1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

Hudathan wrote...

So instead of killing some people to save all the people because that would be immoral, Shepard should do nothing and most likely directly cause the death of way more people because that would be more moral?

The term "Doomed Moral Victor" was coined for a reason; and it does imply that the galaxy as a whole rejects the notion that genocide should be a tool to be used in ANY circumstance.

That's not a moral that can be stupidly condemned as simply being "selfish". Is it stupid to demand that the Holocause be never again repeated regardless of the situation? Anyone who thinks the answer to this question is "yes" is clearly someone who just glosses over the horrors of genocide and does not understand why it has become one of our most cherished universal values.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

But there are undertones against this ending, the most prominent of which is that it is the "TIM was right!" option.

I don't think you even played the game, or understood any of what was going on.

The Illusive Man may have used the word "control" but what he wanted was to dominate the Reapers. He wanted to use them to forcefully ascend humanity's place in the galaxy. He wanted to weaponize them against other species.

Shepard doesn't do that. He controls the Reapers as a benefit to everyone.

[Lord Goose]

It's choosing not to put all faith in the word of the enemy.

An enemy who is already winning. Crucible is not firing. Reapers cannot be defeated without it. Unless we believe in something utterly outside our point of view, everybody is doomed already.

I don't get your point. I'm only saying that the particular anti-control dialogue has nothing to do with the reject option.

I'm trying to say, that reject is based on rejecting all three options.
You reject destroy, because you don't accept casualities.
You reject Control, because you don't want lose yourself.
You reject Synthesis, because it is asking for too much.

It would be VERY illogical to choose reject, if you're not against all of three choices.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:59 .

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

It's choosing not to put all faith in the word of the enemy.

So if I'm stuck in a room with someone who has the intention and the means to kill me, and they tell me that I have a loaded gun and I get to pull the trigger and kill him instead, what good reason do I have to not at least try to use the gun. What's the worst that could happen, the gun backfires and kills me like he was going to do anyway? What does believing him have anything to do with taking the only option I have in front of me?

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

An enemy who is already winning. Crucible is not firing. Reapers cannot be defeated without it.

Therefore, WHY is the enemy handing you the keys to it's own destruction?

I'm trying to say, that reject is based on rejecting all three options.
You reject destroy, because you don't accept casualities.
You reject Control, because you don't want lose yourself.
You reject Synthesis, because it is asking for too much.

Which does not, specifically, have to do with Shepard not wanting to lose everything they have.
If that were the ONLY price, and Shepard knew what would happen from a trustworthy source, Shepard would do so in a heartbeat.

But it's not.

[The Angry One]

Hudathan wrote...

So if I'm stuck in a room with someone who has the intention and the means to kill me, and they tell me that I have a loaded gun and I get to pull the trigger and kill him instead, what good reason do I have to not at least try to use the gun. What's the worst that could happen, the gun backfires and kills me like he was going to do anyway? What does believing him have anything to do with taking the only option I have in front of me?

Or it breaks the gun. Or it dooms everyone to an even worse fate. You don't know, and you don't have the information to even make an informed guess. You have to place all your trust into the word of a Reaper.

[Hudathan]

Zine2 wrote...

The term "Doomed Moral Victor" was coined for a reason; and it does imply that the galaxy as a whole rejects the notion that genocide should be a tool to be used in ANY circumstance.

That's not a moral that can be stupidly condemned as simply being "selfish". Is it stupid to demand that the Holocause be never again repeated regardless of the situation? Anyone who thinks the answer to this question is "yes" is clearly someone who just glosses over the horrors of genocide and does not understand why it has become one of our most cherished universal values.

It's a good thing then that I, Commander Shepard, made the tough decisions so no one else had to. Good thing that has always been a running theme of the entire series and is nothing new in the ME3 ending.

It's just a hunch, but I doubt everyone in the processing centers about to be melted down into goo were shedding tears that Shepard compromised his/her values in order to save them all.

[Necrotron]

This is why it was so essential that they added the rejection option to the ending sequence, since it is the only logical step for Shepard to take.

It's just a shame the end of Mass Effect is 'everyone dies.'

[wh00ley 06]

If only Mike Gamble and Jessica Merizan had kept their big mouths shut about this ending.

[Guglio08]

The Angry One wrote...

Or it breaks the gun. Or it dooms everyone to an even worse fate. You don't know, and you don't have the information to even make an informed guess. You have to place all your trust into the word of a Reaper.

Can you point out an instance where a Reaper actively lies to you?

I haven't played ME1 (PS3 user) but at least in ME2 / 3, I don't recall a Reaper intentionally decieving you.

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...
I don't think you even played the game, or understood any of what was going on.

Right, from the guy who forgot that deception was part of the Reaper's tool kit? Really?

The Illusive Man may have used the word "control" but what he wanted was to dominate the Reapers. He wanted to use them to forcefully ascend humanity's place in the galaxy. He wanted to weaponize them against other species.

Shepard doesn't do that. He controls the Reapers as a benefit to everyone.

Note the use of the word "undertone". You may want to look it up.

While Shep doesn't use the Reapers to nuke the Krogans to make sure humans are ascendant, the implication is that he still has the overwhelming power to do so.

Just because Shep doesn't start nuking immediately after the effects of ME3 doesn't mean he won't go nuts a few years down the line.

[Guglio08]

Bathaius wrote...

This is why it was so essential that they added the rejection option to the ending sequence, since it is the only logical step for Shepard to take.

It's the exact opposite of a logical choice.

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

Or it breaks the gun. Or it dooms everyone to an even worse fate. You don't know, and you don't have the information to even make an informed guess. You have to place all your trust into the word of a Reaper.

So the gun breaks and I'm right back where I started, about to get killed by somebody I can't stop. And what worse fate could there have been? The entire galaxy was facing extinction against an enemy who can't be reasoned with, what was the Crucible going to do that's worse than certain death? Kill all of us worse?

[Lord Goose]

But it's not.

I do not see any substantial proof that in Reject Shepard doesn't believe Catalyst, unless we take "argument against Destroy" into account. He refuses to Synthesis, because he believes, that it will change everything and everyone, and that he lacks authority to do it.

Therefore, WHY is the enemy handing you the keys to it's own destruction?

Because he will benefit more from losing in one way or another.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .

[Zine2]

Hudathan wrote...
It's a good thing then that I, Commander Shepard, made the tough decisions so no one else had to. Good thing that has always been a running theme of the entire series and is nothing new in the ME3 ending.

LOL. And choosing not to make moral compromises is actually the tougher of the two choices. Trying to portray the Refuse ending as anything but a tough choice only demonstrates little more than the same kind of pointless spite Bioware has been directing at all those who pooh-poohed their dumb initial ending.

[Biotic Sage]

Hudathan wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

It's choosing not to put all faith in the word of the enemy.

So if I'm stuck in a room with someone who has the intention and the means to kill me, and they tell me that I have a loaded gun and I get to pull the trigger and kill him instead, what good reason do I have to not at least try to use the gun. What's the worst that could happen, the gun backfires and kills me like he was going to do anyway? What does believing him have anything to do with taking the only option I have in front of me?

I would use the gun so that I have a chance to live.

Oh wait...you said that it was the ENEMY telling me about the gun  That changes things.  No I wouldn't use it because the knowledge of the gun came from the enemy.  If it came from a friendly squirrel I definitely would though.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:05 .

[Feanor_II]

When you see the entire galactic fleet being massacreted I don't think rejection "is the only choice"

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

Just because Shep doesn't start nuking immediately after the effects of ME3 doesn't mean he won't go nuts a few years down the line.

At least for Paragon Shepard, there's no reason to assume he would go insane either.

And, I really don't think the Reapers use deception. They've always been incredibly forthcoming about their motives. Which is part of what makes their menace so much more intimidating.

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

This is why it was so essential that they added the rejection option to the ending sequence, since it is the only logical step for Shepard to take.

It's the exact opposite of a logical choice.

Only because some idiots forgot that Reapers lie all the time and then accuse others of not playing the game.

[Hudathan]

Guglio08 wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

This is why it was so essential that they added the rejection option to the ending sequence, since it is the only logical step for Shepard to take.

It's the exact opposite of a logical choice.

Unless your logic dictates that getting everybody killed is better than feeling bad about yourself.

[Lord Goose]

And, I really don't think the Reapers use deception. They've always been incredibly forthcoming about their motives. Which is part of what makes their menace so much more intimidating.

Yep. I do not remember any example, where Reapers directly lied to somebody.

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

At least for Paragon Shepard, there's no reason to assume he would go insane either.

Have you finally looked up the meaning of the word "undertone"? No? Look it up.

And, I really don't think the Reapers use deception.

Again, that's completely lunatic assumption. INdoctrination. Sleeper agents. Fighting Cerberus for half the game because they got tricked into fighting you. "Reapers not using deception" is clearly an argument used by people who didn't actually play the game.

[humes spork]

The Angry One wrote...

Therefore, WHY is the enemy handing you the keys to it's own destruction?

The problem with that is the Catalyst still made the decision to engage Shepard. Shepard didn't just luck into the damn starbrat, and the Crucible didn't force it to speak to Shepard. The Crucible presented new options to resolving synthetic/organic conflict without the cycle, and the Catalyst chose to exploit that with Shepard's aid.

Were the Catalyst hellbent on continuing the cycle one way or another, it could have easily destroyed the Crucible and let Shepard die in the Citadel's master control room. It didn't do that, and before you can entertain whether or not the Catalyst is to be trusted, let alone fully, you have to consider that it did and more importantly why. Because, like it or not, engaging Shepard alone is an act of good faith that presented worst-possible-outcome scenarios from the Catalyst's perspective that otherwise would not have been on the table.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...
Only because some idiots forgot that Reapers lie all the time and then accuse others of not playing the game.

Can you cite a specific instance where a Reaper directly deceived someone? Because I can't think of any. In ME2, Harbinger was extremely honest about what he was trying to do, even if Shepard didn't know what "ascension" referred to until the Suicide Mission.

And in ME3, there's never a point in which the Reapers deny that they are wholesale melting people or attempting to wipe everyone out.

[Lord Goose]

Again, that's completely lunatic assumption. INdoctrination. Sleeper agents. Fighting Cerberus for half the game because they got tricked into fighting you. "Reapers not using deception" is clearly an argument used by people who didn't actually play the game.

But do they lie in face?

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:09 .