? 

The kind that actually understands the critical differentiation between killing and murder is culpability, and that in order to be culpable for something one must be sane.

So when you argue something is insane, you are whether you realize it or not arguing that it cannot be culpable for its actions. And since an insane actor cannot be culpable, whether it kills or not it cannot be, by definition, a murderer.

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:18 .

[Hudathan]

Zine2 wrote...

Hitler conquers 99% of the world, and then suddenly tells the Allies "You have impressed me, therefore I will allow you to use this secret weapon I have created which will allow you to undo my overwhelming victory?"

And your answer is "Woohoo! Let's pick it immediately!"

Yeah, there are a lot of people who are unable to seperate metagaming from IC choices.

Except the Reapers didn't build the Crucible, you did. And regardless of who's doing the explaining at the end, the battle was going to be lost until someone turned it on.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

Yeah, there are a lot of people who are unable to seperate metagaming from IC choices.

Why wouldn't you use it?

It's either 1. certain death or 2. uncertain victory.

Are you seriously suggesting that you would choose certain death? Really?

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Whether you lose or win is irrelevant

Bzzt, and here is why your argument falls completely apart, thank you for playing.

Whether or not the hero "wins" or "loses" is in fact central to the resolution of the story. Of ANY story. It is the difference whether or not the audience is left smiling or left in tears.

Winning or losing is completely and always relevant to the evaluation of any piece of "art". Pretending it isn't is as dumb as claiming that what the Reapers do to people isn't murder.

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

Why wouldn't you use it?

Because unlike you I don't ignore the fact that it's Hitler giving me the choices.

[Gnoizic]

Zine2 wrote...

Guglio08 wrote...

The other options had a chance at actually achieving something. Therefore it would be illogical to choose Refuse if the goal is to save the galaxy (and therefore its residents) from the Reapers.

Hitler conquers 99% of the world, and then suddenly tells the Allies "You have impressed me, therefore I will allow you to use this secret weapon I have created which will allow you to undo my overwhelming victory?"

And your answer is "Woohoo! Let's pick it immediately!"

Yeah, there are a lot of people who are unable to seperate metagaming from IC choices.

I'm failing to see how accepting the starbrat's solutions above refusing them is proof of an inability to separate metagaming from IC choices. Refusing has a 0% chance of working. Any good military commander and strategist faced with these insurmountable odds would realize that there is no conventional way of winning. Our ships are both outnumbered and outgunned. Refusal means continuing the war. Good for you and your moral high ground, but you lose and the cycle will continue, everyone surely dies.


This is all opposed to this Crucible that your collective races have rushed to build, based on schematics of previous cycles who believed that this would lead to the end of the Reaper threat. I'd call that at least a 1% chance of panning out. 1% chance of working is something. 0% chance from fighting conventionally is irrational and a waste of a huge military asset you've constructed.

[Hudathan]

Zine2 wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

So the bad guys forced you into a tough position where you might have to do some shady things to save lives,

In short, you choose to sacrifice the soul of the species.

That's gonna sound awfully hypocritical to the "I refuse to sacrifice the soul of the species" Shepard from ME2. 

Shepard from ME2 was not staring at the death of all sentient life in the galaxy as a immediate consequence of his/her present actions. In fact, Shepard goes ahead and proves that statement wrong in ME2 by crashing the asteroid in Arrival precisely because the Reapers change everything, including what has to be done in the name of survival.

What kind of human being doesn't adapt to the situation to do what's most reasonable at any given time? I guess character development is a fake concept because once a character says something it is forever set in stone and applies universally to all subsequent situations. Don't worry guys just die horribly in the trillions because I can't go back on something I said a while back.

[Lord Goose]

In short, you choose to sacrifice the soul of the species.

Reject is not about soul of species. It is also about "yourself"
Remember:
"I'm not losing everything". "I didn't fight this war so I could give up everything I have".

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:20 .

[Biotic Sage]

Zanallen wrote...

Damn Angry One, let is go. If you continue ranting about this game you are going to work yourself into an early grave. That much anger is bad for the heart.

Unless The Angry One should already be dead and is only being held together by his anger, much like Darth Sion in KOTOR 2.

Duh duh duh!

[Zine2]

Hudathan wrote...

Except the Reapers didn't build the Crucible, you did. And regardless of who's doing the explaining at the end, the battle was going to be lost until someone turned it on.

Actually, you have no idea what the Crucible is actually capable of. Only the Star Child does... only he may not necessarily be telling the whole truth.

For all we know, the Crucible actually had a "Destroy Reapers ONLY" option.

And that when the Star Child told you "Destroy kills Geth and Reapers! Please don't choose it!" he's actually lying and he's just holding the Geth hostage so you'll pick his preferred option - Synthesis.

(As to why he's include the "Destroy" option - I think it would be an enormous stretch to tell Shep that the Crucible can rewrite the DNA of every species in the galaxy and yet it can't serve as an "Off" switch to the Reapers. So he adds a twist - say there's a Destroy option but make it morally unpalatable by forcing you to commit genocide).

Again, making the Star Child give the options massively stretches the believability of the whole thing and introduces the possibility of deceit creeping in (What? Reapers don't deceive people I hear? Have any of you people ever heard of their Indoctrination and Subversion tactics?); as is making Shep believe everything without the benefit of hindsight.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

Because unlike you I don't ignore the fact that it's Hitler giving me the choices.

You failed the entire purpose of this thread.

It's easy to talk about "morals" while you type about it on your computer, but if you were actually in that situation, you're saying you wouldn't choose a potential victory because you're morally opposed to it?

Under the pretense of not metagaming your choice about the end, your answer is to metagame the moral components of that choice.

[M Hedonist]

Captiosus77 wrote...

capn233 wrote...

Without metagaming Shepard can realize that no antagonist has ever actually lied to him since he became a Spectre.

Thank you.

I doubt anyone here played the game "in character" as Shepard the entire time. The game has required players to meta-game many times throughout the series to progress the story. Damn near every morality choice required an evaluation of facts and conditions that may not have been known to Shepard but assumed by the player. Therefore this argument that reject is the "only" choice unless players meta-game is pointless because, no matter what, players had to meta-game many times simply to get to this point.

Proper arguments use evidence, examples, etc.
Don't just tell, show.

[Biotic Sage]

Zine2 wrote...

Guglio08 wrote...

Why wouldn't you use it?

Because unlike you I don't ignore the fact that it's Hitler giving me the choices.

So what you're saying is that you can't swallow your pride and accept a solution if it is coming from "a Hitler," even if it is the only solution and by not accepting it you are condemning billions of sentient lives to death.  Wrong time to take a (misguided) moral stand, methinks.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:25 .

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Whether or not the hero "wins" or "loses" is in fact central to the resolution of the story. Of ANY story. It is the difference whether or not the audience is left smiling or left in tears.

Winning or losing is completely and always relevant to the evaluation of any piece of "art".

...which is why you argue the elements of sacrifice and loss in destroy, control, and synthesis simply don't matter because they're merely implied, but the elements of sacrifice and loss in refusal matter because they're largely implied?

Or that you say destroy, control, and/or synthesis involve compromise at best or "sacrificing the soul of [your] species" at worst? Yet, I thought none of those choices involved any tangible sense of sacrifice?

And for those reasons, refusal is the only ending to actually be artistic?

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

Because, he has no gain from lying? Reapers are already more powerful than united galaxy. Where is no chance to defeat them without miracle of any sort. Catalyst have essentially no good reason to lie, and even if he lies, situation cannot be worse.

How do you know that? Maybe the Crucible is a threat to it by other means.

Also, speaking about Refuse. Where is a part, that many people seems to not notice.



Reject Control option.
"I'm not losing everything". "I didn't fight this war so I could give up everything I have".

So, basically, it was like that.

- You can sacrifice yourself to save anyone.
- Shut up, I would prefer everyone dead, than losing anything.

So, you are not saving so-called sould of species. You're also saving yourself. Which may goes in characterisation of your Shepard, but isn't very common.

...

That dialogue is arguing against control. Which I do like by the way.
That has nothing to do with rejection. You can pick that choice and then agree to pick a colour.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:26 .

[Zine2]

Lord Goose wrote...

In short, you choose to sacrifice the soul of the species.

Reject is not about soul of species. It is also about "yourself"
Remember:
"I'm not losing everything". "I didn't fight this war so I could give up everything I have".

Not really; that doesn't necessarily pertain to material things, but to moral beliefs. Can you really believe that the galaxy can go on when it has committed mass genocide on one of their allies just to destroy the Reapers?

So again, attempting to portray it as the suboptimal choice is little more than sourgraping; and does nothing but to confirm that Bioware was acting out of spite.

[Hudathan]

Zine2 wrote...

Actually, you have no idea what the Crucible is actually capable of. Only the Star Child does... only he may not necessarily be telling the whole truth.

For all we know, the Crucible actually had a "Destroy Reapers ONLY" option.

And that when the Star Child told you "Destroy kills Geth and Reapers! Please don't choose it!" he's actually lying and he's just holding the Geth hostage so you'll pick his preferred option - Synthesis.

(As to why he's include the "Destroy" option - I think it would be an enormous stretch to tell Shep that the Crucible can rewrite the DNA of every species in the galaxy and yet it can't serve as an "Off" switch to the Reapers. So he adds a twist - say there's a Destroy option but make it morally unpalatable by forcing you to commit genocide).

Again, making the Star Child give the options massively stretches the believability of the whole thing and introduces the possibility of deceit creeping in (What? Reapers don't deceive people I hear? Have any of you people ever heard of their Indoctrination and Subversion tactics?); as is making Shep believe everything without the benefit of hindsight.

None of which changes the fact that if you do nothing, everyone gets killed anyway. Your options were to take a chance and do ANYTHING, or everyone dies. It doesn't get any clearer than this. All this argument about whether or not the Reapers are capable of deceit is beyond the point when you are standing up there with the Catalyst, that's what we are trying to say here.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

Can you really believe that the galaxy can go on when it has committed mass genocide on one of their allies just to destroy the Reapers?

You know you can do this before the ending as well, right? You can have the Geth or the Quarians all die if you're unable to bring about peace.

How would your allies feel about sacrificing the Quarians to let the Geth survive?

I mean, you can't not metagame when the entire game is predicated on metagaming. Shepard is a character who acts as you choose him or her to act. His morals are largely your morals but put into the context of  the narrative.

Modifié par Guglio08, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:31 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

...which is why you argue the elements of sacrifice and loss in destroy, control, and synthesis simply don't matter

Actually, I didn't argue it didn't matter. What I did say however, is that you LOSE in the Reject ending. The Reject ending ALONE ends the story of Shepard and of their entire cycle.

With every other ending, there are sacrifices, but the story of the current cycle continues. It's certainly looking like Destroy will be the canon ending (it's the only one with ANY potential for a sequel unless they're willing to make Shep the next Big Bad).
 
Again, you're just stupidly playing around with words. You do not "lose" in Destroy, Synthesis, or Control. You make sacrifices. You DO lose in Refuse.

[M Hedonist]

Lord Goose wrote...

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.

Because, he has no gain from lying? Reapers are already more powerful than united galaxy. Where is no chance to defeat them without miracle of any sort. Catalyst have essentially no good reason to lie, and even if he lies, situation cannot be worse.

Also, speaking about Refuse. Where is a part, that many people seems to not notice.



Reject Control option.
"I'm not losing everything". "I didn't fight this war so I could give up everything I have".

So, basically, it was like that.

- You can sacrifice yourself to save anyone.
- Shut up, I would prefer everyone dead, than losing anything.

So, you are not saving so-called sould of species. You're also saving yourself. Which may goes in characterisation of your Shepard, but isn't very common.

Stop making Control out to be moral or selfless. The mad dictator who sees himself as selfless and altruistic is so cliché.

[Lord Goose]

How do you know that? Maybe the Crucible is a threat to it by other means.

If Shepard chooses to believe that Crucible is a threat to Reapers by other means... it still would be leap of faith. Just of different sort.

That dialogue is arguing against control. Which I do like by the way.
That has nothing to do with rejection. You can pick that choice and then agree to pick a colour.

To have verbal rejection, you should reject all three options. Or shoot Catalyst in face, but I don't even know that it means.

"I'm fighting for freedom mine and everyone".

[Biotic Sage]

Zine2 wrote...

humes spork wrote...

...which is why you argue the elements of sacrifice and loss in destroy, control, and synthesis simply don't matter

Actually, I didn't argue it didn't matter. What I did say however, is that you LOSE in the Reject ending. The Reject ending ALONE ends the story of Shepard and of their entire cycle.

With every other ending, there are sacrifices, but the story of the current cycle continues. It's certainly looking like Destroy will be the canon ending (it's the only one with ANY potential for a sequel unless they're willing to make Shep the next Big Bad).
 
Again, you're just stupidly playing around with words. You do not "lose" in Destroy, Synthesis, or Control. You make sacrifices. You DO lose in Refuse.

Well, "you" do lose in Refuse if you consider "you" to mean Shepard or Shepard and the rest of the species in our cycle.  However, if you consider "you" organic life as a whole, then "you" do not lose even in Refuse.  Victory still comes, just many years after Shepard's time.

[GroverA125]

I tend to disagree slightly.

While rejection does work as a solution to the reaper threat, I find that destroy is the most suitable result. In high EMS destroy, Shepard (supposedly, completely unclear and barely even implied) survives, which means that it would be the only ending where everyone would be able to know why the reapers did what they did, the reason for their endless cycle. If no-one survives to warn the galaxy, it is likely it will happen again, whereas were one to know of their idea and tell everyone, the issue could be avoided. The Geth can be, and probably will be if both the quarians and them survived their debacle, brought back, and AIs will return, but it is likely some solution would be made that doesn't involve extinction or any other form or sorrow.

Synthesis doesn't solve the problem, terrorists are equal to you, that doesn't mean that they will not kill you. War will still happen and one side will win. Such as wars have always been. This does nothing to actually stop the wars.

Control is unsuitable as the power of the reapers is still available, there will always be those who believe that they should have the power, or are more suitable for it. The end result is that the power you took to prevent war will end up causing it. I'm lightly explaining this, but I'll just shorten it to Escalation and leave it at that.

In truth, only destroy is a truly acceptable choice you are given, Rejection is not a choice, it's you refusing to choose. But still, it works as an end. I understand your perspective OP, and you house many points, but I find that high EMS destroy is the only ultimately good solution there is. You might be right in your belief of this being the only choice.