395 réponses à ce sujet

[Khajiit Jzargo]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

No but your letting it happen.

That doesn't mean it's genocide, and what Am I letting happen again?

[silentassassin264]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Again, this logic baffles me.
Taking a chance with your allies to lower down their numbers for the next cycle, and maybe try to survive via stasis pods=bad
Taking a change with your enemy who's been trying to kill you=good.

If he was trying to kill you, he would have let you bleed out with Anderson.  He brought you up there to have a chance to save your cycle since you got that far and you are rejecting him and his three doors with a million dollars behind each because he didn't have a special gold ending when you logic bomb him and he goes into an infinite loop and all the reapers deactivate themselves and you call Joker to pick you up and then party for 18 hours straight on the Normandy.   In essence, you are arrogant and entitled to have no chance of victory and then given 3 doors with a million dollars behind each and then walking away because you demand to have a door with a billion dollars and no one will give it to you.  

Your logic stinks.

Who says he brough you up? stop assuming things. Also, your mentioning that I won't make a decision because I don't personally like them, no, I won't make a decision because all of them are crime against mankind.

If use choose the reject ending which I am assuming you did, you might notice he turns the crucible off if you turn around and shoot him or outright reject his solutions.  He was giving you choice because he wanted to.

And as far as your crime against mankind stupidity, How the flying Harvesters is letting every advanced species die not a crime against mankind?  You have the power to save everyone and you instead walk away and let them die.  All their blood is on your hands and you carry all the guilt for their deaths because you could have saved them and you turned your back on not only humanity, but all the other advanced aliens. 

If you pick destroy, the Geth and EDI die.  Tough but if you pick reject you still are directly responsible for their deaths and the Asari, Turians, Humans, Volus, Elcor, Drell, Hanar.  Your point is moot.

If you pick Control, nobody dies.  And as far as the mass enslavement BS rant goes, the Reapers are machines given purpose and functionality by the Catalyst and vice versa.  You can't enslave the Reapers no more than you can enslave your own hands.  They are meant to serve the catalyst.  If you become the Catalyst they are your hands, existension of your will.

If you pick Synthesis, as far as the mass molestation BS goes, do you know what molestation means?  Now look at all those people spared death with the Reapers leaving.  Do they look "bothered" or "molested" to you?  Just because you headcanoned Synthesis to being some atrocity does not mean you are right as the ending proves otherwise.  Nobody (well maybe sans husks) would be complaining that they got transhumaned and upgraded to save them from certain destruction. 

Picking reject is the only war crime and you should be ashamed for even thinking it.  But instead you take pride and brutally sacrificing all of this cycle so they might dent the Reapers a little.  I hope to god you never get any high rank and have to make decisions for large amounts of people.

Modifié par silentassassin264, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:13 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
He could always get a Husk to break it.

I haven't seen any Husks around, so obviously he couldn't. Also, he seemed to be in bit of a hurry.

Believe Me knowing someone for Years and showing Trustworthyness means nothing.

Well, its your personal problem. If you can't decide if you can trust anybody or just decide to randomly trust strangers, its your call. I just told you how ordinary people tend to think, its not the rocket science.

[DocGriffin]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DocGriffin wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DocGriffin wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Again, this logic baffles me.
Taking a chance with your allies to lower down their numbers for the next cycle, and maybe try to survive via stasis pods=bad
Taking a change with your enemy who's been trying to kill you=good.

If he was trying to kill you, he would have let you bleed out with Anderson.  He brought you up there to have a chance to save your cycle since you got that far and you are rejecting him and his three doors with a million dollars behind each because he didn't have a special gold ending when you logic bomb him and he goes into an infinite loop and all the reapers deactivate themselves and you call Joker to pick you up and then party for 18 hours straight on the Normandy.   In essence, you are arrogant and entitled to have no chance of victory and then given 3 doors with a million dollars behind each and then walking away because you demand to have a door with a billion dollars and no one will give it to you.  

Your logic stinks.

Who says he brough you up? stop assuming things. Also, your mentioning that I won't make a decision because I don't personally like them, no, I won't make a decision because all of them are crime against mankind.

All of them are a cime against mankind?? Refusal literally destroys mankind!

So you rather commit genocide, slavery, and eugenics than to try to win? OK.

Look if you're going off the fundamental 'wrongs' of each choice, Destroy is optimal. You called it a genocide, because it destroys the Geth. Refusal destroys the Geth as well, and also destroys every other race in your cycle. Destroy would be the obvious choice.

Learn what genocide is, it doesn't apply to refusal.

We all know what genocide is. Your implication is that because it's not your fault, it's not genocide, whereas Destroy was your decision, so it is. Fine. Fair. In that case, the Catalyst, who is controlling the Reapers, is the one commiting genocide. A much larger one. So, if given the option to commit a smaller genocide (I know, it sounds horrible, but bear with me) to prevent a larger one that includes the smaller genocide anyway, you wouldn't choose it?

Look, it may not be you commiting the genocide in Refusal, but it's still genocide.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...


Yeah but by that Logic, Hitler Never commited Genocide.

Thank you for Godwinning the thread, and actually no, your wrong. Hitler ordered his mean to deliberately and systematically kill jews, but please let's stop with the Hitler analogies.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

No but your letting it happen.

That doesn't mean it's genocide, and what Am I letting happen again?

By not doing anything.

[SMichelle]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Yeah but by that Logic, Hitler Never commited Genocide.

I can't believe this thread took 7 pages to Godwin.  That must be a new record!


Edit: Oops only 7!

Modifié par SMichelle, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:13 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...
Still, morally you are obligated to do something. Just standing there watching as it happens is kind of dickish.

Morals differ by people. Morals could make any of 3 choices perceived worse than hopeless fight to the death by refusal. That's why there will be forever arguing about the ME3 endgame choice:
- it's based on moral preferences which different for each person
- these moral preferences has no clear-cut answers
- people tend to take them as a big deal

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:14 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

DocGriffin wrote...


We all know what genocide is. Your implication is that because it's not your fault, it's not genocide, whereas Destroy was your decision, so it is. Fine. Fair. In that case, the Catalyst, who is controlling the Reapers, is the one commiting genocide. A much larger one. So, if given the option to commit a smaller genocide (I know, it sounds horrible, but bear with me) to prevent a larger one that includes the smaller genocide anyway, you wouldn't choose it?

Look, it may not be you commiting the genocide in Refusal, but it's still genocide.

You obviously don't know what genocide means.

Dictionary meaning of the word Genocide-"the deliberate and systematic destruction"
Refusal is neither, Destroy is both.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...


Yeah but by that Logic, Hitler Never commited Genocide.

Thank you for Godwinning the thread, and actually no, your wrong. Hitler ordered his mean to deliberately and systematically kill jews, but please let's stop with the Hitler analogies.

ok

[Khajiit Jzargo]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

No but your letting it happen.

That doesn't mean it's genocide, and what Am I letting happen again?

By not doing anything.

First thing genocide cannot be described as an inaction, also, your assuming like I deliberately and systematically killed everyone, no we died fighting, It is not genocide.

[DocGriffin]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DocGriffin wrote...


We all know what genocide is. Your implication is that because it's not your fault, it's not genocide, whereas Destroy was your decision, so it is. Fine. Fair. In that case, the Catalyst, who is controlling the Reapers, is the one commiting genocide. A much larger one. So, if given the option to commit a smaller genocide (I know, it sounds horrible, but bear with me) to prevent a larger one that includes the smaller genocide anyway, you wouldn't choose it?

Look, it may not be you commiting the genocide in Refusal, but it's still genocide.

You obviously don't know what genocide means.

Dictionary meaning of the word Genocide-"the deliberate and systematic destruction"
Refusal is neither, Destroy is both.

Excuse me? The Reapers systematically and deliberately destroy everyone in the galaxy, it's practically in their codex.

I specifically said, in Refusal Shepard is not commiting Genocide, the Catalyst and the Reapers are.

Modifié par DocGriffin, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:16 .

[TheClonesLegacy]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
He could always get a Husk to break it.

I haven't seen any Husks around, so obviously he couldn't. Also, he seemed to be in bit of a hurry.

Believe Me knowing someone for Years and showing Trustworthyness means nothing.

Well, its your personal problem. If you can't decide if you can trust anybody or just decide to randomly trust strangers, its your call. I just told you how ordinary people tend to think, its not the rocket science.

Wtf does Ordinary mean to People?
No one is Ordinary especially if you know and trust them.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

DocGriffin wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DocGriffin wrote...


We all know what genocide is. Your implication is that because it's not your fault, it's not genocide, whereas Destroy was your decision, so it is. Fine. Fair. In that case, the Catalyst, who is controlling the Reapers, is the one commiting genocide. A much larger one. So, if given the option to commit a smaller genocide (I know, it sounds horrible, but bear with me) to prevent a larger one that includes the smaller genocide anyway, you wouldn't choose it?

Look, it may not be you commiting the genocide in Refusal, but it's still genocide.

You obviously don't know what genocide means.

Dictionary meaning of the word Genocide-"the deliberate and systematic destruction"
Refusal is neither, Destroy is both.

Excuse me? The Reapers systematically and deliberately destroy everyone in the galaxy, it's practically in their codex.

Finally, thank you for proving my point, The Reapers killed everyone in Refusal, not Shepard.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

No but your letting it happen.

That doesn't mean it's genocide, and what Am I letting happen again?

By not doing anything.

First thing genocide cannot be described as an inaction, also, your assuming like I deliberately and systematically killed everyone, no we died fighting, It is not genocide.

No Shepard isn't commiting Genocide in Refusal HE'S LETTING THE REAPERS GO THROUGH WITH IT!
That's what I've been saying, Are you barely Reading what I'm saying?

Modifié par TheClonesLegacy, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:18 .

[DocGriffin]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DocGriffin wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DocGriffin wrote...


We all know what genocide is. Your implication is that because it's not your fault, it's not genocide, whereas Destroy was your decision, so it is. Fine. Fair. In that case, the Catalyst, who is controlling the Reapers, is the one commiting genocide. A much larger one. So, if given the option to commit a smaller genocide (I know, it sounds horrible, but bear with me) to prevent a larger one that includes the smaller genocide anyway, you wouldn't choose it?

Look, it may not be you commiting the genocide in Refusal, but it's still genocide.

You obviously don't know what genocide means.

Dictionary meaning of the word Genocide-"the deliberate and systematic destruction"
Refusal is neither, Destroy is both.

Excuse me? The Reapers systematically and deliberately destroy everyone in the galaxy, it's practically in their codex.

Finally, thank you for proving my point, The Reapers killed everyone in Refusal, not Shepard.

Yes! Correct! Did you read my post? And given the chance to stop that, you did nothing! You allowed that genocide because you didn't want a smaller one tainting your conscience! That's what I was saying.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

No but your letting it happen.

That doesn't mean it's genocide, and what Am I letting happen again?

By not doing anything.

First thing genocide cannot be described as an inaction, also, your assuming like I deliberately and systematically killed everyone, no we died fighting, It is not genocide.

No Shepard isn't commiting Genocide in Refusal HE'S LETTING THE REAPERS GO THROUGH WITH IT!

The galaxy is fighting the Reapers, by refusing, your continuing to fight not letting the Reapers go through with it, also, even if your claim was correct, it still doesn't make it genocide.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

No Shepard isn't commiting Genocide in Refusal HE'S LETTING THE REAPERS GO THROUGH WITH IT!

Umm, he's not? Because he will fight them to the death?

[Jayleia]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
...Because he's a Machine, they don't tend to lie.

a) why machines cant lie? is it a law or what?
how you even know he's really a machine?

what would be the Logical function of Lieing?
AI's, Machines same thing in my book.

The logical function of lying would be to obtain the cooperation of that really, REALLY annoying organic.

There is NO magic law that prevents an AI from laying elaborate deceptive plans, or lying.

[Jadebaby]

Still a better ending than Mass Efffect 3....

Oh wait...

[Khajiit Jzargo]

DocGriffin wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DocGriffin wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DocGriffin wrote...


We all know what genocide is. Your implication is that because it's not your fault, it's not genocide, whereas Destroy was your decision, so it is. Fine. Fair. In that case, the Catalyst, who is controlling the Reapers, is the one commiting genocide. A much larger one. So, if given the option to commit a smaller genocide (I know, it sounds horrible, but bear with me) to prevent a larger one that includes the smaller genocide anyway, you wouldn't choose it?

Look, it may not be you commiting the genocide in Refusal, but it's still genocide.

You obviously don't know what genocide means.

Dictionary meaning of the word Genocide-"the deliberate and systematic destruction"
Refusal is neither, Destroy is both.

Excuse me? The Reapers systematically and deliberately destroy everyone in the galaxy, it's practically in their codex.

Finally, thank you for proving my point, The Reapers killed everyone in Refusal, not Shepard.

Yes! Correct! Did you read my post? And given the chance to stop that, you did nothing! You allowed that genocide because you didn't want a smaller one tainting your conscience! That's what I was saying.

Genocide cannot be defined as an inaction, how is an inaction the deliberately and systematically destruction of anything? It's not, we loss to the Reapers, but didn't commit genocide.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

No Shepard isn't commiting Genocide in Refusal HE'S LETTING THE REAPERS GO THROUGH WITH IT!

Umm, he's not? Because he will fight them to the death?

Shepard dosen't do anything, The Fleets are fighting the Reapers to the Death,
Shepard is Standing on the Citadel dieing of the bullet wound.

[DEATHSCOPE]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...
Still, morally you are obligated to do something. Just standing there watching as it happens is kind of dickish.

Morals differ by people. Morals could make any of 3 choices perceived worse than hopeless fight to the death by refusal. That's why there will be forever arguing about the ME3 endgame choice:
- it's based on moral preferences which different for each person
- these moral preferences has no clear-cut answers
- people tend to take them as a big deal

So, what you're saying is that you're the type of person that simply won't jump, even if it's a mean to save a life?

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...
Shepard dosen't do anything, The Fleets are fighting the Reapers to the Death,
Shepard is Standing on the Citadel dieing of the bullet wound.

Excuse me? I didn't see him die, and he does not die in Destroy, so...