236 réponses à ce sujet

[D24O]

v TricKy v wrote...

 Oh look another one of these turned into a heated argument that will end with no conclusion because there is none<_<

Oh there is a conclusion, a lock.

[Necrotron]

I didn't really enjoy the consequences, but I did enjoy that at least Shepard was given some option that makes sense from his point of view.

What I really wanted to see what an ability for him to argue with the catalyst, since most of Shepard's journey contradicts his claims, but refuse was a nice addition. Although adding triggering it by shooting the starchild was probably a mistake.

[Xilizhra]

Assume you played the EC before the original endings. You're there for the first time and you see the option to refuse the Catalyst. Refusing the Catalyst would normally be the thing you'd do before Shepard starts sorting **** out. You'd expect that your war assets would come into play and you'd see an epic battle OR Shepard would come up with another solution. Maybe you'd win, maybe you'd lose depending on your EMS.

Refusal is a lower-right option, and that's generally bad news. I'd take the upper-right options to ask about how all of them work, and then try to decide from then on. I would not, personally, refuse anything outright so much as try to ascertain my options as much as possible.

I would be the first to take that choice, because it's what you'd expect Shepard to do, and you'd expect him to succeed in doing so. It fits with the core themes such as unity and diversity when all other choices seem to undermine them.

I don't think it does, because in the end, it turns out completely passive. That just doesn't fit Shepard.

No it isn't...

I made this very decision before ME3 came out. I did it on different premises, i.e. the guess that Cerberus would cause harm with it, but then I found out that I was wrong. It was a bad decision. I was chagrined, but could accept it.

The difference is you know what the Crucible does.
And that principle is only everything that the ME series has been about, overcoming impossible odds on your terms, why should it be any different at the end? Because you rather submit than to face extinction, because you rather accept to live under the Catalyst tyranny by doing something as atrocious as commiting genocide.

My goal has been to stop the cycle by any means necessary. Nothing else. There's some question about the best way to do that, certainly, but I won't let one more person than necessary die to the Reapers before making my decision.

Am I systematically or deliberatelly killing someone, no.

They're no less dead. It doesn't matter that you weren't pulling the trigger, you still let it happen.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:20 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Hiroshima and D-Day were not genocide of 1.5 billion people, please make a correct analogy. And your consciously accepting to commit genocide, I'm not accepting defeat because I continue to fight, you don't know what happens after refusal so don't headcannon.

Analogy is correct - both of those were a conscious decision to sacrifice human life in great number to stop even greater loss of human life. In ME just the scale (both of lives lost and lives saved) is greater. No difference whatsoever, principle remains exactly the same.

Like I said - Shepard knows what happens after refusal. If conventional victory would be possible, he wouldn't risk majority of galactic forces just to create diversion to use a device, which he doesn't even exactly know how is working. That, or Shepard and every other military leader who agreed to go with the plan is a moron.

Again there is a difference between sacrifice and genocide, your commiting genocide, analogy wrong.

I didn't argue what Shepard though, I argued what could happen after the choice.

[v TricKy v]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Hiroshima and D-Day were not genocide of 1.5 billion people, please make a correct analogy. And your consciously accepting to commit genocide, I'm not accepting defeat because I continue to fight, you don't know what happens after refusal so don't headcannon.

Analogy is correct - both of those were a conscious decision to sacrifice human life in great number to stop even greater loss of human life. In ME just the scale (both of lives lost and lives saved) is greater. No difference whatsoever, principle remains exactly the same.

Like I said - Shepard knows what happens after refusal. If conventional victory would be possible, he wouldn't risk majority of galactic forces just to create diversion to use a device, which he doesn't even exactly know how is working. That, or Shepard and every other military leader who agreed to go with the plan is a moron.

Or the writing is just bad. That is the real reason. Simple

[Bill Casey]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

It's not sacrifice, it's genocide. Your deliberately and systematically killing the Geth, and control is wrong because it completely contradicts ME3.

No I am not...
I am not deliberately killing the geth. I am deliberately killing the Reapers...

[chemiclord]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

All right look at it from this angle.

Assume you played the EC before the original endings. You're there for the first time and you see the option to refuse the Catalyst. Refusing the Catalyst would normally be the thing you'd do before Shepard starts sorting **** out. You'd expect that your war assets would come into play and you'd see an epic battle OR Shepard would come up with another solution. Maybe you'd win, maybe you'd lose depending on your EMS.

I would be the first to take that choice, because it's what you'd expect Shepard to do, and you'd expect him to succeed in doing so. It fits with the core themes such as unity and diversity when all other choices seem to undermine them.

It's not my fault that this leads to death. 

The other choices are a huge chunk of what I think is wrong with the ending. I can push some buttons and make my Shepard choose them, but by doing so I've just written what I view as being a nonsensical and thematically horrific ending to my story.

I might have chosen what I as the player might feel is the best choice for the Galaxy, but by doing so I've completely disconnected myself from that Galaxy anyway so as a player what's the point?

Refuse might be horrifically bleak, but it's still the most appropriate ending and the only one that seems like a natural and fitting conclusion to the story for me.

Here's the problem I have here.

Shepard would KNOW his/her allies are getting their asses kicked from one end of the system to the other.  S/he had personally SEEN that only about half of the Hammer force made it through.  S/he KNEW that the Sword forces were getting pummeled.

S/he would KNOW refusing would likely not end well.  Would it necessarily mean s/he'd change that initial thought?  Not necessarily... but with that knowledge in hand, it WOULD be cause for pause and consider what was in front of him/her.  S/he might still eventually refuse, I don't think it would be the knee jerk reaction you think it would be.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Xilizhra wrote...

Assume you played the EC before the original endings. You're there for the first time and you see the option to refuse the Catalyst. Refusing the Catalyst would normally be the thing you'd do before Shepard starts sorting **** out. You'd expect that your war assets would come into play and you'd see an epic battle OR Shepard would come up with another solution. Maybe you'd win, maybe you'd lose depending on your EMS.

Refusal is a lower-right option, and that's generally bad news. I'd take the upper-right options to ask about how all of them work, and then try to decide from then on. I would not, personally, refuse anything outright so much as try to ascertain my options as much as possible.

I would be the first to take that choice, because it's what you'd expect Shepard to do, and you'd expect him to succeed in doing so. It fits with the core themes such as unity and diversity when all other choices seem to undermine them.

I don't think it does, because in the end, it turns out completely passive. That just doesn't fit Shepard.

No it isn't...

I made this very decision before ME3 came out. I did it on different premises, i.e. the guess that Cerberus would cause harm with it, but then I found out that I was wrong. It was a bad decision. I was chagrined, but could accept it.

The difference is you know what the Crucible does.
And that principle is only everything that the ME series has been about, overcoming impossible odds on your terms, why should it be any different at the end? Because you rather submit than to face extinction, because you rather accept to live under the Catalyst tyranny by doing something as atrocious as commiting genocide.

My goal has been to stop the cycle by any means necessary. Nothing else. There's some question about the best way to do that, certainly, but I won't let one more person than necessary die to the Reapers before making my decision.

I can obviously see that as you would commit a war crime, genocide, just to ensure victory, it shows that you are willing to submit to the Catalyst and kill of a whole species to reach your goal, your no better than the enemy your facing.

[Bill Casey]

I am way better than the Reapers...
I would pick Destroy if it killed 10 races...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:22 .

[JamieCOTC]

My only problems w/ refuse is that we don't see Shepard or his/her friends going down fighting. Also, the fact that you can get by shooting the Catalyst, I think indicates someone's ego was bruised so they stuck it in as a "joke." Rejecting the Catalyst through dialogue makes sense. And yes, it's the only time Shepard acts remotely heroic in the classical sense.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Bill Casey wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

It's not sacrifice, it's genocide. Your deliberately and systematically killing the Geth, and control is wrong because it completely contradicts ME3.

No I am not...
I am not deliberately killing the geth. I am deliberately killing the Reapers...

Deliberately-Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects

Yeah, you are.

[Ryzaki]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

5 or is it 10 assets wasn't going to be a good help

110.

There's a difference of 5 to 10 (not sure which) assets from destroying the base vs saving it.

[Bill Casey]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Deliberately-Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects

Yeah, you are.

No I am not...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Xilizhra wrote...

Assume you played the EC before the original endings. You're there for the first time and you see the option to refuse the Catalyst. Refusing the Catalyst would normally be the thing you'd do before Shepard starts sorting **** out. You'd expect that your war assets would come into play and you'd see an epic battle OR Shepard would come up with another solution. Maybe you'd win, maybe you'd lose depending on your EMS.

Refusal is a lower-right option, and that's generally bad news. I'd take the upper-right options to ask about how all of them work, and then try to decide from then on. I would not, personally, refuse anything outright so much as try to ascertain my options as much as possible.

I would be the first to take that choice, because it's what you'd expect Shepard to do, and you'd expect him to succeed in doing so. It fits with the core themes such as unity and diversity when all other choices seem to undermine them.

I don't think it does, because in the end, it turns out completely passive. That just doesn't fit Shepard.

No it isn't...

I made this very decision before ME3 came out. I did it on different premises, i.e. the guess that Cerberus would cause harm with it, but then I found out that I was wrong. It was a bad decision. I was chagrined, but could accept it.

The difference is you know what the Crucible does.
And that principle is only everything that the ME series has been about, overcoming impossible odds on your terms, why should it be any different at the end? Because you rather submit than to face extinction, because you rather accept to live under the Catalyst tyranny by doing something as atrocious as commiting genocide.

My goal has been to stop the cycle by any means necessary. Nothing else. There's some question about the best way to do that, certainly, but I won't let one more person than necessary die to the Reapers before making my decision.

Am I systematically or deliberatelly killing someone, no.

They're no less dead. It doesn't matter that you weren't pulling the trigger, you still let it happen.

Shepard has let a lot of things happpen, it doesn't mean his accountable, if you shoot a tube knowing it will kill billions, that makes you accountable.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Bill Casey wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Deliberately-Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects

Yeah, you are.

No I am not...

How are you not?

[Bill Casey]

Because I believe the ending is a battle in Shepard's mind...
Designed to make him not want to use the crucible to destroy the reapers...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:28 .

[PoisonMushroom]

Xilizhra wrote...

My goal has been to stop the cycle by any means necessary. Nothing else. There's some question about the best way to do that, certainly, but I won't let one more person than necessary die to the Reapers before making my decision.

Haha, you couldn't sound any more renegade right now.

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Hiroshima and D-Day were not genocide of 1.5 billion people, please make a correct analogy. And your consciously accepting to commit genocide, I'm not accepting defeat because I continue to fight, you don't know what happens after refusal so don't headcannon.

Analogy is correct - both of those were a conscious decision to sacrifice human life in great number to stop even greater loss of human life. In ME just the scale (both of lives lost and lives saved) is greater. No difference whatsoever, principle remains exactly the same.

Like I said - Shepard knows what happens after refusal. If conventional victory would be possible, he wouldn't risk majority of galactic forces just to create diversion to use a device, which he doesn't even exactly know how is working. That, or Shepard and every other military leader who agreed to go with the plan is a moron.

Again there is a difference between sacrifice and genocide, your commiting genocide, analogy wrong.

I didn't argue what Shepard though, I argued what could happen after the choice.

...... it doesn't matter how you call it, the essence is the same - " a conscious decision to sacrifice human life in great number to stop even greater loss of human life" - please explain me what is different except for the number of lives lost and lives saved?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Bill Casey wrote...

Because I believe the ending is a battle in Shepard's mind...

That's a whole other subject I rather not touch on right now, unless your just acting obtuse, not accusing you of anything just saying.

[Pitznik]

v TricKy v wrote...


Or the writing is just bad. That is the real reason. Simple

That I can't argue with.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Hiroshima and D-Day were not genocide of 1.5 billion people, please make a correct analogy. And your consciously accepting to commit genocide, I'm not accepting defeat because I continue to fight, you don't know what happens after refusal so don't headcannon.

Analogy is correct - both of those were a conscious decision to sacrifice human life in great number to stop even greater loss of human life. In ME just the scale (both of lives lost and lives saved) is greater. No difference whatsoever, principle remains exactly the same.

Like I said - Shepard knows what happens after refusal. If conventional victory would be possible, he wouldn't risk majority of galactic forces just to create diversion to use a device, which he doesn't even exactly know how is working. That, or Shepard and every other military leader who agreed to go with the plan is a moron.

Again there is a difference between sacrifice and genocide, your commiting genocide, analogy wrong.

I didn't argue what Shepard though, I argued what could happen after the choice.

...... it doesn't matter how you call it, the essence is the same - " a conscious decision to sacrifice human life in great number to stop even greater loss of human life" - please explain me what is different except for the number of lives lost and lives saved?

You wanna know the difference?
Sacrifice-Someone gave up their life to further continue something.
Genocide-The killing of an entire race/species, it's especially evil when they agreed to fight with you and stood by your side.

Please, do not try to justify it. Sacrifice=/=Genocide.

[Bill Casey]

But you will admit that Shepards who pick destroy aren't deliberately killing the geth...
Even at face value, "all synthetics will die" reeks of "I have hostages, no you can't see them"...

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Bill Casey wrote...

But you will admit that Shepards who pick destroy aren't deliberately killing the geth...
Even at face value, "all synthetics will die" reeks of "I have hostages, no you can't see them"...

It's deliberately killing, whether you enjoy it or not. 

[Bill Casey]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

You wanna know the difference?
Sacrifice-Someone gave up their life to further continue something.
Genocide-The killing of an entire race/species, it's especially evil when they agreed to fight with you and stood by your side.

Please, do not try to justify it. Sacrifice=/=Genocide.

It's completely just...

[Bill Casey]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

It's deliberately killing, whether you enjoy it or not. 

I don't believe I actually killed the geth, though...
The Geth and EDI are still alive in my playthrough...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:38 .