233 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Stark]

tl;dr
This thread is an obvious flame bait, and I didn't even pick refuse.

Modifié par Councilor Oraka , 04 juillet 2012 - 06:04 .

[Ridwan]

In this thread, standing up for yourself and fighting back = being a coward.

[ImperatorMortis]

Ryzaki wrote...

EVERY SINGLE CHOICE IS COWARDLY IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. 

Haha no. 

Ryzaki wrote...
God some people are ****ing retarded.

Implying that you're not one of those people.


 :innocent:

[The Angry One]

M25105 wrote...

In this thread, standing up for yourself and fighting back = being a coward.

Unfortunately I have the sinking feeling this is what BioWare intended.

For art.

[Ryzaki]

The Angry One wrote...
I like the insubordination crack too. I'm pretty sure Hackett had us under orders to kill Reapers. Not become their servants.

Yup it's a good thing Anderson's already dead because I'm pretty sure he'd have some choice words for Shepard too.

[Daedalus1773]

Ryzaki wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

Why does everyone who supports the endings keep quoting the villains in the game?

Who the hell knows.

They all blow chunks. Arguing about which one stinks least is the most entertaining thing we can do apparently.

LOL

[The Genophage]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

EVERY SINGLE CHOICE IS COWARDLY IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. 

Haha no. 

Ryzaki wrote...
God some people are ****ing retarded.

Implying that you're not one of those people.


 :innocent:

^Angry kid that says no, but provides no evidence to back it up.

[Ryzaki]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

Haha no.

ORLY? 

Control: Too much of a coward to sacrifice the Geth and EDI to stop the Reapers
Destroy: So much of a coward you'd sacrifice the Geth and EDI to stop the Reapers
Synthesis: So much a coward you bend over to the Reapers even violating all life in the galaxy in the process.

Try again.

Implying that you're not one of those people.


 :innocent:

And yet I'm sure I'm less retarded than you.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:13 .

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Refusal is refusing to adapt and refusing to do what it takes to beat the Reapers on their own terms. Refusal is insanity, cowardice, and insubordination, all rolled into one.

>"Insanity"
>Synthesis banner

Really dude?

You said it before I could! XD

Synthesis is the ultimate bending over to the Reapers.

I like the insubordination crack too. I'm pretty sure Hackett had us under orders to kill Reapers. Not become their servants.

Trolling aside, Hackett had us under orders to use the Crucible to kill the Reapers, not to use any other conventional means. "Conventionally, the Reapers bleed us slowly." He already considered the option of using conventional tactics and it failed. "Hell, I oversaw the most humiliating defeat in human history."

[DistantUtopia]

OblivionDawn wrote...

You don't back down because you're afraid of the Reapers. You back down because you refuse to win on "their terms".

But yes, you still do fail everyone.

This

[ImperatorMortis]

Ryzaki wrote...

ORLY? 

Control: Too much of a coward to sacrifice the Geth and EDI to stop the Reapers
Destroy: So much of a coward you'd sacrifice the Geth and EDI to stop the Reapers
Synthesis: So much a coward you bend over to the Reapers even violating all life in the galaxy in the process.

Try again. 

YARLY!

How is Destroy cowardly? If someone cared about the Geth wouldn't it be "brave" to sacrifice them? Or if they didn't give a **** it wouldn't be cowardly or brave. Just the thing to do. 

Ryzaki wrote...
And yet I'm sure I'm less retarded than you.

So you admit you're retarted? 

Modifié par ImperatorMortis, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:21 .

[Ryzaki]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

YARLY!

How is Destroy cowardly? If someone cared about the Geth wouldn't it be brave for the to sacrifice them? Or if they didn't give a **** it wouldn't be cowardly or brave. Just the thing to do.

And people have said the SAME THING ABOUT REFUSE TO YOU REPEATEDLY.

But nope Destroy's cowardly because Shep sacrifices the Geth to save his/her own ass. Yup it's always cowardly just because I say so. You know like how refuse's always cowardly because you say so.

Destroy's Shep's a coward, coward, big old coward. *sing songs*

COWARDLY DESTROY SHEP! BIG OLD COWARD! COWARD COWARD COWARD! RUN SOME MORE FOR THE REAPERS WHY DON'T YOU? 

Who will destroy Shep sacrifice next to save his ass from the Reapers? Who knows! But he'll sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice others because he's a big fat coward, coward coward coward. *continues singing*

...and now it's stuck in my head.

So you admit you're retarted? 

Yup. I'm a ditz. I've never denied that.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:25 .

[ImperatorMortis]

Ryzaki wrote...

And people have said the SAME THING ABOUT REFUSE TO YOU REPEATEDLY.

But nope Destroy's cowardly because Shep sacrifices the Geth to save his/her own ass. Yup it's always cowardly just because I say so. YOu know like how refuse's always cowardly because you say so.

Destroy's Shep's a coward, coward, big old coward. *sing songs* 

Well. I guess I can see your point then. 

This is really a boring subject. :/

I guess I kind of dislike how being cowardly is necessarily a bad thing.

Ryzaki wrote...
Yup. I'm a ditz. I've never denied that.

I honestly don't think you're stupid. I just felt like being an ass for a bit. 

Modifié par ImperatorMortis, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:25 .

[Ryzaki]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

Well. I guess I can see your point then. 

This is really a boring subject. :/

My point was all endings can be interpretated as cowardly. Refuse is not unique.

Then why make reply in a thread about it?  (edit: Sorry you're not the OP).

I guess I kind of dislike how being cowardly is necessarily a bad thing.

Humans admire the bold over the cowardly. The former is far more admirable. The latter tends to give you better survival ratings though. XD 

I honestly don't think you're stupid. I just felt like being an ass for a bit. 

No worries. *continues singing*

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:28 .

[N7Gold]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
I like the insubordination crack too. I'm pretty sure Hackett had us under orders to kill Reapers. Not become their servants.

Yup it's a good thing Anderson's already dead because I'm pretty sure he'd have some choice words for Shepard too.

If there's anything that the Mass Effect trilogy taught us, it's that sometimes we're railroaded into making decisions we won't like, like Mass Effect 2's DLC Arrival, for example, I'm sure nobody wanted to ram a meteor into a Mass Relay creating a supernova that'll kill thousands of Batarian colonists, but if you didn't do it, the Reapers would have arrived much earlier than they did at the beginning of Mass Effect 3. Sometimes instead of getting cold feet, you have to swallow your ethics for a minute and do what you gotta do, otherwise more lives will be lost because you hesitated, looking for alternatives when there are none.

Modifié par N7Gold, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:19 .

[Makrys]

 I love people who defend Synthesis. You're defending Saren. Who was indoctrinated. And admitted it, right before blowing his brains out. But uh... you think he was right?

...ok.

http://politiek.star...mj-laughing.gif

[Ryzaki]

N7Gold wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
I like the insubordination crack too. I'm pretty sure Hackett had us under orders to kill Reapers. Not become their servants.

Yup it's a good thing Anderson's already dead because I'm pretty sure he'd have some choice words for Shepard too.

If there's anything that the Mass Effect trilogy taught us, it's that sometimes we're railroaded into making decisions we won't like, like Mass Effect 2's DLC Arrival, for example, I'm sure nobody wanted to ram a meteor into a Mass Relay creating a supernova that'll kill thousands of Batarian colonists, but if you didn't do it, the Reapers would have arrived much earlier than they did at the beginning of Mass Effect 3. Sometimes instead of getting cold feet, you have to swallow your ethics for a minute and do what you gotta do, otherwise more lives will be lost because you hesitated, looking for alternatives when there are none.

...except you have an alternative that Anderson would be perfectly okay with.

Shoot the tube.

[N7Gold]

Ryzaki wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
I like the insubordination crack too. I'm pretty sure Hackett had us under orders to kill Reapers. Not become their servants.

Yup it's a good thing Anderson's already dead because I'm pretty sure he'd have some choice words for Shepard too.

If there's anything that the Mass Effect trilogy taught us, it's that sometimes we're railroaded into making decisions we won't like, like Mass Effect 2's DLC Arrival, for example, I'm sure nobody wanted to ram a meteor into a Mass Relay creating a supernova that'll kill thousands of Batarian colonists, but if you didn't do it, the Reapers would have arrived much earlier than they did at the beginning of Mass Effect 3. Sometimes instead of getting cold feet, you have to swallow your ethics for a minute and do what you gotta do, otherwise more lives will be lost because you hesitated, looking for alternatives when there are none.

...except you have an alternative that Anderson would be perfectly okay with.

Shoot the tube.

The ironic thing about that is, by personality, Anderson is no renegade, and Illusive Man is no paragon.

[Arturia Pendragon]

N7Gold wrote...

The ironic thing about that is, by personality, Anderson is no renegade, and Illusive Man is no paragon.

From Star-Jar's point of view they are.

[N7Gold]

Arturia Pendragon wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

The ironic thing about that is, by personality, Anderson is no renegade, and Illusive Man is no paragon.

From Star-Jar's point of view they are.

I don't think the Catalyst placed moral judgement on Anderson and Illusive Man, hell, he had no idea his solution is seriously flawed until he met Shepard. I think it's the nature of the endings that makes them paragon/renegade. Anderson shooting the tube represents the choice he would go for, and Illusive Man getting dissolved represents the choice he would go for.

Control (the paragon choice): Normally paragons don't like to sacrifice a few lives for any reason, but if they are given the chance to give up everything they have for the greater good, they might agree with that.

Synthesis (the neutral choice): Morally neutral people look for an outcome that'll benefit both opposing parties.

Destroy (the renegade choice): Renegades, which are natrually depicted as "ruthless" or "evil" people are willing to make hard choices that makes them appear heartless.

[TreguardD]

"Give up? So be it. You declare yourself not worth my effort. It matters not. Your body lays lifeless. It will remain so."

wake up, Shepard

Modifié par TreguardD, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:03 .

[N7Gold]

M25105 wrote...

In this thread, standing up for yourself and fighting back = being a coward.

It's been hinted that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally ever since the beginning. If you played ME1, do you remember how much it took to take down Sovereign, a signle Reaper? The entire Alliance fleet, and the Destiny Ascension, the Asari's best dreadnought ship. In ME3, even the Turians, who are the most powerful military force didn't stand a chance against the Reapers on Palaven, even with the Krogans assitance, they're barely making any progress. There's nothing wrong with taking a stand and fighting back, but if you overlook hints that it's impossible to beat the Reapers conventionally, simply by uniting all races around the galaxy, and refuse using the Crucible, even if the you don't like the choices presented to you, that's cowardice, no offense.

If you're so determined to fight for the freedom of the galaxy from the Reapers, what would you risk for it? How far would you go fighting for freedom regardless of how slim victory is? If the biggest chance for victory appears to be unethical to you, will you hesitate? Or will you remember who and what you're fighting for and and push on? If you hesitate or throw in the towel, justifying your hesitation with heroic, paragon style reasons, you'll fail everybody who you're fighting for since chances of winning conventionally are very slim. That's the point I'm making with this thread.

Modifié par N7Gold, 05 juillet 2012 - 06:38 .

[KotorEffect3]

If you want to be free than pick destroy, you get rid of the reaper menace forever and for the first time in possibly a billion years the civilizations of the galaxy get to determine their own fate. Of course in order to pick destroy you refusers will have to get off your high horse to shoot the tube.

[Demoiselle]

OblivionDawn wrote...

It's not cowardice.

It takes a substantial amount of balls to build a superweapon/battery deliver it to the Reapers' doorstep, and then decide that you're not going to use it.

Stupid? Very. But not cowardly.

Personally, I think its a debate between whether this choice is stupid or cowardice. 

But also very arrogant - why do people say Shepard had no right to choose synthesis for the galaxy but had the right to decide it was better for them all to die than use the Catalyst?

[N7Gold]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

If you want to be free than pick destroy, you get rid of the reaper menace forever and for the first time in possibly a billion years the civilizations of the galaxy get to determine their own fate. Of course in order to pick destroy you refusers will have to get off your high horse to shoot the tube.

Destroy and Control are endings that I'm fine with, but Synthesis... that one makes me wonder why BioWare loves it so much...