470 réponses à ce sujet

[The Genophage]

@Ghost9191

So let me get this straight. Its bad to refuse your enemy, fight them off, and die without committing atrocities.
But its good to trust your enemy, commit and atrocity, and live under the catalyst genocidal brain.

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...

you said "Commit", and personally neither commited either

They are personally responsible for the committing of genocide. Better?

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

And what does it say about committing similar crimes on a similar scale to stop said crime?

You are wrong. If I must become the enemy to overcome the enemy, I have no justification in wanting to eradicate the enemy, for I am no better.

[ghost9191]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

again want to buy evidence.  other then the scary ghost told me

[Joe Del Toro]

lillitheris wrote...

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.)

Didn't mean to come across as that angry in my post. But it does ****** me off when I'm branded a bloody megalomaniac or some other such bollocks. I do roleplay, I try my damn best to get into the spirit of a game.

But these endings knocked that out of me, please don't make assumptions about how I play my games. I just absolutely hate these endings and refuse to give them the respect of me getting into the spirit of them.

[anihilato]

ghost9191 wrote...

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

Having the outcome of refusal changed, while still making sense in lore-wise, would need us to get an entire fleet of reapers for ourselves, or, at the very least, triple the entire galactic fleet count. I made some statistics over it yesterday.
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12950524

[Whatever42]

ghost9191 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

again want to buy evidence.  other then the scary ghost told me

Yet you're trusting the scary ghost with the other 3 choices?

[wantedman dan]

SMichelle wrote...

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

At least you're up front about the atrocities you've committed.

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. 

That was obviously proven false. The next cycle won, Reaper threat is over, Crucible was--in game--not functional and therefore unused. The atrocities are not on my hands.

[lillitheris]

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.

I don’t think you meant to use ‘belie’, but I make that error occasionally.

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

I committed an atrocity to secure a victory (albeit not without complications). I’m not happy about it, but it’s better than killing everyone.

[SMichelle]

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191

So let me get this straight. Its bad to refuse your enemy, fight them off, and die without committing atrocities.
But its good to trust your enemy, commit and atrocity, and live under the catalyst genocidal brain.

It's good to save all organic life in the galaxy (even if it comes at a cost).  It's bad to doom all advanced life to extinction. 

[ghost9191]

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191

So let me get this straight. Its bad to refuse your enemy, fight them off, and die without committing atrocities.
But its good to trust your enemy, commit and atrocity, and live under the catalyst genocidal brain.

ok this is why i said read my post carefully.     i never said it was good, i sad it was bad also. but refusal is bad too is all i am saying, all options are terrible.      unless they make it that you can achieve victory in refusal. but going in you should know that there is no way to win without using the crucible. By going with refuse you do cause deaths

you let the cycle happen, that is evil in it's own way , more so then genocide because in destroy their death is not pointless. the geth are destroyed to save the many, along with shep

[arial]

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

you said "Commit", and personally neither commited either

They are personally responsible for the committing of genocide. Better?

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

And what does it say about committing similar crimes on a similar scale to stop said crime?

You are wrong. If I must become the enemy to overcome the enemy, I have no justification in wanting to eradicate the enemy, for I am no better.

sacrificeing one  species and sacrificeing galactic society is in no way "A similar scale".

and once Again, it comes back to Ethics "Lesser of the evils".

[Whatever42]

SMichelle wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191

So let me get this straight. Its bad to refuse your enemy, fight them off, and die without committing atrocities.
But its good to trust your enemy, commit and atrocity, and live under the catalyst genocidal brain.

It's good to save all organic life in the galaxy (even if it comes at a cost).  It's bad to doom all advanced life to extinction. 

Refusal does save all organic life in the galaxy. The Reapers are ultimately defeated because of Liara.

[lillitheris]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

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.)

Didn't mean to come across as that angry in my post. But it does ****** me off when I'm branded a bloody megalomaniac or some other such bollocks. I do roleplay, I try my damn best to get into the spirit of a game.

But these endings knocked that out of me, please don't make assumptions about how I play my games. I just absolutely hate these endings and refuse to give them the respect of me getting into the spirit of them.

Chill pill! :happy: Don’t worry about it…It’s not like I’m actually going to people’s houses and making a list of everyone who made the wrong choice and never being their friend again.

If you are not making the choice at the RP level, then this debate isn’t about you.

[wantedman dan]

lillitheris wrote...

I committed an atrocity to secure a victory (albeit not without complications). I’m not happy about it, but it’s better than killing everyone.

If you can live with that, and the historical record reflecting that you committed said atrocity, that's fine. I disagree with that notion.

[SMichelle]

wantedman dan wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

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

At least you're up front about the atrocities you've committed.

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. 

That was obviously proven false. The next cycle won, Reaper threat is over, Crucible was--in game--not functional and therefore unused. The atrocities are not on my hands.

Err.  Yes, but *your* cycle lost.  All of those organic and synthetic beings were sacrificed because you weren't willing to pay a price.  So, how many trillions of people did your inaction doom?

But at least your hands are "clean"... 

[ghost9191]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

again want to buy evidence.  other then the scary ghost told me

Yet you're trusting the scary ghost with the other 3 choices?

no i don't trust the ghost, use to have a sig that said so . wonder where it went. anyways i just go with the safer options. like i said if through dlc and what not we actually get the chance to win , then i will go with refuse if i know before hand that my fleets will win. but currently your fleets are getting destroyed above yyou, you lost most of hammer. you put all your resources into the crucible, so i am gonna do what they sent my shep to do, after all my shep is just a soldier, doing whategver he can to stop the reapers.

[The Genophage]

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191

So let me get this straight. Its bad to refuse your enemy, fight them off, and die without committing atrocities.
But its good to trust your enemy, commit and atrocity, and live under the catalyst genocidal brain.

ok this is why i said read my post carefully.     i never said it was good, i sad it was bad also. but refusal is bad too is all i am saying, all options are terrible.      unless they make it that you can achieve victory in refusal. but going in you should know that there is no way to win without using the crucible. By going with refuse you do cause deaths

you let the cycle happen, that is evil in it's own way , more so then genocide because in destroy their death is not pointless. the geth are destroyed to save the many, along with shep

I didn't deliberately or systematically kill anyone, so how is it genocide?

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...

sacrificeing one  species and sacrificeing galactic society is in no way "A similar scale".

and once Again, it comes back to Ethics "Lesser of the evils".

Yes, it is. You sacrifice sapient life, through no decision of their own. The difference being in mine, they are only a casualty of war, which they chose to participate in.

[Joe Del Toro]

lillitheris wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

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.)

Didn't mean to come across as that angry in my post. But it does ****** me off when I'm branded a bloody megalomaniac or some other such bollocks. I do roleplay, I try my damn best to get into the spirit of a game.

But these endings knocked that out of me, please don't make assumptions about how I play my games. I just absolutely hate these endings and refuse to give them the respect of me getting into the spirit of them.

Chill pill! :happy: Don’t worry about it…It’s not like I’m actually going to people’s houses and making a list of everyone who made the wrong choice and never being their friend again.

If you are not making the choice at the RP level, then this debate isn’t about you.

Eh, fair enough. I only really got drawn into this cos some ****** said I shouldn't get into politics because of a choice I made in a videogame. I'll go bother someone else.

[lillitheris]

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191

So let me get this straight. Its bad to refuse your enemy, fight them off, and die without committing atrocities.
But its good to trust your enemy, commit and atrocity, and live under the catalyst genocidal brain.

You can’t win. You will lose. You killed everybody.

[SMichelle]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191

So let me get this straight. Its bad to refuse your enemy, fight them off, and die without committing atrocities.
But its good to trust your enemy, commit and atrocity, and live under the catalyst genocidal brain.

It's good to save all organic life in the galaxy (even if it comes at a cost).  It's bad to doom all advanced life to extinction. 

Refusal does save all organic life in the galaxy. The Reapers are ultimately defeated because of Liara.

Not in your cycle.  Hey, but I guess the Humans, Turians, Asari, Krogan, Batarians, Elcor, Volus etc. aren't really gone.  They've just become Reapers (with cool lasers and everything!)

[wantedman dan]

SMichelle wrote...

Err.  Yes, but *your* cycle lost.  All of those organic and synthetic beings were sacrificed because you weren't willing to pay a price.  So, how many trillions of people did your inaction doom?

But at least your hands are "clean"... 

Err, why must life revolve around me, mine, and ours? Concentrating on only yourself and yours is rather selfish, don't you think?

[Abraham_uk]

lillitheris wrote...

The Refusal choice isn’t a choice at all. It’s the cinematic that should happen if you get Critical Mission Failure.

Actively picking Refuse is a romanticization of what in reality is a horrific existence of nothing but pain, grief, and death. Only a true monster would choose it.

If you do not wish to submit to the whims of the Catalyst, your only choice is to blow up the power diverter it has employed to prevent the Crucible from firing in its default mode in order to present you with its two options: Synthesis, or Control.

Choose right.

Steve Carell reached the end of Mass Effect3 extended cut.

He had three choices.

He found control morally dubious
He didn't like destroy because he isn't really a fan of genocide.
He he didn't really get synthesis.

So he chose to reject the three choices hoping for a happy ending.
This was his reaction to the rejection ending.



So he metagamed and went for synthesis.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:41 .

[arial]

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191

So let me get this straight. Its bad to refuse your enemy, fight them off, and die without committing atrocities.
But its good to trust your enemy, commit and atrocity, and live under the catalyst genocidal brain.

ok this is why i said read my post carefully.     i never said it was good, i sad it was bad also. but refusal is bad too is all i am saying, all options are terrible.      unless they make it that you can achieve victory in refusal. but going in you should know that there is no way to win without using the crucible. By going with refuse you do cause deaths

you let the cycle happen, that is evil in it's own way , more so then genocide because in destroy their death is not pointless. the geth are destroyed to save the many, along with shep

I didn't deliberately or systematically kill anyone, so how is it genocide?

because, by not stopping the Reapers you are just as responsible for everyone they kill as they are.

seriously, its not just a Canadian law, most Commonwealth countries share it, but i will state it again

If you have the chance to prevent a crime and do not, you are just as responsible as the individual who commited the crime

[lillitheris]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

Eh, fair enough. I only really got drawn into this cos some ****** said I shouldn't get into politics because of a choice I made in a videogame. I'll go bother someone else.

I’m pretty sure the person meant it only if you actually thought it was a good option.