236 réponses à ce sujet

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

You know what a selfish sacrifice might be defined as, Genocide.

Depends on the point of view. From Shepard's point of view it was a sacrifice, because he wanted to destroy the Reapers, but didn't want to destroy the Geth.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Their was a system, killing synthetics, the same reason why it's not collateral damage.

That doesn't make it a system. "Synthetic" was the targeted quality only because "being a Reaper" quality couldn't be targeted. Geth shared that quality with Repears so their destruction was collateral damage.

And again, how is destruction of all advanced life better solution than destruction of the Geth, no matter how you will call it?

Shepard's point of view does not mean it's correct.

You just defined why is a system, a system to kill all synthetics, you knew it would kill geth and their were other solutions so it wasn't like that was the only one, it can't be collateral damage, and I rather face extinction than to submit to the catalyst.

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Shepard's point of view does not mean it's correct.

Compared to the particular alternative in question, it is.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
You just defined why is a system, a system to kill all synthetics, you knew it would kill geth and their were other solutions so it wasn't like that was the only one, it can't be collateral damage, and I rather face extinction than to submit to the catalyst.

We don't talk about other solutions. And no, the fact it targets synthetics doesn't make it a system. You didn't create the plan to kill synthetics, come up with methods to do it. You just used what was available. It's the exact same situations as with Batarians in Arrival - you know they will die so deliberate, and they share the targeted quality with the object you want to destroy - in that case, same star system. And it was only to stop the Reapers from arriving sooner, not to destroy them entirely.

So we're back to "my principles are more important than life of all advanced species", even if it was your responsibility to ensure you do what you can to save as much as you can, and you took this responsibility willingly and even convinced everyone else to help you put that plan in motion.

[Jymm]

After the EC came out I originally picked refuse for my renegade Shepard. Then after watching it I thought, no, this is a paragon ending decision. A fanatical, defiant, standing by your principles to the bitter end kind of ending. In another thread I compared it to the end of Braveheart, and I still think that's how I feel about it. Its clearly not for everyone, and there is reason to believe BW intended it as a snub, but I still like it.

I also agree that Shepard has done the impossible at least a half-dozen times so far and with maxed out war assets he / she might plausibly believe that its possible again. So without meta-gaming I think Shep might believe that refuse is an option.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Shepard's point of view does not mean it's correct.

Compared to the particular alternative in question, it is.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
You just defined why is a system, a system to kill all synthetics, you knew it would kill geth and their were other solutions so it wasn't like that was the only one, it can't be collateral damage, and I rather face extinction than to submit to the catalyst.

We don't talk about other solutions. And no, the fact it targets synthetics doesn't make it a system. You didn't create the plan to kill synthetics, come up with methods to do it. You just used what was available. It's the exact same situations as with Batarians in Arrival - you know they will die so deliberate, and they share the targeted quality with the object you want to destroy - in that case, same star system. And it was only to stop the Reapers from arriving sooner, not to destroy them entirely.

So we're back to "my principles are more important than life of all advanced species", even if it was your responsibility to ensure you do what you can to save as much as you can, and you took this responsibility willingly and even convinced everyone else to help you put that plan in motion.

No, it's not. What you think, it's not a fact, especially something like genocide. However you want to sugar coated at the end, it's genocie.

I hate the arrival comparison because 300,000 =/= 1.5 billion, also you have other choices, for Arrival there wasn't any. Get that right. It's a system, whether it was designed by you or not, or whether you were expecting it or not, it is a system that was designed to kill synthetics which you knew included the Geth and you choose to activate it, even if you were aiming for the Reapers, you knew it would kill Geth and their were other options presented to you but you choose that one, therefore you killed the Geth systematically, it's not so difficult to understand and any attempt you have tried to refute it is wrong.

Again, it's the galaxy's principles, not mine. No one agreed to be sold. Also, that principle makes up ME, defeating impossible odds on your terms, but you decided to submit to the Catalyst and commit a war crime/attrocity.

"Commiting genocide to stop a genocide is wrong" Padok Wiks.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Interesting take, OP.

The thing about Refusal is, while it may be nice as a concept, it was poorly executed. It just goes full circle and does nothing to make you feel as though you've actually accomplished something. You basically become the Protheans 2.0, with Liara as the new Vigil.

I don't particularly find interest in ending my journey that way. Refusal, in my opinion, should have been affected by your EMS. But I can guess why that never came to pass: because no one would choose the original three options.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:57 .

[Dharvy]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I'm not acting obtuse...
It's a legitimate point...

One that you fail to acknowledge...

It's still genocide, because you were told you were, you choose not to believe in it, and do it anyway, and by doing that set action, you killed the Geth and commited genocide in the process.

Were you not told that refusing would effectively kill everybody fighting for survival? Did you choose to believe in it, and do it anyway, and by doing that set action/inaction, you killed or let be killed the galaxy? Yes everyone is not fighting reapers just for some notion of freedom, they're fighting for there survival. There fighting to survive and their right to live. If you feel everyone signed on to die fighting the reapers then why are you trying to make it seem wrong to let the geth die fighting the reapers but it's alright to let the whole galaxy die fighting the reapers is somehow not in the same category?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Dharvy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I'm not acting obtuse...
It's a legitimate point...

One that you fail to acknowledge...

It's still genocide, because you were told you were, you choose not to believe in it, and do it anyway, and by doing that set action, you killed the Geth and commited genocide in the process.

Were you not told that refusing would effectively kill everybody fighting for survival? Did you choose to believe in it, and do it anyway, and by doing that set action/inaction, you killed or let be killed the galaxy? Yes everyone is not fighting reapers just for some notion of freedom, they're fighting for there survival. There fighting to survive and their right to live. If you feel everyone signed on to die fighting the reapers then why are you trying to make it seem wrong to let the geth die fighting the reapers but it's alright to let the whole galaxy die fighting the reapers is somehow not in the same category?

I wasn't told anything actually, and I didn't kill them deliberately/systematically so it's not genocide.  Also, if you feel you need to win your wars by commiting war crimes, atrocity, and sacrificing your humanity, so be it., I rather die united as a galaxy than to ensure victory by submitting to the Catalyst and it's genocidal brain.

But you wanna commit war crimes right?

[Giggles_Manically]

Its just Walters/Hudson giving you the finger one last time.

DONT LIKE MY ENDINGS? SO BE IT!

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Shepard's point of view does not mean it's correct.

Compared to the particular alternative in question, it is.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
You just defined why is a system, a system to kill all synthetics, you knew it would kill geth and their were other solutions so it wasn't like that was the only one, it can't be collateral damage, and I rather face extinction than to submit to the catalyst.

We don't talk about other solutions. And no, the fact it targets synthetics doesn't make it a system. You didn't create the plan to kill synthetics, come up with methods to do it. You just used what was available. It's the exact same situations as with Batarians in Arrival - you know they will die so deliberate, and they share the targeted quality with the object you want to destroy - in that case, same star system. And it was only to stop the Reapers from arriving sooner, not to destroy them entirely.

So we're back to "my principles are more important than life of all advanced species", even if it was your responsibility to ensure you do what you can to save as much as you can, and you took this responsibility willingly and even convinced everyone else to help you put that plan in motion.

No, it's not. What you think, it's not a fact, especially something like genocide. However you want to sugar coated at the end, it's genocie.

I hate the arrival comparison because 300,000 =/= 1.5 billion, also you have other choices, for Arrival there wasn't any. Get that right. It's a system, whether it was designed by you or not, or whether you were expecting it or not, it is a system that was designed to kill synthetics which you knew included the Geth and you choose to activate it, even if you were aiming for the Reapers, you knew it would kill Geth and their were other options presented to you but you choose that one, therefore you killed the Geth systematically, it's not so difficult to understand and any attempt you have tried to refute it is wrong.

Again, it's the galaxy's principles, not mine. No one agreed to be sold. Also, that principle makes up ME, defeating impossible odds on your terms, but you decided to submit to the Catalyst and commit a war crime/attrocity.

"Commiting genocide to stop a genocide is wrong" Padok Wiks.

Number is meaningless, you still sacrifice a lot to save a lot more. No difference. Principles are individual matter, so those are your principles, not galaxy's. Shepard can defeat impossible odds, but in ME3 the way to do it is CRucible, that is why whole galaxy invests its resources and military forces into it. It is your responsibility to use it, even if its against your principles. You made this decision and convinced everyone else to it before knowing what it does, you can't back off in the last moment.

And again, ad nauseam: sacrificing geth during destroy ending is not genocide, because it is not systematic. What doesn't matter anyway, because still death of all geth is nothing compared to death of all advanced life. And Shepard knew well it will happen, in fact he got more reason to believe Reapers will destroy advanced life, than to believe Catakiddo he will destroy all synthetic life in one moment.

Modifié par Pitznik, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:14 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Shepard's point of view does not mean it's correct.

Compared to the particular alternative in question, it is.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
You just defined why is a system, a system to kill all synthetics, you knew it would kill geth and their were other solutions so it wasn't like that was the only one, it can't be collateral damage, and I rather face extinction than to submit to the catalyst.

We don't talk about other solutions. And no, the fact it targets synthetics doesn't make it a system. You didn't create the plan to kill synthetics, come up with methods to do it. You just used what was available. It's the exact same situations as with Batarians in Arrival - you know they will die so deliberate, and they share the targeted quality with the object you want to destroy - in that case, same star system. And it was only to stop the Reapers from arriving sooner, not to destroy them entirely.

So we're back to "my principles are more important than life of all advanced species", even if it was your responsibility to ensure you do what you can to save as much as you can, and you took this responsibility willingly and even convinced everyone else to help you put that plan in motion.

No, it's not. What you think, it's not a fact, especially something like genocide. However you want to sugar coated at the end, it's genocie.

I hate the arrival comparison because 300,000 =/= 1.5 billion, also you have other choices, for Arrival there wasn't any. Get that right. It's a system, whether it was designed by you or not, or whether you were expecting it or not, it is a system that was designed to kill synthetics which you knew included the Geth and you choose to activate it, even if you were aiming for the Reapers, you knew it would kill Geth and their were other options presented to you but you choose that one, therefore you killed the Geth systematically, it's not so difficult to understand and any attempt you have tried to refute it is wrong.

Again, it's the galaxy's principles, not mine. No one agreed to be sold. Also, that principle makes up ME, defeating impossible odds on your terms, but you decided to submit to the Catalyst and commit a war crime/attrocity.

"Commiting genocide to stop a genocide is wrong" Padok Wiks.

Number is meaningless, you still sacrifice a lot to save a lot more. No difference. Principles are individual matter, so those are your principles, not galaxy's. Shepard can defeat impossible odds, but in ME3 the way to do it is CRucible, that is why whole galaxy invests its resources and military forces into it. It is your responsibility to use it, even if its against your principles. You made this decision and convinced everyone else to it before knowing what it does, you can't back off in the last moment.

And again, ad nauseam: sacrificing geth during destroy ending is not genocide, because it is not systematic. What doesn't matter anyway, because still death of all geth is nothing compared to death of all advanced life. And Shepard knew well it will happen, in fact he got more reason to believe Reapers will destroy advanced life, than to believe Catakiddo he will destroy all synthetic life in one moment.

Numbers are meaningless, until it their can't be any more because you wiped them all out.

I explained why is systematic, and you must enjoy war crimes to win wars. I'm sure every ruthless dictator genocidal warlord smiles upon your decision to commit genocide.

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Numbers are meaningless, until it their can't be any more because you wiped them all out.

We're talking synthetic life here, so yes, there can be more. Like it matters anyway.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
I explained why is systematic, and you must enjoy war crimes to win wars. I'm sure every ruthless dictator genocidal warlord smiles upon your decision to commit genocide.

No you didn't. You just said that the fact it targets synthetic life as a whole makes it systematic. And that doesn't make any sense.

Also, "enjoying war crimes"? What are you talking about? Going emotional because you lack arguements that make any sense? Destruction of the Geth is sad, but necessary sacrifice, don't know what could be so enjoyable about it.

Btw, that may come as a shock for you, but destroying the Reapers = genocide. I wonder if you would repeat that word all the time if you could simply destroy the Reapers in ME3.

You have no right to decide in the name of whole galaxy "ok, now we're going to die". You got the right (and the responsibility!) to use Crucible and to do what you can to save as much as you can.

Modifié par Pitznik, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:27 .

[Ryzaki]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Its just Walters/Hudson giving you the finger one last time.

DONT LIKE MY ENDINGS? SO BE IT!

Pretty much. <_<

[comrade gando]

when I first picked refuse (on accident) and starbaby came out with SO BE IT, I was like ahha! I knew it was you harbinger you bastard, lets rock. then the game just ends in a non-standard game over...

wtf was the point of putting that in the game if all it does is just get everyone killed. are you guys mad?!

[Pacifien]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...
I don't particularly find interest in ending my journey that way. Refusal, in my opinion, should have been affected by your EMS. But I can guess why that never came to pass: because no one would choose the original three options.

The only way refusal could have worked in a success for the current cycle's races is if there was a Mass Effect 4. The whole buildup of Mass Effect 3 hinged on the success of the Crucible. To have you then refuse that and come out with a completely different ending in the last five minutes of the game, probably in cutscene form, makes the entire game a complete waste of time because those last five minutes should have been the game itself.

Which then gets into the debate of "well, gee, guess they shouldn't have written the ending with the Crucible," but then this argument goes in circles. And to bring it back to reality, a complete change of the game isn't going to happen now. You can desire and wish it would all you want, but you are now talking about a past event. You won't be able to change a past event until time travel is created, and then some might question your decision to change Mass Effect 3 of all things when you have access to all time itself.

I'm getting off the point. My point is that Refusal couldn't end well because then you, as the player, deserve to then play *that* game. Mass Effect ends when Shepard's fight with the Reaper's end, and if Mass Effect 3 ended with Shepard going "I'll keep fighting" and then you don't get to play that fight? That's cheap.

I suppose then the argument could be made that it's equally cheap that Refusal didn't get net you play time to end it Halo Reach style, which is a spoiler that I didn't warn you about. Feel free to hate me. In the end, they kept it simple: Refusal leads to the next cycle's fight with the Reapers, which is not the story they intended to tell in their trilogy. They gave the fans the option of the ending in spite of that.

Of course, then the fans were offended by the option, but, uh, that's their issue.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Numbers are meaningless, until it their can't be any more because you wiped them all out.

We're talking synthetic life here, so yes, there can be more. Like it matters anyway.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
I explained why is systematic, and you must enjoy war crimes to win wars. I'm sure every ruthless dictator genocidal warlord smiles upon your decision to commit genocide.

No you didn't. You just said that the fact it targets synthetic life as a whole makes it systematic. And that doesn't make any sense.

Also, "enjoying war crimes"? What are you talking about? Going emotional because you lack arguements that make any sense? Destruction of the Geth is sad, but necessary sacrifice, don't know what could be so enjoyable about it.

Btw, that may come as a shock for you, but destroying the Reapers = genocide. I wonder if you would repeat that word all the time if you could simply destroy the Reapers in ME3.

You have no right to decide in the name of whole galaxy "ok, now we're going to die". You got the right (and the responsibility!) to use Crucible and to do what you can to save as much as you can.

Synthetic=Organics, especially after the Reaper code upgrade.

I don't lack argument, your commiting a war crime to win a war, no one agreed to be sold, we either win as a galaxy or die as a galaxy not sell someone out to ensure victory.
The galaxy agreed to fight reapers or die trying, not me, but they never agreed to genocide to win a war. It's genocide for the last time, not sacrifice.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:37 .

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Numbers are meaningless, until it their can't be any more because you wiped them all out.

We're talking synthetic life here, so yes, there can be more. Like it matters anyway.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
I explained why is systematic, and you must enjoy war crimes to win wars. I'm sure every ruthless dictator genocidal warlord smiles upon your decision to commit genocide.

No you didn't. You just said that the fact it targets synthetic life as a whole makes it systematic. And that doesn't make any sense.

Also, "enjoying war crimes"? What are you talking about? Going emotional because you lack arguements that make any sense? Destruction of the Geth is sad, but necessary sacrifice, don't know what could be so enjoyable about it.

Btw, that may come as a shock for you, but destroying the Reapers = genocide. I wonder if you would repeat that word all the time if you could simply destroy the Reapers in ME3.

You have no right to decide in the name of whole galaxy "ok, now we're going to die". You got the right (and the responsibility!) to use Crucible and to do what you can to save as much as you can.

Synthetic=Organics, especially after the Reaper code upgrade.

I don't lack argument, your commiting a war crime to win a war, no one agreed to be sold, we either win as a galaxy or die as a galaxy not sell someone out to ensure victory.
The galaxy agreed to fight reapers or die trying, not me, but they never agreed to genocide to win a war. It's genocide for the last time, not sacrifice.

1. Destroying the Reapers IS a genocide in itself. Everyone agreed to that.
2. Every military commander knows his soldiers can die. Every military commander knows civilians can die in collateral damage.
3. Destruction of Geth is a sacrifice, no matter if it is also a genocide or not.
4. Destruction of Geth isn't genocide, because it is not systematic.

[Edalborez]

I don't get why people think Rejection is a FU ending. You... choose to do nothing. You lose. A later cycle wins because of your work. It's a victory.

[The Angry One]

Edalborez wrote...

I don't get why people think Rejection is a FU ending. You... choose to do nothing. You lose. A later cycle wins because of your work. It's a victory.

Because Shepard would never choose to do nothing.
Shepard would reject and then DO SOMETHING. Contact the fleet. Start breaking things. ANYTHING.

Also, I believe that making it possible to activate the reject ending by shooting the spacebaby was extremely immature. If it were only activated with the badass speech, I might've given BioWare the benefit of the doubt.

[Pacifien]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
I don't lack argument, your commiting a war crime to win a war, no one agreed to be sold, we either win as a galaxy or die as a galaxy not sell someone out to ensure victory.

Not every civilization's ethics are in line with yours that will go with the all in or no one wins approach, you know. But it's Shepard's call in the end, and Shepard's morality that guides him, so if Shepard believes the death of one civilization is too much of a cost to save a half dozen others, then that's what they get for placing all their bets on one man.

But honestly, every decision can be labeled a war crime to some degree. Knowingly annhilating an entire civilization. Knowingly altering the very fabric of the universe without regard to the beliefs of others. Keeping a host of technologically advanced beings enslaved to your will. Or even knowingly denying a chance to end the war because you personally felt it was against your own morals without consideration of how others may view the situation. All with the excuse of survival.

And all because they put the fate of everyone in the hands of one man, who is really an avatar of yourself and whatever you want to do with the character.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Numbers are meaningless, until it their can't be any more because you wiped them all out.

We're talking synthetic life here, so yes, there can be more. Like it matters anyway.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
I explained why is systematic, and you must enjoy war crimes to win wars. I'm sure every ruthless dictator genocidal warlord smiles upon your decision to commit genocide.

No you didn't. You just said that the fact it targets synthetic life as a whole makes it systematic. And that doesn't make any sense.

Also, "enjoying war crimes"? What are you talking about? Going emotional because you lack arguements that make any sense? Destruction of the Geth is sad, but necessary sacrifice, don't know what could be so enjoyable about it.

Btw, that may come as a shock for you, but destroying the Reapers = genocide. I wonder if you would repeat that word all the time if you could simply destroy the Reapers in ME3.

You have no right to decide in the name of whole galaxy "ok, now we're going to die". You got the right (and the responsibility!) to use Crucible and to do what you can to save as much as you can.

Synthetic=Organics, especially after the Reaper code upgrade.

I don't lack argument, your commiting a war crime to win a war, no one agreed to be sold, we either win as a galaxy or die as a galaxy not sell someone out to ensure victory.
The galaxy agreed to fight reapers or die trying, not me, but they never agreed to genocide to win a war. It's genocide for the last time, not sacrifice.

1. Destroying the Reapers IS a genocide in itself. Everyone agreed to that.
2. Every military commander knows his soldiers can die. Every military commander knows civilians can die in collateral damage.
3. Destruction of Geth is a sacrifice, no matter if it is also a genocide or not.
4. Destruction of Geth isn't genocide, because it is not systematic.

1-Fighting the reapers is self-defense
2-Soldiers dying and genocide are different.
3-anything can be labeled as a sacrifice, but it's genocide, thank you for admitting it.
4-It is systematic, it was a system that killed all synthetics, whether designed by you or not you decided to activate it.

[Pacifien]

The Angry One wrote...
Also, I believe that making it possible to activate the reject ending by shooting the spacebaby was extremely immature. If it were only activated with the badass speech, I might've given BioWare the benefit of the doubt.

Nah, it just means you can't take a joke. You went "too soon, BioWare. Too soon."

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pacifien wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
I don't lack argument, your commiting a war crime to win a war, no one agreed to be sold, we either win as a galaxy or die as a galaxy not sell someone out to ensure victory.

Not every civilization's ethics are in line with yours that will go with the all in or no one wins approach, you know. But it's Shepard's call in the end, and Shepard's morality that guides him, so if Shepard believes the death of one civilization is too much of a cost to save a half dozen others, then that's what they get for placing all their bets on one man.

But honestly, every decision can be labeled a war crime to some degree. Knowingly annhilating an entire civilization. Knowingly altering the very fabric of the universe without regard to the beliefs of others. Keeping a host of technologically advanced beings enslaved to your will. Or even knowingly denying a chance to end the war because you personally felt it was against your own morals without consideration of how others may view the situation. All with the excuse of survival.

And all because they put the fate of everyone in the hands of one man, who is really an avatar of yourself and whatever you want to do with the character.

Every decision but refusal can be labeled as a war crime. And your implying by your writing as if refusal is wrong, if you got something to say, say it, no offense.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:00 .

[Edalborez]

The Angry One wrote...

Because Shepard would never choose to do nothing.
Shepard would reject and then DO SOMETHING. Contact the fleet. Start breaking things. ANYTHING.

Also, I believe that making it possible to activate the reject ending by shooting the spacebaby was extremely immature. If it were only activated with the badass speech, I might've given BioWare the benefit of the doubt.

Given the 3 options, we don't really know what Shepard would do. Especially since s/he is just an outlet for the player. Whatever Shep would do is just what you (plural) would do.

[Pacifien]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Every decision but refusal can be labeled as a war crime. And your implying by your writing as if refusal is wrong, if you got something to say, say it, no offense.

I wanted the game to end with the mass relays to be destroyed, sending the entire galaxy into a technological Dark Age until they learned how to research their own technology devoid of the influence of the Reapers. I've wanted that ever since Sovereign said they Reapers purposely seeded the galaxy with their technology to ensure that civilizations would evolve along the technological paths they wanted.

I didn't get that ending, and I don't really have a strong opinion for any of the four endings that are available. I will argue for and against them at my whim.

I did, however, argue why I felt the refusal ending shouldn't have ended positively for the allied races which was a few posts above the one you quoted.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pacifien wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Every decision but refusal can be labeled as a war crime. And your implying by your writing as if refusal is wrong, if you got something to say, say it, no offense.

I wanted the game to end with the mass relays to be destroyed, sending the entire galaxy into a technological Dark Age until they learned how to research their own technology devoid of the influence of the Reapers. I've wanted that ever since Sovereign said they Reapers purposely seeded the galaxy with their technology to ensure that civilizations would evolve along the technological paths they wanted.

I didn't get that ending, and I don't really have a strong opinion for any of the four endings that are available. I will argue for and against them at my whim.

I did, however, argue why I felt the refusal ending shouldn't have ended positively for the allied races which was a few posts above the one you quoted.

I think she meant you get to see your allies go down fighting, maybe some survive via stasis pod, but it shouldn't be, screen fades black.