A better question would be, why don't people care? Why choose a less than perfect solution? Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard... Thoguh I guess Shepards self preservation instincts are more important than billion of lives and an entire specis aswell as a trusted friend.
that s not fair to shepard he thinks heell die in destroy too, destory is only popular cause its the only one where he lives
Its not only popular because he lives.
Id happily choose destroy if Shepard died. I didnt play through the whole Mass Effect series to pull a uturn in the last 10 mins and choose to control the Reapers. And synthesis is an abomination, no way i would pull that crap on the entire galaxy. Its a silly, nonsence option that pushes their storytelling into the too far fetched catagory, like the 7th season of Lost.
Modifié par XXIceColdXX, 04 juillet 2012 - 07:50 .
A better question would be, why don't people care? Why choose a less than perfect solution? Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard... Thoguh I guess Shepards self preservation instincts are more important than billion of lives and an entire specis aswell as a trusted friend. Not to mention the trillions of credits in material damage and data lost.
Because those other two solutions are not perfect either.
Synthesis involves Galaxy Wide Indoctrination
no it dosen't
and Control leaves the possibility for the AI to turn against organics again.
A better question would be, why don't people care? Why choose a less than perfect solution? Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard... Thoguh I guess Shepards self preservation instincts are more important than billion of lives and an entire specis aswell as a trusted friend.
that s not fair to shepard he thinks heell die in destroy too, destory is only popular cause its the only one where he lives
Its not only popular because he lives. Id choose destroy if Shepard died. I didnt play through the whole Mass Effect series to pull a uturn in the last 10 mins and choose to control the Reapers. And synthesis is an abomination, no way i would pull that crap on the entire galaxy. Its a silly, nonsence option that pushes their storytelling into the too far fetched catagory, like the 7th season of lost.
Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard...
Control leaves all Reapers intact. What if control fails or God-Shepard gets corrupted and Reapers go back to reaping? Ready to risk that?
Synthesis irrevocably changes EVERYONE in the Galaxy without their consent. Ready to make that decision for everyone?
If you said to me - kill off one of the above races to win the war, I would willingly sacrifice any of them. "But that's genocide!" you say? Well would you rather every species was harvested instead?
That is clear example of Renegade morality. Which might be case with your character, but not with different characters. Mine, for one, was full Paragon, so he simply couldn't done that, bound by his morals.
If you said to me - kill off one of the above races to win the war, I would willingly sacrifice any of them. "But that's genocide!" you say? Well would you rather every species was harvested instead?
That is clear example of Renegade morality. Which might be case with your character, but not with different characters. Mine, for one, was full Paragon, so he simply couldn't done that, bound by his morals.
In other words, your Paragon failed. And that's fair enough, as long as you don't dress up failure as something great and noble.
Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard...
Control leaves all Reapers intact. What if control fails or God-Shepard gets corrupted and Reapers go back to reaping? Ready to risk that?
Those are both what iffss disproved by what we actualy see in the ending, god shepard is good and will keep to what the man he was would of done
Synthesis irrevocably changes EVERYONE in the Galaxy without their consent. Ready to make that decision for everyone?
thats still better then outright genocide
Modifié par MerchantGOL, 04 juillet 2012 - 07:54 .
shodiswe wrote... A better question would be, why don't people care? Why choose a less than perfect solution? Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard... Thoguh I guess Shepards self preservation instincts are more important than billion of lives and an entire specis aswell as a trusted friend.
that s not fair to shepard he thinks heell die in destroy too, destory is only popular cause its the only one where he lives
Its not only popular because he lives. Id choose destroy if Shepard died. I didnt play through the whole Mass Effect series to pull a uturn in the last 10 mins and choose to control the Reapers. And synthesis is an abomination, no way i would pull that crap on the entire galaxy. Its a silly, nonsence option that pushes their storytelling into the too far fetched catagory, like the 7th season of lost.
whayts so nonsense about its how they make husks
If there was a line of believability. Bioware crossed it with Synthesis.
Modifié par XXIceColdXX, 04 juillet 2012 - 07:54 .
IT wasn't Contrived, its makes sense that a weapon designed to destroy giant machines across the galaxy would also destroy the ones you liked
I've said this before in other threads and I'm going to say it again here
Synthesis is capable of making molecular (possibly atomic) changes to every organic and synthetic being in the galaxy. It has to recognize the differences between synthetics and organics (and the differencesbetween different organic/synthetic races because upgrades to Asari will be different than upgrades to Hanar for example) and then is able to make these changes almost instantly on a galactic level. This is something that is arguable only achievable by the most incredibly and unfathomably advanced technology the galaxy has ever known.
Yet the Crucible doesn't have the technology to distinguish between the Geth/EDI and the Reapers, something I can do with my eyes.
shodiswe wrote... A better question would be, why don't people care? Why choose a less than perfect solution? Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard... Thoguh I guess Shepards self preservation instincts are more important than billion of lives and an entire specis aswell as a trusted friend.
that s not fair to shepard he thinks heell die in destroy too, destory is only popular cause its the only one where he lives
Its not only popular because he lives. Id choose destroy if Shepard died. I didnt play through the whole Mass Effect series to pull a uturn in the last 10 mins and choose to control the Reapers. And synthesis is an abomination, no way i would pull that crap on the entire galaxy. Its a silly, nonsence option that pushes their storytelling into the too far fetched catagory, like the 7th season of lost.
whayts so nonsense about its how they make husks
If there was a line of believability. Bioware crossed it with Synthesis.
Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard...
Control leaves all Reapers intact. What if control fails or God-Shepard gets corrupted and Reapers go back to reaping? Ready to risk that?
Those are both what iffss disproved by what we actualy see in the ending, god shepard is good and will keep to what the man he was would of done
Synthesis irrevocably changes EVERYONE in the Galaxy without their consent. Ready to make that decision for everyone?
thats still better then outright genocide
Genocide of machines. Sorry, but rewriting the Galaxy's genetic code is more difficult to swallow than killing robots in my opinion. Especially since I've spent the last 3 games being hunted by these robots.
Everything you've said thus far has been opinion. Stop treating it as fact.
I read the first four pages and didn't see this mentioned...
Isn't the reason the destroy wave kills the Reapers, the Geth, and EDI because they all have Reaper code in their systems? The destroy wave also kills all husks and I would assume any indoctrinated agents.
I always choose Destroy. I like the Geth and EDI but the other choices just don't feel right.
shodiswe wrote... A better question would be, why don't people care? Why choose a less than perfect solution? Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard... Thoguh I guess Shepards self preservation instincts are more important than billion of lives and an entire specis aswell as a trusted friend.
that s not fair to shepard he thinks heell die in destroy too, destory is only popular cause its the only one where he lives
Its not only popular because he lives. Id choose destroy if Shepard died. I didnt play through the whole Mass Effect series to pull a uturn in the last 10 mins and choose to control the Reapers. And synthesis is an abomination, no way i would pull that crap on the entire galaxy. Its a silly, nonsence option that pushes their storytelling into the too far fetched catagory, like the 7th season of lost.
whayts so nonsense about its how they make husks
If there was a line of believability. Bioware crossed it with Synthesis.
only if you haven't paid attention
To the space magic? Not my cup of tea, thats for sure.
shodiswe wrote... A better question would be, why don't people care? Why choose a less than perfect solution? Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard... Thoguh I guess Shepards self preservation instincts are more important than billion of lives and an entire specis aswell as a trusted friend.
that s not fair to shepard he thinks heell die in destroy too, destory is only popular cause its the only one where he lives
Its not only popular because he lives. Id choose destroy if Shepard died. I didnt play through the whole Mass Effect series to pull a uturn in the last 10 mins and choose to control the Reapers. And synthesis is an abomination, no way i would pull that crap on the entire galaxy. Its a silly, nonsence option that pushes their storytelling into the too far fetched catagory, like the 7th season of lost.
whayts so nonsense about its how they make husks
If there was a line of believability. Bioware crossed it with Synthesis.
only if you haven't paid attention
To the space magic? Not my cup of tea, thats for sure.
darkenergy can spread across the galxy, the reapers could always indoctrinate/makes husks via this nergy, give them more energy and a way to transmit it theirs no reason they couldnt do it on a glactic scale
Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard...
Control leaves all Reapers intact. What if control fails or God-Shepard gets corrupted and Reapers go back to reaping? Ready to risk that?
Those are both what if fss disproved by what we actualy see in the ending, god shepard is good and will keep to what the man he was would of done
Synthesis irrevocably changes EVERYONE in the Galaxy without their consent. Ready to make that decision for everyone?
thats still better then outright genocide
Genocide of machines. Sorry, but rewriting the Galaxy's genetic code is more difficult to swallow than killing robots in my opinion. Especially since I've spent the last 3 games being hunted by these robots.
The geth if their alive by the end of of the game are individuals, sentient and alive, synthetic or not they are people its still gneocide, where out side of a question of ethics thier nothing bad about synthesis, you might say no more evolution w[which isnt even a fact] but if its no needed why is that bad that its gone
Isn't the reason the destroy wave kills the Reapers, the Geth, and EDI because they all have Reaper code in their systems? The destroy wave also kills all husks and I would assume any indoctrinated agents.
Destroy targets all synthetic life. If you don't have enough EMS and Crucible is damaged, it will target all advanced technology.
shodiswe wrote... A better question would be, why don't people care? Why choose a less than perfect solution? Why commit genocide when there are solutions that would do no such thing? Is genocide preferable to peace? Both control and synthesis offers peace and 0 deaths aside from Shepard... Thoguh I guess Shepards self preservation instincts are more important than billion of lives and an entire specis aswell as a trusted friend.
that s not fair to shepard he thinks heell die in destroy too, destory is only popular cause its the only one where he lives
Its not only popular because he lives. Id choose destroy if Shepard died. I didnt play through the whole Mass Effect series to pull a uturn in the last 10 mins and choose to control the Reapers. And synthesis is an abomination, no way i would pull that crap on the entire galaxy. Its a silly, nonsence option that pushes their storytelling into the too far fetched catagory, like the 7th season of lost.
whayts so nonsense about its how they make husks
If there was a line of believability. Bioware crossed it with Synthesis.
only if you haven't paid attention
To the space magic? Not my cup of tea, thats for sure.
darkenergy can spread across the galxy, the reapers could always indoctrinate/makes husks via this nergy, give them more energy and a way to transmit it theirs no reason they couldnt do it on a glactic scale
The writers can put space magic in, dark energy spreading, ways to transmit it, whatever they want and say it works. It doesnt make the whole concept of Synthesis any more believable to the player.
Have to put this in again because i enjoyed writing it the first time , synthesis puts their storytelling in the too far fetched catagory, like the 7th season of Lost. Sorry if i sound like a broken record, lol
Isn't the reason the destroy wave kills the Reapers, the Geth, and EDI because they all have Reaper code in their systems? The destroy wave also kills all husks and I would assume any indoctrinated agents.
Destroy targets all synthetic life. If you don't have enough EMS and Crucible is damaged, it will target all advanced technology.
And it would appear that the control beam CAN differentiate between Reapers and Geth with Reaper code.
The Geth isn't even a race... They are just robots! And about EDI... Well I think she should stayed the way she was in Mass Effect 2, just an AI without an avatar to take control of. In that case I think not much people would complain that she would ''die'' in the destroy ending.
The Geth isn't even a race... They are just robots! And about EDI... Well I think she should stayed the way she was in Mass Effect 2, just an AI without an avatar to take control of. In that case I think not much people would complain that she would ''die'' in the destroy ending.
Isn't the reason the destroy wave kills the Reapers, the Geth, and EDI because they all have Reaper code in their systems? The destroy wave also kills all husks and I would assume any indoctrinated agents.
Destroy targets all synthetic life. If you don't have enough EMS and Crucible is damaged, it will target all advanced technology.
And it would appear that the control beam CAN differentiate between Reapers and Geth with Reaper code.
thats because its a signal, thats diffrent then a dna beam, or destruction/emp beam
"you had 2 other squad mates plus the marines on the normandy, you could of pulled them out saftley"
There wasn't enough time to get the Normandy to get in range possibly. Sending your two squadmates might have condemned them to death. It doesn't feel even close to as contrived as the Destroy ending. No point in debating this point further.
"yes you should belive it becuas eobviously destory isnt the same caus eyou have toa ctivly ****ingbreak the thing to get that option, on top of that sending out a signal, and rerewiting dna, is Completley difffrent from each other and what destory dose, their completley diffrent effects Their is no corilation between a signal and rewriting some things dna"
They are different effects from the same source. How, how, how many times to I have to make this point crystal clear. I am not saying that the Crucible not being able to distinguish between Geth/EDI is impossible, I'm saying that it is reasonable to assume that it can and therefore should.
"Look, I totally get what you're saying, Mass Effect has had sacrifice plenty of times, I get it, and I agree. But the absolutely vital point is that every time a sacrifice was made, it was necessary. Every time a sacrifice had to be made, it wasn't arbitrary. They're had to be a sacrifice because the situation demanded it. "
"and the situation demanded it in destory to as the guysaid earlier if i set of an emp yhe helicoptor your riding in will crash jus tlike every one elses"
The Crucible is a device with tremondous power. You cannot make assumptions of its capabilities and state them as fact. The only reason it destroyed the Geth/EDI is because that's the way the writer wrote it. It didn't have to. We wouldn't be having this argument if the writers chose to keep the Geth/EDI alive. Stop saying that it has to do x or y. I'm not saying that it has to save them, I'm saying it should. Is and ought statements are completely different.
" umm no destory hinges on trusting the catalyst jsut as much as the other 2 if you belive hes wrong you shoot him and every one dies"
Remember what the Catalyst says the purpose of the Reapers are? They harvest advanced civilizations so that new ones can rise up. They do this periodically to prevent organics from making synthetics that will kill all organics. When you meet him he says the Crucible changed him so you are given three options. Those 3 options are destroy, synthesis, and control.
By choosing Destroy, you are in essence saying that you don't believe in the Catalyst's assertion that synthetics will always rise up against organics.
So yes you have to trust that the Crucible will do what the Catalyst says it will. But that is ignoring my point. You claimed that if Destroy didn't kill the Geth/EDI then it would feel cheap because it would be the best ending. But it would be the best ending for people who don't believe that synthetics will always rise up against organics. If you believe that synthetics will always rise up against organics, then control and synthesis are the best options for you.
Modifié par elitehunter34, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:19 .
Isn't the reason the destroy wave kills the Reapers, the Geth, and EDI because they all have Reaper code in their systems? The destroy wave also kills all husks and I would assume any indoctrinated agents.
Destroy targets all synthetic life. If you don't have enough EMS and Crucible is damaged, it will target all advanced technology.
And it would appear that the control beam CAN differentiate between Reapers and Geth with Reaper code.
thats because its a signal, thats diffrent then a dna beam, or destruction/emp beam
I'm a PS3 player... I played the demo one day, and it was fun... Then, I bought the game Mass Effect 2, not knowing anything about the universe (it was hilarious, now that I thought about it, when I started looking for a male asari at Illium). Well, I met EDI, then Legion, so of course, not knowing much of Shepard's previous adventure (I was too lazy to wait for that Cerberus network thing to download), I thought they were pretty cool...
Then we became buddies, so now I have an attachment to them, and I had to mentally prepare myself to chose destroy this one time I wanted to see the other endings...
Yeah, that is my reason. Also, EDI reminded me of ADA, and ADA is one awesome AI...
Retour en haut
