861 réponses à ce sujet

[SMichelle]

babachewie wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

You know what's better than all life in the galaxy dying?

All life in the galaxy NOT dying.

Sack up, Shep.

Again, That logic is saying that survival is everything.

Uh yeah. Because you know what's worse than survival? Dying. Dying is worse. 

Is submission preferable to extinction?

dont bother answering. he still thinks he's submititng to someting thats not even making him submit. 

Yeah OP.  I don't quite get your logic here.  In my ending the Catalyst is destroyed.  You could say I made him my ****.  In your ending the Catalyst won.  Ergo- the Catalyst made you his ****.  I would say you are submitting to the Catalyst.  You know in Refuse he beat you, right?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


I didn't wish to have to weed my garden today. Am I submitting? I didn't wish to have to wait til midnight to watch MasterChef because of a soccer game on television. Am I submitting? 

Choosing destroy is not submitting to the will of the Catalyst because, one, that was you ENTIRE MISSION aboard the Crucible - to find a way to stop the Reapers. And two, because the Catalyst is clearly trying to steer you in its preferred direction, Synthesis. Destory, quite frankly, is DEFYING the Catalyst, not submitting to it.

And yes. Living is all that matters. Because anything else can be changed in time if you disagree with it - as long as you're alive to be able to do so.

You know who else is glad they're living? Liara. Joker. Ashley. Wrex. Garrus. Tali. Vega. The Quarians. The Turians. The Salarians. The Asari. I could go on, and on, and on. Refusal is a betrayal of the theme of the entire trilogy.

Sack up, Shep.

Those analogies are so do not fit in with the Mass Effect universe, and how can you change synthesis or control?

So now you're defining which analogies I can and cannot use, after Godwinning the thread pages ago? Really?

I don't know how you can change Synthesis or Control, I haven't put one iota of thought into it. But you know what? People are still alive so they can think about it and try to figure out a solution. If they were all dead, you know what they'd be doing?

Rotting.

[DEATHSCOPE]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

You can't forget the superweapon. That's the point I'm trying to make based on YOUR argument. You can't just throw it out if you did not like it like you did with my Arrival stance.

The atzecs also could have ended the war but choose not to, its the same thing, the superweapon ends the war, but i choose not to use it, are the atzecs seen that they commited genocide on themselves, no.

Ending a war is different from winning a war. Are you even trying?

[Ryzaki]

Heh. Only ones who enjoy living in my games are Asari, Turians, Salarians, Elcor, Volus, Batarians? (whatever's left of them) and...yeah that's it for advanced species. Krogan wiped out (lulz genophage not cured), Quarians wiped out (about damn time), Geth wiped out (alas sorry guys but A. Legion's dead and B. Destroy) EDI dead (Maybe Joker will stop being so damn creepy and pathetic now), Shep living and able to unite with his LI.

My personal HEA.

...My Paragon Destroy Shep clearly didn't have a problem with genocide. He did it multiple times in the series.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:13 .

[carrmatt91]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

carrmatt91 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Sorry, the first point really got to me.

The Japanese were not in danger of being wiped out to the last man, woman, and child. With enough casualties, they would surrender. The races of the galaxy were not so fortunate. They cannot surrender. It was either fight or die. Sacrifice one race, save the rest.

I'm going to make a leap here and guess you are referring to the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan during WW2.


First off, that's sort of a muddy issue, since there were some who absolutely would fight to their last breath against the invaders.  If you had any idea of the superiority complex their propaganda gave them back then, you would know this.

Secondly, while there were of course, some Japanese who would surrender, and further some who didn't want to fight at all, they weren't going to be given a choice.  Their government was pretty adamant that their strategy would net them victory or let them die with honor.  (The unfortunate truth being that if they cost us enough lives, the Allies may very well have accepted a ceasefire.  Don't believe me, that's the entire reason the British allowed the Colonies to rebel, it simply cost too much to keep them when troops were needed elsewhere.)

You're talking like the Japanese government could keep control over ALL of their people. Forcing them to fight when they did not want to. I know that they were a military state but that's just not feasible. Some will surrender, the people and their culture will live on.

Thirdly, if the Japanese were so eager to surrender, I rather think they would have done it when we hit them the first time with a city destroying, god-fire weapons and proved once and for all that we were not BLUFFING, when we said we could wipe them off the map without a problem.

Good to know. I never said that they wouldn't surrender.

Instead, they kept refusing for three whole days.... until we hit them again.  At that point it was pretty clear, that fighting us was pointless and stupid.   THEN Japan surrendered.


Now lets take this analogy and flip it on its head.


Was winning the war this way worth it?

At the point in which we dropped the bomb, Japan's empire was pretty much done, even if we never invaded, their resource poor country, now deprived of many of its young men were pretty much screwed anyway.

It wasn't going to be a threat for many, many years.

Albert Einstein laid the foundation for the atomic bomb.  His science unveiled the possibility of such weapons, and his direct appeal to Roosevelt implemented their creation.


Albert Einstein said this 'I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed the letter to
President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was
some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them.'

For Einstein, the cost of winning the war with Japan (and I mean WINNING, not signing a treaty, an armistice, or a cessation of hostilities) was far too high. 


There are some acts so great and terrible they scar the very souls of all those involved.  Some acts that we can never undo, never atone for, never repair.  Acts that go beyond any conflict, acts that damn the very soul.


So if the choice is between doing what is morally and objectively wrong but keeps you alive, or doing what is right and dying with honor and freedom.... well, I like to think I'd pick the later.

When your entire race is near annihilation and extinction, you might think differently. Atrocities are always committed in war, never forget that.

Japan's culture was based around honour, the soldiers were trained to never surrender because "americans would kill them anyway in the most horrible ways imageinable" (propaganda)  Japan would not have surrendered until they were literally on the edge of defeat hence the two H-bombs, had it been conventional warfare? i could have seen the war last until at least 1949-1950 because i doubt that the japenese would surrender until the final cities were falling

So they were prepared for a total war. But the Japanese were not facing extinction. The Mass Effect races were.

which is why they need to find the quickest and most decisive way to defeat the reapers , a la crucible, refuse is an unnecessary draw out of an unwinnable war, you cannot conventionally beat the reapers because the reapers themselves don't fight the way we would, we would try to take land and occupy an enemy territory, the reapers just need to kill, once they take a planet they no longer have a use for it, whereas we would need to leave an occupation force, plus the reapers make new forces by recycling our dead, a process that makes troop replacement very quick and efficient whereas humans for example take about 16 years for a person to be born to get to minimum military age (debateable during intergalactic war).

[Khajiit Jzargo]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

You can't forget the superweapon. That's the point I'm trying to make based on YOUR argument. You can't just throw it out if you did not like it like you did with my Arrival stance.

The atzecs also could have ended the war but choose not to, its the same thing, the superweapon ends the war, but i choose not to use it, are the atzecs seen that they commited genocide on themselves, no.

Ending a war is different from winning a war. Are you even trying?

We're talking about survival here.

[SMichelle]

Ryzaki wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Good point.

Honestly though...Shep's cycle was pathetic compared to the Protheans. They pretty much go QQ REAPERS! The second the Reapers are even there "OMG ALL HOPE IS LOST! MUST BUILD SUPERWEAPON!" They roll over crying (and they haven't even seen anything yet) and it's just...compared to the Protheans they're pathetic. I'm listening to Javik's stories and then looking at Shep and co and facepalming.

Especially hard at Liara's "OMG my people!" 

...REALLY LIARA? 

Tis not like we've been seeing every other species huskified and crap until now yo!

But everyone loves the Asari! 

Proven Fact

(Well, I'm more of a Turian lover myself)

[DEATHSCOPE]

carrmatt91 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

carrmatt91 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Sorry, the first point really got to me.

The Japanese were not in danger of being wiped out to the last man, woman, and child. With enough casualties, they would surrender. The races of the galaxy were not so fortunate. They cannot surrender. It was either fight or die. Sacrifice one race, save the rest.

I'm going to make a leap here and guess you are referring to the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan during WW2.


First off, that's sort of a muddy issue, since there were some who absolutely would fight to their last breath against the invaders.  If you had any idea of the superiority complex their propaganda gave them back then, you would know this.

Secondly, while there were of course, some Japanese who would surrender, and further some who didn't want to fight at all, they weren't going to be given a choice.  Their government was pretty adamant that their strategy would net them victory or let them die with honor.  (The unfortunate truth being that if they cost us enough lives, the Allies may very well have accepted a ceasefire.  Don't believe me, that's the entire reason the British allowed the Colonies to rebel, it simply cost too much to keep them when troops were needed elsewhere.)

You're talking like the Japanese government could keep control over ALL of their people. Forcing them to fight when they did not want to. I know that they were a military state but that's just not feasible. Some will surrender, the people and their culture will live on.

Thirdly, if the Japanese were so eager to surrender, I rather think they would have done it when we hit them the first time with a city destroying, god-fire weapons and proved once and for all that we were not BLUFFING, when we said we could wipe them off the map without a problem.

Good to know. I never said that they wouldn't surrender.

Instead, they kept refusing for three whole days.... until we hit them again.  At that point it was pretty clear, that fighting us was pointless and stupid.   THEN Japan surrendered.


Now lets take this analogy and flip it on its head.


Was winning the war this way worth it?

At the point in which we dropped the bomb, Japan's empire was pretty much done, even if we never invaded, their resource poor country, now deprived of many of its young men were pretty much screwed anyway.

It wasn't going to be a threat for many, many years.

Albert Einstein laid the foundation for the atomic bomb.  His science unveiled the possibility of such weapons, and his direct appeal to Roosevelt implemented their creation.


Albert Einstein said this 'I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed the letter to
President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was
some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them.'

For Einstein, the cost of winning the war with Japan (and I mean WINNING, not signing a treaty, an armistice, or a cessation of hostilities) was far too high. 


There are some acts so great and terrible they scar the very souls of all those involved.  Some acts that we can never undo, never atone for, never repair.  Acts that go beyond any conflict, acts that damn the very soul.


So if the choice is between doing what is morally and objectively wrong but keeps you alive, or doing what is right and dying with honor and freedom.... well, I like to think I'd pick the later.

When your entire race is near annihilation and extinction, you might think differently. Atrocities are always committed in war, never forget that.

Japan's culture was based around honour, the soldiers were trained to never surrender because "americans would kill them anyway in the most horrible ways imageinable" (propaganda)  Japan would not have surrendered until they were literally on the edge of defeat hence the two H-bombs, had it been conventional warfare? i could have seen the war last until at least 1949-1950 because i doubt that the japenese would surrender until the final cities were falling

So they were prepared for a total war. But the Japanese were not facing extinction. The Mass Effect races were.

which is why they need to find the quickest and most decisive way to defeat the reapers , a la crucible, refuse is an unnecessary draw out of an unwinnable war, you cannot conventionally beat the reapers because the reapers themselves don't fight the way we would, we would try to take land and occupy an enemy territory, the reapers just need to kill, once they take a planet they no longer have a use for it, whereas we would need to leave an occupation force, plus the reapers make new forces by recycling our dead, a process that makes troop replacement very quick and efficient whereas humans for example take about 16 years for a person to be born to get to minimum military age (debateable during intergalactic war).

Totally onboard with that. Count me in.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


I didn't wish to have to weed my garden today. Am I submitting? I didn't wish to have to wait til midnight to watch MasterChef because of a soccer game on television. Am I submitting? 

Choosing destroy is not submitting to the will of the Catalyst because, one, that was you ENTIRE MISSION aboard the Crucible - to find a way to stop the Reapers. And two, because the Catalyst is clearly trying to steer you in its preferred direction, Synthesis. Destory, quite frankly, is DEFYING the Catalyst, not submitting to it.

And yes. Living is all that matters. Because anything else can be changed in time if you disagree with it - as long as you're alive to be able to do so.

You know who else is glad they're living? Liara. Joker. Ashley. Wrex. Garrus. Tali. Vega. The Quarians. The Turians. The Salarians. The Asari. I could go on, and on, and on. Refusal is a betrayal of the theme of the entire trilogy.

Sack up, Shep.

Those analogies are so do not fit in with the Mass Effect universe, and how can you change synthesis or control?

So now you're defining which analogies I can and cannot use, after Godwinning the thread pages ago? Really?

I don't know how you can change Synthesis or Control, I haven't put one iota of thought into it. But you know what? People are still alive so they can think about it and try to figure out a solution. If they were all dead, you know what they'd be doing?

Rotting.

HA! when did you godwin, and thank you admiting control and synthesis can't be changed.

[DEATHSCOPE]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

You can't forget the superweapon. That's the point I'm trying to make based on YOUR argument. You can't just throw it out if you did not like it like you did with my Arrival stance.

The atzecs also could have ended the war but choose not to, its the same thing, the superweapon ends the war, but i choose not to use it, are the atzecs seen that they commited genocide on themselves, no.

Ending a war is different from winning a war. Are you even trying?

We're talking about survival here.

Oh, now we're talking about survival? Not just fighting and winning with our honor intact? Good one OP.

[Ryzaki]

SMichelle wrote...

But everyone loves the Asari! 

Proven Fact

(Well, I'm more of a Turian lover myself)

Ugh my dislike of the Asari is only second to my dislike of Batarians and Quarians (yeah those two are tied for number 1). Uppity arrogant hypocritical incompetent idiots. *grumbles* 

And yeah much prefer Turians. They at least don't give me the urge to strangle them.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

You can't forget the superweapon. That's the point I'm trying to make based on YOUR argument. You can't just throw it out if you did not like it like you did with my Arrival stance.

The atzecs also could have ended the war but choose not to, its the same thing, the superweapon ends the war, but i choose not to use it, are the atzecs seen that they commited genocide on themselves, no.

Ending a war is different from winning a war. Are you even trying?

We're talking about survival here.

Oh, now we're talking about survival? Not just fighting and winning with our honor intact? Good one OP.

I'm not arguing which one is right, I'm arguing whether or not i would be genocide to not surrender and die, now answer the question.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Ryzaki wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

But everyone loves the Asari! 

Proven Fact

(Well, I'm more of a Turian lover myself)

Ugh my dislike of the Asari is only second to my dislike of Batarians and Quarians (yeah those two are tied for number 1). Uppity arrogant hypocritical incompetent idiots. *grumbles* 

And yeah much prefer Turians. They at least don't give me the urge to strangle them.

Same, Asari are a little to mainstream for me. Quarians in the other hand 

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

HA! when did you godwin, and thank you admiting control and synthesis can't be changed.

Holy cow you need to learn reading comprehension skills.

YOU Godwinned the thread pages ago.

I said I don't know HOW Control and Synthesis can be changed - but as long as people alive, they can TRY.

You pretty much ignored everything I actually said and just inserted what you wanted me to have said. Failure on every conceivable level.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

HA! when did you godwin, and thank you admiting control and synthesis can't be changed.

Holy cow you need to learn reading comprehension skills.

YOU Godwinned the thread pages ago.

I said I don't know HOW Control and Synthesis can be changed - but as long as people alive, they can TRY.

You pretty much ignored everything I actually said and just inserted what you wanted me to have said. Failure on every conceivable level.

Sorry for making one mistake afters hours of arguing, i know that seems so unreasonable. You can't change Control unless you start another war with the Reapers which fixes nothing, and synthesis can't be changed, no point on trying, so your trying arguement is moot. And when I mentioned Hitler, I said he enjoyed Genocide, So I didn't nessaraly use Godwins law.

[carrmatt91]

not really the best analogy but i have to get my welsh heritage in here somewhere.

anyone heard of the battle of Rorkes drift? a little over 150 British soldiers held off an attack by 3000-4000 zulu's

proof that a technically primitive army using salvaged weapons that had almost a 20-30 to 1 ratio of troops still lost to a patient defense.

surely if the british army could do that then the reapers could do it better? given that the reapers are infinitely patient.

[Archonsg]

One other thing, the Catalyst tells you, that the Crucible is really not a weapon but one effing big battery that allows it (Catalyst) to effect whatever it could not before.

So, people who keep going on that it's a weapon, please stop and consider that for a moment.

Personally I think they fubar the Crucible making it more complicated then it needed to be. Should have just left it as a PROTEAN weapon from their war on their own AIs and it would have played better and made sense.

[Ryzaki]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

But everyone loves the Asari! 

Proven Fact

(Well, I'm more of a Turian lover myself)

Ugh my dislike of the Asari is only second to my dislike of Batarians and Quarians (yeah those two are tied for number 1). Uppity arrogant hypocritical incompetent idiots. *grumbles* 

And yeah much prefer Turians. They at least don't give me the urge to strangle them.

Same, Asari are a little to mainstream for me. Quarians in the other hand 

Yeah I can't say I like the Quarians. There's a reason I always get this slide of Rannoch: 

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Archonsg wrote...

One other thing, the Catalyst tells you, that the Crucible is really not a weapon but one effing big battery that allows it (Catalyst) to effect whatever it could not before.

So, people who keep going on that it's a weapon, please stop and consider that for a moment.

Personally I think they fubar the Crucible making it more complicated then it needed to be. Should have just left it as a PROTEAN weapon from their war on their own AIs and it would have played better and made sense.

Agreed.

[DEATHSCOPE]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

You can't forget the superweapon. That's the point I'm trying to make based on YOUR argument. You can't just throw it out if you did not like it like you did with my Arrival stance.

The atzecs also could have ended the war but choose not to, its the same thing, the superweapon ends the war, but i choose not to use it, are the atzecs seen that they commited genocide on themselves, no.

Ending a war is different from winning a war. Are you even trying?

We're talking about survival here.

Oh, now we're talking about survival? Not just fighting and winning with our honor intact? Good one OP.

I'm not arguing which one is right, I'm arguing whether or not i would be genocide to not surrender and die, now answer the question.

What you need to do is slow down on the typing and at least try to form coherent sentences so people can understand.

The answer is no, it is not genocide to keep on fighting to the last man. But it is genocide to have a superweapon in your disposal but refused to use it to win and ensured all species' survival.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Ryzaki wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

But everyone loves the Asari! 

Proven Fact

(Well, I'm more of a Turian lover myself)

Ugh my dislike of the Asari is only second to my dislike of Batarians and Quarians (yeah those two are tied for number 1). Uppity arrogant hypocritical incompetent idiots. *grumbles* 

And yeah much prefer Turians. They at least don't give me the urge to strangle them.

Same, Asari are a little to mainstream for me. Quarians in the other hand 

Yeah I can't say I like the Quarians. There's a reason I always get this slide of Rannoch: 

)=

[Ryzaki]

Archonsg wrote...

One other thing, the Catalyst tells you, that the Crucible is really not a weapon but one effing big battery that allows it (Catalyst) to effect whatever it could not before.

So, people who keep going on that it's a weapon, please stop and consider that for a moment.

Personally I think they fubar the Crucible making it more complicated then it needed to be. Should have just left it as a PROTEAN weapon from their war on their own AIs and it would have played better and made sense.

The ending only improves from the loss of Starbrat.

[carrmatt91]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

One other thing, the Catalyst tells you, that the Crucible is really not a weapon but one effing big battery that allows it (Catalyst) to effect whatever it could not before.

So, people who keep going on that it's a weapon, please stop and consider that for a moment.

Personally I think they fubar the Crucible making it more complicated then it needed to be. Should have just left it as a PROTEAN weapon from their war on their own AIs and it would have played better and made sense.

Agreed.

i agree too, the crucible as it is really is NOT the best plot device they could have used

Modifié par carrmatt91, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:36 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

You can't forget the superweapon. That's the point I'm trying to make based on YOUR argument. You can't just throw it out if you did not like it like you did with my Arrival stance.

The atzecs also could have ended the war but choose not to, its the same thing, the superweapon ends the war, but i choose not to use it, are the atzecs seen that they commited genocide on themselves, no.

Ending a war is different from winning a war. Are you even trying?

We're talking about survival here.

Oh, now we're talking about survival? Not just fighting and winning with our honor intact? Good one OP.

I'm not arguing which one is right, I'm arguing whether or not i would be genocide to not surrender and die, now answer the question.

What you need to do is slow down on the typing and at least try to form coherent sentences so people can understand.

The answer is no, it is not genocide to keep on fighting to the last man. But it is genocide to have a superweapon in your disposal but refused to use it to win and ensured all species' survival.

I have to type fast, when there's 20 people flaming me but things have seem to calm down. How is the superweapon and surrendering different, they both stop the war?

[carrmatt91]

@Khajiit Jzargo i calmed down mainly because ive been up for about 28 hours straight.

oh and 1 question.

how many refusers would have chosen destroy instead if it only targeted reaper code thus downgrading the geth and edi but not killing them? even if it made a big chance for a new war with the geth?

edit: spelling due to sleep deprevation (for some reason i keep getting a twitch in my right eye :L) 

Modifié par carrmatt91, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:43 .