395 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

zambot wrote...

As long as you (Shepard) believes the galaxy has a chance to defeat the reapers, then there's nothing immoral about picking refuse. Given that Shepard has regularly beaten "impossible" odds, I don't think it's too unreasonable for Shep to believe that chance exists.

"the path to hell is paved with good intentions"

you might see yourself as a hero but i doubt anyone in the cycle will

[silentassassin264]

Fandango9641 wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...


**** me, you're actually using a semantic loophole to make a case for genocide? As for the post you quoted, you'll forgive me if I dont take my moral lead from someone who describes the death of EDI and an entire species of sentient machines as being little more than tough luck! Take a class in ethics lad, you're on your arse.

I have taken a class in Bioethics at least and it is clear you haven't.   You picked the option that killed the entire race of sentient machines and everyone else because you passively allow them to all be killed.  You had the power and responsibility to save them and you let them die because you threw a temper tantrum because you couldn't get everything exactly the way you wanted it.  You are morally responsible for all of those deaths caused by reject which are more than Destroy.  

You took a class in bioethics but consistently make the case for genocide, slavery and what basically amounts to space-eugenics? I call shenanigans.

a) Your solution killing more people than mine is.  I chose the greater good sacrificing how many Geth there are to save the way more organics.  It is regrettable but at least the majority survive.
Control is not slavery.  I already explained that earlier.
c) You clearly have no clue what eugenics is.  Eugenics is about artificial selection.  Synthesis involves no selection at all. 

[Khajiit Jzargo]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
So you can Come up with Hypothetical Headcanon things, But I can't...Got it.
Or is Khajit Just a Hypocrite?

I didn't say my headcanon as "a fact" as you tried to ("Shepard dies!").
I said it could've been this way. But maybe not. See the difference?

I thought I did present it as a "Could've"
Sorry you don't get my Thought Process Bro, It's ok.

No you clearly state it he died.

Don't tell me what I did and Didn't State.
No one asked you to Respond.

No one asked you to respond to me now
You did do it, it's written down and I have it as proof.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

ghost9191 wrote...
"the path to hell is paved with good intentions"

This could be said about any ending.

[Nezedone]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Nezedone wrote...
But, morally, they're all -equally awful.-

Refuse inadvertantly gets everyone in the galaxy (or the majority) killed, ground up into a goo, or huskified.

Destroy annihilates the synthetic life that you might've preserved before.

They both -suck.- They're both -awful decisions.- Why even bother arguing? The morals behind both suck.

Yes, the choices are awful.
But moral pivots which govern which choice is *least* awful are kind of a big deal.

My point is, they're all equally awful.

Refusal is pretty bad. It gets a lot of people killed and ground up into goop, plus it spawns a few additional reapers. Any losses inflicted upon the Reapers by the current cycle could be replaced, depending on how many individuals it takes to spawn a Reaper. The only thing that justifies this ending is the 'uncertainty' factor of the Catalyst. You cannot be 100% certain that he's telling the truth. For some that's a major factor in deciding to Refuse, for others, that's just more incentive to -not- take Refuse.

Destroy, whether you like it or not, consigns an entire species to extinction (and eff you if you destroyed the Geth over Rannoch. I unintentionally did it in my first playthrough and felt horrible.) I won't call it genocide, because it is not -intended.- It is collateral damage, but fairly significant damage -- and, to some degree, a betrayal of trust you earned. Bonded with EDI? Became best friends with Legion and the Geth? Sorry, you just shat all over them and their ideals, and killed them while you were at it. Shepard might save the galaxy this way, but they also damn themselves by doing it.

Neither is worse than the other. They are equally horrible.

Modifié par Nezedone, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:15 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Nezedone wrote...
Neither is worse than the other. They are equally horrible.

Not necessary.
Say, I  believe that synthetics are just machines, and never will be truly equal to "real people".
And suddenly, Destroy makes perfect sense.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:16 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Every ending sucks.
Period.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
So you can Come up with Hypothetical Headcanon things, But I can't...Got it.
Or is Khajit Just a Hypocrite?

I didn't say my headcanon as "a fact" as you tried to ("Shepard dies!").
I said it could've been this way. But maybe not. See the difference?

I thought I did present it as a "Could've"
Sorry you don't get my Thought Process Bro, It's ok.

No you clearly state it he died.

Don't tell me what I did and Didn't State.
No one asked you to Respond.

No one asked you to respond to me now
You did do it, it's written down and I have it as proof.

...so?

[Nezedone]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Nezedone wrote...
Neither is worse than the other. They are equally horrible.

Not necessary.
Say, I  believe that synthetics are just machines, and never will be truly equal to "real people".
And suddenly, Destroy makes perfect sense.

Well, then you're probably the type of person that destroyed the Geth anyways. So all arguments against Destroy are moot, since any 'genocide/collateral damage' wouldn't be incurred.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Every ending sucks.
Period.

^^

Modifié par Nezedone, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:18 .

[Abispa]

SMichelle wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...


I also agree,
It saves me writing the "None of the Choices were Right MK.II" thread.

I think if we all took a step back from trying to prove that our ending choice was the only valid/right choice, this forum would be a lot more peaceful.


(we might actually talk about other ME3 things!  I know - crazy, right)?

The BSN, or ANY gaming forum, is largely a collection of gamers who whine about other people's head canons disagreeing with there's.  If someone is happy with any of the endings, good for them. All have their flaws, yet, personally, I've discovered that each of my Shepards have at least one ending that is "best" or "least worst" for them. With the exception of sythesis, which IMHO is too much "space magic," most of the endings "make sense" in the ME universe I've been playing. But if you like sythesis, good for you.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
So you can Come up with Hypothetical Headcanon things, But I can't...Got it.
Or is Khajit Just a Hypocrite?

I didn't say my headcanon as "a fact" as you tried to ("Shepard dies!").
I said it could've been this way. But maybe not. See the difference?

I thought I did present it as a "Could've"
Sorry you don't get my Thought Process Bro, It's ok.

No you clearly state it he died.

Don't tell me what I did and Didn't State.
No one asked you to Respond.

No one asked you to respond to me now
You did do it, it's written down and I have it as proof.

...so?

So let's just stop this argument because is useless?

[TheClonesLegacy]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
So you can Come up with Hypothetical Headcanon things, But I can't...Got it.
Or is Khajit Just a Hypocrite?

I didn't say my headcanon as "a fact" as you tried to ("Shepard dies!").
I said it could've been this way. But maybe not. See the difference?

I thought I did present it as a "Could've"
Sorry you don't get my Thought Process Bro, It's ok.

No you clearly state it he died.

Don't tell me what I did and Didn't State.
No one asked you to Respond.

No one asked you to respond to me now
You did do it, it's written down and I have it as proof.

...so?

So let's just stop this argument because is useless?

That's what I was thinking.

[ghost9191]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...
"the path to hell is paved with good intentions"

This could be said about any ending.

yeah was just throwing the quote out there. i mean my shep sacrifices the geth to save the galaxy. i see it as the lives you save in doing it is worth the cost. But others might not feel the same way. ppl like hacket , and by that i mean he just seemed like someone that would give a medal to shep for it. would accept the loss but other may question shep about if it was possible to avoid or put him on trial for a war crime , idk

and "death has different consequences for synthetic" legion said something like that in me3, not sure how they are different but the geth can be rebuilt, not that that makes it right but it is easier to replace the geth then say the asari  or turians.

so again my opinion is it is worth the cost,  i think it is like 1.5 billion geth for a tillion lives or so

ruthless calculus as garrus would say

not the right choice just the one my shepard makes

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Nezedone wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Nezedone wrote...
Neither is worse than the other. They are equally horrible.

Not necessary.
Say, I  believe that synthetics are just machines, and never will be truly equal to "real people".
And suddenly, Destroy makes perfect sense.

Well, then you're probably the type of person that destroyed the Geth anyways. So all arguments against Destroy are moot, since any 'genocide/collateral damage' wouldn't be incurred.

For my first and only playthrough, Legion dead, so I couldn't broker peace. I've destroyed Geth.
But I could not chose destroy even if I had to kill only EDI. Yes, I am that irrational. I could not personally murder even one innocent person to ensure world peace.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:24 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

My question is why would BW decide to go all Deux Ex on us....

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:24 .

[Nezedone]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Nezedone wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Nezedone wrote...
Neither is worse than the other. They are equally horrible.

Not necessary.
Say, I  believe that synthetics are just machines, and never will be truly equal to "real people".
And suddenly, Destroy makes perfect sense.

Well, then you're probably the type of person that destroyed the Geth anyways. So all arguments against Destroy are moot, since any 'genocide/collateral damage' wouldn't be incurred.

For my first and only playthrough, Legion dead, so I couldn't broker peace. I've destroyed Geth.
But I could not chose destroy even if I had to kill only EDI. Yes, I am that irrational. I could not personally murder even one innocent person to ensure world peace.

Not really irrational.

A tender heart cannot a war lead.

[ghost9191]

they wanted a ending that the fans would discuss i guess. i think they said that somewhere

but they really did a good job of splitting the fan base down the middle

[SMichelle]

Nezedone wrote...

[

My point is, they're all equally awful.

Refusal is pretty bad. It gets a lot of people killed and ground up into goop, plus it spawns a few additional reapers. Any losses inflicted upon the Reapers by the current cycle could be replaced, depending on how many individuals it takes to spawn a Reaper. The only thing that justifies this ending is the 'uncertainty' factor of the Catalyst. You cannot be 100% certain that he's telling the truth. For some that's a major factor in deciding to Refuse, for others, that's just more incentive to -not- take Refuse.

Destroy, whether you like it or not, consigns an entire species to extinction (and eff you if you destroyed the Geth over Rannoch. I unintentionally did it in my first playthrough and felt horrible.) I won't call it genocide, because it is not -intended.- It is collateral damage, but fairly significant damage -- and, to some degree, a betrayal of trust you earned. Bonded with EDI? Became best friends with Legion and the Geth? Sorry, you just shat all over them and their ideals, and killed them while you were at it. Shepard might save the galaxy this way, but they also damn themselves by doing it.

Neither is worse than the other. They are equally horrible.

Pssst.  You're just hitting your head against the wall here.  Some people are determined to prove that their Shep made the only good/right choice.  

[Khajiit Jzargo]

ghost9191 wrote...

they wanted a ending that the fans would discuss i guess. i think they said that somewhere

but they really did a good job of splitting the fan base down the middle

Yup they did, too bad every ending sucked. I think that's what they wanted to do with EC, "let's make the fanbase fight each other instead of us"

The Deux Ex endings made sense for them, it should not be done for ME.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:26 .

[silentassassin264]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

For my first and only playthrough, Legion dead, so I couldn't broker peace. I've destroyed Geth.
But I could not chose destroy even if I had to kill only EDI. Yes, I am that irrational. I could not personally murder even one innocent person to ensure world peace.

Thats the game, folks.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

For my first and only playthrough, Legion dead, so I couldn't broker peace. I've destroyed Geth.
But I could not chose destroy even if I had to kill only EDI. Yes, I am that irrational. I could not personally murder even one innocent person to ensure world peace.

Thats the game, folks.

I won't be a calculating murderer even in the game. It's not enjoyable.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:28 .

[Nezedone]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

they wanted a ending that the fans would discuss i guess. i think they said that somewhere

but they really did a good job of splitting the fan base down the middle

Yup they did, too bad every ending sucked. I think that's what they wanted to do with EC, "let's make the fanbase fight each other instead of us"

The Deux Ex endings made sense for them, it should not be done for ME.

Agreed. The coherence of the game plummets once Godchild and the three choices enter the scene. Especially since two of them involve space magic, one exterminates an entire species, and one dooms an entire cycle.

Couldn't they have just given us a neat Harbinger fight and a Destroy ending that doesn't fry synthetics? That would've been lovely.

[zambot]

ghost9191 wrote...

zambot wrote...

As long as you (Shepard) believes the galaxy has a chance to defeat the reapers, then there's nothing immoral about picking refuse. Given that Shepard has regularly beaten "impossible" odds, I don't think it's too unreasonable for Shep to believe that chance exists.

"the path to hell is paved with good intentions"

you might see yourself as a hero but i doubt anyone in the cycle will

Even though it led to hell, it still wasn't immoral.

[SMichelle]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

My question is why would BW decide to go all Deux Ex on us....

Because an all out fight with our war assets would be totally cliche. 


That's the only reason I can think of to have a magic space weapon and Catalyst kid mentioned at the nth hour.


Really.  What is the purpose of our war assets anyway?  If they were going to have the Crucible, why couldn't it be that you collect assets for the Crucible, and if you don't get the right ones/enough you fail a final battle?

WHY have RGB?  WHY?!