470 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...

those who allow Atrocity to occur (even if they were not the ones to do it) have, and always will be looked upon as evil. This is the reason for the French Revolution (sure King Louis and Maria Antonieta were not commiting said Atrocities, but they had the power to stop them and did not)

If you have the power to stop the Reapers, but do not because you do not want to kill the Geth, you are just as responsible as the Reapers themselves

Those who commit the atrocities personally are remembered in greater longievity than those who observe.

[Joe Del Toro]

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives. But it still would have been a win. I really would have preferred that to being called a megalomaniac because I think three stupid arbitrary choices ruin a f*cking story.

[Kick In The Door]

Shepardtheshepard wrote...

Kick In The Door wrote...

Refusal is forcing your own morals on others to doom them to death. It's an extremely selfish and egomaniacal choice. You're no better than Hitler in that regard. At least the other endings give the galaxy a chance, refusal is outright quitting because you want to feel good about yourself.

That is all.

Synthesis is the exact same thing.
In fact, technically synthesis would be closer to what Hitler wanted.

You took that out of context to make your point. 

However, I do understand what you're saying. But personally I'd rather potentially be the apex of evolution than be violently wiped out. One is to arguably be drastically improved and the other is to die a horrific and probably painful death.

Also I prefer control(renegade shep) or destroy(renegon shep). Haven't even touched Synthesis. But that's just moi. 

[wantedman dan]

lillitheris wrote...

Good attempt at side-stepping, but rather transparent in the end.

You can prevent the entire galaxy getting killed. If you choose not to do that, you have killed them.

By committing one of three atrocities. That is the point. You are missing it.

[The Genophage]

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

just gonna say love how ppl say they refuse so they don't kill the geth, news flash everyone. the geth die in refuse along with every other race. and don't give that metagaming bs because going in you know damn well you can't win

you just sacrificed most of your resources to get the crucible docked and you can see your ships getting blown up. the crucible changed the catalyst and it is obvious that it doesn't want you to to pick destroy

not saying which is better but don't say you at least don't commit genocide on the geth., because in destroy the geth are a casualty of war and a sacrifice for the many, whereas in refuse they just death is pointless

but that is me

You must not know the definition of Genocide.

anyone with access to the internet knows what the definition of genocide is. you gonna make a point or ask questions out on ignorance <_<

No you don't, because your still calling the Geth "a sacrifice of war"

no i called the geth a casualty of war. they are a sacrifice for the many, in destroy the destroying the geth is genocide. but it is done to save the many. in refusal you don't achieve anything with their deaths, other then to give the next cycle the cahne to use the crucible or a conventional victory

Sigh.....
 Genocide in the dictionary- "the deliberate and systematic destruction"

Deliberate-[color=rgb(34, 34, 34)">Done consciously, ] [/color]refer[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]something[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]happening by chance, Done with or marked by full consciousness of its consequences

systematic-arranged[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]or[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]an ordered

By choosing Destroy, you systematically and deliberately kill the Geth, you are aware of what is going to happen. If they die in refuse, its a causalty of war, if you shoot a tube to kill them all, its genocide. Unless you have any evidence to prove me otherwishttp://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/new_post/12965864/12968457e, don't write me "NOO ITS A CASUALTIE OF WAR"

ok try to read my posts very carefully.

i said that it was genocide, but so is refusal , by your inactions you cause the deaths of 14 known races, pretty it up all you want, you did a far greater evil then i , you are the cause, you had the ability to choose a different option , instead you chose, you , chose not to stop the cycle. therefore commiting genocide of 14 species , deliberately

and it's just a game

Genocide cannot be pinned by inactions, the reapers did it, like I asked before, so the atzecs who fought to the end instead of surrendering to Cortez, are their leaders accused of genocide, or is cortez accused of genocide, cortez is, just like its the reapers fault, not inactions.

[wantedman dan]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives. But it still would have been a win. I really would have preferred that to being called a megalomaniac because I think three stupid arbitrary choices ruin a f*cking story.

Del Toro, I think I love you. Completely agree.

[DistantUtopia]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives. But it still would have been a win. I really would have preferred that to being called a megalomaniac because I think three stupid arbitrary choices ruin a f*cking story.

Yup, they could have.  but since they don't want to lose their RGB endings...then...

[Joe Del Toro]

wantedman dan wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives. But it still would have been a win. I really would have preferred that to being called a megalomaniac because I think three stupid arbitrary choices ruin a f*cking story.

Del Toro, I think I love you. Completely agree.

Now your love is something I definitely won't Refuse. <3

[wantedman dan]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives. But it still would have been a win. I really would have preferred that to being called a megalomaniac because I think three stupid arbitrary choices ruin a f*cking story.

Del Toro, I think I love you. Completely agree.

Now your love is something I definitely won't Refuse. <3

I am honored and feel a little dirty.

Just the way I like it.

[lillitheris]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

If harm through inaction is a strange concept to you, it simply means that you allow harm to be done when you are in a position to stop it. It is no different than actively causing harm.

It’s not really that difficult a concept.

It's not harm through inaction. I'm sure Shepard and the fleets acted.

Incorrect. You may act (choose Destroy). If you do not act (inaction), you cause harm. Harm through inaction. It only distinguishes from actively causing harm.

A mad gunman tells you that you have to shoot your brother or he kills your whole family. You rush him. He shoots you and several members of your family but you get him.

Inaccurate attempt at an analogy. Admirable attempt to defend the horrific choice, but inaccurate nonetheless.

There’s no need for an analogy:

1. Act and (possibly) cause the death of a small group to save everyone else; vs.
2. Do not act and cause the death of everyone else.

You can flail as much as you like, but everyone’s still going to die.

[SMichelle]

wantedman dan wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Good attempt at side-stepping, but rather transparent in the end.

You can prevent the entire galaxy getting killed. If you choose not to do that, you have killed them.

By committing one of three atrocities. That is the point. You are missing it.

So.  By not preventing an atrocity (which you could do, you have the only tool right in front of you)...you're not committing an atrocity?

Sorry.  I respectfully disagree.

[wantedman dan]

lillitheris wrote...

There’s no need for an analogy:

1. Act and (possibly) cause the death of a small group to save everyone else; vs.
2. Do not act and cause the death of everyone else.

You can flail as much as you like, but everyone’s still going to die.

Your marginalization is adorable.

[lillitheris]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives.

Could have, yes. Didn’t. Can’t win by any other means.

You don’t have the luxury. If you do not act, everyone will die. Everyone.

[wantedman dan]

SMichelle wrote...

So.  By not preventing an atrocity (which you could do, you have the only tool right in front of you)...you're not committing an atrocity?

Sorry.  I respectfully disagree.

I am not, no, because the other options have me committing atrocities personally.

[arial]

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

those who allow Atrocity to occur (even if they were not the ones to do it) have, and always will be looked upon as evil. This is the reason for the French Revolution (sure King Louis and Maria Antonieta were not commiting said Atrocities, but they had the power to stop them and did not)

If you have the power to stop the Reapers, but do not because you do not want to kill the Geth, you are just as responsible as the Reapers themselves

Those who commit the atrocities personally are remembered in greater longievity than those who observe.

youve never taken a history or political science class have you?

Adolf Hitler did not "Personally" commit atrocities, and neither did Sadam Hussein, they all had lackys that did it for them, and very few of those lackys names are remembered

[lillitheris]

wantedman dan wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

There’s no need for an analogy:

1. Act and (possibly) cause the death of a small group to save everyone else; vs.
2. Do not act and cause the death of everyone else.

You can flail as much as you like, but everyone’s still going to die.

Your marginalization is adorable.

I sincerely hope you don’t think your statement comes off as profound or knowledgeable. That’d just be sad.

You should at least own the horror you create instead of trying to handwave your way around it. You could have saved most people, but chose not to. You killed them. You killed everyone.

Modifié par lillitheris, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:24 .

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

those who allow Atrocity to occur (even if they were not the ones to do it) have, and always will be looked upon as evil. This is the reason for the French Revolution (sure King Louis and Maria Antonieta were not commiting said Atrocities, but they had the power to stop them and did not)

If you have the power to stop the Reapers, but do not because you do not want to kill the Geth, you are just as responsible as the Reapers themselves

Those who commit the atrocities personally are remembered in greater longievity than those who observe.

youve never taken a history or political science class have you?

Adolf Hitler did not "Personally" commit atrocities, and neither did Sadam Hussein, they all had lackys that did it for them, and very few of those lackys names are remembered

Your grab at a semantical argument practically sweats with desperation.

Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein personally ordered these atrocities and personally oversaw them. They are personally responsible.

[ghost9191]

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

just gonna say love how ppl say they refuse so they don't kill the geth, news flash everyone. the geth die in refuse along with every other race. and don't give that metagaming bs because going in you know damn well you can't win

you just sacrificed most of your resources to get the crucible docked and you can see your ships getting blown up. the crucible changed the catalyst and it is obvious that it doesn't want you to to pick destroy

not saying which is better but don't say you at least don't commit genocide on the geth., because in destroy the geth are a casualty of war and a sacrifice for the many, whereas in refuse they just death is pointless

but that is me

You must not know the definition of Genocide.

anyone with access to the internet knows what the definition of genocide is. you gonna make a point or ask questions out on ignorance <_<

No you don't, because your still calling the Geth "a sacrifice of war"

no i called the geth a casualty of war. they are a sacrifice for the many, in destroy the destroying the geth is genocide. but it is done to save the many. in refusal you don't achieve anything with their deaths, other then to give the next cycle the cahne to use the crucible or a conventional victory

Sigh.....
 Genocide in the dictionary- "the deliberate and systematic destruction"

Deliberate-[color=rgb(34, 34, 34)">Done consciously, ] [/color]refer[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]something[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]happening by chance, Done with or marked by full consciousness of its consequences

systematic-arranged[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]or[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]an ordered

By choosing Destroy, you systematically and deliberately kill the Geth, you are aware of what is going to happen. If they die in refuse, its a causalty of war, if you shoot a tube to kill them all, its genocide. Unless you have any evidence to prove me otherwishttp://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/new_post/12965864/12968457e, don't write me "NOO ITS A CASUALTIE OF WAR"

ok try to read my posts very carefully.

i said that it was genocide, but so is refusal , by your inactions you cause the deaths of 14 known races, pretty it up all you want, you did a far greater evil then i , you are the cause, you had the ability to choose a different option , instead you chose, you , chose not to stop the cycle. therefore commiting genocide of 14 species , deliberately

and it's just a game

Genocide cannot be pinned by inactions, the reapers did it, like I asked before, so the atzecs who fought to the end instead of surrendering to Cortez, are their leaders accused of genocide, or is cortez accused of genocide, cortez is, just like its the reapers fault, not inactions.

you had a chance to stop it though, somethin like who is evil, those that commit the act or those that allow it to happen.   

again not saying one is better then the other, they are all bad but sitting back and watching as something bad is happening is wrong in itself

[Joe Del Toro]

lillitheris wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives.

Could have, yes. Didn’t. Can’t win by any other means.

You don’t have the luxury. If you do not act, everyone will die. Everyone.

Yes and isn't that fantastic.

I usually agree with you, so I'm being respectful. But I'm not taking those choices. I didn't want to take them before, and now Bioware gave me (an albeit weak) way to say no to them. I'm taking it because I want my story to end that way rather than cancelling out the entire Rannoch storyline, becoming a Reaper God or raping everyone with green.

Seriously, get over it.

Modifié par Joe Del Toro, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:26 .

[wantedman dan]

lillitheris wrote...

I sincerely hope you don’t think your statement comes off as profound or knowledgeable. That’d just be sad.

You should at least own the horror you create instead of trying to handwave your way around it. You could have saved most people, but chose not to. You killed them. You killed everyone.

Oh, I do realize that. Your assumption belies your argument.

And you committed an atrocity to secure a less-than-victory. Are you happy about that?

[Whatever42]

lillitheris wrote...

Inaccurate attempt at an analogy. Admirable attempt to defend the horrific choice, but inaccurate nonetheless.

There’s no need for an analogy:

1. Act and (possibly) cause the death of a small group to save everyone else; vs.
2. Do not act and cause the death of everyone else.

You can flail as much as you like, but everyone’s still going to die.

You don't know that when you make your choice. You elect to fight instead of accepting unacceptable terms. That is not inaction. That is action.

Again, though, the Catalyst warns you that everyone will also die if you pick destroy. He says that you are merely delaying the destruction of galactic life. 

We trust him enough to accept his terms but apparently we ignore the conclusion of the most powerful, knowledgeable entity in the universe. 

Destroy is ultimately selfish and short-sighted. You can flail as much as you like, but destroy leads to the destruction of ALL life in the galaxy.

[arial]

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

those who allow Atrocity to occur (even if they were not the ones to do it) have, and always will be looked upon as evil. This is the reason for the French Revolution (sure King Louis and Maria Antonieta were not commiting said Atrocities, but they had the power to stop them and did not)

If you have the power to stop the Reapers, but do not because you do not want to kill the Geth, you are just as responsible as the Reapers themselves

Those who commit the atrocities personally are remembered in greater longievity than those who observe.

youve never taken a history or political science class have you?

Adolf Hitler did not "Personally" commit atrocities, and neither did Sadam Hussein, they all had lackys that did it for them, and very few of those lackys names are remembered

Your grab at a semantical argument practically sweats with desperation.

Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein personally ordered these atrocities and personally oversaw them. They are personally responsible.

you said "Commit", and personally neither commited either

anyways, Im not sure about the states, but in the Canadian court system one of our laws is, If you have the power to stop a crime but do not, you are just as guilty as the one who commited said crime.

like i said, If Shepard does no stop the Reapers because he wants to save he Geth, he is just as guilty as the Reapers

[ghost9191]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives.

Could have, yes. Didn’t. Can’t win by any other means.

You don’t have the luxury. If you do not act, everyone will die. Everyone.

Yes and isn't that fantastic.

I usually agree with you, so I'm being respectful. But I'm not taking those choices. I didn't want to take them before, and now Bioware gave me (an albeit weak) way to say no to them. I'm taking it because I want my story to end that way rather than cancelling out the entire Rannoch storyline, becoming a Reaper God or raping everyone with green.

Seriously, get over it.

i am still hoping for them to give us a advantage over the reapers through dlc's, that affect the ending outcome of refusal. don't choose it now because going in i know the outcome is negative, even without metagaming. but if we get a upper hand and i know that we can win military wise then i am for it. the cost would probably be less then the geth in destroy. but as it is i don't pick it so i can save more

[lillitheris]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know, Bioware could have easily put a win in the Refusal ending - but it could have been at a greater cost of lives.

Could have, yes. Didn’t. Can’t win by any other means.

You don’t have the luxury. If you do not act, everyone will die. Everyone.

Yes and isn't that fantastic.

I usually agree with you, so I'm being respectful. But I'm not taking those choices. I didn't want to take them before, and now Bioware gave me (an albeit weak) way to say no to them. I'm taking it because I want my story to end that way rather than cancelling out the entire Rannoch storyline, becoming a Reaper God or raping everyone with green.

Seriously, get over it.

Why are you upset if you’re just fooling around with some video game at the metagame level and not role-playing? Seriously This is strictly from an RP perspective in-world. If you reject that and just pick something by flipping a coin, this doesn’t apply to you.

(I’d argue that if someone actually thinks that it’s a great idea to let everyone die when you could stop it, it’s a little troubling. I mostly attribute it to not really thinking about the impact.)

Modifié par lillitheris, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:31 .

[SMichelle]

wantedman dan wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

I sincerely hope you don’t think your statement comes off as profound or knowledgeable. That’d just be sad.

You should at least own the horror you create instead of trying to handwave your way around it. You could have saved most people, but chose not to. You killed them. You killed everyone.

Oh, I do realize that. Your assumption belies your argument.

And you committed an atrocity to secure a less-than-victory. Are you happy about that?

No Victory comes without a price.  My price was the geth, and my Shepard living with the guilt of the Crucible destroying the geth. 

You have no Victory.  Yet you still cost the galaxy all -to repeat- ALL advanced life.  I'm sure as they are all melted into goo and turned into Reapers to destroy the next cycle the people will thank you for that....or not.